Concerning a U.S. Attack on Iran, The New American Magazine reports:
" * * * However, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the deception and provocation strategy for war against Iraq preceded the 9/11 attacks. O’Neill says that from day one of the Bush administration, there was discussion only of “how” to effect regime change in Iraq and not “why.” No sooner had the Bush team taken office, O’Neill has stated, than “there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” He added: “It was all about finding a way to do it. The president was saying: ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
"Iran: Iraq Redux?
"It is no secret that the Ahmadinejad/Khameini regime in Tehran is malevolent and a major font of subversion and terrorism. This magazine has reported on that in detail over the past three decades. Moreover, it is clear that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. However, best estimates are that Iran is several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
"Are we now witnessing the same kind of deception, propaganda, and provocation to get America to support an unprovoked attack on Iran? The evidence overwhelmingly screams, “YES.” A successful repeat of that deception/propaganda/provocation campaign would spell utter disaster for the United States.There is no evidence of a grave and imminent danger requiring a pre-emptive military attack, especially since the consequences could be horrendous, and other more reasonable options exist. What are some of those potential consequences? Here are but a few:
"As already mentioned, an immediate widening and intensification of the violence in Iraq, as Shi’ite forces join the fray, resulting in a drastic increase in U.S. casualties.
"Rather than causing Iranians to revolt against Ahmadinejad, as the neocons claim, an attack on Iran will most likely solidify Iranian nationalism behind the regime, causing even moderate Iranians to rally against the invaders, as Saddam found out when he tried the same thing.
"The whole Middle East will be further destabilized; many oil fields, pipelines, tankers, and shipping ports in the region will be damaged, destroyed, or shut down; oil prices will skyrocket, and America’s economy will be greatly harmed.
"Russia and China will be the big winners in the region, as both powers continue to solidify their influence and play against America’s image as the imperialist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab superpower.
"Anti-Americanism and Islamic jihadism will be whipped into a new frenzy.
"Terrorist cells already allowed into the United States, due to our government’s suicidal refusal to protect our own borders while policing the world, will embark on a campaign of terror attacks.
"That’s just for starters. But it doesn’t need to turn out that way. We can, and must, prevail upon our fellow Americans to activate Congress to stop any plans for an attack upon Iran.
"How then can we protect against the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran? "As we have stated in these pages before, the key to that dilemma rests with our policies toward Moscow and Beijing. The facts and the experts attest that the Iranian nuclear threat has been and remains completely dependent on expertise, technology, and components from Russia and China. Without their continued help, it is unlikely that Iran could complete its nuclear WMD program. Yet the current Bush administration, like the Clinton and Bush Senior administrations before it, pretends that Russia and China are our “partners” in helping rein in Iran, North Korea and other “rogue” regimes. Putting all of the pressure at our disposal against Moscow and Beijing to cease this dangerous proliferation is the key to stopping the threat from Tehran.
"Since World War II, presidents have time and again illegally taken the United States to war — in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq (to name but a few cases) — and always with disastrous results. Our “law of the land,” the Constitution, wrote Founding Father James Madison, has “with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Alexander Hamilton noted that the president’s war powers “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral,” while the main power of the sword would rest with Congress. The Constitution grants to Congress alone the power: “To declare War”; “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” The people must not allow presidents to usurp these powers, or the Congress to allow or abet such usurpation."
Kenneth Stepp believes that Congress alone has the power to declare war, and that Congress should not surrender that power to any President, nor to any international organization. If it's not worth a declaration of war, it's not worth American blood being shed.