Skip to comments.No More Sanctions, No More War (Pat Buchanan on Iran Bill)
Posted on 01/15/2014 9:08:18 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
As we approach the centennial of World War I, we will read much of the blunders that produced that tragedy of Western civilization.
Among them will be the blank check Kaiser Wilhelm II gave to Vienna after the assassination by a Serb terrorist of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand.
If you decide to punish the Serbs, said the Kaiser, we are with you.
After dithering for weeks, Austria shelled Belgrade. Within a week, Germany and Austria were at war with Russia, France and Great Britain.
Today the Senate is about to vote Israel a virtual blank checkfor war on Iran. Reads Senate bill S.1881: If Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Irans nuclear weapons program, the United States should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in the defense of its territory, people and existence.
Inserted in that call for U.S. military action to support an Israeli strike on Iran, S.1881 says that, in doing so, we should follow our laws and constitutional procedures.
Nevertheless, this bill virtually hands over the decision on war to Bibi Netanyahu who is on record saying: This is 1938. Iran is Germany.
Is this the man we want deciding whether America fights her fifth war in a generation in the Mideast? Do we really want to outsource the decision on war in the Persian Gulf, the gas station of the world, to a Likud regime whose leaders routinely compare Iran to Nazi Germany?
The bill repeatedly asserts that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Yet in both 2007 and 2011, U.S. intelligence declared with high confidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Where is the Senates evidence for its claim? Why has Director of National Intelligence James Clapper not been called to testify as to whether Tehran has made the decision to go for a bomb?
Why are the American people being kept in the dark?
Are we being as misled, deceived, and lied to about Irans weapons of mass destruction, as we were about Iraqs? The bill says that in a final deal Iran must give up all enrichment of uranium. However, we have already been put on notice by President Hassan Rouhani that this is an ultimatum Iran cannot accept.
Even the reformers of Irans Green Revolution of 2009 back their countrys right to a peaceful nuclear program including enrichment.
Senate bill S.1881 imposes new sanctions if Iran fails to live up to the interim agreement or fails to come to a final agreement in six months.
Yet the Senate knows that Iran has warned that if new sanctions are voted during negotiations, they will walk away from the table.
Why is the Senate risking, or even inviting, a blowup in these talks?
When the interim agreement was reached, it was denounced by neocons as worse than Munich. Now the War Party piously contends this Senate bill is simply an insurance policy to ensure that the terms of the deal are met and a final deal reached.
It is nothing of the sort. This bill is a project of AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, designed to sabotage and scuttle the Geneva talks by telling Tehran: Either capitulate and dismantle all your enrichment facilities, or face more severe sanctions which will put us on the road to war.
What terrifies AIPAC and Bibi is not an American war on Iran, but an American rapprochement with Iran.
Who are the leaders of the push for S.1881? Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez, the biggest recipients of AIPAC campaign cash.
Last weekend, the Obama National Security Council finally belled the cat with a blunt statement by spokesperson Bernadette Meehan: If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action [against Iran], they should be up front with the American public and say so.
Exactly. For whether or not all these senators understand what they are doing, this is where their bill pointsto a scuttling of the Geneva talks and a return to the sanctions road, at the end of which lies a U.S. war with Iran.
A majority of Democratic senators have thus far bravely bucked AIPAC and declined to co-sponsor S.1881. However, all but two Republican senators have signed on.
If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the GOP has once again caught the war fever, the party should be quarantined from the White House for another four years.
Press Secretary Jay Carney says that if S.1881 passes, Obama will veto it. The president should tell Congress that not only will he veto it, but that if Israel decides on its own to attack Iran, Israel will be on its own in the subsequent war.
Obama should order U.S. intelligence to tell us the truth.
Is Iran truly hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear bomb? Does Iran have a nuclear bomb program? If so, when did Tehran make that decision?
Or are we being lied into war again?
Our sanctions are meaningless anyway. We’ve been giving waivers to get around the sanctions for years.
Peace in Our Time
A fifth war in the Middle East? People barely noticed the first four. Just put it on the national credit card and send somebody else to fight it. Again.
Pat supporting President O.
Who’d have thought it? (Anyone with a brain).
If the Iranians get a nuclear weapon than the Arab countries will seek their own nuclear weapons. If we support Israel the war will be conventional. If we don’t support Israel the war will be nuclear. Which is the lesser of two evils?
Pat hates Jews so much that he simply is incapable of understanding the stakes in Iran.
Guess AIPAC won’t be sending any money to Buchanan.
It is so obvious to those that are not blind.
If we want to get involved and move the ball on a few problems at once, we could simply arm the Kurds, the way we armed the Contras once upon a time.
Bibi is not just going to sit around and let this happen.
0bama’s insanity with regard to Iran is going to end up with a couple of very blue cities being turned into smoking, glowing, uninhabitable holes.
“Pat hates Jews so much that he is just incapable of understanding the stakes in Iran.”
BUT the bigger stakes he refuses to even acknowledge is the threat to AMERICA. Remember, USA is the Iranian IslamoNazis’ number ONE target, America is their “Great Satan” to which they ascribe all blame for all their other complaints....
they believe that once they destroy USA that all their other complaints will disappear, or become easy for them to wipe out with the rest of their nuclear bomb missiles
The number 1 threat is to USA
the number 2 threat is to seize control of the oil fields that Iran does not already have (which happen to be very nearby them there in the gulf region), and
the number 3 threat is to their “little Satan” (Pat’s life-long nemesis, alas, his “stumbling block,” his blind spot, little old Israel).
Pat’s unrealistic (and, plainly DANGEROUS as HELL) attitude about pacifism and isolationism being an effective defense policy for America.... is exactly why many of us could not vote for him in all these years ....
had Pat adopted a more normal, realistic defense policy that recognized the existence of some very evil, aggressive, and hostile forces out there, threats requiring a better response than merely hiding under the bed and pretending they will all go away overnight ........ I bet he could have become President. just a guess, but so many people we know said the same thing, that they were attracted to Pat but his blind spots involving defense and foreign policy scared the hell out of everyone.... I bet he could have at least made a serious run for the office)
as it is, he’s about as useful in defending America as is Kerry
Good question—which is the lesser evil—a land war we become heavily involved in, or a third party nuclear exchange we stand aside from?
How much do the Iranians pay him, anyway?
I agree 100%. Pat’s anti-Israel isolationism killed any chances for the WH. It certainly killed any chance of him ever getting my vote.
Pat’s isolationism killed any chance of our voting for him. It would either leave America defenseless or at least it would force us into fighting much larger and far riskier wars than are otherwise necessary (with a more sensible defense policy)
Pat’s anti-anything-Jewish attitude was similarly unacceptable... totally unacceptable, he seems to keep tripping over that same “stumbling stone” over and over and over and over and over and over again... it is so sad to see such an otherwise-capable person suffering from such a pathetic prejudice
Looks like Pat Buchanan is wanting Iran to finish what the Nazis wanted to do by killing all the Jews in Israel.
His own book stated he we should not have gotten involved in WW2 against the germans.
Some of us believe the more realistic long-term defense posture for the US is to let regional problems be solved by nations in the region. We cannot forever be inserting ourselves into conflicts of secondary American importance as if they were all a life and death affair for our security.
An assassination of an archduke does not incorporate the same issues as a reasonable threat of destruction upon an entire nation or nations. Germany may have had ulterior motives in their agreement with Austria that do not in any way parallel U.S. motives here. And Obama's comment about a bill voting for a U.S. preemptive strike or attack on Iran is not relevant here.
I agree we should not issue any country, even our allies like Israel, a "blank check" by signing away our sovereign right to choose whether to enter into a war but I'm not convinced that is what this is. The excerpt Pat used said "should" not "shall" and doesn't specify what kind of "diplomatic, military and economic support" the U.S. would give "to the Government of Israel in the defense of its territory, people and existence" and that "we should follow our laws and constitutional procedures" (as though that should have to be included). To me, this is simply saying that the U.S. will support its friend and ally Israel against Iran to persevere Israel's existence in any way the U.S. deems appropriate. I don't see a "blank check" here.
I think Pat has a bias against these international entanglements and not sure he's very sympathetic to Israel's constant threat by the nations of the area and the world. I like Pat, but don't agree with him here.
yes but when one of those nations screams almost daily that it plans to destroy its Great Satan (USA) and .. when (as now) it is testing long and longer range ICBM’s... (not that they are necessary but they surely could be used to attack USA), and when that country’s leaders are spending billions of dineros building nuclear bombs to put on those ICBM’s (or to just smuggle into USA what with our open borders)
then it is time to pay attention (and eliminate the danger before it causes us tens of millions of unnecessary casualties)
we can AGREE that we should try to avoid getting bogged down in conflicts (and especially with the crazy Islamicists) like in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Central African Republic, and everywhere else Obama has been sending American troops to overthrow governments and install his Muslim Brother and other terrorist comrades and friends
three days of the USAF could eliminate the Iranian nuke threat to America NOW, before it is ready to strike our large cities
how to get Obama to stop his illegal bombing and overthrowing of foreign governments to install IslamoNazi terrorists into power?
I don’t have a solution to that, sorry
Whatever Buchanan wants or does not want doesn’t change the fact that our nation is being bled and bankrupted by a messianic urge to defend all and remake the world that is closer in philosophy to Woodrow Wilson and FDR than it is to George Washington.
I think people on this thread should be more focused on arguing the issues Pat raises than arguing the person Pat is. We libertarians and conservatives should never shy away from arguing in the forum of ideas, becasue we are usually right and win the argument just about every time.
I appreciate your reasoned response. I just think Iran is not the threat that their bluster sometimes suggests. And I think the big winner from a US attack on Iran would be al-Qaeda who, unlike Iran, has an actual history of terrorist attacks on American soil.
Iran is a major funder of terrorism and the US is going to squat about that while declaring “peace”.
I wonder if Obama could have been elected in the first place if we conservatives had done a better job facing and debating the issues the past twenty years.
Our endless wars in that area will make China the world’s only superpower. Iran war may be existential for Israel but it is also existential for us.
Nobody’s disputing the sins of Iran’s disreputable regime, But sometimes in this vale of tears you have to live with the lesser of evils or else you will be consumed with eternal war and slow national death.
did I ask for war?
Iran wants to nuke us. They will build nukes and ICBM’s and Kerry/Obama will let them. They hate us more than they hate Israel.
Losing a few cities is a lesser evil than enteral war I guess, that much is probably true.
But, as a free people, we should heed the warning that freedom requires eternal vigilance. This may not be comfortable for us, but it is necessary. I fear our comfortable lifestyle has lulled many of us to sleep. True freedom-loving Americans need to wake up and (re)educate themselves (since all government schools do is brain-wash). So I think conservatives and libertarians should exercise educated involvement as they see fit not becasue they love politics but because they love freedom.
Reminds me William Wallace's initial reluctance in "Braveheart" which we saw last night. It also occurred to me while watching that they were ready to fight because their very lives and families were threatened by the English. The threat was obvious at that point, but it required bloodshed. Well, that's the point you raise and I consider here: the sooner Americans recognize and act on the threat to their freedoms, the less pain to fix it.
well, ok. i believe Iran is a super-sized threat to America
(I am not at all prepared, or willing, to ignore or dismiss their constant, repeated, long-term threats to destroy The Great Satan... especially when they are busy building exactly the kind of weapons and delivery systems that would enable them to do just that)
I think they are, frankly, mad men... quite possibly possessed by Satan...
and that they will do just as they say, once they believe they can pull it off
I wish I had your confidence that the above was wrong
You and Pat are probably in love with Diane Feinstein now.
That's funny . . . I can remember when "palaecons" were all for fighting for Rhodesia, South Africa, Nationalist China, Nicaragua, El Salvador . . . even South Vietnam. It's just when those pesky Israelis are in someone's crosshairs that they suddenly become isolationist and neutralist. Now ain't that a shiner?
I guess unlike Nationalist China, Israel just isn't a "white, chrstian" nation within the pale of "western civilization."
Meanwhile, bleeding America in a messianic crusade during the Cold War was tickety-boo. It's just too bad those nasty old Israelis had to show up on our side.
Of course. They've been nothing but cuddly little bunnies ever since Khomeini (yimach shemo vezikhro!). Why, that whole 444-day humiliation of the US from '79 to '81 was just a big misunderstanding. They were just mad at David Rockefeller and the "international bankers," that's all!
Iran--mankind's last best hope against the "Zionist new world order."
I like 95% of what Pat says but he is oblivious to Muslim imperialism. He rather play ostrich. He can ignore reality but reality will not ignore him
I think most all conservatives, even Buchanan, were in favor of supporting Israel in the era of the Yom Kippur war when the Soviets threatened to tip the balance against the Israelis. Now it is a different era. The Israeli military is much stronger relative to the rest of the region.
Buchanan is right in that Iran has no desire to attack the United States or to wage war against it. Raccoons don't attack mountain lions.
The alleged and non-existent military threat from Iran (or from Iraq, or Syria, etc) seems like an intentional distraction at times. Insofar as there is a Muslim threat to the western world, it doesn't come from aggressive war, but from immigration and demographic trends. And on the issue of Third World immigration, whether it's the Arabization/Africanization of Europe or the transformation the the US into an annex of Mexico, there is no more stalwart spokesman than Pat Buchanan.
I think the hope of us who tend to a more localized US focus is that without the US as an ever present factor, the Sunnis and the Shiites will return to their prime concern of countering each other. And with a lessened US involvement, Israel and the Saudis might act on their common interests and common danger to produce a more durable regional stability.
Another thing I get tired of hearing is how every new tinpot dictator that comes down the pike is “another Hitler” and that our failure to overthrow him and occupy his country is “another Munich.” My response is: When Iran’s Rouhani or Syria’s Assad controls all of one continent and good sized chunks of neighboring continents, let me know. Otherwise, it all sounds like a hysterical little kid throwing a hissy fit.
Nazi Germany for a time had the world’s most potent army and air force. Iran couldn’t overrun Iraq when they still had the Shah’s first class military hardware. People can argue the danger Iran can pose through Hezbollah and other terrorist activities, but they’re nothing like the world power that Neville Chamberlain faced at Munich.
Moreover, Hizbollah's primary target isn't the United States. A lot of people seem to conflate Israel's conflicts and national security concerns with ours. They aren't one and the same and never have been.
Remember how Slobadon Milosevic was supposedly "the new Hitler." As I recall, Hitler controlled just about everything from the North Sea to the Ural Mountains. Milosevic couldn't even hold onto a chunk of the Balkans the size of New York state. And Bashar Assad, the latest "Middle Eastern Hitler" and allegedly a mortal threat to US National Security, can't even defeat a group of rag-tag rebels in Allepo. Some "Hitler" he is.
Some people have a knee-jerk reaction to the name "Buchanan," and seem to hate him more than any leftist Democrat or liberal Republican. It makes them completely incapable to arguing the merit of his ideas, so you get ad hominem instead.
So don't expect a straight answer for how the GOP went from being the party of rational non-interventionism in the early 20th century to crusading Wilsonianism a century later.
You are wrong. Iran is building missiles that can reach Europe. When it gets nukes it will threaten Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia with them. We have allies and interests in Europe and the Middle East and Iran will soon be in a position to mess around with them. Russia, China and Iran will carve up the Middle East oil resources and nations. Short of this they will tell Arab oil nation how much oil to sell and to whom and to pay $10/barrel tax to Iran
As for the Saudis, they're much bigger sponsor of Islamist jihad than Iran will ever be.
Iran has been attacking us in Iraq for years. Using roundabout ways of course. They arm proxies armies. They like to have others do their dirty work. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel
Iran is trying to control Iraq since Iraq has a Shiite gov’t right now. They invented chess...you are still playing tic tac do
Saudi Arabia is or was an ally. They are very upset by our recent cave-in on Irans nuclear program
Like Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel
Israel isn't part of the United States. We don't need to fight a war with Iran on their behalf, or to support an Israeli initiated war that would destablize the region still further.
Saudi Arabia is or was an ally. They are very upset by our recent cave-in on Irans nuclear program
You think it's a coincidence that Bin Laden, most of the Al Quaeda leadership, and most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis? And not malcontents from the slums, but members of the Saudi ruling class? Whenever there's jihad being fought, where do you suppose the money comes from? Yemen or Sudan can't afford to bankroll Islamists in Asia and Africa. The Saudis can, and they do in order to prove their religious bona fides to the pious masses. So all this talk about "fighting terrorism" with trumped-up enemies in Iraq, Syria, or Iran is rather laughable while our leaders bow (Obama) or hold hands (Bush) with the Saudis.
The Saudi were still our allies. Maybe Obama has pushed them permanenatly into Moscow arms.
Under Obama we have stopped Israel from attacking Iranian nukes a few times. The USA has not been fighting Israel’s wars. The opposite is true. It has been preventing Israel attacks against Iran.
Israel is on our side and should be supported same as Saudi Arabia. This is totally negated under Obama-Kerry. Instead we thrown in with Iran by easing sanctions for getting absolutely nothing in return. The Obama program is to screw your historical allies and cave into America’s rivals and enemies.
recent Iranian statements have ridiculed us saying we caved in, in these recent negotiations. Muslims can smell weakness like a tiger does.