It's always been easier for the United States to wage war than pursue peace

It seems that peace is the only foreign policy tool Congress has not ceded to the President. While Congress asks little to no oversight at all when it comes to the President waging war, they clamor and shout for the right to determine peace-agreements.

The recent framework deal made with Iran by the Obama Administration has revealed an astounding hypocrisy within Congress. While they give standing ovations to a foreign leader, they also seek to sabotage our leader in making a foreign agreement, one that could avoid another Middle Eastern war.

The problem with Congress and those who want to kill the Iran deal is that they inherently do not want a deal in the first place. They may claim that they want a deal, just not a “bad deal”, but they have yet to seriously define what a good deal on their terms would be. When pressed for details, they reveal two things. One: they have no valid concept of foreign policy. Two: they just want a war with Iran.

war with IranThe easiest explanation to a problem is usually the correct one. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have united to prevent a deal with Iran, because they don’t want a peaceful solution to the crisis. The hard reality is these guys want a war, nothing less than that, but you have to understand the interests at play.

The Republicans are always in lock-step with the policy of Israel, as are many Democrats. Israel is the Sacred-Cow to them, that must always be adhered to and never questioned. Bibi Netanyahu has been urging for war with Iran since at least 1992, and many of the Republicans and pro-Israel Democrats have been urging something similar. The ultimate goal is a war that will change the regime of Iran into something more palatable with neo-con interests. An Iraq repeat of monumental proportions.

The so-called “good” deal options put forward by Netanyahu and the neo-cons are essentially Iran surrendering its sovereignty as a nation. They say they don’t want a war, only on the condition that Iran surrenders its entire right to nuclear energy, allows inspectors to also monitor all of their military/manufacturing capacities, cease all productions of missles (offensive and defensive) and essentially demand its government withdraw all support for foreign groups.

Essentially, Iran has to become a vassal of the West in order for any deal to be reached. Who in their right mind thinks Iran would agree to terms like this? Also, how could they possibly demand Obama personally verify the fact Iran is not supporting terrorist groups abroad? Does Iran surrender its treasury to the IMF? Do all wealthy Iranians surrender their bank accounts?

These are not serious terms for peace, because the neo-cons know Iran will never agree to them. The alternative then, is war. These neo-cons also say that any peace terms should be enforced with constant threats of military force. Obviously this is not how one sues for peace. You negotiate. You give a little, they give a little, to reach a deal. The deal with Iran is good compared to the alternatives being floated around.

War with Iran will not be quick or easy. The people who say it would be are the people who said the same thing about Iraq years ago. Those who want to see this deal with Iran scuttled are not interested in peace. They want war.


  1. What about all the weapons sent to Iran by Saint Raygun? Saint Raygun even sent weapons to iraq to play both sides against each other. No wonder Iran hates our guts. As a nation we need to grow up and quit being war mongers.

  2. We still live in the shadow of Neville Chamerlain in the Munich appeasement in 1938. I’ll bet many of our hawkers can’t explain what happened there but the words compromise and concessions will be forever branded as appeasement.

  3. Another first-strike war with another middle eastern country over an agenda that is as vague and ambiguous as it is unachievable.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    • While I’m not necessarily a progressive fan, I’ve got to say here is, the man makes a point. Iraq, was given as example, but history shows many more, and even better examples. I’ve not done any homework on this so far, in order to “prove” this article as fact, or fiction. I will as time permits. Experience is telling me this may very well be true. Should It be shown to be false, I’ll call this person a lot more imaginative names, and in extra ordinary fashion than I’ve seen on these political posts.I believe this to be worth the time it takes to confirm, or deny.

Leave a Comment