- ... time for Congress to stop gambling on the future
of the United States by doing nothing about the issue of Iran.
-
- There is increasing discussion and speculation about
the possibility of an American military strike against Iran prior to President
Bush leaving office. The justification for such an attack is derived from
Iran's continued refusal to adhere to Security Council demands that it
suspend its enrichment of uranium (a program Iran contends is exclusively
for peaceful energy purposes) and Bush administration assertions that Iran
operates as a state sponsor of terror. While Iran denies any wrongdoing
on its part, the Bush administration has successfully positioned itself,
both domestically and internationally, so that it is Iran which must demonstrate
its innocence of the charges made against it, as opposed to America proving
its guilt.
-
- There are those who say that such observations are moot.
The Bush administration may want to act against Iran, this thinking goes,
but is unable to do so due to an overstretched military strained by open-ended
conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and a worsening economic situation at
home brought on, in part, by soaring oil prices, and as such any military
attack on Iran would be an act of madness. Such reasoning may not be enough
to give pause to those within the Bush administration who cling to an ideology
which links the national security of the United States to a transformed
Middle East, one where regimes such as the theocracy in Tehran must be
eliminated if there is to be any hope of long-term peace and stability.
For these true believers, it is not action against Iran which would constitute
an act of madness, but rather any failure to act.
-
- Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. military has sufficient
military capacity to initiate, and sustain, military strike options ranging
from a limited attack against one or two targets, lasting less than a day,
to a massive aerial bombardment of Iran lasting 30-45 days. Current speculation
holds that the Pentagon is leaning toward the limited strike option, but
given the fact that no one can predict how Iran would respond to even a
limited air strike against its territory, the potential for escalation
exists which finds the United States engaged in an all-out aerial onslaught
against Iran is all too real.
-
- Those who look to the Congress of the United States to
prevent or forestall an attack against Iran do so in vain. Congressional
inaction on the issue of Iran has created a situation where there are no
Constitutional impediments to the Bush administration taking military action.
Not only has the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution (Kyl-Lieberman)
which labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist group,
but it has left in place, unchanged, two war powers resolutions (September
2001 and October 2002) which give the President free reign to use military
force against the forces of terror, state and non-state sponsored alike.
Efforts to have the US Congress make use of its power of the purse to mandate
that the President must seek, and get, Congressional approval to strike
Iran before any U.S. taxpayer funds can be expended, have likewise failed
to gain any momentum. This failure to act itself serves as a facilitator
for military action, since it demonstrates not only a lack of will in the
U.S. Congress to oppose military action against Iran, but conversely, a
recognition on the part of Congress that such action is not only within
the right of the President to initiate, but also represents a legitimate
course of action.
-
- Those who have formulated the policies of the Bush administration
which have placed Iran and America on a collision course have done so not
on a whim, but rather based upon deep and sincere ideologically based conviction
which holds that such a course of action is in the best interests of the
United States. The ideologues who populate the current Bush administration,
especially those associated with the Office of the Vice President, imbued
with an unprecedented level of influence on matters pertaining to national
security and defense, may feel obliged to initiate a military strike against
Iran prior to leaving office, not for the purpose of achieving any permanent
result, but rather to ensnare a new President in a situation where the
political-military options for Iran policy are limited by the reality of
ongoing conflict.
-
- It may transpire that there is no military clash between
Iran and the U.S. and the future President of the United States enters
office free to undertake any policy direction he chooses. However, to sit
back and do nothing in hopes of such a scenario unfolding is akin to planning
to fund your child's college education by playing the lottery. You might
win, but the overwhelming odds are against you. It is high time for Congress
to stop gambling on the future of the United States by doing nothing about
the issue of Iran. There has never been a more pressing need than the present
for Congressional hearings about American policy toward Iran. Getting Congress
to act should be the highest priority for every American citizen, before
it is too late.
|
