hummussexual:

(PDF links)

• Introduction pp. 1-13 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0020 Adi Kuntsman, Noor Al-Qasimi

• From Homoerotics of Exile to Homopolitics of Diaspora: Cyberspace, the War on Terror, and the Hypervisible Iranian Queer pp. 14-40 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0022 Sima Shakhsari

• The Egyptian Blogosphere: Policing Gender and Sexuality and the Consequences for Queer Emancipation pp. 41-62 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0024 Grant Walsh-Haines

• “Coming Out of the Internet”: Lesbian and Gay Activism and the Internet as a “Digital Closet” in Turkey pp. 63-88 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0025 Serkan Gorkemli

• Efféminés, Gigolos, and MSMs in the Cyber-Networks, Coffeehouses, and “Secret Gardens” of Contemporary Tunis pp. 89-112 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0026 Rodney Collins

• Queer Beirut Online: The Participation of Men in Gayromeo.com pp. 113-137 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0027 Mathew Gagné

• WaWa Series p. 138 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0028 Fatima Al Qadiri, Khalid al Gharaballi

• The “Boyah” and the “Baby Lady”: Queer Mediations in Fatima Al Qadiri and Khalid Al Gharaballi’s Wawa Series (2011) pp. 139-142 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0019 Noor Al-Qasimi

• “israelis and Iranians, Get A Room!”: Love, Hate, and Transnational Politics from the “Israel Loves Iran” and “Iran Loves Israel” Facebook Campaigns pp. 143-154 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0021 Adi Kuntsman, Sanaz Raji

• Contributors pp. 155-157 | DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2012.0023

Many of Washington’s more hawkish voices have sought to downplay or drown out discussions about a possible military attack on Iran’s nuclear program. Even as the Obama administration has kept all options on the table regarding iran’s nuclear program, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign attacked the administration for trying to have an honest discussion of the possible consequences of a military strike.

Now, three Members of Congress — Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) — are introducing an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill that would demand a government report about the possible consequences of an attack. Conyers and Ellison, among others, also used the amendment process to tag the Defense authorization — another big appropriations bill likely to pass — with language stating that Congress was not authorizing war with Iran.

The first public comments by members on the amendment, which has the support of pro-peace groups, could come this afternoon when the Rules Committee meets to decide on its inclusion in the larger bill. The amendment, Section 306 of the new bill, reads in full that:

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report containing an assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran.

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has already said that Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon — an estimate in line with reported U.S. assessments and also the U.N. atomic watchdog and Israeli assessments — and made clear that he thinks Iran can be dissuaded from building a bomb.

But his views on the consequences of a strike are unlikely to satisfy militaristic voices in Congress. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a prominent hawk on Iran, publicly disagreed with Clapper’s Iran assessments during a hearing this winter. Last year, Graham called on Clapper to resign.

While President Obama, like others, considers a potential Iranian nuclear weapon a threat, this Spring he lamented the “loose talk of war” and called on those who are pushing an attack on Iran to hold open discussions about the possible consequences:

If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.

Instead of hawkish bluster, the Obama administration maintains its options while pushing a negotiated diplomatic solution, which the administration considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis. That’s because Israeli and American experts have noted that attacking could push Iran into building a weapon, and potentially ignite a regional war. Those are exactly the sorts of potential consequences of an attack on Iran that the Obama administration has called for a forthright conversation on, which Conyers, Ellison and Lee are now bolstering. And its exactly the conversation the hawks don’t want to have.

This could be a positive step. If you can get the military to say how disastrous a strike against Iran would be, it could shut up some of the GOP members who have been pushing for this. Although, in all probability, it won’t matter to them anyways.