Bill in Congress calling for blockade of Iran

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

LSlice said:
Really. If passed, and Bush acts on this, it is essentially an act of war.

coyotemike said:
Would you care to explain how this would be an act of war?

inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and
and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

coyotemike said:
I'm looking all through the ICC, and nowhere do they have a list of "acts of war." And since they are concerned only with a very certain set of war crimes, they have no reason to make a list of acts of war.

ICC website

LSlice said:

Perhaps the list hasn't been released yet. The wikipedia article mentioned it as being in 2009. Anyway that's besides the point.

coyotemike said:

Not really. Acts of war are very specific actions; invading a country, attacking a warship or protectorate of a nation, etc. I could not find any past lists of acts of war, let alone an updated one. You are stipulating a blockade as an act of war, using a specific source (wikipedia) to justify that designation.

LSlice said:

Ok let's think here for a minute. Suppose China declared it was going to use its military to forcibly inspect all cargo and persons entering or leaving the United States. Are you seriously contending this would not be seen as an act of war?

motorfirebox said:
i do have a hard time seeing this not leading to a serious conflict, whatever the legal minutiae.

motorfirebox said:
i'm certainly not the one to point fingers there.

bald_eagle said:
I checked the link. I didn't see where it calls on anyone to interfere with Iranian trade. It calls on the president to

(emphasis mine)

It's more like trying to negotiate a boycott with the other countries. It does not suggest that the U.S. send the Navy to blockade their ports.

Also note the statement,

LSlice said:
Really. If passed, and Bush acts on this, it is essentially an act of war.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

stockula said:

One would think killing American soldiers, supplying proxy wars against a major ally, defying the UN and seizing one's embassy is an act of war. The bellicose party is Iran. They should have been neutralized a long time ago.

LSlice said:

So now you think defying the UN is cause bellus?

The embassy was seized over 20 years ago. I'm not sure what you are ferring to as far as killing US soldiers.

And maybe an ally that constantly requires us to defend them isn't worth having an alliance with.

stockula said:

Soldiers killed refers to the barracks bombing in Beruit, the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the hundreds of soldiers in Iraq killed by Iranians, or Iraqis trained and equipped by Iranians.

If we abandon allies due to thugs challenging us, what message would that send to the rest of our allies, and more importantly, what message would it send to our enemies?

bald_eagle said:

If it passes, and if an international coalition agrees to take measures that include something like a blockade, then there might be something to worry about.

Right now, I don't think Bush could get an international consensus on the proposition that rain is wet.

motorfirebox said:
non-interventionism is impossible. we're dug into global politics too deeply to back out, and i don't think we'd have a place in the world that would arise if we did.

stockula said:
Iraq was invaded in defiance of the UN.