Iran Strikes Should End In Regime Change, Senate Majority Leader Says, Ahead Of War Powers Vote

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has made the maximalist hawkish US case on Iran, saying that any authorized strikes should result in nothing less than regime change in Tehran.

"In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change," the leading Republican Senator said Thursday. "If you’re going to take some sort of action, I think you want to achieve a result that actually brings about the transformational change that I think we want in the region."

A big problem with this viewpoint, which ensures Washington stays in the business of 'nation building' and democratizing foreign lands (akin to the Neocon Bush era), is that almost all regional analysts say regime change is next to impossible through a purely aerial mission. Instead, this would require US boots on the ground - something the American people surely would not stomach, and which the Trump administration has pledged not to do time and again.

via Denver Gazette/Associated Press

"The President, I don’t think, to my knowledge, has made any decisions, but I think they’re gaming out what contingencies might look like and what's in our national security interests." Thune added, "Of course, first and foremost is to prevent them from having a nuclear capability but there are also other threats that they represent in the region."

Hawks in the senate smell blood in the water. For example Neocon Texas Senator Ted Cruz has argued that the Islamic Republic is at its weakest in decades, and now is the time for major action.

"The Ayatollah lost to Israel in the 12-day war. They are weaker. The regime is weaker than it ever has been. And what I’ve urged the president, do not miss this opportunity," Cruz told CNBC on Wednesday. "If the Ayatollah is removed from power, it will make America much safer."

Cruz does not go on to define just how Americans and the US mainland would be 'safer' if this happens- given Iran currently does not possess ICBMs capable of hitting North America. Even the WSJ agrees there's no missile threat to the US:

Iran would need to master significant technological challenges before it could field an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S. homeland, according to U.S. intelligence estimates and experts outside government.

The assessment raises questions about the Trump administration’s rationale for urgent military action against Iran, which looks increasingly likely barring a major diplomatic breakthrough.

President Trump contended in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday that Iran was working on missiles that “will soon reach” the U.S.

Experts say the formidable technical hurdles facing such Iranian ambitions give the two sides time to discuss a potential agreement to curb Tehran’s missile development. The Trump administration has highlighted the missile question in recent days, along with its longstanding insistence that Iran shut the door on uranium enrichment.

As for the prospect of Iran-sponsored terrorism, the history record doesn't bear out that this is an issue. In fact, while there's been plenty of Sunni/Saudi/Egyptian terror carried out on American soil over the last several decades (including 9/11) - one would be hard pressed to find a single example of Shia or Iranian terror attacks on American soil. The only case might be attacks on US diplomatic compounds during the Lebanese Civil War (in the 1980s, after which then President Ronald Reagan widely pulled out of that messy, complex conflict).

The hawks are looking for ways to fearmonger the US public into supporting military action against Iran, but so far it seems there's been a collective shrug from main street America.

Ahem... "has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years"...

In the meantime, House and Senate Democrats announced Thursday that they will force a vote next week on War Powers Resolutions to block President Trump from launching military action against Iran without congressional authorization, as required under the Constitution.

In the House, the measure is a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). Lawmakers never voted on what was initially introduced during the June 12-day war after a ceasefire halted the conflict. Khanna said last week he would bring the legislation to the floor. After an initial delay, Democratic leadership has now committed to moving forward with the vote.

* * * 

Trump's latest remarks on the build-up...

Please log in to post comments:  
Login with Google