Just in case talk of military action against one country wasn't enough, Republican Congressman Trent Franks is here with more loose talk of war.
Franks announced that he plans to introduce a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iran.
Here's Franks' statement, from his office:
"We must handle the nuclear threat in Iran with a more focused and proactive policy than we used in responding to the chemical threat in Syria. It has been eight years since I first stood on the House floor and called for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council for their pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time, Iran had approximately 150 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium. Today, Iran has over 15,000. Reports estimate Tehran could have a functional nuclear weapons capability within the year, and the IAEA reports Iran has already manufactured enough low-enriched uranium to, if enriched further, produce at least 20 nuclear warheads.
"When Secretary Kerry made the case for military action in Syria, he said Iran and North Korea would closely watch how the United States handles the crisis. While true, it's also certain that Assad has been watching the Obama administration's willingness to overlook the nuclear threat in Iran for years, and therefore assumed Syria's own chemical threat would also be swept under the rug.
"If we authorize the use of military force now, it will strengthen the President's hand in in any potential talks with Iran. If we do not, the President may rely on reactionary efforts, much like the debacle in Syria. For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and global stability, more generally, we must have every option available in advance."
"If the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism gains a weaponized nuclear capacity, we will have failed our fundamental responsibility to guard America's national security."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
Notice how he doesn't directly call for bombing Iran to hell, he just wants the option to do so.
He just wants to "strengthen the President's hand in in any potential talks with Iran." Is that how diplomacy works?
Maybe it's not such a bad idea for Franks just to stick to his abortion schtick. In case Franks didn't notice, the American public's not down with bombing Syria -- which he pretty clearly advocates in his statement above -- so it's hard to imagine people being more receptive to bombing Iran.