- 28 October 2010
-
- 2 Comments
-
-
-
- Congress, Election 2010, Neo-Con Agenda, Nuclear file, US-Iran War
The Danger of the “Nuclear Capable” Standard
28 October 2010 Posted By Jamal Abdi
How difficult would it be for a President to drag us into another war in the Middle East based on questionable justifications? According to George Friedman of Stratfor, it would be quite easy:
The most obvious justification would be to claim that Iran is about to construct a nuclear device. Whether or not this is true would be immaterial. First, no one would be in a position to challenge the claim, and, second, Obama’s credibility in making the assertion would be much greater than George W. Bush’s, given that Obama does not have the 2003 weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle to deal with and has the advantage of not having made such a claim before. […] The Republicans could not easily attack him. Nor would the claim be a lie. Defining what it means to almost possess nuclear weapons is nearly a metaphysical discussion. It requires merely a shift in definitions and assumptions. This is cynical scenario, but it can be aligned with reasonable concerns.
Friedman is right on one thing: while many policymakers intone the need to keep “all options on the table”, there is no real standard for what the US considers “unacceptable” in terms of Iran’s nuclear progress. Previously, President Bush warned that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons “knowledge” it would trigger World War III. Now, the current standard being thrown around in Washington is that a “nuclear capable” Iran is unacceptable. But it is unclear what “nuclear capable”, actually means. In fact, it is a completely malleable term—a placeholder—for which the “definitions and assumptions” could be adjusted at will. Thus, there is an enormous vacuum that could be exploited by a President—or, more likely, a Presidential candidate or an opposition Congress seeking to paint a President into a corner.
Ron Kampeas writes in JTA on how a new Congress may press Obama for military confrontation and undermine engagement efforts with Iran (via Lobelog):
[GOP House Minority Whip Eric] Cantor, in his interview with JTA, emphasized that Obama must make it clear that a military option is on the table.
Congress, however, cannot declare war by itself, and while a flurry of resolutions and amendments pressing for greater confrontation with Iran may be in the offing, they will not affect policy — except perhaps to sharpen Obama’s rhetoric ahead of 2012.
Should Obama, however, return to a posture of engagement — this depends on the less than likely prospect of the Iranian theocracy consistently embracing diplomacy — a GOP-led Congress could inhibit the process through adversarial hearings.
One problem with Kampeas’ piece, however, is that Congress is the very branch of government that can declare war. But short of such a drastic step, the power of the gavel means Congress could have plenty of options to confront Obama on Iran and help define the terms of the debate as we enter the 2012 Presidential campaign. A Congress itching to portray the President as soft on national security could unilaterally declare, with the help of a few hearings, that Iran is imminently “nuclear capable”. And in lieu of a real standard for what that means, we could start hearing familiar echoes that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”.
2 Responses to “The Danger of the “Nuclear Capable” Standard”
Regarding declaration of war – just as a technical matter, Congress *can* declare war – but it’s meaningless without an executive being willing to actually follow through. Furthermore, if Congress were to completely fall off the cliff and declare war on Iran (note that most wars are fought these days without said declaration), it could probably be vetoed by the President, thus requiring a 2/3 majority of both Houses to override his veto – you’d never, ever get 2/3 of the Senate to agree to do anything at all short of adjournment in this climate – it’s hard enough to muster 60 votes right now, and will probably be even harder come January. So, combining the legal considerations, the fact that the President has near-plenary power over the armed forces, and the fact that the Senate is nearly entirely paralyzed, the likelihood of a declaration of war against anyone coming from Congress in our lifetime, short of the US being attacked by a state-sanctioned foreign army, is pretty marginal.
So Kampeas was technically wrong – he would’ve gotten that bar exam question wrong, had he given that answer. But as a practical, real-life matter? He was 100% correct – not only could such a declaration probably be vetoed, but the President could simply refuse to direct any related orders to the military.
Congress can declare war, but in the event that that Congress were to attempt to do so over the President’s objections, it would be met in public with a shrug and in private would likely lead to the resignation of the leader(s) of the originating House(s) of Congress.
DO,T FORGET THAT THE SHAH WAS OVERTHROWN BECAUSE THE WEST FEAR THE IRANIAN SUPERPOWER,SO LEST WE UNDERSTAND FROM WITH THIS CAME ABOUT CAN WE UNDERSTAND WERE WE ARE GOING.THE ISSUES WHICH YOU SHOW CONCERNS ARE GREATLY UNDERSTOOD.YOU AS IRANIAN HAVE TO FIND AWAY TO TALK TO THE GOVERNMENT AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS NOT JUST STAND BEHIND A GOVERNMENT AND ASK FOR THEIR HELP.AS FAR AS AN ATTYCK ON IRAN THAT IS THE LEAST OF MY WORRIES AND OF YOURS IT SHOULD BE.THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC SANCTION AND THE EFFECT ON THE PEOPLE YOU BE YOUR MAIN CONCERN.