Does `The Decider` Decide on War?
Has Congress given George Bush a green light to
attack
Iran?
For he is surely behaving as though it is his call
alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a
collision course for war.
- Iran has
detained several Iranian-Americans, seemingly in
retaliation for our continuing to hold five
Iranians in Iraq.
- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran is
making progress in the
enrichment of uranium and denying it access to
Iran`s nuclear sites.
- A flotilla of U.S. warships, including the
carriers
Stennis and
Nimitz, has passed through the Strait of
Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.
- U.S. Maj. Gen.
William Caldwell has told CNN there is "very
credible intelligence" Iran is funding Sunni
extremists engaged in the roadside bombing of U.S.
troops.
- CBS reports the United States has engaged in the
industrial sabotage of Iran`s nuclear program by
making the equipment Iran acquires on the black
market unusable or destructive.
- ABC reports that Bush has authorized the CIA to
mount a "black" operation to destabilize
Iran, using
"non-lethal" means. The absence of White
House outrage over the leak suggests it may have
wanted the information out.
- ABC.com reports U.S. officials are supporting a
militant group, Jundallah, in the "tri-border
region" of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Jundallah, a Sunni Islamist group seeking
independence for Baluchistan, claims to have killed
hundreds of Iranians.
While U.S.-Iran discussions have begun, there are
reports Vice President Cheney and the neo-con remnant,
along with the Israelis, are opposed to talks and
believe that the only solution to Iran`s nuclear program
is military. Whether this is part of a good-cop, bad-cop
routine to convince Tehran to suspend enrichment, we do
not know.
But this much is sure. If the U.S. government is
aiding Islamic militants who are killing Iranians, and
Iran is providing roadside bombs to Iraqi militants,
Sunni or Shia, to kill Americans, we are in a proxy war.
And it could explode into a major war.
So the questions come. Where is the Congress, which
alone has the power to take us to war? Why are the
Democratic candidates parroting the
"all-options-are-on-the-table!" mantra, when as ex-Sen.
Mike Gravel
noted in the first Democratic debate, this means
George W. Bush is authorized to attack Iran.
Why does Congress not enact the resolution Nancy
Pelosi pulled down, which declares that nothing in
present law authorizes President Bush to launch a
pre-emptive strike or preventive war on Iran—and before
launching any such attack, he must get
prior approval from both houses of Congress?
If we are going to war, is it not imperative that,
this time, we know exactly why we must go to war, what
exactly the threat is from Iran, what are the likely
consequences of a U.S. attack on a third Islamic country
and what are the alternatives to war?
For there are arguments against war, as well as for
war—and the former are not receiving a hearing, as both
parties compete in their fulminations against Iran`s
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler of the Middle
East.
What are those arguments?
On Iran`s nuclear progress, there is a real question
as to whether they are producing purified uranium.
Iran`s refusal to let the IAEA see what it is doing
suggests it may be covering up failure.
Second, though Iranians sound bellicose, Iran has not
started a single war since the revolution of 1979.
Indeed, Iran was the victim of a war launched by Saddam
Hussein, whom we secretly supported. Not within living
memory has Iran invaded or attacked another country.
But in the last 110 years, peace-loving Americans
have fought Spain, Germany twice, Austria-Hungary,
Japan, Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice and
Serbia. We have intervened militarily in the
Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti,
Dominican Republic, Lebanon and Grenada. We bombed
Libya. Now, a case can be made for most of these wars,
whose fallen we honor on Memorial Day.
But the point is this. Why would Iran, with no air
force or navy that can stand up 24 hours against us, no
missile that can reach us, no atom bomb, and no ability
to withstand U.S. air and sea attack, want a war with us
that could mean the end of Iran as a modern nation and
possible breakup of the country, as Iraq is breaking up?
Whether one is pro-war or antiwar, ought we not—if we
are going into another war—do it the right way, the
constitutional way, with Congress declaring war? Or does
the
Democratic Congress think that what is best for
America is to let "the decider" decide?
Because that is what George Bush is doing right now.
COPYRIGHT
CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Patrick J. Buchanan needs
no introduction to VDARE.COM
readers; his book
State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America,
can be ordered from
Amazon.com.
