Oppose Warmongering Democrats Say No to U.S. Plans for Act of War Against Iran Peace Activists Join With Iranians to Say “Talks, Not Sanctions or War”
Minnesota Religious Leaders and Elected Officials Oppose U.S. Military Action Against Iran
U.S. Mayors Calling for Diplomacy with Iran, Not War
There Is a Plan on the Table to Resolve the Nuclear Standoff With Iran
Retired Military Leaders Oppose Provocative House Resolution on Iran
War Threats Against Iran Overshadow U.S. Elections


Oppose Warmongering Democrats

Say No to U.S. Plans
for Act of War Against Iran

Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate have submitted resolutions calling for an act of war against Iran. House Concurrent Resolution 362, in particular, demands that the president impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.” In this manner, based on international law, which the U.S. is duty-bound to uphold, it is calling for interfering and acting against Iran and any country engaged in activity with Iran. The ships, plane, trains and cargo of all are to be subject to U.S. search and seizure. All such actions are considered acts of war, against Iran and against those whose vehicles and ships are seized. How are such inspections to be done without a naval blockade at the least? These are illegal acts of war and crimes against the peace that must be vigorously opposed.

The House resolution already has 238 co-sponsors, more than half of the 435 representatives. It was introduced by New York’s Democrat for the Long Island area, Gary L. Ackerman. Ninety-six Democrats are co-sponsoring the resolution, along with 111 Republicans. As a concurrent resolution, its passage would mean it has the concurrence of the Senate, which also has its own, very similar resolution. Democrat Evan Bayh introduced the Senate resolution.

House leader Democrat Nancy Pelosi's office says the House resolution will pass "like a hot knife through butter." The vote will likely be by acclamation, without a roll-call vote, as it is considered non-controversial!

Both resolutions are non-binding, simply “giving the sense” of Congress. However, their language makes clear that President George W. Bush has the go ahead from Congress to act forcefully against Iran, including a naval blockade. The House resolution states, Congress “Declares that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently; urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanction,” on Iran’s banks, international banks that conduct business with Iran’s banks, energy companies with “more than $20,000,000 in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since 1996” and all companies doing business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Then in addition it calls for an “international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran by “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products,” and for the U.S. to act to impose the “stringent inspection requirements.” Taken together, these actions are directed not only against the people of Iran, but also against U.S. rivals like Russia and China. It is a very dangerous plan that heightens insecurity, in the region, at home, and worldwide.

At the same time that Congress is considering these resolutions, the U.S. sent Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to Israel to discuss military action against Iran; both the U.S. and Israel engaged in military exercises practicing a potential bombing raid against Iran; and President Bush again emphasized that the “military option is on the table.” Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker also recently reported that the Democratic leadership authorized spending more than $400 million to support Bush's secret operations already taking place in Iran — also a crime. The Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, also recently approved promotion of General David Petraeus to head the military's Central Command, responsible for all the Middle East region, including Iran and Pakistan. Admiral William J. Fallon, who was in command, resigned in protest over President George W. Bush's plans to attack Iran. Petraeus is known both for insisting on maintaining troop levels and securing permanent bases in Iraq and for supporting action against Iran. The vote for his approval was 95-2.

The threats against Iran and possible naval blockade are aimed at U.S. geopolitical control of the region, essential for U.S. plans to conquer Asia and achieve world empire. This path is a grave threat to all and a source of increased insecurity. So while it is being promoted in the name of “national security,” it is serving the interest of the tiny minority of imperialist U.S. monopolies.

In addition, the U.S. is giving Israel the green light to make the first strike, using a bombing raid. When Iran justly responds to defend herself, the U.S. will then claim war against Iran is justified, to “protect Israel.” Both the House and Senate resolutions directly speak to defending Israel. And while both mention the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), neither states the conclusion reached. The NIE concluded that Iran halted their nuclear development program in 2003. The United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, doing inspections in Iran, reports that there are no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program. Given these facts, and people's experience with the disinformation concerning weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the justifications concerning Iran’s potential nuclear capability — not actual weapons, simply capability — are failing. Those concerning Iran’s supposed interference in Iraq are failing as well. In this situation, defending Israel is brought more openly to the fore as justification. This is especially true if Israel, which does have nuclear weapons, strikes Iran first. As the Democrats and both presidential candidates constantly repeat, Israel always has the “right” to take aggressive action to “defend herself.”

Iran is not the aggressor nor the threat. The U.S. and its plans for war are. There are diplomatic solutions already being proposed, by Iran and the United Nations. The U.S. is rejecting such a course of action and instead committing crimes against the peace, promoting and threatening war.

War against Iran will not serve the interests of the American or Iranian people. It has the potential to ignite a world war, especially if the U.S. pursues the plan for stopping and searching “all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.” It dumps yet billions more into war, with mass killings and destruction, harming the peoples abroad and at home. It is designed to block investment by other countries in Iran, as well as Iranian oil exports to U.S. rivals. This too will heighten tensions and threatens broader war.

Voice of Revolution vigorously denounces the warmongering Democrats and all of Congress for these crimes, against Iranians and Americans. We urge everyone to join in upcoming actions August 2 and to organize local activities to say No War or Blockade Against Iran!

[TOP]


Join August 2 Demonstrations

50 Cities Join Call for No War Against Iran

More than 50 cities are organizing local actions all across the country. Get in touch with friends, co-workers, community and religious groups and students. Let us stand together to say: No War Against Iran! All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq and Afghanistan Now! Stop Funding War! Increase Funding for Social Programs at Home and Reparations Abroad!

On June 26, the Stop War on Iran Campaign issued a call for emergency actions on August 2 to stop the Bush Administration’s drive toward an attack against Iran. According to the group, responses have been pouring in. Already activists and organizers are planning protests, rallies, and pickets in more than 50 cities, including a major demonstration in New York City in Times Square and a demonstration in front of the White House in Washington. Actions will also be held in Los Angeles, several cities in Texas, locations throughout New England, small towns in Utah, and more. People are recognizing that it is urgent to step up efforts now and make clear that the peoples here and abroad say No War Against Iran!

The U.S. launched its aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan claiming they were a threat to U.S. security. The government, Democrats and Republicans together, refuse to End the Wars Now! The Senate, for example, recently voted 95-2 to endorse Iraq butcher General Petraeus and promote him to commander of the military’s Central Command. This means he now has responsibility for all of the region, including Iran and Pakistan. The previous commander, Navy Admiral William J. Fallon opposed plans to attack Iran and resigned in protest. The Senate, rather than supporting the stand of Fallon, endorsed Petraeus, saying “continuity in military leadership,” is needed.

In addition both the House and Senate are considering resolutions that essentially call for an act of war against Iran by demanding that Bush institute a naval blockade. This aggression is being carried out in the name of Iran posing a “threat,” lies no different than those about Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

The disinformation that Iran is a threat is designed to again justify aggression and terrorize the peoples. Iran has no nuclear weapons, a fact verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Indeed, the head of the IAEA has said he would resign in protest if there is a U.S. attack against Iran. Iran long ago signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and continues to abide by it. The U.S., which is required by the treaty to reduce and then eliminate its nuclear weapons, continues to build new ones. Under the treaty, Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear energy. According to both the Iranians and the IAEA its nuclear program is legal, peaceful and consistent with its treaty obligations.

Iran has not threatened the U.S. in any way. The U.S. has been committing crimes against the peace by repeatedly threatening a military attack and doing propaganda in favor of such an attack. The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal, unjust and stand against the demands of the majority of Americans and all the world’s peoples. It is the U.S., its aggression and its attacks on rights at home and abroad that are grave threats. Let all join in stepping up the anti-war actions. Join the August 2 actions! (See stopwaroniran.org for more information on demonstrations.)

No War Against Iran! All U.S. Troops Home Now!
Stop Funding War!
Increase Funding for Social Programs at Home and Reparations Abroad!

[TOP]


Peace Activists Join With Iranians to Say
“Talks, Not Sanctions or War”

CodePink Women for Peace activists will host a press conference at 12 noon, July 8 outside the Rayburn House Office building to protest the House Congressional Resolution 362, which calls for a tightening of economic sanctions on Iran and a strict inspection process.

Then, at 12:30pm, they will march inside the building to the office of Representative Gary Ackerman (D-Queens/L.I.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, who introduced this resolution.

Ackerman has described sanctions as a peaceful alternative to war. But this resolution demands that the President “initiate an international effort 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.”

Manijeh Saba, an Iranian-American human rights activist said, “This resolution is a clear act of aggression and will move the U.S. and Iran closer to war. It must be stopped.”

A May 19 Gallup Poll found 6 in 10 Americans (59 percent) consider it “a good idea” for the U.S. president to meet with the president of Iran, as a wise diplomatic move.

“Congressman Ackerman and the cosponsors of the resolution are totally out of step with the sentiments of the American people,” said Medea Benjamin, CodePink co-founder. “We call on Congressman Ackerman to relegate this resolution to the shredder, and begin anew by advocating diplomacy, not aggression.”

[TOP]


Minnesota Religious Leaders and Elected Officials Oppose U.S. Military Action Against Iran

A noon press conference on Wednesday, July 9 will be held on the South Steps of the Capitol Building in St. Paul, Minnesota. Political and religious leaders will be fasting and speaking out to kick off a campaign to build public opposition to U.S. military action against Iran.

U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison, Mayor R. T. Rybak, St. Paul City Council President Karen Lantry, Lutheran Bishop Craig Johnson, Methodist Bishop Sally Dyck, Presbyterian Synod Executive Phil Johnson, are among those who have signed on to a statement opposing war on Iran. U.S. Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Ellison are sending representatives who will be among the speakers.

With over 4,000 deaths of U.S. soldiers in the Iraq war and over 600,000 deaths of Iraqi civilians, Minnesota leaders are fasting to show the depth of their commitment to prevent the human suffering another war would cause.

The U.S. intelligence community said in November, in an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate, that it concluded with “high confidence” that Iran had halted an effort to develop a nuclear weapon in fall 2003. Yet Bush and Israeli officials continue to discuss military options against Iran.

Minnesotans from all walks of life are shocked and dismayed at the possibility of U.S. involvement in another war. Reverend Gwin Pratt of St. Luke Presbyterian Church in Wayzata speaks for many Minnesotans with his strong message, “NO to another war!”

State Representative Alice Hausman states that, “The tragedy of our current situation is that we fail to admit the cost of the war in human lives and the economic devastation to our country.” Minneapolis City Council member Cam Gordon states, “Trying to solve our conflicts through military action continues to be a disastrous failure. It’s time that all Minnesotans stand up and call for diplomatic solutions.”

The event was organized by Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) and Twin Cities Peace Campaign. This is the statement that Minnesota leaders have signed:

We are fasting and speaking out today to demonstrate our resolve to oppose United States military action against Iran. Our fast represents the depth of our commitment to prevent the deaths, destruction, hunger and misery of another war.

Our country was led into the invasion and occupation of Iraq by false evidence of weapons of mass destruction and false pronouncements that Iraq was preparing to attack us. We strongly oppose our country being led into war again by misleading intelligence and unfounded allegations regarding Iran.

We believe that our government should listen to its citizens and pursue all diplomatic measures before taking military action. We believe the people of Iran deserve to live free of threats to their country and once again we urge American citizens to oppose United States military action against Iran.

CONTACT: Terry Burke: 312-399-0454 or Women Against Military Madness 612-825-0905

Source: Women Against Military Madness

[TOP]


U.S. Mayors Calling for
Diplomacy with Iran, Not War

Tensions around Iran have been heating up with President George W. Bush’s recent trip to Europe urging stronger sanctions and reports of major Israeli military exercises in June designed to prepare for a potential strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. United Nations (UN) atomic watchdog chief Mohamed El Baradei, concerned about the belligerent direction, warned on June 21 that an attack on Iran would “transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire.”

U.S. mayors, feeling the disastrous effects of the war in Iraq on their city budgets and local military families, are speaking out to try to stop another disastrous war. Thanks to a grassroots campaign initiated by Global Exchange, CodePink and Cities for Peace, a group of mayors have signed on to a National Mayors Resolution for Diplomacy with Iran. So far, 32 mayors from Florida, Virginia, Minnesota and elsewhere have signed on. The resolution urges the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran and calls on Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without Congressional authorization.

The resolution’s initial sponsor was Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, Vermont. “Cities across the U.S. are already paying a high price for war with thousands of servicemen and women killed and wounded and other resources diverted away from important national priorities like infrastructure, education, housing and human needs,” said Mayor Kiss. “Our experience in Iraq makes it even more critical to pursue diplomacy with Iran — talks anytime, anywhere.”

Mayor Scott Brook of Coral Springs, Florida, agrees. “In Iraq we are spending $10 billion a month while people here are losing their homes and cannot get jobs. Where are our priorities? We cannot afford more interventions.”

Another early cosponsor of the resolution, Mayor Dan Coody from Fayetteville, Arkansas, does not want the public to be fooled again. “The Bush administration is playing the American people on Iran just like they did in Iraq,” Mayor Coody said. “With Iraq going so badly and the economy in shambles, it would be crazy to wage a new war in another Arab country.”

The mayors brought the resolution to the U.S. Conference of Mayors that was held in Miami from June 20-23. Unfortunately, it was tabled for another year when a small group of mayors voiced opposition. Some said it sounded disrespectful to the troops, others said it was just too controversial and they did not want to see a rerun of the divisive debate the year before when a resolution against the war in Iraq was put forth.

Undeterred, the mayors and their supporters used the Conference to gather more support and vowed to continue the campaign. The goal is to get 100 mayors from across the country on board, and then, in September, descend on Washington DC to deliver the resolution to Congress and the White House.

Local peace groups are excited about pushing their own mayors to take a stand. Said one organizer from Minnesota, where Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak was convinced to sign on, “I am grateful that mayors are responding to their constituents and are willing to take a position of conscience.”

Global Exchange, a group that organizes regular citizen delegations to Iran, is mobilizing its members. “People return from Iran in love with the Iranian people and energized to stop a war,” said Sanaz Meshkinpour of Global Exchange. “We urge them to contact their congressional representatives, but also their local mayor. If we build a groundswell of support for diplomacy, we will hopefully force the decision-makers in Washington to listen.”

You can join the campaign by asking your mayor to sign on. To see the full resolution, a sample letter to your mayor and your mayor’s contact information, go to

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange.

[TOP]


There Is a Plan on the Table to
Resolve the Nuclear Standoff With Iran

In recent weeks we have again seen an escalation of US/Israeli threats to attack Iran. Among many other examples, the House of Representatives is currently considering a resolution promoted by the American Isreal Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that would effectively demand a blockade against Iran. This resolution has over 200 co-sponsors, although a surge of opposition has prevented it from being passed so far.

Here is what those promoting military attacks and blockades on Iran do not want Americans to know: there is an offer on the table that could resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and allow both sides to claim victory.

In this short interview, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering makes the case for talks with Iran without pre-conditions on multilateral uranium enrichment in Iran.

In March, Ambassador Pickering co-authored “A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff” in the New York Review of Books. Pickering and his co-authors wrote:

“We propose that Iran’s efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the U.S.-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well. “

On May 31, the Boston Globe -interviewed Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN), who said that Iran “would not suspend its own enrichment program, but would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation.” The Globe noted in a follow-up piece on June 10 that Iran had proposed this idea in its May 13 letter to the UN calling for comprehensive negotiations, that the proposal was broadly similar to the Pickering proposal, and that Iran’s UN Ambassador had said that the details should be negotiated.

So, while polls consistently show most Americans want negotiations with Iran to resolve the nuclear dispute, most Americans do not know that there is an offer on the table right now to resolve the nuclear dispute that the U.S. government is walking away from.

[TOP]


Retired Military Leaders Oppose Provocative House Resolution on Iran

We reprint below a letter sent to Congress from three retired military officials, July 11, 2008

* * *

The concurrent resolution making its way through the House of Representatives pertaining to Iran (H. Con. Res. 362) is poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous in our view. We urge Congress to abandon H. Con. Res. 362 for the following reasons.

1. The language demanding the President initiate an international effort "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," is of particular concern because despite the protestations of its sponsors, we believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force.

2. Immense military resources would be required to implement such inspections of cargo moving through the seas, on the ground, and in the air. The international community has shown no willingness to join in such an activity. Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war.

3. Implementation of measures called for in the resolution could complicate our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and could cause oil prices to soar.

4. Senior Pentagon officials, as well as many in the Administration and in Congress, have stated publicly that a diplomatic solution with Iran is the best course. The sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 go far beyond existing sanctions and previously proposed sanctions for dealing with Iran. The impact of these sanctions would be to undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution.

The sponsors argue that H. Con. Res. 362 as a concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, which is true, but it clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. In our view, H. Con. Res. 362 in no way furthers our diplomatic efforts or those of our European allies and should be abandoned.

Signed:

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, U.S. Navy (ret.)
Dr. Lawrence Korb, Former Asst. Secretary of Defense
Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army (ret.), Chairman, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

[TOP]


War Threats Against Iran Overshadow U.S. Elections

The US election campaign, rather than offering the American people any real opportunity to vote for an end to the war and occupation in Iraq, is increasingly overshadowed by threats of new acts of military aggression against Iran.

This is the significance of a series of provocative actions and statements coming out of both Washington and Tel Aviv in recent days.

Speculation about the likelihood of imminent air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were heightened by a report published last Friday in the New York Times detailing a long-range exercise staged over the Mediterranean earlier this month involving over 100 Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, refueling planes and rescue helicopters. Citing unnamed Pentagon sources, the Times reported that the operation was a dry run for an attack on Iran.

“Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the Times reported.

Responding to this military threat, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations organization charged with oversight of the Iranian nuclear program, said it was not justified by any “current, grave or urgent danger” and threatened to quit his post in response to any such an attack.

Air strikes against Iran, he warned, would “turn the region into a fireball” and cause Iran to “launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians.”

The report was widely seen as a deliberate leak by Washington and Israel aimed at ratcheting up pressure on Teheran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government has rejected Western demands that it halt these efforts, insisting that they are dedicated exclusively to the development of domestic nuclear energy and are not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Times report came less than a week after a trip to Iran by European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who offered the Iranian government a package of economic and political incentives in exchange for Teheran bowing to demands that it halt its enrichment program. As of early this week, the Iranian government had yet to respond officially to the offer.

Meanwhile, the EU Monday adopted a resolution imposing new sanctions against Iran, banning the country’s largest bank, Bank Melli, from operating in Europe.

The Israeli press presented the published report of a supposed dress rehearsal of air strikes on Iran as part of an orchestrated pressure campaign. “When the diplomacy of economic and political pressure fails to produce results, a shift is made to gunboat diplomacy,” wrote Alex Fishman, the military affairs columnist for Israel’s largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. “As the Iranian regime discusses the European Union representative’s most recent offer to halt its nuclear program in exchange for extensive benefits, the Americans opted to add a bit more pressure in the shape of Israel’s air force,” he wrote.

An unnamed Israeli official quoted in the Times of London Sunday put the matter somewhat more bluntly. Iran, he said, should “read the writing on the wall.” He continued: “This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their program for nuclear weapons. If diplomacy does not yield results, Israel will take military steps to halt Tehran’s production of bomb-grade uranium.”

Citing an unnamed U.S. military official, the Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. policy makers were divided over reasons for the exercise. Some viewed the maneuver as an actual practice run for a future strike on Iran, while others see it mainly as a show of force designed to remind both Tehran and Washington of Israel’s concern.”

Such an exercise — and the publicity about it in the U.S. media — has another and crucial objective. It is aimed at preparing the American public for being dragged into another war of aggression.

Military analysts agree that the Israeli air force by itself lacks the strategic capacity to carry out any attack on Iran that would even have the possibility of destroying its nuclear program, much of which is housed in fortified underground bunkers. The only viable purpose for such threats is either as part of a joint campaign with the U.S. or to draw Washington into such an attack.

There is an important constituency for such a course of action among influential elements of the Republican right, who are openly expressing support for a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran — as well as their frustration with Washington for not moving more rapidly to carry one out.

This was clearly the message of an editorial published Monday in the Wall Street Journal, among the most consistent mouthpieces for the right-wing layers that have dominated the current administration. Entitled “Israel on the Iran Brink” the editorial states:

“Israelis surely do not welcome a war in which they will suffer. Yet they have no choice but to defend themselves against an enemy that vows to obliterate them if Iran acquires the weapon to do so. The tragic paradox of the past six years is that the diplomatic and intelligence evasions offered in the name of avoiding war with Iran have done the most to bring us close to this brink. Appeasement that ends in war is a familiar theme of history.”

Meanwhile, two prominent supporters of the administration — who played significant roles in promoting the war against Iraq six years ago based on the same pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties — spoke over the weekend in chilling terms about the timing and political calculations concerning an attack on Iran.

Speaking on the television interview show “Fox News Sunday,” Bill Kristol, the publisher of the right-wing Weekly Standard, warned that President Bush could be driven to launch a war against Iran by the prospect of a victory for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in the November election.

“If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” said Kristol. However, he warned, “if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama will not follow through on that policy.”

Asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace whether he was saying that Bush could “launch a military strike” either in the run-up to or aftermath of the election, Kristol replied: “I do not know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you cannot — it is hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.”

Meanwhile, also appearing Sunday on Fox, the right-wing network owned by Rupert Murdoch, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, gave a more precise prediction about an Israeli attack.

“I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next president. I do not think they will do anything before our election because they do not want to affect it. And they would have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.”

Following up these remarks in an interview with the British Daily Telegraph, Bolton, a long-standing advocate of military action against Iran, repeated that the “optimal window” for an Israeli attack would be after the November 4 election and before the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations,” he told the Telegraph.

“They are also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election because there is no telling what impact it could have on the election.”

There has been ample speculation about an “October surprise,” i.e., a military action or terrorist attack on the eve of the election aimed at shocking the American public into rallying around the Republican administration. But as Bolton suggests, some of Bush’s closest supporters are less than confident that such an event would have the desired effect.

They have the example of the Spanish election of March 2004, when their right-wing ally Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar attempted to exploit and distort a terrorist attack for political advantage and instead provoked a popular backlash that swept him from office.

Despite the Republican drumbeat about Obama and the Democrats being unreliable in terms of their attitude towards Iran, the policies of militarism and provocation clearly enjoy bipartisan support.

Democrats in Congress are pushing through a resolution that calls for Washington to mount a blockade against Iran — an act of war — as a means of tightening pressure over the nuclear issue. Sponsored by Representative Gary Ackerman (Democrat, New York) in the House and Senator Evan Bayh (Democrat, Indiana) in the Senate, the resolutions “demand that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran,” including by “imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Such a unilateral action is an act of war under international law and could well provoke a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.

For his part, Obama was asked at a press conference in Florida June 20 whether he believed Israel was right to carry out such a threatening military exercise. He responded: “There is no doubt that Iran poses an extraordinary threat to Israel and Israel is always justified in making decisions that will provide for its security.”

One can only assume from such a remark that an Israeli air strike on Iran, dragging the U.S. into a conflagration that would eclipse the war in Iraq would, in the view of the Democratic presidential candidate, be justified as well.

(Source: Worldwide Socialist Website, wsws.org)

[TOP]


 

 


Voice of Revolution
Publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

USMLO • 3942 N. Central Ave. • Chicago, IL 60634
www.usmlo.orgoffice@usmlo.org