Op-Ed: Senate Resolution 65
By Geoffrey Cook, TMO
San Francisco–(U.S.) Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican representing South Carolina [R-S.C.]) entered a (non-binding) Senate Resolution 65 (S. Res. 65) in the First Session of the 113th Congress on February twenty-eighth 2013. Why this is important to American Muslims is Section 1:8:5-9 which encourages the President to order an attack upon Iran if Israel does so first:
(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is 5 compelled to take military action in self-defense, the 6 United States Government should stand with Israel 7 and provide diplomatic, military, and economic 8 support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its 9 territory, people, and existence.
Now, a â€œnon-bindingâ€ Resolution is not Law, and the Executive branch of the (U.S.) government does not have to follow its dictates, but it sends a clear message to Iran that the Legislative branch of the government, and, therefore, a majority of the people who elected those legislators are hostile, and hold antagonistic intentions against that Islamic Republic when the (U.S.) President with the Executive branch following has committed themselves to finding a way out of this imbroglio if possible. S. Res. 65â€™s passage would most probably preclude a successful negotiation.
It must, also, be remembered that elements of the Persian Revolutionary Guard believe that the American, NATO and Gulf States posturing and threats against their nation are real, and are advocating a preemptive strike upon Israel.
This most certainly would push Washington, Brussels, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi headlong into a massive War in â€œdefenseâ€ of the ultimate aggressor, Tel Aviv.
One of the things that is most shocking to me, after I received an e-burst from Berkeleyâ€™s progressive Rabbi Michael Lerner — who has recently written a reasonable book on finding peace within the Levant, that my junior Senator from California, Barbara Boxer — the most liberal person within the upper House â€“ had signed onto the reactionary South Carolinianâ€™s most dangerously provocative Resolution. At Lernerâ€™s recommendation, I endorsed a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer along Michaelâ€™s suggestion and to my senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, who has come a long way from 2006 when she stood on a roof of a car in this City stoking up the crowd against Hezbollah. She is now standing firm with the President in his policy of negotiation.
The next day, I received Professor Martin Hellman (emeritusâ€™) of Stanford Universityâ€™s important blog, Defusing the Nuclear Threat, in which h expressed his absolute shock that Ms. Boxer, his Senator, also, had betrayed us on this issue. He enumerated the full list of co-signers, and admonished his readers to write to their Senator(s) if s/he was a co-signer; so, I sent a second letter.
Much of what follows come one of these two letters.
Succinctly, THIS IS ISRAELâ€™S WAR AND NOT OUR (the U.S.â€™) OWN! Therefore, to use the language of the Simla Agreement over Kashmir, bilateral issues should be settled bilaterally.
(Unfortunately, the Gulf War of 1990-1991 and the Iraq War of 2003-c. 2012 were in Tel Avivâ€™ benefit and not in the District of Columbia (D.C.). The Metropolis must reign in its client and not the other way around for D.C.â€™ concerns must revolve around all of its friends in the region â€“ Arab and non-Arab, or else it will find very few allies left.) Since Iran does not pose an imminent threat to the United States at this time, North America should still be available to do all in its power diplomatically.
Further, Israelâ€™s nuclear arsenal must be taken into account. It is the overwhelming area-wide threat. Pithily, ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM; NOT IRAN! If any nation can consider itself to be a confidant with the former country, it must insist that Tel Aviv deactivate enough of their warheads to meet the actual threat at hand before a nuclear-free Middle East can start to be addressed.
I emphasized to Professor Hellman that it is as important to â€œpat the backâ€ of a public official who is doing the right thing â€“ particularly when you know it is hard for them to do so. Thus, I wrote to Senator Feinstein, too, that I knew how hard the pressure must be on her because of her heritage, and to please, hold onto her position of diplomacy at this time. A massive war with Iran and her allies, which would be the whole Shiâ€™ite world, is not in the United States or, strangely, in Israelâ€™s security (or, for that matter anyone else in the zone) at all!
For a settlement on this issue, Israel has to make some concessions to convince Tehran it is not threatened.
Israel is, presently, over-armed for the threat at hand, and must fall back to a â€œreasonableâ€ (nuclear) defensive position for peace to be achieved!
I Urge you to write to the co-signers of S. Res. 65 below:
The Senators (Mr.) GRAHAM, the author; (Mr.) MENENDEZ, (Ms.) AYOTTE, (Mr.) SCHUMER, (Mr.) CORNYN, (Mrs.) BOXER, (Mr.) RUBIO, (Mr.) CASEY, (Mr.) HOEVEN,
(Mrs.) GILLIBRAND, (Mr.) KIRK, (Mr.) BLUMENTHAL, (Mr.) CRAPO, (Mr.) CARDIN,
(Ms.) COLLINS, (Mr.) BEGICH, (Mr.) BLUNT, (Mr.) BROWN, (Mr.) WYDEN, (Mr.) PORTMAN, (Mr.) MANCHIN, and (Mr.) LAUTENBERGwho submitted the resolution; to the (U.S. Senateâ€™s) Committee on Foreign Relations. If you are citizen of our reside in the United States, and any of these individuals represent your State, please contact them, and ask them to withdraw their names from this ill-advised document, and, if it reaches the full floor of the upper house to vote against it or to abstain from it.
On the other hand, if your Senator does not appear as sponsoring this document, thank them for not furthering the ill-conceived War against Islam left over from the Bush Administrationâ€™s Dark Ages.