Unilateral Action Against Iran?

Howard L. Berman is a Democratic Congressman and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In an editorial,” Dealing With Iran’s Deception “, Berman informs us that Congress has to get moving to impose, should negotiations fail, what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called “crippling sanctions.” He intends to lead the way. Here’s Berman:

The best conduit for such sanctions would be a mandatory U.N. Security Council resolution. That would require the difficult-to-obtain acquiescence of Russia and China. Failing that, multilateral agreement by the Europeans, Japan, Australia and Canada to impose coordinated financial, trade and investment sanctions would be a serious alternative. If even that proves impossible, I believe the threat posed to our national security by the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran obligates the United States to impose sanctions unilaterally.

Alright, better late than never, I suppose. But why must sanctions be imposed “unilaterally.” Why can’t they be imposed by a few members of a “coalition of the willing?” In that case, nobody in their right mind could accuse the Americans of acting unilaterally. And if those sanctions fail nobody could ever accuse the Americans of acting unilaterally if it all comes to a military confrontation.

I suspect that the anti-war crowd that makes up President Obama’s base in the democratic wing of the Democratic Party will shortly be hoisted on their own petard.