Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Res. 600

Should the Military Option be On the Table for Stopping Iran from Getting a Nuke?

Argument in favor

It’s important for the U.S. to stand with its Middle Eastern allies by reiterating that all options, including military force, are on the table to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Michael's Opinion
···
10/06/2016
Military action should always be "on the table" However, we must use it as a last resort and continue to follow negotiation paths put forth by the Iran Deal.
Like (61)
Follow
Share
Michael's Opinion
···
10/06/2016
If it's not an option then what's the point. If they decide not to negotiate then what are we going to do? Stomp our feet! Piss & moan! For those who think they can be reasonable. I remind you of a saying, "you may be able to find nobility in a savage, but his only concern is with killing you.".
Like (17)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
10/06/2016
Iran is one of the leaders in human rights abuse. Their Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has preached a doctrine of hate, that promotes genocide. The people of Iran have accepted his doctrine. The Revolutionary Guard has helped enable organizations such as Hamas to perpetrate terrorist acts against Israel. To allow this would hurt Israel, the primary leader of democracy in the Middle-East. To allow this wouldn't only harm democratization but human rights, as Israel is the only nation in Asia-minor that will allow same sex couples to have civil unions, and treat these couples as equals to any married couple. This is not a question of allowing a nation to choose their own course, but should we allow this nation to have the disproportionate power to use threat of nuclear attack to throw their diplomatic weight around and determine the course of several nations, and people. This disruption in global security and norms mustn't be allowed. Before us today, we the people must decide rather future generations will look back and admire our resolve and ability to stand our ground in face of unpopular policy, if it saves our republic. Or rather will we faultier, and be the Neville Chamberlin of the post-modern age. To have future generations look back and see how foolish we were, or how wise we were. This is not only a decision that affects us, but the course of our foreign policy for at least the next 50 years.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This resolution is nothing more than a lot of empty words and no action from Congress, as it doesn’t actually implement any policies to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Stephenmyer's Opinion
···
10/07/2016
Our heavy handed interventionism overseas is the reason why some people want to do us harm. If we stopped invading other countries for personal profit and orchestrating regime changes that suit our agenda but not the people of the countries we are occupying, perhaps we would not have to worry about countries wanting to nuke us.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Dtewfik's Opinion
···
10/06/2016
Can we look at ways to incentivize Iran instead of disincentivizing them?
Like (14)
Follow
Share
Vyrena's Opinion
···
10/06/2016
We have an agreement, why pass a useless resolution which shows our distrust and aggression? Stupid warmongers, get to doing our business. There are urgent matters to address at home
Like (6)
Follow
Share

simple resolution Progress


  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedFebruary 3rd, 2016

What is House Bill H. Res. 600?

This resolution would reaffirm that the U.S. has the right to use all available options — including military force — to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that denying Iran nuclear weapons will remain U.S. policy during and after the Iran nuclear agreement is in effect.

The resolution also supports Israel’s right to defend itself from nations, terror groups and others that wish to do it harm, and calls on the administration to provide Israel with military and intelligence support to maintain its military edge.

The president would be called on to work with Congress and international partners to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency receives the full funding it needs each year to validate that Iran is abiding by the nuclear agreement.

Iran’s destabilizing actions in the Middle East, its human rights violations, and the government’s suppression of the Iranian people’s civil liberties would all be condemned by the resolution. Other UN member states would be called on to ensure that Iran doesn’t receive ballistic or cruise missile technology and related assistance.

Additionally, the resolution states that nothing in the nuclear agreement (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPA) prevents the U.S. from imposing sanctions on Iran for sponsoring terrorism, developing ballistic or cruise missiles, or human rights violations. The administration would be directed to keep Congress informed about how it will work with other parties to the agreement to respond to JCPA violations.

As a simple resolution, this legislation wouldn’t have the force of law if passed and wouldn’t be considered by the Senate.

Impact

Entities and governments tasked with enforcing the Iran nuclear agreement; Congress; and the president.

Cost of House Bill H. Res. 600

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) introduced this resolution to ensure that the Iran nuclear deal is implemented and show that the U.S. stands with its allies like Israel against destabilizing actions by Iran in the Middle East:

“We need a clear-eyed, bipartisan approach to make sure the Iran deal is strictly implemented and that we continue to support our allies in the region while countering Iran’s destabilizing actions. Our resolution maps out an effective path forward for the U.S. and international community for the months and years to come.”

This legislation has the bipartisan support of 12 cosponsors in the House, including seven Democrats and five Republicans.


Of Note: In the past, President Obama has noted that all options are on the table to keep Iran from creating a nuclear weapon — including an attack by the U.S. military. But in the lead up to the nuclear deal, the administration has softened its stance to emphasize that “military action would likely insure that Iran would break out and acquire nuclear weapons.”


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Air Combat Command)

Official Title

Reaffirming the right for the United States to use all available options, including the use of military force, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

    Military action should always be "on the table" However, we must use it as a last resort and continue to follow negotiation paths put forth by the Iran Deal.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Our heavy handed interventionism overseas is the reason why some people want to do us harm. If we stopped invading other countries for personal profit and orchestrating regime changes that suit our agenda but not the people of the countries we are occupying, perhaps we would not have to worry about countries wanting to nuke us.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    If it's not an option then what's the point. If they decide not to negotiate then what are we going to do? Stomp our feet! Piss & moan! For those who think they can be reasonable. I remind you of a saying, "you may be able to find nobility in a savage, but his only concern is with killing you.".
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Can we look at ways to incentivize Iran instead of disincentivizing them?
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Iran is one of the leaders in human rights abuse. Their Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has preached a doctrine of hate, that promotes genocide. The people of Iran have accepted his doctrine. The Revolutionary Guard has helped enable organizations such as Hamas to perpetrate terrorist acts against Israel. To allow this would hurt Israel, the primary leader of democracy in the Middle-East. To allow this wouldn't only harm democratization but human rights, as Israel is the only nation in Asia-minor that will allow same sex couples to have civil unions, and treat these couples as equals to any married couple. This is not a question of allowing a nation to choose their own course, but should we allow this nation to have the disproportionate power to use threat of nuclear attack to throw their diplomatic weight around and determine the course of several nations, and people. This disruption in global security and norms mustn't be allowed. Before us today, we the people must decide rather future generations will look back and admire our resolve and ability to stand our ground in face of unpopular policy, if it saves our republic. Or rather will we faultier, and be the Neville Chamberlin of the post-modern age. To have future generations look back and see how foolish we were, or how wise we were. This is not only a decision that affects us, but the course of our foreign policy for at least the next 50 years.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Military action should definitely be on the table and our enemies should know it
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Not our place.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    "As a simple resolution, this legislation wouldn’t have the force of law if passed and wouldn’t be considered by the Senate." I absolutely HATE the thought of Iran possibly joining the nuclear "club"! I wasn't too happy when Russia became a nuclear power. Or any other country besides us, for that matter. Sooner or later, some idiot(s) somewhere is going to decide that a nuclear strike is a good FIRST resort, rather than a LAST resort. I just hope my children and I aren't around to see that happen. I suspect that WW3 will be more horrifying than you can imagine, with a death toll in the billions. But in all honesty, I'd rather hit Iran first and deny them the pleasure of nuking some part of the United States or hitting us with an EMP attack, or of selling nukes to Islamic State or some other country that hates us! That's just survival instinct! A simple resolution still seems like a waste of time to me. It's a lot different than Congress voting to declare war on a country. It's more like posturing, if you ask me! Maybe with Trump in the White House our enemies will start taking us seriously again. . . . Incidentally, I remember when Iran WASN'T our enemy, before the Shah was deposed. I was working at Lackland AFB, and I met some of the Iranian pilots who were there for training. I helped them improve their English. I also learned to love Persian COOKING! As for the Iran nuclear "deal," do you really want to know what I think of Barack Hussein Obama and John Kerry?! HA! I didn't think so!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    We have an agreement, why pass a useless resolution which shows our distrust and aggression? Stupid warmongers, get to doing our business. There are urgent matters to address at home
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    No more military intervention in the Middle East. What's just as scary as Iran having nukes? Donald Trump having nukes.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Without threat of force, Iran will always seek nuclear weapons. We must stop a country with such minimal political stability within and adjacent to its state from having nuclear weapons, as the repercussions of it could include a nuclear attack of devastating proportions. We have already failed at stopping one heretical, anti-west state from having nukes; let's not make that mistake again.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I think they already have nuke tech. We need to prepare for a hostile nuke in America. Failure to do so is stupid.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Iran has said many times that the US is the great enemy. I believe them.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    All options are already on the table. I fail to see the necessity or effectiveness of resolutions; symbolic at best, and a waste of time.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to stop Iran from getting the bomb at all costs
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Peace through strength.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Military option should always be on the table. We have to start taking the position of strength in negotiations with countries like Iran.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    They are a terrorist nation, they should not have a Mike because they would use it or make us pay so that they don't use it.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    If they continue to ignore the UN & US, then it should definitely be on the table. I hope it wouldn't come to that, but America has lost its balls. Bunch of pansies now a days.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Empty words. It wasnt enough for the USA to shoot down an Iraian passenger jet?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE