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?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
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”.
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”.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Read it and weep,
The New Yorker, July 7, 2008
"Annals of National Security
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran."
by Seymour M. Hersh
Operations outside the knowledge and control of commanders have eroded "the coherence of military strategy," one general says.
Related Links
Audio: Seymour M. Hersh talks about the White House and Iran.
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in the President's war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature ....
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
The New Yorker, July 7, 2008
"Annals of National Security
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran."
by Seymour M. Hersh
Operations outside the knowledge and control of commanders have eroded "the coherence of military strategy," one general says.
Related Links
Audio: Seymour M. Hersh talks about the White House and Iran.
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in the President's war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature ....
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Reza Shah
Next to the old palace was the remant of a big bronze statue of Reza Shah. (the greenish thing). All the other statues of him or his son Muhammad Reza Shah were destroyed in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
That's our Iranian-American translator in the middle.
The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI)
http://newiranpolicy.org/536/29301.html
Americans to Talk Directly to Iranians: Call for Diplomacy not War with Iran
As rhetoric continues to escalate and tensions mount between the U.S. and Iran, the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran will hold an event on Capitol Hill to underscore the need for new, responsible and effective U.S. policies and leadership to reduce the likelihood of a conflict that would have disastrous consequences.
What: The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) is organizing an innovative “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference on Capitol Hill. With the U.S. Capitol as a backdrop, Members of Congress, celebrities, former officials, and other citizens will use a row of 60’s-era red “hotline” telephones to talk directly to ordinary Iranian citizens. Concurrently on June 10, the Campaign is organizing a nationwide Call-in to Congress for Diplomacy with Iran so those outside of DC can participate and make their voice heard.
When: The event on Capitol Hill will be held Tuesday, June 10, 2008, from 10:00 am–2:00 pm EDT.
Where: Terrace on the West Side of Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
What You Can Do: If you live in or near DC, come participate in the Capitol Hill event and have a conversation with an Iranian citizen.
If you live outside of DC, call your Representative and Senators and tell them you want dialogue, not war, with Iran. Click here to download the National Call-in Day action alert. For organizations, please consider sending the action alert below to your members and advertising on your website.
What are people saying about the event?"Instead of talking about war, the U.S. government should talk to Iran. At the same time, Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and not give the president another blank check to wage another costly war,” says Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman from Georgia and the Libertarian Party’s 2009 Presidential nominee.
“Right now, the most important thing is that the U.S. does not militarily attack Iran or even threaten to attack Iran,” says Shirin Ebadi, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate and Iranian human rights lawyer.
“A military attack will only bring further chaos to the region and worsen the situation for human rights and democracy in Iran. As the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran is advocating through this event, the best way to resolve the situation is through direct dialogue at three levels – civil society, parliaments and heads of government.”
“It is long past time to recognize that the administration's policy toward Iran is counterproductive in that it provides incentives for continuation of its uranium enrichment program and assistance to militia factions in Iraq,” says Lt. General Robert Gard (Ret.), Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
"An attack by the United States on Iran would be a catastrophe for both countries and would have a devastating effect on the entire Middle East region. Bombing nuclear sites would only delay, not eliminate, Iran's nuclear program and would virtually guarantee accelerated efforts to build a weapon for self-defense. Iran would certainly retaliate, closing the Straits of Hormuz and leading to a surge in oil prices. It would unleash a wave of attacks against US forces in neighboring Iraq and would exploit its relationship with Hezbollah to stage terrorist attacks against Israel and also possibly within the United States. It could destabilize neighboring Afghanistan. US response to Iranian resistance would likely result in huge civilian casualty levels,” says Phil Giraldi, a former CIA Counter-terrorism specialist who currently is a contributing editor for The American Conservative magazine and a columnist for Antiwar.com. He continues, “In spite of the bellicose rhetoric coming mostly from Washington, the American people do not want another war, nor has the White House yet made a case that Iran poses a genuine threat against the United States. The Bush Administration has refused to negotiate outstanding issues unless Iran, as a precondition, surrenders on many key points, a tactic designed to guarantee that no talks will take place. The danger that a new war in the Middle East will begin either by accident or by design is growing. It is time to begin serious negotiations, before it is too late."
“The spiraling crisis between Iran and the United States can only be eased through dialogue. Angry demands and threats of military attack dangerously increase tension in a volatile region. The path of direct negotiations without pre-conditions between the US and Iran is so low-cost that it seems folly not to try,” says Stephen Kinzer, award-winning foreign correspondent and author of All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
“This is precisely the kind of creative citizen diplomacy we need in a time where tensions are running high,” says Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate. “We must send a message to the leaders of both countries that we do not want to see another disastrous war in the Middle East that will result in more suffering among women and children. Military action is not the answer and we demand a negotiated resolution to the standoff.”
For more information or to support the event, please contact the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran at info @ newiranpolicy.org.
Americans to Talk Directly to Iranians: Call for Diplomacy not War with Iran
As rhetoric continues to escalate and tensions mount between the U.S. and Iran, the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran will hold an event on Capitol Hill to underscore the need for new, responsible and effective U.S. policies and leadership to reduce the likelihood of a conflict that would have disastrous consequences.
What: The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) is organizing an innovative “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference on Capitol Hill. With the U.S. Capitol as a backdrop, Members of Congress, celebrities, former officials, and other citizens will use a row of 60’s-era red “hotline” telephones to talk directly to ordinary Iranian citizens. Concurrently on June 10, the Campaign is organizing a nationwide Call-in to Congress for Diplomacy with Iran so those outside of DC can participate and make their voice heard.
When: The event on Capitol Hill will be held Tuesday, June 10, 2008, from 10:00 am–2:00 pm EDT.
Where: Terrace on the West Side of Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
What You Can Do: If you live in or near DC, come participate in the Capitol Hill event and have a conversation with an Iranian citizen.
If you live outside of DC, call your Representative and Senators and tell them you want dialogue, not war, with Iran. Click here to download the National Call-in Day action alert. For organizations, please consider sending the action alert below to your members and advertising on your website.
What are people saying about the event?"Instead of talking about war, the U.S. government should talk to Iran. At the same time, Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and not give the president another blank check to wage another costly war,” says Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman from Georgia and the Libertarian Party’s 2009 Presidential nominee.
“Right now, the most important thing is that the U.S. does not militarily attack Iran or even threaten to attack Iran,” says Shirin Ebadi, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate and Iranian human rights lawyer.
“A military attack will only bring further chaos to the region and worsen the situation for human rights and democracy in Iran. As the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran is advocating through this event, the best way to resolve the situation is through direct dialogue at three levels – civil society, parliaments and heads of government.”
“It is long past time to recognize that the administration's policy toward Iran is counterproductive in that it provides incentives for continuation of its uranium enrichment program and assistance to militia factions in Iraq,” says Lt. General Robert Gard (Ret.), Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
"An attack by the United States on Iran would be a catastrophe for both countries and would have a devastating effect on the entire Middle East region. Bombing nuclear sites would only delay, not eliminate, Iran's nuclear program and would virtually guarantee accelerated efforts to build a weapon for self-defense. Iran would certainly retaliate, closing the Straits of Hormuz and leading to a surge in oil prices. It would unleash a wave of attacks against US forces in neighboring Iraq and would exploit its relationship with Hezbollah to stage terrorist attacks against Israel and also possibly within the United States. It could destabilize neighboring Afghanistan. US response to Iranian resistance would likely result in huge civilian casualty levels,” says Phil Giraldi, a former CIA Counter-terrorism specialist who currently is a contributing editor for The American Conservative magazine and a columnist for Antiwar.com. He continues, “In spite of the bellicose rhetoric coming mostly from Washington, the American people do not want another war, nor has the White House yet made a case that Iran poses a genuine threat against the United States. The Bush Administration has refused to negotiate outstanding issues unless Iran, as a precondition, surrenders on many key points, a tactic designed to guarantee that no talks will take place. The danger that a new war in the Middle East will begin either by accident or by design is growing. It is time to begin serious negotiations, before it is too late."
“The spiraling crisis between Iran and the United States can only be eased through dialogue. Angry demands and threats of military attack dangerously increase tension in a volatile region. The path of direct negotiations without pre-conditions between the US and Iran is so low-cost that it seems folly not to try,” says Stephen Kinzer, award-winning foreign correspondent and author of All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
“This is precisely the kind of creative citizen diplomacy we need in a time where tensions are running high,” says Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate. “We must send a message to the leaders of both countries that we do not want to see another disastrous war in the Middle East that will result in more suffering among women and children. Military action is not the answer and we demand a negotiated resolution to the standoff.”
For more information or to support the event, please contact the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran at info @ newiranpolicy.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)