Resolution 580

I give you my word right now: If Barack Obama supports Senate Resolution 580, I will shut down this web site and cease to support him in any way.

Resolution 580, for those of you who are not familiar, is a non-binding measure that has gotten little media attention. But it is a big deal. The resolution calls for sanctions and a U.S. naval blockade against Iran - tantamount to a declaration of war. It is being heavily pushed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush decided that he wanted to start a war with Iran before he left office, this resolution would be all the justification he would need? AntiWar.com reports that the House of Representatives version of 580, Resolution 362, will likely come up for a vote next week.

From AntiWar.com: The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Preventing war with Iran is the issue in this election. Do you want gas prices to stop rising? Do you want taxes not to go up? Do you want the economy to recover? Do you want some of the civil liberties that Bush has taken away to come back? All of these things will be impossible if the U.S. goes to war with Iran (AntiWar.com has even more reasons that this war would be disastrous, if you need them).

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies: "An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term."

I haven't seen anything in the media about Obama's position on Resolution 580. The resolution has 19 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, and thankfully Obama is not one of them (neither is John McCain, surprisingly). But after his sorry performance before AIPAC earlier this month, I am a bit wary. I called and emailed Obama's Senate office today inquiring about his position on the resolution, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I'll let you all know if I hear back. Don't let me down, Barack.

I am Disappointed

First things first - congratulations Barack Obama. I look forward to voting for you in November, and I look forward even more to the work you will do come January to end the war, restore our civil liberties and bring honesty, transparency and new thinking to the federal government.

My joy over Obama's victory was tempered today, however, after I read about his remarks before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Obama had a chance today to tell the AIPAC crowd some truths that they don't want to hear - that the U.S. shouldn't support the building of West Bank settlements, for example - the same way he told Cuban-Americans last month that he would ease the embargo.

Instead, Obama used his speech to promise that the U.S. will join in any war that threatens Israel, needlessly antagonized the Palestinians by saying that Israel shouldn't divide Jerusalem and took a bellicose posture against Iran that would make George Bush proud. I'd like to hope that this is all just political posturing (not that that's alright), but I'm just not sure.

The only solace I take from Obama's speech today is that it wasn't nearly as bad as John McCain's AIPAC speech. Sigh.

Iran War Critic Fallon Resigns

What perfect timing: Just as I launch my blog, news events are helping me more than I could have hoped to make my case for libertarians to support Barack Obama. This week Esquire published a story that Admiral William Fallon, a critic of war with Iran, might be fired by the Bush administration to clear the military of dissenters in advance of an attack on Iran. Shortly after the Esquire article appeared, Fallon abruptly resigned.

War with Iran is a real possibility, and not just because of George Bush. John McCain has been one of the Iraq war's greatest supporters. He continues to say that it's going well. He supports a hard line on Iran and says that "there will be other wars" - presumably when he's elected president. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and refuses to admit that she was wrong in doing so. She voted to declare Iran's military "terrorists" (how can you not go to war with terrorists?). "We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said in a 2006 speech at Princeton.

Of the serious candidates for president, only Obama is not threatening war with Iran. Outlining his positions to the New York Times, Obama said that as president he would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran. He's taken a lot of heat from Clinton and McCain for saying that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran to try to avoid a conflict. He even introduced a Senate resolution saying that Bush does not have the authority to attack Iran.

Obama has never explicitly promised not to go to war with Iran, but I think it's clear from his words and actions that he is by far the least bellicose of the three remaining major candidates. And if this issue is not important to you, then you haven't been paying attention. Anyone who is at all concerned about the lives, money and good will wasted in the Iraq war should be 10 times as worried about a war with Iran.