[Peace-discuss] Americans for Peace Now: Objections to S. Res. 65 "Back Door to Iran War"; urges Sens. not to cosponsor

[Robert Naiman]

http://peacenow.org/entries/apn_objections_to_s_res_65#.UTYDJKL1RXE

APN Objections to S. Res. 65
By Lara Friedman <http://peacenow.org/people/lara-friedman.html> on March
5, 2013 9:00 AM | No
Comments<http://peacenow.org/entries/apn_objections_to_s_res_65#comments>

Americans for Peace Now has serious concerns about S. Res.
65<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113sres65>,
an AIPAC-backed resolution recently introduced in the Senate that has
beennicknamed
by some the "Backdoor to War" resolution, since it effectively gives a
green light for Israeli military action against Iran that, if carried out,
would almost certainly require the U.S. to join the fight.

*APN is urging Senators to refuse to cosponsor S. Res. 65.*

*Given the gravity of the issues at stake, APN is urging Senators to also
refuse to permit S. Res. 65 to be ramrodded through the Senate according to
a timetable defined by AIPAC - or any outside group.*

*We are urging Senators to instead call for a serious deliberation process,
including committee hearings and markups during which concerns about S.
Res. 65 can be aired and deficiencies in the resolution can be addressed.*

*Specific Objections to S. Res. 65*

   - S. Res. 65 has been nicknamed by some the "Backdoor to War"
   resolution. Supporters of S. Res. 65 are quick to point out that the
   resolution is non-binding and includes a "rule of construction" stating
   that the measure is not an authorization of the use of force or a
   declaration of war. *This is indeed the case, but is also irrelevant*.


   - Nobody is suggesting that the resolution green lights U.S. military
   action against Iran. Rather, it green lights Israeli military action
   against Iran that, if carried out, would almost certainly compel the U.S.
   to join the fight - thus making it a "backdoor" to war. In this respect,
   the resolution is clear. It seeks to put Senators on the record giving
   unqualified, unconditional, advance approval for Israeli military action
   against Iran, including Israeli-defined preventive self-defense. It also
   represents an implicit vote of no-confidence in the Obama Administration
   over its efforts to resolve the Iran challenge through sanctions and
   diplomacy.


   - Those who doubt this interpretation of the legislation would do well
   to consult the Iran pamphlet circulated at this year's AIPAC Policy
   Conference entitled "Iran's Nuclear Threat - An American Strategy for
   Prevention." That pamphlet makes clear that in the context of Iran, Israeli
   self-defense includes taking preventive military action:

 "Should sanctions fail [no definition is provided for what constitutes
failure in this context] and Israel feels compelled to undertake defensive
military action to stop Iran, the Jewish state must know that it will have
the diplomatic, economic, and military support of the United States."


   - It should be recalled that in August 2012, Chairman of the Joint
   Chiefs Martin
Dempsey<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear?newsfeed=true>
explicitly
   expressed concerns about an Israeli attack on Iran and his concern that the
   U.S. not be "complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it." With this
   resolution, the Senate is being asked to formalize such complicity, in
   defiance of the Obama Administration's policy and in defiance of the
   judgment of top U.S. military leaders.


   - In addition, the resolution misrepresents U.S. policy regarding Iran,
   stating, "the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring
   a *nuclear weapon* *capability*..." [emphasis added]. In fact, the
   policy of the Obama Administration is to prevent Iran from
acquiring a *nuclear
   weapon*. This mis-statement of policy reflects the continued effort by
   AIPAC and others to shift the "red line" with respect to Iran and lower the
   bar for war. This vague formulation, which has been previously promoted in
   Congress by AIPAC and others, has once again been left deliberately
   ambiguous - a self-evidently negligent approach that clearly lowers the bar
   for war.


-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130305/da883758/attachment-0001.html>