perpetual war – Page 301 – Hellbound and Down

Israel’s Strikes on Iran Spark Growing Dissent in Congress

On Monday, June 16, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced legislation, a War Powers Resolution, to prevent President Trump from using military force against Iran without Congressional authorization. This will force all Senators to go on record supporting or opposing the following: “Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”

Sen. Kaine, a longtime advocate for exerting congressional authority over war, blasted Israel for jeopardizing planned U.S.-Iran diplomacy. “The American people have no interest in another forever war,” he wrote.

When Israel launched a surprise military strike on Iran last week, it did more than risk igniting a catastrophic regional war. It also exposed long-simmering tensions in Washington – between entrenched bipartisan, pro-Israel hawks and a growing current of lawmakers (and voters) unwilling to be dragged into another Middle East disaster.

“This is not our war,” declared Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a Republican and one of the House’s most consistent antiwar voices. “Israel doesn’t need U.S. taxpayers’ money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars. I vote not to fund this war of aggression.” On social media, he polled followers on whether the U.S. should give Israel weapons to attack Iran. After 126,000 votes (and 2.5 million views), the answer was unequivocal: 85% said no.

For decades, questioning U.S. support for Israel has been a third rail in Congress. But Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran – coming just as the sixth round of sensitive U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were set to take place in Oman – sparked rare and unusually direct criticism from across the political spectrum. Progressive members, already furious over Israel’s war on Gaza, were quick to condemn the new offensive. But they weren’t alone.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called Israel’s strike “reckless” and “escalatory,” and warned that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. into a broader war. Rep. Chuy García (D-IL) called Israel’s actions “diplomatic sabotage” and said, “the U.S. must stop supplying offensive weapons to Israel, which also continue to be used against Gaza, & urgently recommit to negotiations.”

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) was even more blunt. “The war criminal Netanyahu wants to ignite an endless regional war & drag the U.S. into it. Any politician who tries to help him betrays us all.”

More striking, however, were the critiques from moderate Democrats and some Republicans.

Keep reading

America’s Deception Strengthens Iranian Hardliners

“I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to ‘just do it,’ but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done…. Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!”

Trump made this post on the morning that Israel struck Iran. Expressing the belief that the devastating attacks on Iran would weaken Iran’s hardliners and push them to capitulate to U.S. terms and sign a nuclear deal, Trump said, “They should now come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late…. You know, the [hardliners] I was dealing with are dead.”

The belief that the strikes will weaken the hardliners and improve the chances of forcing Iran to accept a deal that eliminates their peaceful, civilian nuclear program is wrong.

As the strikes on Iran began, U.S. officials insisted that they were not involved in any way. In the first several hours, the only statement coming out of Washington was from the State Department. Though Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel had “advised” the U.S. of the action, he called the action a “unilateral action” and said the U.S. was “not involved in strikes against Iran.” Trump posted that “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran.”

But Israeli officials told a different story. Though Iran had long been planning for an Israeli attack if nuclear negotiations with the U.S. failed, they thought they were safe while talks remained alive and continued. They did not consider an attack just days before the next round of talks.

Israeli officials not only say that that was the plan, but that the United States, and Trump specifically, were part of the deception. Shortly after the strikes began, Israeli officials claimed that, while Trump and his team publicly opposed the attack, they privately gave a “clear… green light.” They even claimed that public reports that Trump had told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a phone call not to strike Iran, “in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack.”

This claim has not been confirmed, and the U.S. has denied it. It does appear, though, that Trump gave, if not a “clear green light,” then tacit approval.

Keep reading

Is Israel About to Do the (Almost) Unthinkable?

Iran’s massive Sunday night missile barrage was the biggest escalation since Operation Rising Lion began — but that’s bad news for Tehran.

In the first three days of attacks, the IAF reportedly had destroyed about a third of Iran’s missile launchers. Iran’s options for conventional military attacks were always limited, and those options shrink with every destroyed launcher or intercepted missile.

Looking at the broader picture, there’s good news and bad news.

The good news is that the IAF now operates over all of Iran with near-impunity. The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Israel “achieved air superiority over western Iran within 48 hours of starting its war.” That’s a “feat Russia couldn’t achieve in Ukraine” after three-plus years of fighting, the paper dryly noted.

In the 24 hours or so since, Israel seems to have extended its air superiority over the entire country.

Yesterday, the IAF struck an Iranian airbase at Mashhad, near the border with Turkmenistan in Iran’s far northeast. Iran had reportedly moved some of its aged F-4 fighters to Mashhad — which is about as far from Israel as anywhere in Iran — for safety.

Iran’s air force wasn’t much before Rising Lion. Now it’s even less.

Keep reading

Europe’s risky war on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’

The European Union’s latest moves (as part of its 17th package of sanctions against Russia declared in May) to target much more intensively Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and other vessels illustrate the danger that, as long as the Ukraine war continues, so will the risk of an incident that will draw NATO and the EU into a direct military clash with Russia.

The EU sanctions involve bans on access to the ports, national waters and maritime economic zones of EU states. Ships that enter these waters risk seizure and confiscation. It does not appear that Washington was consulted about this decision, despite the obvious risks to the U.S.

As part of this strategy, on May 15, an Estonian patrol boat attempted to stop and inspect a tanker in the Gulf of Finland. Russia sent up a fighter jet that flew over the Estonian vessel (allegedly briefly trespassing into Estonian waters), and the Estonians backed off — this time. In January, the German navy seized a Panamanian-flagged tanker, the Eventin, in the Baltic after its engines failed and it drifted into German territorial waters.

Sweden has now announced that starting on July 1 its navy will stop, inspect and potentially seize all suspect vessels transiting its exclusive economic zone, and is deploying the Swedish air force to back up this threat. Since the combined maritime economic zones of Sweden and the three Baltic states cover the whole of the central Baltic Sea, this amounts to a virtual threat to cut off all Russian trade exiting Russia via the Baltic — which would indeed be a very serious economic blow to Moscow.

It would also threaten to cut off Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, which is surrounded by Poland, from access to Russia by sea.

This is the kind of action that has traditionally led to war. The Swedish assumption seems to be that the Russian navy and air force in the Baltic are now so weak — and so surrounded by NATO territory — that there is nothing Moscow can do about this. However, it is very unlikely that the Swedes would take this step unless they also believe that in the event of a clash, Washington will come to Sweden’s defense — even though the EU and Swedish decisions were made without U.S. approval and are not strictly covered by NATO’s Article 5 commitment.

And despite all the hysterical language about Russia being “at war” with NATO countries, these moves by the EU and Sweden are also based on an assumption that Russia will not in fact lose its temper and react with military force. European policymakers might however want to think about a number of things: for example, what would the U.S. do if ships carrying U.S. cargo were intercepted by foreign warships? We know perfectly well that the U.S. would blow the warships concerned out of the water and declare that it had done so in defense of the sacred rule of free navigation — in which the EU also professes to believe.

Keep reading

It depends which side you’re on…

Iran and Israel are exchanging missile fire and drone strikes. This is either the existential struggle of the Jewish people made manifest, or Zionist warmongering that puts the whole word in danger of nuclear conflagration.