National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, preparing for war with Iran legislation

I've just tried the search engine and couldn't find any mention of this, so here is a link to the NDAA legislation planned for 2013-

docs.house.gov...

I'm surprised it hasn't been posted so far, if anything I feel it is important to see the Iran sections and how the US will prepare for military action against Iran. To give a few examples-

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to
2 Iran
3 SEC. 1221. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find5
ings:

(1) Iran, which has long sought to foment in7
stability and promote extremism in the Middle East,
8 is now seeking to exploit the dramatic political tran9
sition underway in the region to undermine govern10
ments traditionally aligned with the United States
11 and support extremist political movements in these
12 countries.

(2) At the same time, Iran may soon attain a
14 nuclear weapons capability, a development that
15 would threaten United States interests, destabilize
16 the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation,
17 further empower and embolden Iran, the world’s
18 leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provide it the
19 tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel.

(4) Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear
4 weapon is among the most urgent national security
5 challenges facing the United States.

So they are really taking it seriously now.

Sanctions aren't working-

(8) Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures,
21 sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran
22 have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon
23 its nuclear weapons program.

(b) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—It shall be the policy
4 of the United States to take all necessary measures, in5
cluding military action if required, to prevent Iran from
6 threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neigh7
bors with a nuclear weapon.
8

SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN
9 THE MIDDLE EAST.

(1) military exercises conducted in the Persian
13 Gulf and Gulf of Oman emphasize the United States
14 resolve and the policy of the United States described
15 in section 1221(b) by enhancing the readiness of the
16 United States military and allied forces, as well as
17 signaling to the Government of Iran the commitment
18 of the United States to defend its vital national se19
curity interests;

(2) the President, as Commander in Chief,
21 should augment the presence of the United States
22 Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct mili23
tary deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete
24 military readiness activities to underscore the policy
25 of the United States described in section 1221(b).

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in
20 the region necessary to signal United States re21
solve and to bolster United States capabilities
22 to launch a sustained sea and air campaign
23 against a range of Iranian nuclear and military
24 targets,

So all the beating of the war drums now looks a lot scarier. The US government is seemingly outright planning to deal with Iran in 2013, why else would there be this level of preparation considered?

Combine this NDAA for 2013 with the 2009 'Which Path to Persia?' foreign policy document and the only logical conclusion is that the war with Iran is set to happen. The people don't want it, but the powers that control government are intent on it happening.

www.brookings.edu...

This foreign policy document refers on multiple occasions to an 'Iranian act of aggression' being required to give the green light for an attack on Iran. In the coming months this could come in many ways.

Combined with the NDAA for 2013, the planned legislation speaks for itself IMO- Iran is in their sights.

There is a fascinating bit of political intrigue occuring right now, and that is Obama's current attitude to Iran. Whilst he is saying he will 'have Israel's back,', he is, for whatever reason, holding off from military action against Iran. He hasn't give the green light for Israel to attack and he makes his point of view very clear in this video-



He is talking of the dangers of an Iran conflict, the cost of such a war to the people of the region and to US soldiers, the impact on the world and the economy. Obama is currently going directly against the flow of the media and the insistence of the Israeli lobby. Obama claims he believes it can be resolved peacefully through a diplomatic solution.

Whether he truly believes that or is waiting for the 'Iranian act of aggression' (which could be in the shape of a massive false flag) I don't know, but he is certainly going against a very poweful lobby at the moment.

We are certainly living in interesting times.

We will see war in Iran no matter who is President. Might as well get ready for a false flag operation that will intiate a war in Iran and ultimately more curtailed freedoms.

Great find. At least Obama has half the mind to consider the consequences, something Bush never did. I don't support it, but acknowledge that at this point Iran may be a threat - In that they are backed into the proverbial corner more and more every day. It's like 2003 all over again.

How come they don't fix the economy first till we're debt free like Libya was before we sodomized their sovereign nation?

At the moment, Syria is where the campaign is at. Once Assad and the national bank falls then the Al Qaeda ground force will move towards Iran followed by the media and false flag reporting. The Muslim Brotherhood will most likely rise to power, in debt to the international bankers. Sneaky wars are much preferred these days as support for the assaults are higher due to the ignorance and confusion factor. With Russia and China having more of a stake in this ongoing conflict, there is a chance for things to change or escalate quite quickly.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Iran has been mentioned in The National Defence Authorization Act for years...

2010:

www.intelligence.senate.gov...

2007:

www.gpo.gov...

What would you expect a yearly defense report/act to include?


You've unearthed nothing new.

reply to post by kwakakev


Assad has just agreed to peace talks with the rebels.

So, yeah your theory isn't working to plan just yet...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Russia's support for Assad is creating a few problems for the US / Israel agenda. The road to Persia, axis of evil and other similar plans have been in the works for a long time. With Turkey and Saudi Arabia also getting in on the act in Syria it is creating a bigger mess for all involved. With so many players and motives going on it hard to say exactly what will happen with a few possible situations that could turn things around really quick. However, considering how the Middle East war has been going it is going to take something big like a 9/11 reinvestigation or global economic collapse to provide a major shift in the balance of power.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Iran has been mentioned in The National Defence Authorization Act for years...

2010:

www.intelligence.senate.gov...

2007:

www.gpo.gov...

What would you expect a yearly defense report/act to include?


You've unearthed nothing new.

edit on 10/7/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Would you care to show me anywhere in previous NDAA's where they talk so precisely about Iran policy?

The 2013 version is talking about sending naval fleets to the gulf in preparation from war and that it is America's most important national security requirement to prevent Iran from getting a nuke.

It also says there is no doubt diplomatic solutions are not working, previous NDAA's do not mention anything like this.

So no, I would argue this is a step forward and pretty clear indication war is being prepared for 2013 with Iran.

To quote from the doc you linked-

(B) A discussion and assessment of the commitment
of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to engage
in good-faith discussions with the United States to resolve
matters of concern through negotiation.

This is a discussion and assessment to see if the Iranians will cooperate.

The 2013 version is the conclusion of all these assessments, I quoted what it said above. The 2013 version is a declaration of policy- that Iran is not halting their desire for a nuclear weapon, that they are the biggest national security threadt to America and that America needs to prepared with forces in the area to handle the problem.

Such a lack of interest surprises me.

The NDAA for 2010 was saying try for 'peaceful negotiations' to sort out any problems with Iran.

The NDAA for 2013 is saying Iran is not responding to any diplomatic efforts and that America will prepare for military conflict by sending forces to the region in bulk.

I guess there's nothing to see here then

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by kwakakev

 

Assad has just agreed to peace talks with the rebels.

So, yeah your theory isn't working to plan just yet...

Lol maybe true
but the rebel wont agree on any peace deal
then only seeing Assad go like Saddam and Gaddafi

reply to post by Ben81


Which is why I said "yet"

A lot can still happen over there.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Ben81

 

Which is why I said "yet"

A lot can still happen over there.

Why have you ignored my reply to you?

You came in here undermining my info.

You linked the NDAA from 2010 saying there's no difference.

I then pointed out two major differences-

1- the NDAA for 2010 (which you linked) was to set a policy of attempting to try for peaceful negotiation with Iran.

2- The NDAA for 2013 states the policy is that diplomatic efforts are not working, that Iran is THE biggest threat to US national security and that the policy is to prepare for conflict with Iran by getting the military forces ready.

Given you first undermined my info, can you please acknowledge these points? It makes posting on this forum something of a chore when time and time again people will attack a post and then not reply to a solid answer in response to their criticism.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Well there's this little tidbit from 2006:

SEC. 1214. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON UNITED STATES POLICY ON THE
NUCLEAR PROGRAMS OF IRAN.
Congress—
(1) endorses the policy of the United States to achieve
a successful diplomatic outcome, in coordination with leading
members of the international community, with respect to the
threat posed by the efforts of the Iranian regime to acquire
a capability to produce nuclear weapons;
(2) calls on Iran to-
(A) suspend fully and verifiably its enrichment and
reprocessing activities, as required by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and
(B) work with the international community to achieve
a negotiated outcome to the concerns regarding its nuclear
program;
(3) in the event Iran fails to comply with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1696 (July 31, 2006), urges the
Security Council to work for the adoption of appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the
United Nations; and
(4) urges the President and the Secretary of State to keep
Congress fully and currently informed regarding the progress
of this vital diplomatic initiative.

And from 2010:

(3) NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES.—With respect to nuclear activities,
an assessment of the extent to which the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747
(2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008), and with any other
applicable resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security
Council as of the date of the report.

There is also this quote from the 2013 report:

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 23 warned in 2008 that,
‘‘There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons..."

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Well there's this little tidbit from 2006:

SEC. 1214. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON UNITED STATES POLICY ON THE
NUCLEAR PROGRAMS OF IRAN.
Congress—
(1) endorses the policy of the United States to achieve
a successful diplomatic outcome, in coordination with leading
members of the international community, with respect to the
threat posed by the efforts of the Iranian regime to acquire
a capability to produce nuclear weapons;
(2) calls on Iran to-
(A) suspend fully and verifiably its enrichment and
reprocessing activities, as required by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and
(B) work with the international community to achieve
a negotiated outcome to the concerns regarding its nuclear
program;
(3) in the event Iran fails to comply with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1696 (July 31, 2006), urges the
Security Council to work for the adoption of appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the
United Nations; and
(4) urges the President and the Secretary of State to keep
Congress fully and currently informed regarding the progress
of this vital diplomatic initiative.

And from 2010:

(3) NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES.—With respect to nuclear activities,
an assessment of the extent to which the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747
(2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008), and with any other
applicable resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security
Council as of the date of the report.

There is also this quote from the 2013 report:

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 23 warned in 2008 that,
‘‘There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons..."

OK from your quote in reply to my question-

SEC. 1214. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON UNITED STATES POLICY ON THE
NUCLEAR PROGRAMS OF IRAN.
Congress—
(1) endorses the policy of the United States to achieve
a successful diplomatic outcome, in coordination with leading
members of the international community

work with the international community to achieve
a negotiated outcome to the concerns regarding its nuclear
program;

'DIPLOMATIC OUTCOME'. 'NEGOTIATED OUTCOME'. So I'm sorry, but the stance of the NDAA for 2013 is completely different to previous policy.

2013 NDAA is the first time they have said 'diplomatic solutions' are NOT working. 2013 NDAA is the first to say prepare militarily to deal with the threat in able to have enough forces there to sustain an attack against Iran.

So it is different, it is preparing for war.

Can you admit this?

Basically, the NDAA for 2013 is saying previous policy has failed (nanely diplomatic efforts as Iran has not, in their opinion, abandoned their muclear program).

NDAA 2013 outlines future policy- to have a very large military presence and be prepared to carry out sustained attacks against Iran.

Article 41 of the United Nations Charter-

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

So it is clear that previous NDAA policy has been to follow diplomatic efforts and to not use 'armed force'.

People need to realise that this policy has been abandoned, NDAA 2013 quite clearly states that policy is not working, that the US will prepare for conflict with Iran as the next step.