The Rosy Future of Warmongery

If you read one story today make it "Obama Fights a Push to Add Iran Sanctions," by Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman. In it details are provided about the effort underway in the U.S. Senate to derail the newly-minted agreement between the P5+1 and Iran on its nuclear program.

Sixteen Democrats have joined with Republicans to put together 59 votes for a new sanctions bill designed to shut off all Iranian oil exports. Obama, who has never vetoed a bill before, is threatening to veto this one, and you have Senate Democrats saying that they can override a veto. Add to this a veto-proof majority in the House for a tougher sanctions bill and you get the correct idea where all this is heading from the Obama administration:

The White House has cast the issue in stark terms, saying that a vote for new sanctions would be, in effect, a “march toward war” and challenging those lawmakers who support the bill to acknowledge publicly that they favor military action against Iran. 

“It just stands to reason if you close the diplomatic option, you’re left with a difficult choice of waiting to see if sanctions cause Iran to capitulate, which we don’t think will happen, or considering military action,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.

Judging from the ensuing caterwaul of protest from pro-AIPAC Senators, the White House hit its mark. War is exactly what a tougher sanctions bill entails. Iran would walk away from the P5+1 negotiations. Existing sanctions would collapse as Russia, already in talks with Iran over an oil-for-goods agreement, would begin trading with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and China would not be far behind. Then Israel would have to put up or shut up. And shut up it will not, but neither will it attack Iran (one reason being Hezbollah) without the United States taking the lead. Leading to the unusual situation of a universally derided Congress with the lowest approval ratings since records of such a thing have been maintained attempting to lead a nation to war over the objections of a president who, though drifting dangerously into negative territory due to the implementation of his Affordable Care Act, is still much more popular than our dysfunctional national legislature.

Could Congress lead us to war? Yes, in a delusional act of self-annihilation. The public is close to 100% anti-war, as one would expect after the disastrous failed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; that was proven in the unsuccessful attempt at war with Syria. AIPAC lobbied heavily and Congress and the mainstream media dutifully fell in line, but not the electorate.

Any push for additional military adventures in the Middle East will only accelerate the erosion of what little support there is for our corporate duopoly. But given that it is a pay-to-play system, and those paying to play are paying for war not peace, expect more warmongery.