In Reversal, Democrats Shelve Iran Resolution

http://www.truthout.org/100908A

Thursday 09 October 2008

by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report


US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Banking Chairman Barney Frank. After realizing that H.Con.Res.362 could lead to war with Iran, Frank - a cosponsor - has vowed to oppose the bill until its aggressive language is changed. (Photo: AFP / Getty)
Falling from shoo-in status to widely rejected legislation within the space of four months, a resolution that would have opened the door for a naval blockade on Iran was officially shelved at the end of September, after several of its cosponsors withdrew their support. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman has promised not to bring the bill, House Concurrent Resolution 362, before the committee until concerns about the text are addressed.

Given the scare-tactic-laden climate of the past eight years, 362's journey is remarkable: it represents a forceful effort by members of Congress - prodded by grassroots groups - to turn back the tides of impending war.

"The game-changer occurred when lawmakers realized that the resolution would lead to a naval blockade and war," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told Truthout. "The mood in Congress is similar to what it is in the country as a whole - the appetite for another war in the Middle East simply isn't there."

The Iran resolution, originally proposed in late May, would have imposed "stringent inspection requirements" on trade with Iran, making a military blockade and the legal use of force distinct possibilities. It quickly gained bipartisan support, even among some of Congress's most progressive members, such as impeachment advocate Robert Wexler, Oversight Committee chairman and vocal Bush critic Henry Waxman, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.

Intense lobbying efforts by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee propelled the bill forward, and in late June, sources close to Congressional leadership expected it to be ushered onto the House floor under suspension of the rules. A place on the suspension schedule - usually reserved for uncontroversial legislation - would have meant very limited debate and a quick vote for 362.

AIPAC framed the bill as a necessary escalation of tactics toward Iran. In a statement on the legislation, AIPAC announced, "Iran poses a growing threat to the United States and our allies as it continues rapidly advancing toward a nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions are having an impact on Iran, but more needs to be done now to persuade Tehran to change course."

Pressure from AIPAC and similar groups weighed heavily in some members' decisions to support the legislation, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). He added that the force of the lobbyists sometimes took the place of careful consideration.

"In some cases, members clearly signed on without reading or understanding the implications of what they were signing on to, in part because the resolution's supporters presented it as nothing more than an incremental increase in sanctions against Iran and stressed that nothing in the resolution authorized the use of force against Iran - a red herring, since a nonbinding resolution never authorizes anything," Fine told Truthout. "But even when they understood the resolution's implications and didn't agree with them, some offices reported they were receiving so many emails and phone calls urging them to cosponsor, they didn't feel they could refuse."

Yet, just as the bill was poised to sail through the House, another lobbying effort staged a counterattack. A widespread coalition of peace groups, religious organizations, Iranian Americans and Jewish Americans coordinated phone-ins, email campaigns and visits to Congressional offices. They stressed that, though the language of the bill may imply that it simply strengthens sanctions, it actually could only be implemented by military means.

Prominent military experts and military personnel concurred with the grassroots movement, and made their voices heard.

"The blockade is not a step short of war; it is war. It virtually guarantees military confrontation causing unnecessary casualties on both sides," stated University of Minnesota Professor Cyrus Bina and Col. Sam Gardiner (ret.) in an early July op-ed, in the Washington Times.

The sponsors of 362, Congressmen Gary Ackerman and Mike Pence, responded to the accusations of activists and experts in a letter to their colleagues, stating, "These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense."

But military experts continued to challenge 362. Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, US Navy (ret.); Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense, and Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (ret.) responded to the sponsors' retorts in a letter to House members. "Despite the protestations of its sponsors, we believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force... Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war," they wrote.

Meanwhile, grassroots efforts crescendoed, with thousands of messages sent to Congress about the resolution. National advocacy organizations' alerts were picked up by local groups, prompting an unusually large number of constituents to request personal meetings with their representatives, according to Fine.

Congress's response was unprecedented: five co-sponsors officially withdrew their names from the bill, while several more, including Wexler, voiced firm opposition to the bill's current language and vowed to push for changes.

"None of us at FCNL can remember another time when five members withdrew from a resolution they had agreed to cosponsor," Fine said.

It is also unusual for cosponsors of a bill to belatedly object to a substantial component of it - especially in an election year. Co-sponsor Congressman Barney Frank, who now opposes the resolution as it stands, even admitted to constituents that he'd made a mistake.

"I agree that this should not be our policy, and I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully," Frank wrote in a letter to an activist with Peace Action. "I'm going to consult with the authors to see if a change can be made that would omit this language, and if they are unwilling to do that, I will make very clear my disagreement with this in the most appropriate form. I apologize again for not having read this more carefully."

Ackerman has vowed to resume pushing for 362's passage later in the year, saying that the resolution continues to gain support among others in Congress. However, the past few months' backlash will make a renewed effort more difficult, according to Parsi - especially since grassroots groups are not giving up.

"There will likely be other attempts, but I don't think it is likely that language calling for a blockade - i.e. war - will pass easily," Parsi said. "We are prepared to work with all parties to make sure that a new and more constructive policy on Iran is put together that effectively meets the Iranian challenge."

In a broad sense, the rejection of H.Con.Res.362 paves the way for a new outlook on Iran, according to Fine. He points to the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which encouraged diplomacy with Iran, as a guidepost for governmental action.

"Engaging with Iran to try to resolve dangerous conflict is common sense," Fine said. "Five former US secretaries of state have just repeated their call for direct talks with Iran, including Henry Kissinger, who says talks should begin at the secretary of state level. Congress is beginning to hear the message."

What might happen if the US attacked Iran?

i.e. would Iranians rise up against the Islamic regime?
Or fight like hell against the foriegn attackers?

Pt.1 An Iranian-American journalism student finishing her degree in Iran gives her take.



Pt.2 A retired Iranian-American TV producer who came to America after the revolution (and detests the Mullahs) gives his

Hejab in Iran

Khamenei posters in Shiraz

Former U.S. secretaries of state say they support talks with Iran

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1021344.html

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service


Five former U.S. secretaries of state on Monday announced their support for talks with Iran, with all five saying the United States should not wait to launch diplomatic engagements with the Islamic Republic.

The former chief diplomats, Madeleine K. Albright; James A. Baker, III; Warren Christopher; Henry A. Kissinger; and Colin L. Powell issued their support for talks during a roundtable discussion entitled "The Next President: A World of Challenges," held at Washington D.C.'s George Washington University.

Moderator Christiane Amanpour of CNN asked the diplomats how they would respond if Iran declared it was prepared to make a deal with the U.S. after the upcoming elections. Kissinger responded "I'm in favor of negotiating with Iran," noting that the main concern is whether a nuclear weapon could make its way into the hands of a non-state actor.

Albright also issued her support for talks, saying, "We need to engage with Iran. You have to deal with countries you have a problem with."

Albright added that the issue is more serious because the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran. She also said the U.S. has an inaccurate view of Iranian society, saying, "[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is not particularly popular, and we don't understand Iranian society, it's not monolithic."

Powell issued a harsh rebuke to those who would stonewall the Islamic Republic, saying, "we should start to talk to them and not wait till later. What are we afraid of?"

The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said the U.S. could use economic aid as a means of thawing relations with Iran, saying, "I had one meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. I said to him: 'What's the major problem facing Iran today?' He said: 'We have a young population and we have to create jobs' - they have major economic problems, now that's something we can deal with."

Former Clinton administration secretary of state Warren Christopher highlighted U.S. military shortcomings in the need to pursue talks, saying, "We cannot afford not to have a dialogue, the military options are very poor."

The former secretaries of state also were asked who they endorsed for president, with James Baker III, secretary of state under George H.W. Bush's administration, issuing his support for John McCain and Albright saying "I'm supporting Senator Obama, it will send a message of diversity."

Powell said he hadn't yet decided who he's supporting because "there's too much talk about lipstick and pigs," adding, "we must move beyond issues of heroism or color, and ask, Who's going to have the best economic policy and bring the best judgment?

What To Do (part 2)

From a pacifist group:


IRAN NEXT? NO WAR!
WHAT YOU CAN DO:

CALL
Ask your Congressional Representative to OPPOSE
H Con Res 362 “The Iran Blockade Resolution”.
A blockade, even a partial one, is an act of war. Peaceful prevention of deadly conflict is possible.

For more information about this bill:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=11521886

To figure out who your congressperson is:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Call the Congressional switchboard:
202-224-3121
800-828-0498
866-340-9281


SIGN
Sign the Peace Action online petition against war with Iran. This is a growing list of 100,000 names to lobby for peace.

http://www.peace-action.org/Iran/index



Who wants diplomacy not war?

Five former Secretaries of State, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, members of both political parties, met in March 2008 and urged the next presidential administration to open a dialogue with Iran.


US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in 2004, expressed his reservations over an attack on Iran, saying such a move "will create generations of Jihadists". In April 2007, he said that diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Iran over its disputed nuclear program are "working" and should be given a chance to succeed.


Admiral William “Fox” Fallon, former Chief of US Central Command: "This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage".


Senator Barack Obama said, “… the threat from Iran is grave but what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends, we should be willing to engage our enemies as well”.

What to do?

This is an old article but it lays out how congress could stop the attack.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/05/opinion/oe-weiss5

Congress must stop an attack on Iran
By Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond
February 05, 2007

DESPITE ANGUISH and anger over the Bush administration’s decision to escalate its failing war in Iraq, Congress is unlikely to cut off funding. Even most opponents of the war fear that they could be blamed for not supporting the troops in the field and for a possible descent into even greater catastrophe in the face of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

But nothing prevents Congress from using its power of the purse to prevent an American attack on Iran. President Bush’s neoconservative advisors and pundit supporters have been beating the drums of war with Iran since 2003, when the president declared Iran to be part of an “axis of evil.” Recall that a senior administration official told The Times that Iran should “take a number” in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. In his recent address to the nation on the troop surge in Iraq, Bush issued more threats to Iran. Now the president has named a Navy admiral to head the U.S. Central Command and dispatched a second aircraft carrier and minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, presumably to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz in the event of conflict.

These developments and other administration moves could presage an air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran is not innocent of dangerous and provocative behavior. Tehran has supported insurgent groups in Iraq, including helping to provide sophisticated explosives that have killed U.S. soldiers. And Iran’s continued development of a nuclear enrichment facility is in defiance of the international community’s demand to halt those actions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repulsive statements about the Holocaust and Israel add to the nervousness about Iran’s future actions.

But war is not yet justified, except in the minds of those who have been lobbying for it for years. Iran is still years away from being a nuclear threat, and our experience with “preventive war” in Iraq should teach us a thing or two. Launching another such war without international approval would leave us even more politically isolated and militarily overstretched. Attacking a Middle Eastern country – one much stronger than Iraq and with the ability to cut off oil supplies from the Strait of Hormuz – could inflame the region, intensify Shiite militia attacks on our soldiers in Iraq and stimulate terrorist attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide.

But recklessness, not prudence, has been the hallmark of this administration’s foreign policy. Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the “unitary executive,” which is a fancy way of saying they believe that Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he wants. The 1973 War Powers Act, passed in the wake of our disastrous war in Vietnam, allows the president to put U.S. troops in a combat situation under certain conditions before obtaining any congressional authorization to do so. When Bush signed the Iraq war resolution, he issued a statement challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, indicating that he could take the nation to war without obeying its restrictions. Unfortunately, even if the president were to agree to the act’s restrictions, he could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.

What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned the administration that it had better seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. But we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act.

The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings.

It is, of course, possible that the president’s truculent language and actions toward Iran are a bluff, an attempt to rein in its irresponsible behavior.

But the administration’s mendacious and incompetent course of action in taking the nation to war with Iraq gives us no reason to provide the president with the benefit of any doubt. And stiffening economic sanctions – at a time when Iran’s economy is ailing and the regime is losing popular support – offers a better and safer prospect of exerting leverage.

Another war of choice would only pour fuel on the fires of the Middle East. And the history of this administration shows that if Congress does not constrain this president, he could well act recklessly again, in ways that would profoundly damage our national interest.