Skip to comments.Sen. Lindsey Graham to seek authorization for U.S. attack on Iran
Posted on 09/18/2013 6:43:41 PM PDT by markomalley
Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president's plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.
Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force -- not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News' Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn't intervene.
"Look how we've handled the chemical weapons threat in Syria," Graham said. "If we duplicate that with the Iranians, they're going to march toward a nuclear weapon and dare Israel to attack them. So in the next six months, our friends in Israel are going to have to take the Iranians on, unless the United States can send a clear signal to Iran, unlike what we've sent to Syria.
"The mixed message and the debacle called Syria can't be repeated when it comes to Iran," Graham continued. "So here's what Im going to do. I'm going to get a bipartisan coalition together. We're going to put together a use-of-force resolution allowing our country to use military force as a last resort to stop the Iranian nuclear program, to make sure they get a clear signal that all this debacle about Syria doesn't mean we're confused about Iran."
After Graham repeated his intention to draft a use-of-force resolution, Huckabee stepped in to make sure everyone understood. "Lindsey, I want to clarify," Huckabee said. "You actually are going to seek sort of a pre-emptive approval to give the president a loaded weapon so that he feels the absolute freedom and support of a bipartisan Congress to take whatever action, including military, against Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?"
"That's exactly right," said Graham.
Graham knows that Congress, particularly the House, was moving strongly against authorizing Obama to use force in Syria. And that was after a chemical weapons attack that clearly violated the president's "red line" in the Syrian civil war. Given that, congressional authorization for an attack on Iran seems far-fetched at best -- a reality Graham seemed to acknowledge. "I'm going to need your help, Mike," Graham said. "I'm going to need your audience's help. Every friend of Israel needs to rally behind this endeavor. Israel feels abandoned after Syria, and I want to send a signal to Tehran and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that we're not going to leave our friends in Israel behind. And to the ayatollahs: If you march toward a nuclear weapon, all options are on the table, including the military option."
On Capitol Hill Tuesday, Graham repeated his pledge to seek a use-of-force authorization against Iran, although he sounded a touch less assertive than in his conversation with Huckabee. "I do believe without the threat of credible military force by us, the Iranians are going to just slow-walk," Graham said, according to an account in the Hill. "So I'm trying to create the dynamic that there is bipartisan support for continued diplomacy, sanctions and the use of force as a last resort."
Graham needs to just take a chill pill. Obama is ruining the nations influence and leadership abroad. Nothing can be dome about it, unless Graham leads an impeachment process.
Primary this, tough guy.
Iran may eventually need attention, but pantywaists Graham and Obama, and that nasty Old McCain aren’t the guys I want engineering it.
They said if I voted for Romney we would go to war with Syria and Iran.......sure enough I voted for Romney and we are going to war with Sryia and Iran.
So on this ONE issue, and this issue ALONE, I back him. But we'd better do it soon, before Russia moves in -- OR, by diplomatic channels, get Russia to put a leash on Iran, in which THEY, RUSSIA, are responsible if Iran releases a nuke.
Either option works.
Sad, but true.
Graham has to go.
Okay, Pussboy. I authorize you, personally, to invade Iran. Now, go get ‘em tiger!
Here’s the sentiment of our elite representatives:
John Kerry: No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.
lil Linsey: We’re just the guys to do it.
Graham must be hearing voices coming from the ceiling. I would suggest someone keep a very close eye on him.
My last post was directed at Graham, not you.
The time to lean on Iran passed back in 2009. Instead of running guns to the cartels in Mexico, we should have been smuggling them to the student uprisings there at the time.
Whew! I was worried!! ;0)
Nothing good could come of ANY use of US armed forces with this president in the white house.
And that’s the news, now here’s the latest hit from Vince Vance and the Valiants....
Yeah I’m not sure any military action on our part will do us any good in Iran. If Israel wants to target the nuke infrastructure more power to them but I think our best bet in Iran is covert.
Must be a lot of military equipment manufactured in South Carolina.
The infuriating part of all this is that this blind pig has found this one peanut; he is quite correct in his assertion that Iran must be bombed if necessary to prevent them getting the bomb. The problem is that Lindsey Graham, riding postillion with John McCain, has sought to inject America into war after war in the Middle East and must now be regarded like the boy who cried wolf. Lindsey Graham has been one of the principal malefactors in diverting America's precious dwindling military resources and economic base in wars in the Middle East. He does not discriminate between those conflicts in which America has an immediate national interest and those in which he merely wants to have his way.
After Iraq, Afghanistan, the fiasco in Egypt, the fiasco in Libya, and about 10 or 15 other wars in which America is engaged but which the American people know little or nothing of, Lindsey Graham, with this kind of policy, has just about made it certain that nothing will be done to stop Iran getting the bomb. We have no money, no patience, no national consensus, and dwindling defense resources. That which should be done in Iran probably will not be done thanks in part to Lindsay.
One last word, Lindsey Graham's domestic record is so appalling that one is warranted now accusing him of opportunism and seeking this resolution. I believe he is pandering to the well-known martial spirit of patriots in South Carolina to rally his reelection chances. If so, this move ranks as one of the most cynical of the year.