Sen. Lindsey Graham to seek authorization for U.S. attack on Iran

3

Washingtonexaminer

Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president’s plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.

Sen. Lindsey Graham to seek authorization for U.S

Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force — not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn’t intervene.

“Look how we’ve handled the chemical weapons threat in Syria,” Graham said. “If we duplicate that with the Iranians, they’re going to march toward a nuclear weapon and dare Israel to attack them. So in the next six months, our friends in Israel are going to have to take the Iranians on, unless the United States can send a clear signal to Iran, unlike what we’ve sent to Syria.

“The mixed message and the debacle called Syria can’t be repeated when it comes to Iran,” Graham continued. “So here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to get a bipartisan coalition together. We’re going to put together a use-of-force resolution allowing our country to use military force as a last resort to stop the Iranian nuclear program, to make sure they get a clear signal that all this debacle about Syria doesn’t mean we’re confused about Iran.”

After Graham repeated his intention to draft a use-of-force resolution, Huckabee stepped in to make sure everyone understood. “Lindsey, I want to clarify,” Huckabee said. “You actually are going to seek sort of a pre-emptive approval to give the president a loaded weapon so that he feels the absolute freedom and support of a bipartisan Congress to take whatever action, including military, against Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?”

“That’s exactly right,” said Graham.

Graham knows that Congress, particularly the House, was moving strongly against authorizing Obama to use force in Syria. And that was after a chemical weapons attack that clearly violated the president’s “red line” in the Syrian civil war. Given that, congressional authorization for an attack on Iran seems far-fetched at best — a reality Graham seemed to acknowledge. “I’m going to need your help, Mike,” Graham said. “I’m going to need your audience’s help. Every friend of Israel needs to rally behind this endeavor. Israel feels abandoned after Syria, and I want to send a signal to Tehran and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that we’re not going to leave our friends in Israel behind. And to the ayatollahs: If you march toward a nuclear weapon, all options are on the table, including the military option.”

On Capitol Hill Tuesday, Graham repeated his pledge to seek a use-of-force authorization against Iran, although he sounded a touch less assertive than in his conversation with Huckabee. “I do believe without the threat of credible military force by us, the Iranians are going to just slow-walk,” Graham said, according to an account in the Hill. “So I’m trying to create the dynamic that there is bipartisan support for continued diplomacy, sanctions and the use of force as a last resort.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses

  1. KLAUS HEIL says:

    GRAHAM, I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR YOU. PACK YOUR BAGS AND MOVE TO ISRAEL.YOU ARE A PAID WARMONGER AND WE DONOT NEED YOU HERE.
    BETTER STILL, WE WILL DROP YOU OFF IN PALESTINE. THEY WILL TAKE GOOD CARE OF YOU IDIOT.
    I HOPE THEY VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE, RINOS OUT INTO THE PASTURE WHERE IT IS ALWAYS OPEN SEASON ON WHATEVER IS GRASSING.
    ISRAEL IS NOT OUR FRIEND YOU BRAINWASHED DIMWIT.
    THEY ARE THE CANCER IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
    STAY OUT OF IRAN, IT IS A SOVRAIN NATION AND ENTITLED TO THEIR NUCLEAR ENERGY, EVEN THE BOMB IF THEY CHOSE SO.
    THEY WOULD NEVER ATTACK THE US, BUT OUR OIL COMPANIES WANT TO CONTROL THE OIL AND THE BRITISH WANT THE OIL BACK BP LOST IN PERSIA.
    JUST BE AN HONEST MORON.

  2. 5 War Veteran says:

    Recall Lindsay Graham, He is a war criminal.

  3. Michael J. Marsalek says:

    Lindsey Graham & John McCain are so yesterday’s news. First of all, the U.S. is notorioius for bargaining in bad faith, last minute rule changes and using subtleties in the English language to justify an otherwise illegal agenda. The U.N. resolution George Bush used to illegally invade Iraq threatened ” serious consequences ” if Iraq had WMD or perhaps even a WMD program and / or was threatening to use them against the U.S. We have for some years known that George W. Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had no WMD or even any active WMD programs prior to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most informed and reasonably intelligent people consider: invading Iraq, overthrowing the Hussein government, capturing & killing Saddam Hussein, occupying Iraq for 10 years, destroying billions of dollars worth of public & private property, killing more than 100,000 civilians, seriously injuring millions more and causing tens of millions of Iraqis to flee the country to be more than ” serious consequences.” Now then: even though a chemical weapon was deployed on August 21, 2013, there is no conclusive evidence that Bashar Assad ordered or authorized its use. In fact, there is strong evidence to contrary. Only wars of self-defense or wars authorized by the U.N. Security Council are legal under international law. Furthermore, the war powers act does not authorize the president to commit any act of war without Congressional approval unless the U.S. is under attack or under a credible threat of an imminent attack. The Congressional war mongers would have preferred Obama to attack Syria without Congressional approval so as not to get blood on their hands. Whereas Obama didn’t fall for the trap, Obama atempted to put the legal responsibility for the illegal attack back on Congress. The problem is that even with Congressional authorization ( like Bush sought and got ) a U.S. missile attack on Syria is still illegal under international law. It is for this reason that Obama is pushing hard for a Section 7 U.N. resolution that can be misread into a U.N. authorization to attack Syria. ” Fool me once – shame on you. Fool me twice – uh um, you’re not going to get a chance to fool me again.”

Leave a Reply

© 2013 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.