Senate Resolution 65, by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), defies the
Constitution and the UN Charter and could sneak us into another illegal war —
maybe a world war.

It seems to say that if Netanyahu attacks Iran, “in self-defense,” Obama
should join his fight (Sec. 1 [8]). It does not authorize force or declare war (Sec. 2).
So we enter another undeclared, presidential war, like Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan, and Iraq.* If China and Russia then take action, as they have
threatened to do, World War III could ensue.

The Charter says UN members (e.g. the U.S. and Israel) must settle disputes
peacefully (Art. 1). It prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state…” (Art. 2). Parties to any dispute
likely to endanger peace “shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies
or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” (Art. 33). But the
first resort of S.Res.65 is aggressivewar.

The resolution says, with no supporting facts: “… Since at least the late
1980s, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in a sustained
and well-documented pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire a nuclear
weapons capability.” That recalls the falsehoods told to justify invading Iraq, e.g.
“Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon” (Richard Cheney, 9/26/02).

Fact: U.S. intelligence agencies consistently find that Iran has no nuclear
weapon and is not trying to build one. Israel, however, was reported to have
between 75 and 200 nuclear warheads (Arms Control Association, Nov. 2012).

Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, calls it a sin to have any nuclear weapon.
He says he is willing to talk with the U.S. president. When he first ran for
president, Obama urged, “Talk to Iran.” What is he waiting for? Isn’t it better to
talk before than after a bloody war?* Congress did not mention Afghanistan in its 9/14/01 resolution letting G. W. Bush fight whoever he
said aided 9/11. The Oct. 2002 Iraq resolution did not make the decision to wage war: It delegated to
Bush Congress’s power to decide.

The names below are the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations. Their respective states are listed. An asterisk indicates that the member
has signed as a cosponsor. Contact information is available through web sites like
CongressMerge.com and USA.gov.

Self-described as support for strong enforcement of sanctions, Senate
Resolution 65 transfers the “mushroom cloud” whopper to Iran, warning of the
“tremendous threat” posed to the U.S. and Israel by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear
weapons. It is an accusation based on no more evidence than George W. Bush et al.
had regarding Iraq.

Among some 1,600 words, it praises Israel; excoriates Iran for its human
rights violations (true but irrelevant), alleged aid to terrorists, alleged bomb
progress, etc.; and details Obama’s threats. Buried near the bottom is this clause:
Congress “urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military
action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and
provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of
Israel….” Militarysupport — there’s the rub.

It does not say who could possibly compelthe Government of Israel, i.e., the
hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to launch an attack on another
country, or how one nation’s attack on another could possibly be “self-defense.” That idea goes against international law, which considers it aggression. It is prohibited by the United Nations Charter, a U.S. treaty and thus part of our
law; and also by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty (formally the Treaty for the
Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy), under which Nazi
aggressors were executed at Nuremberg.

S.Res.65 strongly condemns “statements and policies” of Iranian leaders that it
says threaten Israel. Notwithstanding their anti-“Zionist” rhetoric, the record shows
that Iran (formerly Persia) is not an aggressive nation, having sought no conquest
for centuries.

But the resolution seems to commend President Obama for threats he made
against Iran. (Note that the UN Charter bans threats to launch war, as well as the
launching of war itself.) It recalls that 74 senators signed a letter to Obama last
December urging him to work with allies to form a coalition to attack Iran if a
“strike” becomes “necessary.” That should clarify what S.Res.65 means by
“military … support.”

It does not mention that Obama secretly ordered cyber sabotage of Iranian
computers controlling nuclear facilities (New York Times) and that Iran has
accused the U.S. and Israel of collaborating in the assassination of at least four
nuclear scientists in recent years (Financial Times).

While supposedly aimed at protecting Israel, the resolution could result in her
destruction. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently warned of retaliation against
Tel Aviv and Haifa if Israel attacked his country. If that happened, Obama might
carry out his own threats and plunge into another illegal war. Iran would become at
least his sixth battleground (after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen).

Conflict with Russia & China?

What if Russia and China got involved, as they have warned? Have the
senators thought that resolution through, or even readit through? In an effort to
protect Israel, they may be endangering her existence and the lives of Israelis,
Iranians, Americans, and others. Maybe they think that the collapse of Iran’s
dictatorial theocracy would result. On the contrary, an attack could unite Iranians
behind the regime like nothing else.

Seventy-six senators have signed as cosponsors since February 28, when
Republican Senator Graham of South Carolina introduced it. It is the most serious
war measure since the 2002 resolution ceding Congress’s constitutional war power
to George W. Bush for his blitzkrieg on Iraq. That resolution contained lies
alleging Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” support for terrorists, and aggressive
intentions toward the U.S.

Unlike a traditional war resolution, the present measure denies that it is “an
authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.” Rather, it expresses the
sense of Congress for what “the United States Government should” do — leaving
it to Obama to do the dirty work: launch another unconstitutional, presidential war,
and take the blame for the holocaust sure to result.

It waxes panically about a non-existent Iranian bomb, unconcerned about the
nine countries that possess a total of some 11,000 nuclear bombs. The countries
include the United States, with some 5,000 warheads and a history of dropping
such weapons on people, and Israel, with scores if not hundreds of them.

Israel and three other states with nuclear bombs, India, Pakistan, and North
Korea, never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The five other nuclear
weapons states, U.S., Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom, are all
Treaty members.

That document affirms “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty
to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination …” (Article IV [1]). So why the discrimination against one
signatory: Iran?

As far as we know, no lawmakers concerned about government economy
have questioned how all our war-making can be financed at a time when the
federal government lacks money for all its normal operations.

The text of Senate Resolution 65 may be read by clicking here:
S.RES.65.htm