Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran
Paul took the Senate floor to oppose the undivided approval of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment.“My amendment is one sentence long; it states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria,” Paul told his colleagues.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was eager to hastily authorize the bill, but Paul’s objection required that any use of military force against Iran had to be approved by Congress and wanted Congress to confirm that the US wasn’t rushing into another endless conflict.“Before sending our young men and women into combat we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of the war,” Paul added.According to Politico.Com, the bill which easily made it through the Senate Banking Committee and the House would authorize the administration new power to pressure Iran over its controversial nuclear program.The bill would also require companies traded on the US stock exchanges to act as somewhat of a spy and reveal activities done by the Middle-Eastern country. If passed it would also punish US parent companies whose affiliates have relations with the Islamic Republic as well.“Many in this body cannot get boots on the ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya, to Iran,” criticized Senator Paul.“James Madison wrote that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is a Branch most interested in war and most prone to it,” he added.President Obama has been criticized by many Americans who claim he has been doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.As we reported earlier this month, Pentagon officials are saying that the act of war against Iran has already been set in motion. During the latest American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC, many feel the particulars of when and how to attack Iran were under discussion by the two world leaders.All these talks have been fueled by the rumors that Iran is developing a nuclear warhead in a secret facility. Islamic Republic's leaders have denied the allegations, but the talk of war continues.Although the US has been hesitant to publicly endorse Israel in their plans to attack Iran, many like Rand Paul are opposed to Obama putting even more pressure on Iran.“Our founding fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a King,” Paul added on Tuesday.Although Reid wasn’t to please with Paul’s objection, Paul felt that “without a vote and without careful consideration of the ramifications of third or even a fourth war in this past decade” there is no legitimate need to send young soldiers into war.“I urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate.”In response to Paul’s amendment Reid stated he was “terribly disappointed.""There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. … I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated," Reid added.The Republican Senator was “amazed at the majority party objections to an amendment that simply restates the US Constitution.”The Democrat from Nevada can now choose to file cloture, which is a method to quickly close the debate by enacting an immediate vote to overcome Paul’s objection or he can let Paul’s amendment to be considered.