...and agree that a Congressional resolution of this nature is inappropriate. However, if anyone is going to drive American policy toward Iran, under this administration or any other, it isn't going to be Louie Gohmert.

Those interested in the subject would save themselves some anxiety if they would just trust me on this one.

This may just be a political move by hard-line Republicans before the November congressional elections get into gear (which this article points out). Opponents of the President are trying to find any foreign issue- any at all- that could draw support to their cause. They could boast about Obama's stupid July 2011 timeline, but some in the President's own party are already raising this issue. Republicans could talk about Obama's failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestininan crisis, but this would most likely spark a harsh retaliation from Democrats who would be quick to point out Bush's own failure to solve the conflict. I guess they could somehow bring China into the mix, but most Americans really aren't concerned about China surpassing the United States.

For Republican challengers- and Tea Party members running for Congress- Iran is the one issue that they can hammer the White House on. They can argue that the United States has alienated many of their allies (Turkey, Brazil, Israel, Russia) for a sanctions resolution that may not even work. Some will probably argue that Tehran is actually stronger than they were a year ago (they have made dramatic overtures to the Brazilians and have played the anti-Israel card to great effect with Turkey). And of course, Republicans can highlight Obama's indecisiveness by first championing a fuel-swap deal with the Iranians, only to backtrack on the same exact deal months later.

Some of this is justified. some of this isn't. But you can be sure that all of it will be brought up during the campaign. The House resolution endorsing a policy that goes against Obama doctrine is the start of the campaign.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

Endorsing foreign wars of choice (this is NOT pre-emption) may be unprecedented, but so is attacking a radiological facility.

The working medium for enrichment, in the centrifuge and in storage, is U-hexaflouride gas. Any breach of containment will result in radiological poison released under pressure onto land, people, animals, food, water.

The US would properly regard even vocalizing a threat of such an attack on our facilities as an act of WMD terrorism. The office of a US congressman or senator doing so is... incontheevable. Any such talk vis Iran is hugely inflammatory, and NOTHING like past attacks on unfinished reactor construction sites in Iraq or Syria, where no nuclear materials were present.

No true friend of nuclear armed Israel should be engaging in this kind of brinksmanship. The suggestion that this is a cynical political play for radical zionist campaign contributions seems on-point.

What would you expect to come from a right wing jew´s mouth? Gives the US a good prequel to controling irans oil too. Of course they´ll jump on the band wagon.

Reasons for war: Afghanistan-harboring al-Qaeda; Iraq:-harboring WMD; Iran: show our support for Israel. WUHDA!? According to von Clausewitz, "war is politics by other means," but for Gohmert ,and anyone who would support HR 1553, endorsing Bibi Netanyahu is not politics but war-mongering. Gohmert is a fool for supplying Israel with any encouragement to lead the charge against Iran. Laissez faire should be a two-way street. In this case, the New World should keep its hands off the Old one.

The US right grows yet more stupid and dangerous. Can't they just chose a career as butchers if they want to see blood that badly? Or slit their own wrists...

When we attacked Iraq many of us said, "Don't you remember Viet Nam?" We attacked Afghanistan to 'get the 9/11 terrorists" that hasn't worked too well has it?

And now these lunatics are talking about starting another war? Can anyone with an ounce of common sense think that backing this kind of attack by Israel will lead to anything but an all out middle east war? There are nukes in this region, remember?

And for anyone claiming the budget balancing and lowering of taxes stance of the Tea party to even hint about starting another war - the two we have now are bankrupting the country.. and they want to start another?

the idea that Israel will fight it for us is shortsighted and naive beyond belief.

Please write your Congressman and Senator and tell them that this lunacy must stop. And thanks to FP for writing about this. It's the first I've heard.

The author predicts that “The resolution does not go into the murky details of how devastating a military strike on Iran would be to the US and Israel, not to mention the civilian death toll in Iran, the collapse of Iran's democratic opposition movement, and the consolidation of popular support by Iran's now-disputed government.” Knowing the Iranian mentality, I believe it is the “getting even” mantra in the young Iranian male psyche that will run the future events in both countries. What two dozen mostly Saudis did in September 11, 2001 will quite possibly fade in comparison to what thousands of determined young Iranians can do to an open society like the US. When dust settles, personal freedoms we enjoy in America will be lost. The cost of our wars with added cost of a tightened security inside the country will break the middle class and we will lose our R&D edge and technological advantages in a fast growing world. A “campaign contribution” is too much of a price that some of our congress people are willing to pay for such a future. We are paying for the cost of keeping the status que in Israel for a little longer.

While Iran must not be allowed to get the bomb, one thing that is certain is that any strike against Iran by Israel or the US will galvanize internal support against us and end the chances for internal dissent and change.

Some have said that it would be better for the US to make the strike instead of Israel, but the effect on internal Iranian politics would be the same.

I don't see any other way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Clandestine special ops strike? Might do the job without the appearance of an air raid or missile strike and leave doubt about which country did it. Doubtless would engender "little satan" - "big satan" rhetoric though.

Regarding some of the other comments here, I think FP needs to moderate comments and delete anti-semitic remarks.

All this concern about Republican members of Congress expressing support for Israel and not a word about President Obama's plans or the support Congresssional Dems have voiced on the floor of the House is political gamesmanship.. For example, when the flotilla incident occurred the Dems From NY, from the floor of the House,were very clear at great lenght that they supported the actions of the the Israelis in stopping and bording the ships as part of the blockade. A blockadethey said was necessary in large part due to Iran'seffortsto supply Hmas with weaponsand rockets. I suspect they too would voice their support of Israel to defend itself by engaging in a premptive strike should it be necessary. In fact ,Obama himself has stated that he would do everything in his power to stop Iran from building/acquiring nukes while he is in office. His administartion, Sec Gates for example, has stated that sanctions will not stop Iran's program and, at best, they will only slow it down. Sec Clinto and Sec Gates have both saidt hat the sanctions are meant as a signall to Iran that if Iran does not forgo it's program other measures will be taken. What measures are those?
When SOS Clinton last year embarked upon the wild goose chase of trying to negotiate a swap and enrich deal with Iran' it was widely held that Iran would have enough enriched material with which to build a bomb within a year. The goose chase afforded Iran that one year plus time and in the interim Iran has stepped up it's enrichment activities. Now Iran's enrichment activities are said to be far in excess of what Iran needs for it's medical/energy needs and sanctions have yet to persuade Iran to give up it's program. To the contrary Iran has said sanctions will not cause them to stop.
Given Iran's history of supplying terrorist with weapons and it's oft repeated attitude that Isarel should cease to exist, both Israel and the US can not afford to allow Iran to go nuclear. Furthermore, regardless of what position various members of Congress take (or the President for that matter) Israel will undoubtedly do what it needs to do to stop Iran. With or without the US. Trying to postulate that Republicans have some sort of a secret agenda to draw us into a war with Iran, so that Obama does not have to take resposibilty for what may indeed happen, is political gamesmanship and ignores reality.
Instead of engaging in such things Mr Abdi should be asking Obama, SOS Clinton and Sec Gates what the plan is to stop Iran if sanctions fail to deter Iran? Which, by the way, is likely to be the case. Or has Mr. Obama quietly switched to a policy of "containment" and abandoned his pledge to use all means to stop Iran? If the answer is containment, how does that lessen the tensions in the middle east or lessen the national security issues presented by a nuclearized Iran? Seems to me it only worsens the situation in all aspects. The clock is ticking rapidly. Even if it takes Iran another two years to assemble a bomb or two (which is the estimated time frame) that time,like the past year, will go by very quickly. Iran, in the meantime (as with it's stall tactics in the past) has continued to send very mixed messages about further talks. There is every reason to belive that if Iran does sit down for another round of talks it will be a further delaying tactic.
In his speech at West Point Mr. Obama clearly stated that there can be no doubt that if terrorist are allowed to get their hands on nuclear materials they will use them. The liklihood of them doing so is exponentially increased if Iran is allowed to proceed with it's nuclear program. Gambling that containment will somehow decrease the threat is not a risk Israel is willing to take, regardless of what position Obama or the members of Congress take. More importantly, it should not be a risk Obama is willing to take either. One or two dirty bombs (or a samll neclear device) smuggled across our porous southern border is the losing end of the gamble.
BTW, as it stands right now, should there be a needfor us to take military action or provide support for any such action by others vis-a-vis Iran our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are strategically positioned to respond. Pulling them out of Afghanistan and Iraq all together gives up that advantage and it will cost us more to reinsert them into the region if they are redployed there to respond to anything that may take place in Iran or the Persian Gulf. The Iranian leadership has undoubtedy taken notice of the same and that places pressure on them. The pressures, in all their forms, should not be removed until Iran ceases it's program. Suggesting that Obama and/or the Dems, as opposed to the Repubs, would not support military action against Iran, if needed, removessome of the pressure and ignores the reality of the risk posed by a nuclearized Iran.

Sorry for the typos, etc..

In case no one noticed the US is presently at war with Iran already!!! They have been killing our troops in Iraq and Afganistan for years!!!This seems to be a choice of two evils. #1 Isreal is given the green light to make the strike by the US , which may set the Iranian nuclear program back temporarly , but possibly long enough that the present regime is then replaced, but only after their counter attacks have taken place! Because of the US Governments weak enforcement of immigration laws ,the Iranians have been moving their agents into the US and conducting intel on US interest world wide. So if Isreal srtikes Iran, they will consider it an attack by the US!! The US will have to now expect collateral damages, but except the lose of more American lives!! #2 Iran producese a nuclear weapon and now holds the world hostage!!! And now we have two belligerent rouge nations to deal with!!! And one that has publicly threatoned to wipe Isreal off the face the world!!!THE FACT IS THAT A REAL NUCLEAR WAR IS MORE POSSIBLE IF IRAN HAS THE WEAPON!!! I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT CHOICE NEEDS TO BE MADE!!! BECAUSE THE SLAYOR SAYS SO!!!

Both comment are typical for the vocabulary of the Likud supporters trying to link US interest to Israel’s. The first one with an air of objectivity, the second one with almost foam on the mouth. But both argumentations hold no water, and are full of misrepresentations and distortions of the real situation. I will not refute all of them, that would cost me to much time, and FP’s space. I can only advise both gentleman to read some serious studies on these subjects, not just following propaganda media.

The necessity of a complete Gaza blockade. Nobody has been able to explain to me why allowing peanut butter or baby diapers going into Gaza is a security risk for Israel. The blockade can only been seen as a punishment for the people living there, or a way to undermine Hamas influence. As the response on the flotilla raid made abundantly clear Israel policies have only backfired. Hamas is stronger than ever.

Iran and its nuclear intentions. Not only has the Iranian leadership time and again stated their strong and principal rejection of developing nuclear arms, but to this day there is not one shred of clear-cut evidence they are developing one. Oh sure there are a lot of assumptions by experts, who all greatly differ in their conclusions. And of course the Israeli secret services are trying to spin and spread in the western media news about an Iranian nuclear conspiracy. But these are all unsubstantiated stories from unnamed informers and about uncontrollable ‘facts’.
The only reason Israel is hell bent on Iran is not because it fears the development of nuclear arms (which for the past ten years always were just 2 or 3 years around the corner) but because it would challenge their own nuclear arms hegemony. It is estimated Israel has about 200 nuclear bombs. Nobody knows for sure, because unlike Iran, they don’t allow inspection by the UN agencies.

Than this never ending story about Iran wanting Israel “to be wiped off the map”. I.e. wanting to commit genocide. This sentence was a deliberate attempt by the spin doctors to misrepresent a faulty translation. What really was said was that Israel’s regime over the Palestine would collapse, just as the Communist regime in the Soviet Union had collapsed. And if the Iranians are so eager to eliminate Jews, than why does that country still has the largest Jewish community (about 40.000) in the Middle East?

Than the consequences of an attack on Iran. One thing is certain it would create havoc in the Middle East and will have unpredictable negative results on the West. First it would unite the Muslims in their anger and indignation – and prove to them that Al Qaida was right all along in its message- about the West creating its own “Killing fields” in the Islam world. Second it would evaporate the Green movement and unite every Iranian behind their leadership to fight this foreign intervention. It took the Iranian 8 years and 1 million casualties to get Saddam Hussein’s troops out of their country. They probably will be similarly determined the next time.
The US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, already nowhere near their objectives, will as a result of an attack on Iran definitively end in failure (remember Vietnam?). Hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars are lost in vain.

Then this nonsensical statement that Iranians are already killing American troops. It is Iran that has kept aggression of the Shi’a militia’s in Iraq in check. No doubt because it suits their own policies better. Thanks to the US intervention and the removal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq will in the near future inevitable become a Shi’a dominated state and a close ally of Iran. So there is no need to give the Americans an excuse to stay longer.
In Afghanistan in 2001 Iran offered the US help in removing the Taliban from power. The US rejected. In stead of making use of the existing antagonism between Sunni and Shi’a (after all the Sunni extremist are regularly blowing up Shi’a mosques in Pakistan and Iraq) an attack on Iran by the US might finally bring them together against a common enemy.

Several of the comments made in this blog depend on factual information where the writer is simply wrong:

Polderman asks about peanut butter being admitted to Gaza to imply that Israel's blockade is making life intolerable in Gaza. The blockade is focused primarily on weapons, with a secondary target of dual-use materials like building supplies. People who denounce the blockade often claim that Israel is preventing the importation of building supplies to prevent post-war reconstruction. But the simple fact is that two weeks before the Mavi Marmara incident, an Olympic-size swimming pool was opened in Gaza, and a few weeks ago it was joined by a well-stocked and air-conditioned shopping mall, where, contrary to the claims coming out of Gaza, the electricity never seems to go off. Clearly, building supplies, as well as consumer goods, are getting into Gaza. If access to the facilities built with these supplies is restricted to those who are well-connected, it is hard to see why this is Israel's fault. Meanwhile, it demonstrates Israel's point that goods that get into Gaza are directed to the uses chosen by Gaza's ruling Hamas. The objective of those who seek to end the blockade is thus revealed to be exactly what Israel has claimed all along: to open Gaza to unrestricted importation of weapons, mainly from Iran.

SAMI JAMIL JADALLAH believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the primary source of the current financial predicament in the US. He is simply wrong. In an assessment done during the Clinton Administration (i.e. before 9/11 and the wars that followed) I projected the budgetary consequences of allowing entitlement spending to continue growing at the rate it was then growing. The result: By 2017, entitlement spending would force the bankruptcy of the US and undermine the ability of the federal government to fulfill its obligations in US society. A recent repeat of the study revealed that the effect of 9/11 plus the wars, plus Bush's drug entitlement program was to bring that bankruptcy one year earlier. Obama's spending plans, however, bring them another two years closer. If the US is really interested in fiscal responsibility, the place to look is at entitlements.

As for the Iranian nuclear program, the discussion is conducted as a competition between the risks and potential costs of doing something, like a military strike, against the immediate benefits of not doing one. This makes sense only if one believes that the current regime in Iran will disappear in the relatively near future, but one of the reasons often cited by those who oppose a strike is that the regime is pursuing nuclear weapons to ensure its continuity. If one listens carefully, the argument against a strike is its own refutation.

That said, there are other ways to suppress the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, such as contemplating targeting Ahmadinejad and his circle of "leaders." Removing them should not be a big problem for the Greens, even if done from the outside, and it is conceivable that a deal could be struck whereby outside forces assist in the removal of the regime, enabling the Greens to come to power, and in return, the new regime would renounce the nuclear weapons effort.

Finally, let me mention that one of the stories Foreign Policy is offering today is "Obama Is 0 for 4 On Foreign Policy." Putting your money on him to do the right thing is probably not a good bet.

The Jewish population of Iran was 180,000 prior to the revolution. Within 5 years, more than 80% of the population fled because of unbearable conditions. Jews are still subjugated - they cannot own weapons, cannot travel outside of the country, cannot be jewish out of their designated zones (aka kippahs), etc..

iran not only discriminates against jews, but christians, mormons, bahis, homosexuals, etc...

israel should have bombed iran years ago but it heeled to the demands of the international community - promising sanctions.

well, israel waited, the sactions failed to deliver, so now israel is being forced to continue a military solution.

the onus is on iran for sponsoring regimes like hezbollah and hamas and calling for the destruction of a UN-member state which is a violation of the UN charter.

im sure if we had a hezbollah-size army on our border, with scud missiles pointed at our cities, and their sponsor building nuclear weapons while at the same time threatening our destruction - you think we wouldn't bomb them?

hell, we'd probably bomb syria too.

we destroy nations for less.

the double standard of the left and on israel is becoming quite redundant.

The reality is Internationally we are either going to face Iran in war without a Nucular bomb or with one. It is a no brainer what options would be the best for all. We must understand this fight isn't for Israel or the USA, but for the whole International community. Anyone who thinks a Nucular armed Iran wouldn't effect their life has got their head in the sand. They are attempting to hide from reality and not face it.

We all know a nucular armed Iran will force a united Middle East. Iran will be the leading power and out of fear most will follow. If we think the terror elements in our lives is shocking now, we haven't seen anything yet.

If you have a united Middle East armed with a Nukes not only do we face higher terror elements we also will face a very serious oil crisis. If the Middle East is united by the mentality of Iran they will attempt to drive up the cost of oil to such a hight cost to bring every country to there knees in submission.

The ultimate goal would be a united Muslim World. We all know the cost to refuse. We need to face this war and deal with it now while Nucular isn't the added threat we already face.

That's your spin. To let the Iranian regime acquire nuclear munitions is a recipe for Armageddon.

In technical terms, It's much harder to convert uranium ore [ 0.7%] to 5 % than from 20% to weapons grade [ 90-95%]. This may sound counterintuitive somewhat. It takes roughly 3 to 4 months to convert LEU to HEU.