Because America would never go to war over oil . . . . right???
Iran is threatening to shut down the strait of Hormuz and stop Arabian Peninsula oil from entering the world marketplace if American and European sanctions against Iran over their Nuclear program aren't halted immediately. Just now on MSNBC, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) stated that "A blockade is an act of war". We have something that might sound like WMD's, we have foreign Oil and we have a war profiteer friendly American Congress. What could possibly go wrong?
According to Rachel Maddow, a lot could go wrong. Iran faces an economic collapse overnight if the USA/European sanctions take effect. They need to do something to pressure the world to back down, so they are threatening the world oil supply. The world economy goes deeper into the shitter if Iran shuts down the strait of Hormuz and Oil prices fly through the roof, so America and Europe will certainly feel pressure to do something about Iran. And then to top it all off, our idiot Congress just voted 410-11 to take diplomacy off the table with Iran. Yes, the Boehner led House of Representatives is a hammer that thinks every problem in the world looks like a thumb, but then why in their hopefully sane minds did the mass majority of House Democrats side with them? Watch the video here for some educational news and then go below the fold for my own commentary . . .
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Diplomacy is off the table. Wonder what option that leaves us?
More below the fold . . .
Rachel Maddow gives a brief rundown of the importance of the strait of Hormuz and its strategic significance to the global oil market before commenting on a barely noticed House of Representatives vote at the end of last week on the "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011" which passed by a vote of 410-11. This vote involves sanctions on Iran's central bank which would essentially shut Iran out of the world banking system, which sounds good, right? If Iran wants to build nuclear weapons and threaten Israel then the world should divest from the Iranian central bank. Ok, I'm with that. But what the "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011" would also do would would ban American officials from holding talks with Iranian officials. As Maddow explains, The House of Representatives essentially just voted to ban diplomacy as a tactic that America could use to deal with Iran. Brilliant, eh? I guess that only leaves military power as a deterrent to Iranian gamesmanship.
Only 11 No votes on this bill. Another senseless act of bi-partisanship. Among the no votes in the House were . . .
Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
Nay OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Nay VA-8 Moran, James [D]
Nay MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Nay CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
Nay CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1905: Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011
So diplomacy is off the table. Brilliant, just brilliant. Wonder what that leaves us?
Rachel Maddow asks if the stakes are higher because of it, and the answer is Yes. This reminds me of less than a decade ago, when another oil producing country whose name starts with an I was told that American diplomacy was being taken off the table. We all remember what inevitably happened to that country, now, don't we?
I'm talking about Iraq. The multi-billion dollar "Oopsy" from the last Cheney/Bush Administration that nobody wants to talk about. Yes, the Bush Iraq War, it's the gift no one asked for that just keeps on taking, and even as Congress looks to cut social programs to shore up that deficit caused largely by the war in Iraq they are already facilitating the next Oil based gulf conflict moments after the last one has finally ended, if it has ended at all. Notice how no one ever talks about how we are going to pay for the war in Iraq? Well I will tell you the truth as I see it, and that is that Congress want to pay for Iraq by cutting your local social programs, and they want more war spending and more conflicts and more corporate welfare for the military contractors that fund their campaigns. War is still a racket.
Never ending war. Never ending war profiteering in the name of private contractors.
No diplomacy.
Not that Ahmadinejad isn't a total psychopath who is out of touch with the rest of the world, but he does know that America WILL bomb the hell out of Iran if they screw with the world's oil supply, right? But what does that say to the rest of the world if America carves a clear path from Iraq through Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do we really want to go there?
I want to see the war in Afghanistan end. I don't want to see the flames of the next avoidable conflict begin to smoulder as the American House of Reps rushes forward with huge fans instead of buckets of water. Taking diplomacy off the table is the equivalent of fanning the flames, instead of leaving open the possibility for diplomacy where cooler heads may prevail.
At the end of the day, the "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011" looks like it will clearly increase the threat of Iran, not decrease it. As reported by Maddow, Representative Kucinich said:
"This means that if you had hoped that diplomacy would be a way to end this situation peacefully . . .
Unfortunately, I didn't catch the end of that quote, but I think I see where this is going. I've seen this movie before. We all have.
I hope this one has a different ending.
I don't wish to sound alarmist, it's just this whole thing has a certain Déjà vu about it. I mean, what are the odds that America would take diplomacy off of the table when dealing with a country whose name starts with an I only to see the whole thing turn into a disastrous, expensive boondoggle that needlessly costs the lives of American soldiers while turning into a bonanza for military contractors and oil companies?
Yeah, what are the odds of that?
UPDATE: side note . . .
I am aware that this vote does not officially end diplomacy with Iran. Neither did the House vote earlier this year end Medicare as we know it and turn it into Paul Ryan's vouchercare. The House voted for vouchercare and it passed the House but did not become law. The same is true of the House vote on the "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011" so far. The House DID vote in this instance to limit diplomacy between Iranian officials under certain circumstances but that doesn't make it so, not unless it passes the Senate and then receives the President's signature, and even then it seems out of tune with the nature of checks and balances for Congress to attempt to hamstring the Executive branches ability to engage in diplomacy. My intent in writing this was to discuss the House of Representatives willingness to discard diplomacy so early in the game when dealing with Iran. My apologies if I did not make this clear enough in the body of the article above.
Cheers
You can follow me at @JesseLaGreca