The big news on Tuesday, March 4, for people who pay close attention to what is happening in the Middle East, was that Israel commandeered an Iranian ship that was carrying illegal weapons which were on their way to Gaza, for use against the Jewish State.

The ship was seized late Tuesday night, March 4, by Israeli naval commandos.

In her daily briefing, the State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki, provided details of American involvement which had not previously been widely noted.

Soon after becoming aware of the imminent movement of the suspected vessel, the White House directed the Department of Defense to monitor the vessel and to develop concepts of operation for a range of options in order to be prepared to take unilateral steps if necessary. This is part of, of course, a robust effort on the part of the Administration. We were closely coordinated, our intelligence and military activities, with the – with our Israeli counterparts, who ultimately chose to take the lead with this case. And even as we continue our efforts to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy, we will continue to stand up to Iran’s support for destabilizing activities in the region in coordination with our partners and allies.

Jay Carney, the spokesperson for U.S. President Barack Obama also spoke to reporters about U.S. involvement in the incident. Carney was aboard Air Force One when he offered his remarks, which closely tracked those of Psaki’s. He also pointed out that the weapons smuggling on the part of Iran was in direct violation United Nations Security Council resolutions.

“These illicit acts are unacceptable to the international community and in gross violation of Iran’s Security Council obligations,” the spokesperson said, as reported by YNet.

There has not been any public mention by the Israelis of American involvement in the operation.

Last Thursday, a junior member of the White House administration publicly took an extremely impolitic swipe at certain members of Congress, including members of her boss’s own party.

She called them warmongers.

Bernadette Meehan is a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.  Meehan is someone who, until last month, showed up in Google searches more often for her role as a mentor to graduates of Boston College, her alma mater, than for her role as a policy spokesperson.

Less than two years ago, Meehan was writing a blog for the Boston College Career Center, telling BC students about her career as a Foreign Service Officer.

But last week Meehan blasted members of Congress who are actively supporting the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act – more than a dozen of whom are Democrats – labeling them the equivalent of warmongers. She attacked them for daring to proceed towards enacting legislation that cannot trigger sanctions on Iran unless Iran defaults on the alleged commitments it has made with the United States and the rest of the P5+1 (The United Kingdom, Russia, China, France and Germany) in what is known as the Geneva Interim Agreement,  an attempt to ensure that Iran ceases to enrich materials which can be used to make nuclear weapons.

And then this week, Congress’s Democratic party Whip Steny Hoyer got into the act.

Hoyer was none too pleased to have members of the White House staff criticizing his home team.  The specific legislation Meehan attacked is in the Senate, but Hoyer took umbrage not only because members of his party were castigated, but also because the House already passed legislation many months ago which would increase sanctions on Iran.

On Tuesday, Jan. 15, Hoyer gave Meehan a tongue lashing, without naming any names, of course.

“There have been some that have suggested in the White House that those folks were more interested in war than they were in the resolution by peaceful means,” Hoyer said.

In addition to declaring such a position unequivocally false, Hoyer also referred to Meehan’s statement as “irresponsible” and said it should be “clarified and retracted” by those who made it.

Stating what should not have to be said out loud, but which was demanded by the situation, Hoyer flatly announced: “Nobody believes, as far as I know, that going to war with Iran is anything but a dangerous objective that none of us would seek.”

This is Meehan’s full statement about the Iran Nuclear Weapons Free Act, which was released on Thursday, Jan. 9. The language upon which most critics focused is underlined:

This bill is in direct contradiction to the Administration’s work to peacefully resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. We know that this proposed legislation would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations. This bill would have a negative bearing on the sanctions regime too. Let us not forget: sanctions work because we convinced our partners to take the steps that we seek. If our partners no longer believe that we are serious about finding a negotiated solution, then our sanctions regime would suffer.

If Congress passes this bill, it will be proactively taking an action that will make diplomacy less likely to succeed. The American people have been clear that they prefer a peaceful resolution to this issue. If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.

The Democratic senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, remains on track with the new bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill despite intense lobbying by the White House and the threat of a presidential veto.

The new sanctions bill is called the “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act.”  It  is co-sponsored by Schumer, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez and Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, and was introduced on Thursday, Dec. 19.

Under this bill, new sanctions would not be imposed until after the six-month negotiations window between the U.S. and Iran passes, or if Iran breaches the interim deal.

But Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif told Time magazine earlier this month that any new sanctions, even ones that take effect after the interim agreement expires, would kill any chance of a more comprehensive deal.

At Thursday’s press briefing, the president’s spokesperson Jay Carney said he saw no need for this sanctions bill and assured everyone that if it becomes law the president will veto it.

“We made it very clear to the Senate that it is not the time for new Iran sanctions. We don’t think it will be or should be enacted,” Carney told reporters.

Schumer said he discussed the sanctions issue with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Thursday, according to BuzzFeed. The New York senior senator downplayed the idea of bad feelings over the matter between the White House and him, saying he supports the idea of negotiating an interim agreement with Iran, “but I don’t think the reduction of sanctions made much sense.”

“Basically, it’s a judgement call. We have a disagreement with them,” Schumer said. “Many of us believe that by ratcheting up sanctions, not by reducing sanctions, is the best way to produce peace and get Iran to forego a nuclear weapon.”

The bill has 26 co-sponsors. Co-sponsors from the Democratic party include senators Ben Cardin (Md), Bob Casey (PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Mary Landrieu (La.).