The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Latest Posts

Prof. Flynt Leverett Dissects Obama’s 'Insane' Commitment to Never-Ending Middle East War
Penn State University Professor and RPI Academic Board Member Flynt Leverett, as a panel discussion guest this week on CrossTalk on RT, dissected United States President Barack Obama’s “insane” commitment to “never-ending war in the Middle East.” Leverett also addresses the US government’s arming and training of what he calls the “mythical” moderate Syria insurgents.

19 September 2014read on...

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson Derides US Support of “Moderate” Syria Insurgents
RPI Academic Board Member Lawrence Wilkerson, speaking Monday with Ed Schultz on MSNBC, derided United States government support for “moderate” Syria insurgents, noting that you cannot sort out who you are bombing and who you are arming. Wilkerson, a College of William and Marry professor and former US Army colonel, warns that the so-called moderate Syria insurgents are aligned with ISIS and “like the mujahideen in Afghanistan earlier, they’re going to be turning their weapons at some point against us.”

16 September 2014read on...

Mainstream Media Hypocrisy: 'Where Are the Antiwar Voices?'
On CNN yesterday, the question was asked “where are the anti-war voices on TV?” I’ve pondered that question myself. Don’t you remember, at the outset of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the abundance of speakers who opposed these wars? You know, one major network had the popular “Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul Report,” while another provided us with the “Justin Raimondo/Angela Keaton” panel discussion. Programs like these presented us with minds from across the political spectrum: Bob Higgs, Chris Hedges, Paul Craig Roberts, Amy Goodman, Tom Woods, Glenn Greenwald, John Pilger, Jim Bovard, Karen Kwiatkowski, Anthony Gregory, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom DiLorenzo, Jacob Hornberger, Laurence Vance, and . . . well, you’ll recall the popularity of such people – and others of equal stature I have inadvertently overlooked – in their prime-time appearances on television.

15 September 2014read on...

Australia Senator, Greens Party Leader Christine Milne Opposes ISIS War, Warns of Blowback
In the United States, congressional leaders — both Democrat and Republican — have long supported the US war on ISIS. In Australia, though, there is some vocal opposition, including from Australia Senator and Australian Greens Party Leader Christine Milne.

14 September 2014read on...

Obama's Syrian 'Moderates' Sign Non-Aggression Pact with ISIS
In his address to the nation outlining his strategy to defeat ISIS last week, President Obama made three important points regarding Syria...

13 September 2014read on...

One Party Interventionist State — Ron Paul With Charles Goyette
The two US political parties are united in their dedication to foreign interventionism, Ron Paul told Charles Goyette in their weekly podcast.

12 September 2014read on...

Shorter Obama War Speech...The Top Five List
Here are the top five take-aways from President Obama's September 10 speech announcing a new, multi-year in the Middle East...

11 September 2014read on...

Iraq: Done; Libya: Done; Now for Syria! -- Daniel McAdams with Jay Taylor Radio
RPI Director Daniel McAdams is back with Jay Taylor this week to bring us up to date on the latest US intervention plans in Iraq and Syria, while recent interventions in Libya and Iraq continue to fall apart. Do they think no one will notice?

10 September 2014read on...

Dennis Kucinich: US Lying and Manipulating Fear to Justify War on ISIS
RPI Advisory Board Member Dennis Kucinich, interviewed this week on the Alan Colmes Show, emphatically argues against the United States military attacking ISIS. In particular, Kucinich explains that the US government is lying and manipulating fear to justify war on ISIS.

10 September 2014read on...

Peace and Prosperity

Senate Votes Unanimously Toward War Against Iran


Today the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of a Lindsey Graham resolution, S.Res.65, which "[s]trongly support(s) the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urg[es] the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation."

The legislation, as expected from a Lindsey Graham product, is full of misstatements, historical revisionism, and war-drum-beating hyperbole. Particularly revolting is the distortion and lies about Iran's not being in compliance with IAEA nuclear safeguards requirements and the irony of Graham's using Iran's refusal to implement UN resolutions as evidence of its rogue status. Also deceptive is the sleight of hand claiming that Iran pursuing a "nuclear weapons capability" is the real violation, rather than an Iranian failure to uphold its agreed upon obligation to not actually divert fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. It is a unilateral lowering of the bar, which is in fact itself a US violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Most alarming, however, is that this resolution contains among the clearest legislative language to date promising that should Israel decide to attack Iran, the US would back Israel militarily. It is breathtakingly foolhardy for the US Senate to give such carte blanche permission to any foreign country to attack another nation as it sees fit with the promise of the backing of the United States military. The move will likely embolden Israel to continue recent escalation of military action in the region and will likely propel Israel closer to an attack on Iran. In economic theory this is known as "moral hazard."

The resolved clauses of the resolution must be seen to be believed, so I reproduce them here (see especially the original point (8), which was apparently even too over-the-top for the Senators -- the substitute language is just as bad but it adds a layer of vagueness as a fig leaf):

Congress--
(1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;

(2) strongly supports the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation that President Obama has pursued with Israel and urges this cooperation to continue and deepen;

(3) deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;

(4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;

(5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;

(6) reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation;

(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to self-defense; and

[Struck out->] (8) 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 in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. [< -Struck out]

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

A meaningless statement is added at the end which likely guaranteed unanimous support:

SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

This last part is Congressional weasel language, as the point was not to declare war but rather to define the circumstances under which war would be authorized. Point (8) lays down those circumstances, which is a trap for any Senator who voted for this bill. Imagine if the criteria in point (8) are satisfied by an Israeli attack on Iran claiming self-defense. Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill.

This is an important vote.


What are you supporting?
When you join the
Ron Paul Institute
for Peace and Prosperity
You are supporting

News and analysis
like you'll get nowhere else

Brave insight on
foreign policy and civil liberties

A young writer's program
and much more!