We thought it sounded a lot like a military blockade, and that sounded a lot like an act of war. We checked with some former high ranking military and security experts and they felt the idea was absurd for a number of reasons.

1. The US could not unilaterally undertake a military blockade of Iran unless the international community agreed, an event not likely given the nations depending on Iranian oil supplies. If it chose to act unilaterally it would mean imposing stringent inspections on all the cargo ships of other nations as well..an act they wouldn't likely look at too fondly.

2. Given the strategic nature of the Gulf it would turn the oil markets upside down at a time when markets are as touchy as ever.

3. It gives the President overly broad powers beyond what the Constitution allows when declaring war..and that's what a blockade is.

4. The timing couldn't be worse as the current negotiations with Iran are showing some positive signs with their statement this week that they would be willing to put a freeze on their enrichment program.

Sponsors in the House and Senate contend that the language doesn't equal blockade but many in a position to know disagree. We will be putting a letter together after the July 4th break from qualified folks to make this point and hopefully quelched this resolution or at least the worst parts of it. In the mean time visit www.thomas.gov and see if your Member is cosponsor (there are all ready 220 of them) and tell them that now is not the time to make poorly conceived proclamations about military action against Iran.