Iran Sanctions Bill Passes The House
Eric Garris looks at the House roll call on the Iran petroleum sanctions bill and discovers that just 12 voted against it and only three of these were Republicans. These were Jeff Flake, Jimmy Duncan and, of course, Ron Paul. That’s not exactly an overwhelming number from the opposition party, and notably missing from the list of nays was that heroic “antiwar” figure Jason Chaffetz. Of course, why would Chaffetz oppose imposing sanctions on Iran? He and many of his Republican colleagues are interested in starting a war with Iran, so imposing additional sanctions, no matter how counter-productive and doomed to fail, would hardly bother him.
To look at the larger policy question for a moment, it is remarkable that such an egregiously flawed sanctions measure can command the near-unanimous support of the House. There are reports that the administration has asked Kerry to delay the bill in the Senate until next year, so there will be some time before this becomes law, but given the depressingly broad bipartisan consensus behind this bill I don’t see how it will be defeated. This measure will do great economic harm to average Iranians, and it will help undermine whatever remains of the protest movement, and it will tighten the grip of leading members of the military and civilian establishments on the Iranian economy. Iran’s government will become more powerful relative to its people, and it will become even more resistant to making any concessions over the nuclear program.
P.S. I previously noted Chaffetz’s support for the Iran sanctions bill.
11 Responses to “Iran Sanctions Bill Passes The House”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To wonder why politicians do what they do from a purely logical point of view misses the point. Iran is a source of worry and frustration to the American public. And certain interests will see to it that the worry and frustration are hyped until war breaks out. Now if you were a small town lawyer lucky enough to warm a seat in Congress, would you not want to be seen taking a tough line in the run up to the inevitable?
As long as the US sees itself as the guarantor of oil flow in the gulf and the protector of Israel, we will never allow Iran to take it’s place as the dominant power in the region. For its part, the Iranian government, by it’s provocations and inflammatory posturing, might as well be an arm of AIPAC. Sooner or later they will strike the spark that triggers the conflagration.
Imagine how things might be if we were an atomic energy and coal gasification power, instead of the world’s oil addicted policeman?
Gordo – Iran is barely a blip on the mind of the American public. Certain interests fund seatholders in Congress to take a tough line. War with Iran is not inevitable, in fact, it’s unfightable. Our military could not fight it and they don’t want to. I wouldn’t even give it a thought until a new NIE says Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon.
Why is Iran’s place the dominant power in the region? If it wasn’t for us invading it’s eastern and western neighbors, it would have almost no power in the region at all.
A much truer statement is: “For its part, the American government, by it’s provocations and inflammatory posturing, might as well be an arm of AIPAC.”
Norwegian Shooter. The balance of power in the middle east has been between Persia and Turkey for most of the past thousand years. The Arabs haven’t been a major major factor for centuries. The rise of petroleum economics and the interference of foreign powers makes them appear stronger than they are. But for the imbecilic regime of the mullahs, Iran would be much more powerful. Too bad the Shah isn’t in charge anymore.
You’re right about the US government as an arm of AIPAC. But the aggressive, tone deaf actions of the the Iranian regime plays into the war mongers hands. From Drudge to Fox to the Times Iran is vilified over and over. Sooner or later the drumbeat of vilification will will prepare the public for military action. I wish it were not so.
Rep. Chaffetz is correct. The US should either go big or go home.
If you read what he actually said, he is no fan of war generally, but is very supportive of our troops and wants them to win, so why would you assume what isn’t the case.
Perhaps you should really read:
http://chaffetz.house.gov/2009/11/afghanistan-mr-president-my-recommendations.shtml
I try not to put words in the mouths of others, why do you?
Gordo – The Iranian President says some stoopid stuff, but what actions (not words) of the Iranian regime are aggressive to America? This blog has many posts explaining why Iran is acting rationally and defensively toward America’s and Israel’s aggressive actions. Do you disagree?
The public turned on Iraq in 2006, Afghanistan this year, they are not likely to endorse another in the near future that doesn’t involve a direct response to another terrorist attack. And the military hasn’t signed up for an Iran war, which is a prerequisite these days.
Without the Israel Lobby, would Congress have indulged in this folly? Our leaders would be capable of great folly even without the Lobby, but when it comes to Iran, the Lobby’s contribution to this dangerous idiocy is significant.
Shooter, the Iranian government has been active in our sphere of interest, namely the Western Hemisphere, especially with regard to Venezuela Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua and Brazil. They regularly make common cause with anyone who wishes to frustrate whatever we attempt at the UN. They interfere with free navigation on the Persian Gulf by detaining vessels. They trump up charges on American dual citizens traveling and residing in their country. They provided material and technical support to factions killing American troops in Iraq. And finally, they prosecute harmless American idiots like the teenagers who wandered over their borders recently.
I certainly disagree with the idea that Iran is acting in a purely defensive way. Of course the Israeli problem concerns them. But if Israel did not exist, they would still strive to drive us from what they see as their sphere. Indeed, when the Shah was in power, Iran and Israel and we were allies. That is precisely because we were not averse to Iran’s claim to supremacy in the gulf.
Do you think the military would mutiny rather than attack Iran? Hardly. and we have seen the American public go along with a lot of tom-foolery already. Never bet on the intelligence of the American public.
I’m no apologist for the lobby or for American misadventures in the Middle East. But that does not blind me to the nature of all the actors involved. The answer is to free ourselves from foreign oil addiction and to leave the middle east for the regional actors to sort out.
Gordo – your list of Iran’s activities pales in comparison to the Israeli threat to bomb Nantanz, our covert sabotage efforts within Iran, and our current and future sanction regime. Besides the Iraq part, it’s all small potatoes.
You know we were the Shah’s allies because we overthrew the previous government in favor of him, don’t you? The Shah was a US puppet, which is why the revolution was so explicitly anti-American.
No, not mutiny, it’s much more subtle than that. The NIE, Joint Chiefs’ briefings, convincing Pentagon staff, the retired general media stars, etc. are all saying no to an Iran war. The President wouldn’t launch a war – and a pre-emptive one at that – without this kind of support. And if our actions were based solely on the intelligence of the American public, I would sleep better at night. Our problem is that they don’t have that opportunity.
I completely agree with your answer, for the long term.
“If you read what he actually said, he is no fan of war generally, but is very supportive of our troops and wants them to win, so why would you assume what isn’t the case.”
It is annoying to have to repeat myself. Obviously, he is very supportive of aggressive policies towards Iran and wants to “take out” Iran’s nuclear program, which means he wants war with Iran. Afghanistan is the one military campaign that he has any trouble supporting, and he takes this view because he thinks the rules of engagement that the military commanders want to have are too restrictive. I have read Chaffetz’s words very carefully, which is why I don’t buy into the nonsense that he is “antiwar.” He is nothing of the sort, and it is tiresome to see people repeat this mischaracterization.
Norwegian Shooter. Thanks for enlightening me on how the Shah got his job. Unfortunately, you leave a bit out. The Shah got his job when the British deposed his father, who was also “The Shah.” The old man was allying himself with the Nazis so one never hears cries of moral anguish about that particular intervention. We and the British restored the last Shah to the throne after the Iranian Parliament fired Mossadeg who was bankrupting the country. He was a loyal ally of ours but sadly he lacked spine to hold on to his country. Fear of foreign intrigue is endemic in Iranian society but oddly, they still seem more afraid of the Brit’s than they are of us.
My point had nothing to do with the sins of Israelis. We can stipulate them. My point is that Iranian hubris and miscalculation are likely to provide an excuse for military air strikes of some other act on our part that would ignite a more general conflict.
Opps! That’s Mohammad Mossadegh, not Mossadeg.