In Start a War to Win an Election News...

From the Guardian: Obama orders new sanctions on Iran, including 'deceptive' Central Bank.

President Barack Obama has ordered new sanctions on Iran, including its Central Bank, moving to enforce a law he signed in December.

In a letter to Congress Monday, Obama said more sanctions are warranted "particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks." He said the problems included the hiding transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies of Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the unacceptably high risk posed to the entire international financial system posed by Iran's activities.

I know that I'm just a dirty hate-America hippie and all, but I continue to be amazed by the US' unmitigated temerity to justify its continued belligerence toward Iran by pointing out that Iran is doing the same shit that we are.

"They want nuclear weaponry!" So do we. "They allow government shenanigans!" So do we. "They treat women like second-class citizens!" So do we. "They are allowing dodgy banking practices!" So do we.

That is not, of course, an argument in favor of the Iranian government's warmongering, corruption, misogyny, and general shadiness. It's an argument against warmongering, corruption, misogyny, and general shadiness, no matter whence it emanates.

The Not-War in Yemen

[Content Note: This post discusses drone strikes and war.]

In addition to our mostly-over war in Iraq, our still-definitely war in Afghanistan, and not-wars in Pakistan, Iran, Libya, and various other parts of Africa, we are also at not-war in Yemen.

And the not-news from the not-war in Yemen is that one of our recent drone airstrikes killed at least 12 people. Those people, we are told, were "al Qaeda militants, including four local leaders." Sure. Okay. And we've got no reason to disbelieve this not-official story of a not-confirmed US drone strike in the not-war in Yemen which is being not-waged without Congressional oversight or anything resembling meaningful accountability, because US intelligence has always definitely been flawless and the US government never lies to cover its ass and FUCK YOU WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL WHOEVER WE WANT WITHOUT THE INCONVENIENCE OF EVIDENCE OR THE BURDEN OF CONSEQUENCE.

A local tribal leader says no civilians were hurt "and, unlike previous attacks, it did not result in civilian casualties." That is very good news, if true.

It is still very bad news that there is a war being prosecuted by the US about which there has been, and will continue to be, no public conversation.

Even the Republican candidates aren't making hay out of the fact that our Democratic president is prosecuting multiple not-wars without individual war resolutions, oversight, or accountability. Which is terrifying. Because they want that power, that illusion of transparency while waging clandestine war using taxpayers' money without seeking their permission, too.

And, of course, there's the fact that nobody seems to care, anyway.

Welcome to America 2.0.

2FA, #4

Jim White at EmptyWheel: Iran Begins Uranium Enrichment at Qom Tuesday, Enrichment Scientist at Natanz Assassinated Wednesday.

The Not-War in Pakistan

[Trigger warning for state-sponsored killing.]

Karen DeYoung in the Washington Post: Secrecy defines Obama's drone war.

Since September, at least 60 people have died in 14 reported CIA drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal regions. The Obama administration has named only one of the dead, hailing the elimination of Janbaz Zadran, a top official in the Haqqani insurgent network, as a counterterrorism victory.

The identities of the rest remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself. Because the names of the dead and the threat they were believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S. intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.

The administration has said that its covert, targeted killings with remote-controlled aircraft in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and potentially beyond are proper under both domestic and international law. It has said that the targets are chosen under strict criteria, with rigorous internal oversight.

It has parried reports of collateral damage and the alleged killing of innocents by saying that drones, with their surveillance capabilities and precision missiles, result in far fewer mistakes than less sophisticated weapons.

Yet in carrying out hundreds of strikes over three years — resulting in an estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths in Pakistan — it has provided virtually no details to support those assertions.

In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.

Emphasis mine.

Over the course of three years, in a not-war for which there is no direct authorization by Congress as required by the US Constitution, and no oversight, and thus no accountability, we have killed an estimated ~2,000 people in Pakistan.

There were things I expected about Barack Obama when I cast my vote for him. Some of them were low expectations—I expected fuck-all on women's issues, and he has managed to limbo right underneath even my rock bottom garbage expectations—but some of them were great expectations, among which were high hopes that his foreign policy would be a radical departure from the warmongering, secretive, accountability-free nightmare of the preceding administration.

This has not been the case, and it is a grave disappointment.

[H/T to Atrios.]