The Iran Nuclear Deal Is ***The Law of the Land***

[peacefan]

https://ellison.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/us-house-makes-clear-that-there-is-no-authorization-for-use-of-military

U.S. House Makes Clear That There is No Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iran

May 24, 2018

Press Release



A bipartisan amendment introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and cosponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) passed the U.S. House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019

WASHINGTON —On Tuesday night, the House unanimously passed an amendment making clear Congress’s position that no law exists which gives the President power to launch a military strike against Iran. Today, that amendment passed the U.S. House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019.

“The unanimous passage of this bipartisan amendment is a strong and timely counter to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran deal and its increasingly hostile rhetoric,” Rep. Ellison said. “This amendment sends a powerful message that the American people and Members of Congress do not want a war with Iran. Today, Congress acted to reclaim its authority over the use of military force.”

“I am pleased with the inclusion of this amendment, which clarifies that the President does not have the authority to go to war with Iran,” said Congresswoman Lee. “Just weeks after President Trump shamefully pulled out of the Iran Deal, it is more important than ever to ensure diplomacy with Iran and in the region. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment and will do everything in my power to ensure we do not go to war with Iran.”

“The War Powers Act and Constitution is clear that our country’s military action must first always be authorized by Congress. A war with Iran would be unconstitutional and costly. The unanimous passage of Rep. Ellison’s amendment sends a strong message to Secretary Pompeo, National Security Advisor Bolton, and the Trump administration that Congress has the power to decide issues of war and peace,” said Rep. Khanna.

“This amendment’s historic passage affirms the fact that the American people do not want to go to war with Iran. Following the President’s misguided withdrawal from the JCPOA, the House of Representatives sent a clear message by passing this amendment unanimously: unauthorized war with Iran is not an option. The President must listen to the American people and return to diplomacy as the primary solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” said Rep. Schakowsky.

“Congress is sending a clear message that President Trump does not have the authority to go to war with Iran,” Rep. McGovern said. “With President Trump’s reckless violation of the Iran Deal and failure to get Congressional approval for military strikes on Syria, there’s never been a more important time for Congress to reassert its authority. It’s long past time to end the White House’s blank check on war and the passage of this amendment is a strong start.”

Read the amendment text here [PDF]

this is the second major hurdle for the Trump administration to go to war soon.

the first would be the reluctance of large parts of the NATO citizenry and government leaders to engage in another major regional war that can be avoided or put on hold with exactly the same kind of negotiations that previous US administrations performed.

personally, i am ambivalent towards regime-change on Iran by NATO.
the Iranian leaderships have called what they're doing in Yemen and elsewhere outside their borders a 'right'.
that makes them valid targets for regime-change in my eyes, along of course with the many voices inside Iran that are indeed openly very hostile towards Israel, who support the cannonfodder policy of supplying the Palestinians with weapons, etc, etc.

and now the Iranians are cracking down on peaceful protesters who complain about how Iranian leaderships' policies are creating more havoc for the Iranian economy.
https://mfanews.net/iran-says-security-forces-to-clamp-down-on-protests/


please note that this ammendment is for the *2019* defense budget. it doesn't say anything about the 2020 defense budgets and beyond, and that happens to be about as long as the US Trump Administration would need to mobilize international opinions against Iran's persistent "behavior".

 

[peacefan]

There is no media buildup towards war with Iran from the US or Israel, the pressure is to open negotiations about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imperialist ambitions. The only people who seem interested in war are people like you.

no first it starts with unreasonable demands and/or accusations coupled to a sanctions regime designed to derail an entire country.
oh, and the WMD claims are put forth by Netanyahu from Israel, but they are well-advertised in the US, and on some channels (Fox) i can imagine they do little fact-checking for such 'revelations about an Iranian nuclear weapons program' by the "unassailable" Israelis.

so i'm seeing your President Trump and his buddy Netanyahu embarking on serious war-mongering, extending far beyond words with that sanctions program (that happens to threaten the EU in case of non-compliance, as well).
the fact that i expose it and vocally oppose it, means i'm anti-war. i don't get how you missed that.

Well, you call yourself Peacefan but you call efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons "unreasonable" and you call efforts to stop Iran's imperialist wars across the ME "unreasonable". If you truly wanted peace you would not call these things unreasonable. Again, there is proof that Iran had a robust nuclear weapons program a few years ago, and there is substantial evidence that it still exists, but you ignore all the evidence and suggest it is all some Jewish conspiracy. What is your real agenda?

the principles of war that i primarily work with :
* the M.A.D. principle assures no major wars can even start, and prevents minor wars from escalating
* One side of the geo-political landscape should be stronger than all others, to help prevent minor wars and proxy wars from starting, escalating or lasting too long, and it should have free speech and free press rights to prevent abuse of that strength.
* Arms-races, which are perhaps inevitable, should be kept at a low monetary cost whenever possible. Russia ended up with breadlines[1] due to not winning an arms-race with NATO.

that all said, i support Israel's right to have nukes to defend itself against superior numbers from potentially again multiple Arab nations trying to wipe Israel off the map using conventional weaponry.

i am also of the opinon, always have been, that nuke weaponry should not proliferate through the Middle East. if Iran gets nukes, Saudi will want nukes, and Egypt most likely too.

So Iran may be able to launch stuff into orbit using their space program,
and with that has ICBM tech,
but i believe the line has to be drawn at Iran actually building a nuke ICBM *arsenal*, and at Iran conducting ICBM tests (accuracy to hit something on the ground), and at building actual nukes to be tested for explosive yield and performance.

if the line is drawn there, you prevent Iran and thus the other Middle Eastern nations from developing nukes at all.
now, why is that so important? simply because these countries are in upheaval, in constant battles with eachother, and incapable of keeping nukes stored securely.
nor can we trust the handover of an Iranian nuke by bought / idealistic Iranian personnel, to an Iranian proxy force to be used against Israel, perhaps in retaliation for something Israel 'recently' did with it's military,

i've also said in the past that the imperialistic tendencies of Iran should be handled differently than they are today. instead of causing economy-wide damage in Iran, sanctions should focus on just the Iranian leaderships and their rich (personally, like being locked out of travel to nearly every country on the planet, and no spare parts for their private jets anywhere on Earth, stuff like that).
that would make it a lot easier to win the media-war, win the international public debates surrounding the issue that these Iranian policies need to be addressed, and you wouldn't need to go to war over it.

a major regional war, like regime-change for Iran would bring, is something you want to avoid.
it drains the military and the treasury too much, *aside* from causing massive suffering.

so what i don't support is going to war over some WMD claims that are yet to materialize.
Iran doesn't have nukes stashed on ICBMs that can reach even Israel, yet.
And even if it does get nukes (somehow), Israel has got a solid M.A.D. principle guarantor that ensures no Iranian (leader or layman) is going to risk their entire population in an Israeli nuke counter-strike. They wouldn't even pass nukes to their proxy forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas, because those people would use it against Israel as soon as they get their hands on them. And then it's M.A.D. to Iran.

now, i don't want Iran to ever build a nuke-arsenal, nor meanwhile buy the schematics for the ICBMs and mobile launchers from North-Korea (secretly or openly), which could happen if we piss off both those countries too much.

so i'm against this particular call to arms by Netanyahu. as i have been in the past by the way.
ever since the WMD claims against Iraq and Saddam resulted in Iraqis having to survive and endure : famine, war, chaos and civil war, before Iraq finally stabilized into a country worthy of being called a strong peaceful independent Muslim democracy.

[1] bread-lines :
https://www.google.nl/search?q=bread+lines&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv7YjNuafbAhVG3qQKHdNOAu0Q_AUICigB&biw=894&bih=826

 

[peacefan]

India, a Key U.S. Ally, Plans to Ignore Trump's Iran Sanctions

Politics
India, a Key U.S. Ally, Plans to Ignore Trump's Iran Sanctions
By
Iain Marlow
and
Debjit Chakraborty
May 29, 2018, 8:20 AM GMT+2

• 
  India only recognizes UN sanctions, foreign minister said
• 
  Throughout previous sanctions, India purchased Iranian oil

India plans to ignore U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans to impose sanctions on Iran. Photographer: Chris Kleponis/Consolidated News Photos
President Donald Trump may have ordered the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, but one of Asia’s biggest oil importers -- and a key strategic ally of the U.S. -- plans on ignoring them.



India, a long-time buyer of oil from both Iran and Venezuela, only complies with United Nations-mandated sanctions and not those imposed by one country on another, said foreign minister Sushma Swaraj at a press conference in New Delhi on Monday.



“India will comply with UN sanctions and not any country-specific sanctions,” Swaraj said at an annual briefing, flanked by her two junior foreign ministers and India’s foreign secretary.



Swaraj later met Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, where they discussed Trump’s plan to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Swaraj said "all parties to the agreement should engage constructively for peaceful resolution of the issues," according to a foreign ministry statement.



Indian refiners had slashed purchases of Iranian crude to about half their previous levels when the United Nations, European Union and U.S. imposed a broad array of economic sanctions against Tehran. Nevertheless, India continued to import Iranian crude oil and was among the last six customers of the Persian Gulf nation.

What Sanctions?
Despite threats and curbs, Iran and Venezuela remain key oil suppliers to India

India's oil ministry



Purchases by India, which meets over 80 percent of its oil needs through imports, surged after the sanctions were lifted in 2016. Indian refiners bought a record 27.2 million tons of Iranian oil during the year through March 2017, a whopping 114 percent increase over the previous year.

Closer Ties
Washington and New Delhi have overcome Cold War-era tensions and grown much closer in the past two decades, in part due to U.S. strategic concerns about China’s growing influence in Asia.

But India’s post-independence history as a leader of the "non-aligned" movement -- developing nations not allied with the U.S. or the then-Soviet Union -- means New Delhi maintains economic relationships that raise eyebrows in western capitals, including with Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. India also ignored U.S. requests to close its embassy in North Korea, Swaraj said at her briefing.

In February, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani visited India and met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss energy cooperation and New Delhi’s investments in Iran’s Chabahar port.

Trump is also considering new sanctions on Russia, a historic ally and key supplier of arms to India, related to allegations that Vladimir Putin’s government interfered in the U.S. election.

 

[KissMy]

Saudi Paid Trump's Son In Law BIG MONEY to Kill the Iran Deal!