Israel

Yes, a blockade of Iran is an act of war

I take it back. Sorry, MJ. I blew that last one. What has possessed me to search for moderation like a thirsty man in a desert?

First of all, the original title of the previous post referred to a “boycott,” not a “blockade.” The latter, when enforced, is an act of war. The title has been corrected.

Our Teddy, as usual, got to the heart of the matter in his comment:

“So anything or anyone that leaves Iran will get inspected by the Americans, whenever the Americans feel like it? That means the Americans will claim the right to hop on board Iranian ships?

“Maybe that wouldn’t be an “act of war,” technically. I don’t know one way or the other. But it wouldn’t be a passive boycott enforced on American or European shores. It would be enforced by American naval officers and marines aggressiely [sic] patrolling Iranian waters.”

The only semi-positive news here is that the resolutions were non-binding.

8 thoughts on “Yes, a blockade of Iran is an act of war

  1. Take the next step then Dan and write that AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran, even if the resolutions are non-binding.

  2. Thanks for the correction, Dan. You are a good man.
    I am not an American hero! I am however infinitely more cynical about AIPAC than you are. Not that I’m necessarily right but, having worked there and knowing the organization well, I tend not to give them benefit of the doubt.

    This is not to say it was always the place it is today. I liked working there a lot and only left for a better job (more money!) at the American Jewish Committee, but I was fired from that job after six months for being TOO PRO-ISRAEL. I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times defending Israel’s role in Iran/contra — saying it was all Reagan/Bush and not Israel that drove the deal — and the American Jewish Committee (this was before it shifted right) fired me for insubordination.

    I recall that in the bad days following being fired by AJC, it was two AIPAC executive directors (Tom Dine and Morris Amitay) who told me not to worry. If I was out of work, AIPAC would help.

    But that was a different AIPAC. Then it was truly about Israel. Now it’s about power politics and Iran.

  3. “””But that was a different AIPAC. Then it was truly about Israel. Now it’s about power politics and Iran.”””

    What was the alleged motivation for AIPAC to allegedly abandon Israel and instead devote itself to “power politics and Iran.”?

    Was former DNC and AIPAC chair Steve Grossman allegedly involved in these alleged activities?

    How can MJ demonstrate that this alleged switch occurred?

    Are there any ex-employees of more recent (i.e., post-Reagan) vintage who agree with this assessment?

  4. “What has possessed me to search for moderation like a thirsty man in a desert?”

    Sounds almost Biblical. I bet you’re acting on the same impulse that makes people keep relating to a nasty uncle, knowing that sometimes there’s a good side to him. But then he gets drunk and beats up the dog. There’s no use trying to save or justify the creepy uncle, Dan. Give it up. You’ll feel better.

  5. Steve Grossman had nothing to do with it. The change occurred when Larry Weinberg, Bob Asher, Ed Levi Jr, and Bubba Mitchell (!) started running the organization, fired Tom Dine, and replaced him with Gingrich aide, Howard Kohr. Steve Rosen, the Likudnik Stalinist Reaganite, also played a big part.

  6. I agree with MJ Rosenberg.

    AIPAC is off the reservation. They have wedded themselves to the military industrial complex and the Apocalypse/Hagee crowd.

    They are the bureaucratic/lobby wing of War Inc. The good of the Israeli and American people have nothing to do with their activities.

    I disagree with Mearsheimer/Walt— we are not doing the bidding of Israel. We are doing the bidding of the allied war parties from Israel and the U.S.

  7. “””They have wedded themselves to the military industrial complex”””

    What’s that?

    “””and the Apocalypse/Hagee crowd.”””

    How so?

    “””They are the bureaucratic/lobby wing of War Inc.”””

    What’s that?

    “””The good of the Israeli and American people have nothing to do with their activities.”””

    What if AIPACs members believe that they are doing good, and Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas is acting wrongly? Admittedly that is the opposite of how you see matters, but AIPACs members should lobby for their own beliefs, not for yours.

    You can form your own lobby or political party to advance your own idiosyncratic views. If you fail to convince many, whose fault is that? Not AIPAICs.

Leave a Reply to paul malfara Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.