Holding Bush Back From Attacking Iran

[Hissyspit]

Holding Bush Back from Attacking Iran
By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
Posted on February 2, 2007, Printed on February 2, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/47519/

As Congress and the American people protest the travesty Bush created in Iraq, our President is gunning for a confrontation with Iran. Bush is rattling the sabers and opting for gunboat diplomacy by pledging to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks "providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies" in Iraq. But he has produced no hard evidence that Iran is supplying forces in Iraq with such weapons or manufacturing their own nuclear weapons.

- snip -

A former defense official who still advises the Bush administration informed Hersh the military planning was grounded in the belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." That's the same faulty logic the US government has used to justify its cruel embargo and blockade of Cuba since Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution.

Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke -- or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf -- an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.

Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses.

MORE

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in June.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. John Conyers has said

if Bush goes into Iran, he'll start impeachment proceedings. I just hope he has EVERY Democrat behind him on that--plus many Republicans, many of whom are starting to see the light.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Whey to go John...

keep your powder dry to fight some other day.

[blondie58]

2. john conyers rocks

Yep, the chimp needs to be impeached. WE have turned into the terrorists. We need to stop him NOW!!!!!

[wakeme2008]

3. Problem is with a "Tonkin Gulf" incident,, it may take

time to find out it was just a lie. By then it is too late and Iran has been attacked.

[KharmaTrain]

4. The Military Hasn't Weighed In Yet...

Surely all those years of training in the "art of war" at West Point, Annapolis and other military think tanks haven't gone into a complete snooze on this issue...and can see how its nearly impossible for this country to launch a THIRD military enterprise with the current forces we have and the forces we'd be facing.

Unlike Joe Freeper who thinks the only difference between Iran and Iraq is a letter, those who look realistically at the situation have to know it's a lot harder to invade a country with 100 million people and three times the territory of Iraq...and look at how well things have gone there. Iran has an organized and prepared military that would be fighting on their home turf, and just like the Iraqis, could easily slip into the civilian population and bleed American forces dry that way. And that's under a good scenario. We'd be entering into this invasion with a depleted military and facing international scorn. I can't imagine the military planners who really know the score would sign on for such a fool-hearty misadventure.

A year ago, I thought it was foolish to think boooshie would be so stupid as to overstretch our military with another war for profit in Iran, but that's not where I'm at now. Every day this regime gets caged into its lies and realities, the more dangerous it gets and more desperate it is to find both a diversion and to lash out. We now see that if the Generals don't say what this regime wants to hear, they're out...but soon this purge will have to end, or we'll have few boots on the ground.

While the neo-cons are probably salivating for a new "shock & awe" and to settle scores with Iran, with what military do we do it with? A pretend one or the one that's falling apart in Iraq?

[bigtree]

5. good call. he'll definitely try to

"bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran."

only,

"Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution" means that they will need republican votes to overcome a presidential veto or a republican filibuster.