Guest Post: The National Attack Authorization Act?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The National Attack Authorization Act?

We all know that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve contained a now-struck-down provision to authorise the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil.

But did you know that the NDAA also paves the way for war with Iran?

From Dennis Kucinich:

Section (6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Section (7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment.

 

This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy and would guarantee that talks with Iran, currently scheduled for May 23, would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,” a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. This language makes such a negotiated solution impossible.

 

At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons “capability” could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.

 

The Former Chief of Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that this resolution “reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war.”

The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree  that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one.

But the bill clearly spells out its intent:

SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

Section 2 (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

 

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

 

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

As Kucinch notes:

This is an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. It ignores the warnings of both current and former U.S. top military brass who have spoken in opposition to the use of military force against Iran, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. A February 2012 poll demonstrated that less than 20% of the Israeli public supports an Israeli strike on Iran if approved by the United States. Congress must avoid the same mistakes it made in the Iraq war and reject any language that can be construed as authorizing war against Iran.

It seems like the framers of the bill are exceptionally keen on striking Iran as quickly as possible. Maybe they are receiving lots of money from defence contractors?

Unsurprisingly, the biggest Congressional recipient of donations from defence contractors was Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the armed services committee who also happens to be the sponsor of the NDAA:

The fact that Ron Paul is the number two recipient is a sign that not all defence contractors are keen to hit Iran. But some are.

Still, even though the bill hints very strongly toward it, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. Congressmen might be hungry for a war but the military — already overstretched — isn’t. Admiral Fallon was reportedly the force that kept Bush from hitting Iran, and it would not be surprising to see the Pentagon put up fierce opposition to a future war with Iran. It would be a long, expensive war, with the potential of massive negative side-effects, like dragging in other regional powers, disrupting global trade, and squeezing the US economy by spiking the oil price.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ned Zeppelin's picture

"Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one."

Then, if true (and who knows if it is), why do they continue to enrich uranium to +20%?  Would not make sense. If they are enriching to those levels, they are intent on building the Bomb.  If not, they are not.  

So the question is, are they, or are they being "framed?"

john39's picture

20% has legitimate research and medical uses.  besides, since when do the worlds two biggest terrorist states (israel and the US) get to dictate who gets to develop nuclear weapons or energy.  Frankly the world would be a safer place if Israel had to worry that its neighbors might have a nuke.  Maybe, just maybe, isreal would then abide by international law, respect human rights, and cease and desist from stealing more palestinian land and killing more palestinians.

Popo's picture

Well, to be fair (while your underlying sentiment may be valid) Iran did sign the NPT and in exchange for which they received nuclear technology. So they *are* bound by contract which they entered into freely, and have benefited from already. (which is why they have to submit to inspections by the IAEA in the first place)

You can make the argument that ere are legitimate uses for 20% enrichment -- but this is about signed agreements.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

This is all a smokescreen. There is no way that we will attack Iran. It has been the consistent policy of the US government to support fundamentalist Islamic states, and attack secular ones. Look at the last 35 years of history and tell me I'm wrong.

The more interesting question is, why?

Popo's picture

Not sure that thesis holds water. Jordan? turkey? Egypt? Pakistan?

And was Libya fundamentalist? not in my book. It may not have been liberal democratic, but it certainly wasn't a theocracy.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Iran will soon be the only country that does not need street lights... because it glows in the dark.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Egypt-- secular state under Mubarak. We helped overthrow him, now it is becoming fundamentalist.

Libya-- secular state under Ghadafy. We helped overthrow him. Now it is turning fundamentalist.

Iraq-- secular state under Hussein. Overthrown, now fundamentalist.

Syria is the next secular state that will be targeted.

john39's picture

Uncle gorilla needs enemies to keep the sheeple in line.  the red scare is over.  so now every muslim on earth is out to destroy western "culture" (whatever that means anymore)...  never mind that radical islam was created by the CIA/MI6/Mossad...  and that most muslims consider Jesus one of God's greatest prophets.  they are the enemy.  /sarc off.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

But it is the fundamentalist Islamics that are the threat...and yet we are going after the secular Arabs instead.

WHY?

Ident 7777 economy's picture

 

 

 

Buckaroo Banzai

" But it is the fundamentalist Islamics that are the threat...and yet we are going after the secular Arabs instead.

WHY? "

 

I assure you, is has NOTHING to do with the attention and political capital paid by BHO to the fundamentalist Islamics or his Muslim upbringing and indoctrination at an early age.

 

Nothing to do with that at all.

 

I assure you.

 

 

Think for yourself's picture

Well first of all the fundamentalists are not the threat, but rather the Emmanuel Goldstein created out of geopolitical maneuvering. Anyways, moving on.

If you know how to ask the right questions you have probably already found the answer, so it sounds like you're asking a rhetorical question.

Still, in Hegelian dialectics, you need to shape your opposites (i.e. radicalise the islamists) in order to control the thesis, antithesis, thus dictating the synthesis that will come out of it. This might be why the "international community" is keeping pressure on Iran, although I doubt that the fact that Iran is already fundamentalist would immunize it from attack.

After all, they put in the Shah to destroy the liberal democracy, and when the population turned against the americans for their interference, the general climate was high-jacked by Khomeini, believed to be a CIA plant, turning the country to an islamist theocracy. If Iran gets too far out of line, they could very well decide to attack it, helping polarize the country further, re-establishing dominion over its resources and making sure that their puppets stay in place.

Have you ever noticed how much Ahmadinejad is demonized but Khomeini not that much? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

john39's picture

nailed it. 

moreover, the invisible hand conrols the terrorists... they have no fear of radical islam taking over the world.  radical islam is just today's version of emmanel goldstein.  pure fictional threat.

One World Mafia's picture

The NDAA ruling will be appealed after the elections. There would not have been so much pressure to pass an amdt to take away your right to file for habeas corpus the moment you are in custody and make you wait 90 days. Pair that with the NDAA provision allowing transferring you to a foreign govt - out of US custody - and you never will get that habeas corpus relief because you will have been disappeared.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Yea he nailed it alright!

There are no attacks by state funded allah against America.

They are all imaginary.

Those folks in Iraq, they got funding and arms from allah not from Iran and Syria to attack the US.

Just ask any old local islamic brotherhood.

Aslam Alekem brothers, you not fooling anyone ,anymore not really sure why keep putting forth the effort.

Everyone knows, want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet?

Head to muzzieville. If lucky, maybe can find a good stoning to attend.

 

Think for yourself's picture

I didn't say they are imaginary. I said it is an Emmanuel Goldstein crafted out of clever geopolitical maneuvering (I left out psyops, but this should be obvious).

Just in passing, 1984 never reveals whether Goldstein exists or not, although we learn that the Party helped in the elaboration of its book.

Fundamentalist islam is a number one public enemy, culturally speaking, which has been crafted by the west just as much as Osama Ben Laden was as a litteral Goldstein. It is being used as one of the threads weaving the veil of an fake world narrative, it is no more than a scarecrow against which to define oneself in the process of historical dialectics.

What I meant by that is that fundamentalist islam is a fire that has been setup, kindled and feeded by the very institutions that supposedly oppose it. Through wars, black ops and not-so-hidden political intrigues, the "international community" has forced islam to polarize itself and take up the role of an enemy. As somebody mentioned upthread, the West also has a long history of warring against secular democraties in the middle east, while making friends with royal families heading feudal regimes (for whom radical islam is a tool to retain power, as moderate islam does not support royal bloodlines).

The West has kindled that fire, brainwashing the western sheeple with both crude and elaborate psy-ops, implanting the antagonistic feelings (which you harbor) in the collective unconscious of entire generations. The fire was fed, when these prejudices had the opportunity to manifest themselves, in the treatment we administer to muslims. Just think about the way the west behaved in Afghanistan, where killing 50 innocents in the name of targeting a single suspected military target was simply matter of course.

Ok, so in the backstage Iran probably does all it can to defend itself from the invading empire (note: even if it means protecting the integrity of its neighbors through black ops, it is still defensive, not offensive as the west has been). So what? Have you ever asked yourself why? How did Iran get its anti-american stance? Who provided training to its black ops people?  Which agencies are still basically acting as consultants for Iran, or for Pakistan's ISI? Where do the weapons that enter the region come from? Who keeps poking the ants' nest?

By not asking these uncomfortable questions, you are being a good little matrix dweller. Unexamined official positions are used to justify crimes against humanity, wars of aggression against innocent peoples abroad and the spread of a totalitarian state at home, but you stay blind to these atrocities - even worse, you even feel justified and self-righteous.

So get the fuck off your high horse. To be fair, if I want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet, I come here and look at your posts. You often voice the most conceited generalizations and opinions I've had the chagrin to hear in months, even though I hang out in some of the cesspools of the internet.

You let yourself be defined by the ideas that the slavemasters planted in your mind. Muslims, be they fundamentalists or not, are living, breathing humans, before anything else. But when you look at them, you only see the ideology that you think they represent, which appears to be antagonistic to yours, and at that point you have forgotten their humanity. Maybe you would be interested to see where your conditionning about islam comes from? They've been messing around in your head for a long time.

fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

So the vast majority of Muslims living in Islamic countries are opposed to their governments which demand the prohhition of Bibles and other religous holy books.

These same peoples wish to end Sharia legal frame works?

They do not seek to convert non=believers by threat of death?

yeah nothing at alll to be afraid of. nothing at all

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Looks like you were hitting the paranoia kool-aid pretty hard over the weekend.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Think for yourself said:

Muslims, be they fundamentalists or not, are living, breathing humans, before anything else. But when you look at them, you only see the ideology that you think they represent, which appears to be antagonistic to yours, and at that point you have forgotten their humanity. Maybe you would be interested to see where your conditionning about islam comes from?

Xkwiseetly Panefool Rectal Itche knows where his conditioning comes from. He's an izzie firster, so his paycheck and conditioning come from the same source.

Nikao7's picture

Think For Yourself,

 

SPOT ON

Element's picture

 

Everyone knows, want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet?

 

The US Treasury and FED?

caconhma's picture

The USA is racing against the time. I mean against China and a rapid decline of the US$ reserve currency status. As for euro, for all practical purposes, it has so many problems that its future status is very murky.

As of today, using US$ as a reserve currency, the USA maintains a superpower status and endless benefits coming with it. However, China Yuan as a reserve currency, backed by gold, together with many bilateral agreements inside the BRIC club and with Japan will drastically reduce US$ reserve status.

The USA has shown for a quite long time that it has very little respect for the international Law and obligations. Consequently, America does not need any justification to starts a war and to invade Iran. America behaves as an international outlaw. The only reason why America has not done so is the fact that something prevents America to do so.

Presently, America is trying to subdue Iran without using a military force. However, as long as China and Russia are not going alone, it will not work. Consequently, America will have to evaluate possibilities to get involved into an Iranian adventure. There are many unforeseen consequences:

1.   China is not that stupid to figure out that this adventure will have very grave consequences for China vital national interests making China dependent on bandit America for natural resources vital to its survival. It may lead to a direct confrontation with China.

2.   Russia is too weak and disorganized internally to do much (like in a case of Libya).

3.   Iranian’s response to an American aggression is also very unpredictable. It is obvious that the Iranian Ayatollah regime will not physically survive with any kind of surrender. Consequently, Iran might fight back very hard against America, Israel, and America oil vassals in the region.  There is no way America can occupy a 90-million mountain country like Iran without having a strong 5th-collum it doesn’t have.

4.   The historical fact. After the WWII, America lost wars in N. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are no guaranties America will be successful in Iran without using nuclear device. But then, it will be a totally new world America might not like to be in.

PS

America oligarchy has been able to remove Dennis Kucinich from the American political life. He was removed from the Congress.

 

Jake88's picture

The US will most definitely attack Iran. And if anyone is surprised when they do it will be because they weren't paying attention.

Mitzibitzi's picture

Plus the US and, IIRC, UK, France and Russia have all already offered to supply Iran with material enriched to 20% and beyond, as it does indeed have valid non-military uses. Maybe the terms of those offers were simply too limiting for Iran to want to take any of them?

Though, more realistically, developing a small number of simple, easily maintainable fission bombs for deterrent purposes makes sense from the 'don't fuck with us!' perspective. I don't imagine for one minute that they are seriously thinking about building a nuke and actually using it on anyone.

john39's picture

leaving yourself depending on western powers for nuclear fuel sounds a lot like trusting MF Global with your cash...

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

kind of like leaving oneself dependent on cavemen for fuel?

Bringin It's picture

The US of A shot down the foreign enrichment agreement brokered by Turkey, between Brazil and Iran.  This shows that enrichment is not the issue.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/17/the_turkey_brazil_iran...

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Popo said:

Well, to be fair (while your underlying sentiment may be valid) Iran did sign the NPT and in exchange for which they received nuclear technology. So they *are* bound by contract which they entered into freely, and have benefited from already. (which is why they have to submit to inspections by the IAEA in the first place)

You can make the argument that ere are legitimate uses for 20% enrichment -- but this is about signed agreements.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, because Iran is in compliance with the NPT.

As far as signed agreements go, the UN sanctions against Iran are themselves in violation of the UN charter. Whatever this is about, it is most certainly not about signed agreements.

 

Ancona's picture

All of this saber rattling is beyond disconcerting. The Persians have historically done nothing more than defend their own borders. Look back through history and this statement can be easily confirmed. Ahmadinejad's [sic?] rehtoric aside, Iran no more has the resources to sustain an attack against Israel than Libya did. If we start a war in Iran, it will be the last war we ever wage. China and Russia have already sided with Iran, and will most likely back them with arms and equipment in the event of an attack.

john39's picture

almost as if some small third party parasite country has decided that its time to execute its host and move on to another by inducing the host (USA) to start a final war that will destroy the enemy of the parasite, but will also cause the host to implode... 

tamboo's picture
Israel rejects call to join anti-nuclear treaty | Reuters

May 29, 2010 ... "As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this conference, which has no authority over Israel," the Israeli ...

 

Symington Amendment

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

The Glenn Amendment (Section 670) was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

 

j.tennquist's picture

Ahmadinejad rhetoric aside.   Very funny.  Pity that the rest of your post is not as humorous.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the
Islamic countries due to their need.”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

"We've never been anti-Semitic."

(just a few Ahmandinejad quotes from thinkexist.com)

This is not offered in defense of Israel's military stance but offered to the Neville Chamberlain mentality of many who insist that all this is just heated rhetoric that has been lost in translation.    So was Mein Kampf until the invasion of the Sudentenland and the Nazi attack on it's great ally Russia.  It was all there in print, had people paid attention.

It's only reasonable to take the man at his word rather than assume he doesn't mean what he says, or is that too rational for you all?


john39's picture

most of those quotes are garbage...  bad translations courtesy of you know who.  No doubt Ahmadinejad wants the israeli regime to collapse, fail, dissappear ect.   As well it should, it is a racist, war mongering, fascist parasite that lives off the back of the American and European taxpayer.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Exactly, and the crowd started chanting down with the USA,

because they didn't understand farsi either.

It's amazing how the simplest, most backward people on earth can be so routinely misunderstood.

 

Think for yourself's picture

Hell, I'm american and I'd chant down with the USA. Lots of friends who'd do the same. Patriotic and all, we care about the american people, but we owe nothing to the USA as it exists right now - the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA corporation, i.e. the district of columbia.

Possible Impact's picture

The Persians have historically done nothing more than defend their own borders. Look back through history and this statement can be easily confirmed.

The Persians have historically done nothing more than redefine their own borders.

(just like all the other ancient kingdoms...)

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/neareast.html

Inthemix96's picture

There you go ancona

Spoil a perfectly good thread with common fucking sense.

Thank you, whoever you are.

DonutBoy's picture

No, 20% has no research or medical use.  It has one purpose.  Whether you believe America is a facist pig zionist tool, or the greatest force for the advancement of civilization in the last 50 years is not relevant to the decision that will be made.  An enriched uranium weapon in Iran will threaten the entire middle east's ability to export oil, and for that reason action will be taken.

RiverRoad's picture

"Let us not forget that Mossad,  the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one."

Ah but we need them to be building one now, don't we?  How else could we keep all those troops there?

cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Frankly the world would be a safer place if Israel had to worry that its neighbors might have a nuke.

When Israel says "Iran" they might as well be saying "Russia and China", since any attack against Iran would bring Russia and China in on Iran's side, as both have stated publicly.

So yes, Israel does have to worry about its neighbors-by-alliance having nuclear weapons, boatloads of 'em, more than Israel and America combined.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

When will the Islamic dicatorships respect international law, respect human rights and cease and desist from chasing all the non Islams out of the middle east?

Would that be about the same time that they step up the plate and admit they have been arming and funding attacks against the US for decades?

 

Think for yourself's picture

Right. The relative harmony between middle east jews, christians and muslims of the last few centuries was clearly broken by these dang cave dwellers. The zionists who barged in palestine and proceeded to appropriate the lands by all means necessary, to the point of genocide continuing to this day, clearly have nothing to do with it.

 

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Rectal Itche asked:

When will the Islamic dicatorships respect international law

When will the US respect international law? When will Israel respect international law?

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Uh yea sure it does and the sanctions against Iraq were working too right?

The food for oil program really wasn't corrupt and lining the French and Russian's pockets.

No listen to the local radical muzzie brotherhood, those sanctions were effective.

BTW I know the answer, the answer is never. 

How do I know? Because radical muzzie will never respected human rights, will never abide  by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the ME.

 

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Rectal Itche said:

No listen to the local radical muzzie brotherhood, those sanctions were effective.

So you're saying we should listen to the radical izzie brotherhood?

How do I know? Because radical muzzie will never respected human rights, will never abide  by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the ME.

Because radical izzie will never respected [sic] human rights, will never abide by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories.

MrSteve's picture

From what unnamed sources and under what authority-based disclosures / news releases/ press sources is this undocumented assertion about what Mossad, CIA, etc  "know" made?

I call pure bullshit.  Please, provide the sources.

How Tyler et al can support having this agitprop gorp put up as serious issues to consider is evidence of a slow news day or serious brain damage. Which is it?

Taking non-proliferation seriously because apparently no one in charge of contributors status here is.....

MrSteve

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

MrSteve said:

From what unnamed sources and under what authority-based disclosures / news releases/ press sources is this undocumented assertion about what Mossad, CIA, etc  "know" made?

The sources aren't unnamed and the assertion isn't undocumented.

I call pure bullshit.  Please, provide the sources.

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2012/01/25/us-israel-agree-iran-not...

LetThemEatRand's picture

I feel so much more free knowing this Bill exists.  What really warms my heart is knowing that someday drones adorned with little American flag decals will be killing children in Iran to further protect my freedom.