Welcome to ...

The place where the world comes together in honesty and mirth.
Windmills Tilted, Scared Cows Butchered, Lies Skewered on the Lance of Reality ... or something to that effect.


Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Will Iran sanctions bill proponents support a war tax?

Even as American and international negotiators were finalizing the interim agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, both houses of Congress were moving to tie President Obama's hands in the future. While a bipartisan bill mandating harsh new sanctions nears a veto-proof majority in the Senate, House repugicans announced they would take up the legislation championed by Senators Mark Kirk (r-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
.
But the "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act" doesn't just risk fracturing the multinational coalition and scuttle its efforts to reach a final deal to control Tehran's nuclear program. It makes an American conflict with Iran much more likely. For starters, the text essentially commits the U.S. to come to Israel's defense even in a preventive war it chooses to initiate. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (r-SC) among others has been threatening to bring the needed authorization for the use of military of force (AUMF) to the floor for months. All that's missing for hawks like Kirk warning of a repeat of Munich is the tax revenue to pay for the war they seem on a path to start.
.
If the United States learned anything from its preventive war in Iraq, it should have been that such misadventures are unpredictable, bloody and very, very costly. (Paul Wolfowitz's promises notwithstanding, the $1 trillion-plus price tag for the invasion and occupation was not paid for by "a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.") In that regard, an American conflict with Iran would likely be little different.  

No comments: