US to (informally) Declare War Next Week

On May 22, a bill (HR 362) was introduced to the US House of Representatives demanding of the President that he increase sanctions on vital portions of the Iranian economy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The bill is expected to pass the House and Senate by the 4th of July.

The way the bill reads, one might come to the conclusion that it sounds like more war propaganda from the same minds that shamelessly trumpeted the merits of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing "democracy" in Iraq. Reflecting on the subsequent quagmire that resulted from America's biggest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war, you'd probably surmise that the neoconservatives were up to their old tricks - attempting to distract the citizenry from their previous mistakes by rolling out their favorite, reliable bogeyman in the threat of American (or Israeli) annihilation at the hands of a bloodthirsty and irrational regime in a country far, far away.

But you would be mistaken. HR 362, as well as its sister bill in the Senate (R 580), were both introduced by members of the "anti-war" Democratic party. It appears neoconservative charges of "soft on terrorism" are beginning to resonate with Democrats.

The most disturbing portion of the bill reads as follows (from antiwar.com blog):

“...demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran”

As Eric Garris correctly points out, a blockade is an act of war (emphasis mine):

"the above can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war."

Indeed, the definition of a blockade includes the provision that the act be regulated by international law, yet we need not look too far back to find examples of American officials guffawing the notion UN authority.

I'm no fan of the United Nations. At best, the UN is a punchless regime incapable of exercising any authority to prevent international conflict and/or worldwide abuse of humans and their property. At worst, the UN is a puppet of the US, Britain, and Israel, designed to place an "international" face on American, British, and Israeli quest for worldwide domination. In short, the UN is like any other governmental body: ostensibly formed to protect the peace and prosperity of individuals and property, yet in practice achieves precisely the opposite of its stated goals. There's little reason to believe UN sanction of an Iranian blockade will be rooted in international support.

The fusing of America's two major political parties should now be clear to even the most ardent believer in opposition between Republicans and Democrats. The bill is expected to pass both houses "like a hot knife through butter" after a whopping 20 minutes of debate, with no room for amendments. That any bill calling for an act of war can pass both houses of Congress in such fashion should serve as a bellwether for America's insatiable appetite for conflict.

Ironically, the few elected officials who oppose the resolutions detailed above are ridiculed for being soft, naive, or (most laughably) isolationist. Barack Obama has been repeatedly raked over the coals for his desire to meet with leaders of US "enemies" like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whether or not Obama has changed his tune since securing the Democratic nomination for President remains to be seen. However, if Obama's recent speech at the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) provides any insight into how President Obama will conduct foreign policy, it is likely he too will toe the (one-party) line and refuse to negotiate with America's enemies.

The irony in labeling those who favor negotiations with leaders of America's "enemies" is that, by refusing to negotiate with those leaders and instead imposing sanctions on them, you end up fostering more anti-American sentiment instead of admiration. Using the logic of the majority of today's elected officials that oppose any form of negotiations with Iran, a husband could expect to resolve a disagreement/conflict with his wife by ignoring her and cutting off her access to her credit cards. It is not difficult to imagine the wife becoming increasingly confused and upset when confronted with this situation, especially when she's unable to "negotiate" with her husband to resolve the conflict. Who is naive enough to believe that ignoring problems will make them go away?

The lesson is obvious: when America ignores Iran and refuses to acknowledge her right to nuclear power, we are making it clear to them that we do not view the Iranians as our peers. Instead, by ratcheting up already strict sanctions and threatening an all-out blockade of Iranian ports, we sow the seeds for future anti-American sentiment in the region. The real cowards and isolationists are those who mindlessly pursue a policy of refusing to acknowledge our enemies in an effort to find a peaceful resolution to our disagreements.