Iran Nuclear Watch

OFAC Grants Permission to Iranian American Organization to Open Office in Tehran

2008-10-03T11:05:00.002-04:00

In a significant departure from previous policy, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at the Department of Treasury, has granted permission to the American Iranian Council (AIC) to open an office in Tehran. AIC says it does not receive funds from either the government of Iran or the U.S. AIC hopes to establish the office to promote better understanding and exchange between the U.S. and Iran. The Iranian government has not yet approved of the AIC office in Tehran.

A spokesman for the State Department told the BBC that the move did not signal any change in policy. However, it has been extremely difficult for American non-governmental organizations to obtain licenses to operate in Iran. Even following the Bam 6.6 earthquake in 2002, the humanitarian organization Mercy Corps was unable to renew its OFAC license after the first year of its relief efforts and was forced to pack up and leave despite much work to be done. One Iran expert tells me that the approval may be a feeler before the U.S. moves towards opening an Iranian interests section in Tehran.

Many non-governmental organizations, including the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, have been advocating for the last several years that the Bush administration should repeal Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions that prohibit US non-governmental organizations from obtaining licenses to work inside Iran as a confidence building measure to demonstrate diplomatic sincerity. Hopefully, OFAC will grant licenses to additional non-governmental organizations in order increase civil society ties between the U.S. and Iran, and not just stop with one license to AIC. There are many organizations worthy of such a license.

Midnight Hour Sanctions Politics

2008-10-02T18:04:00.004-04:00

On October 2, majority leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) attempted to amend and pass the House version of the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," H.R. 7112. A transcript of the attempt is below and partial video is available on C-Span here.

Senator Wayne Allard objected to the bill, but he was simply the Republican senator on the floor at the time and was objecting on behalf of other Republicans. There has been significant pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to pass legislation expanding sanctions against Iran before Congress adjourns to campaign for the elections.

In the last few months, Senator Reid has been very reluctant to bring up an Iran sanctions bill on which the members of the Senate, particularly the Democrats, are not united. There were divisions among the Democrats over whether and which Iran sanctions legislation should be voted. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced his “Iran Sanctions Act of 2008” on July 7, 2008 to thwart a legislative victory for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), the original sponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, who is facing a tough re-election race against Democrat Jeff Merkley in Oregon.

However, Senator Baucus’ bill faced opposition because it contained controversial provisions and did not grant jurisdiction to other key Senate committees, namely Foreign Affairs and Banking. Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) then introduced their "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," a version of which was introduced by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) and passed by the House last Saturday.

Given Senator Reid’s previous reluctance to bring up a sanctions bill on which there has not been party unification, his attempt today was likely meant to alleviate pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to pass legislation prior to the elections while putting the blame squarely on Republicans. However, the Senate may reconvene the week of November 17, but the House of Representatives is not likely to go back into session. Any bills the Senate debates during the November session will need to have already been passed by the House. There is still then a possibility that the Senate could pass the House version of the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" before the end of the year, but then the Bush administration could also veto it.

Transcript

MR. REID: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7112, WHICH IS AT THE DESK, THE DODD-SHELBY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ALSO AT THE DESK BE AGREED TO, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE READ A THIRD TIME, PASSED, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE, WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE, AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THIS MATTER APPEAR AS PRINTED IN THE RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?

MR. ALLARD: MR. PRESIDENT, I OBJECT. THE BANKING COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON NEW LANGUAGE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHICH IS NOT YET COMPLETED.

MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT –

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD.

MR. REID: I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THIS VERY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION OPPOSES SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE DIVERSEMENT OF ASSETS IN IRAN BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO TRANSSHIPMENT, OR DIVERSION OF CERTAIN SENSITIVE ITEMS TO IRAN IS A VERY IMPORTANT. WE'VE TRIED TO GET THIS DONE IN THIS BODY. THERE'S BEEN OBJECTION BY THE REPUBLICANS. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

Bob Baer on Fresh Air

2008-10-02T14:40:00.003-04:00

Former CIA operative Robert Baer discusses his new book The Devil We Know on the October 2, 2008 edition of Fresh Air with Terri Gross. He writes in the book, "The sooner we understand the Iranian paradox — who they are, what they want, how they want to both humble us and work with us — the sooner we'll understand how to come to terms with the new Iranian superpower." Click here to listen to the interview.

Asia Society Event with Mottaki

2008-10-01T16:34:00.002-04:00

On Thursday, October 2, 2008, the Asia Society will host a conversation with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who will discuss the current direction of Iran's foreign policy. The event will be moderated by Frank Wisner, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the former US Ambassador to India, the Philippines and Egypt. The event will be webcast from 8:30 am to 10:00 am EDT on the Asia Society website.

Berman on Passage of Iran Sanctions

2008-09-27T09:21:00.002-04:00

After passing H.R. 7112, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" on September 26, 2008, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and the bill's sponsor, released the following remarks:

"Mr. Speaker, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power to me is one of the great national security challenges of our age. A nuclear-armed, fundamentalist Iran would become the dominant power in its region. The global nonproliferation regime would crumble; already today we know that many of Iran's neighbors are contemplating their own nuclear programs - and can anyone be sure that Iran, with a leader who speaks like he speaks now, would not resort to either the use of nuclear weapons or to the hand-off of those weapons to terrorist organizations?

"The sanctions that the United States and the international community thus far have placed on Iran have squeezed Iran's economy somewhat perhaps, but clearly not enough significantly to slow down its nuclear program. The present strategy is not working. I'm disappointed, and I
believe that the Iranian regime is surely heartened -- by the failure of urgency the Administration's to produce the kind of results we need regarding Iran's nuclear program. We need to make our foreign-policy priorities clear, and Iran must be at the very top of the agenda in our dealings with other countries. Sanctions will never work unless we have buy-in and support from other key countries. And if the process of achieving that buy-in requires us to engage directly with Iran, that is certainly something we should do.

"Two months ago, the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and Germany offered Iran all kinds of generous incentives to persuade it to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Just for the sake of initiating further talks on this package, they offered what they called a "freeze-for-freeze" -we will agree not to pursue further sanctions for six weeks, Iran agrees not to increase the number of its centrifuges for six weeks. But these offers weren't good enough for Iran, which responded only with a non-committal letter.

"If Iran won't change its behavior as a result of the sanctions the international community has already imposed, and if it won't change its behavior as a result of the generous incentives package offered in Geneva, we should be pursuing tougher and more meaningful sanctions.

"The legislation before us won't put an end to Iran's nuclear program, but it may help to slow it down. Moreover, it will send a strong signal to Tehran that the U.S. Congress views this matter with urgency. And it will send a message to companies and countries that invest or consider
investing in Iran's energy sector.

"This bill before us contains somewhat a diluted version of two measures put together in the other body that had previously passed by the House by votes of 397 to 16 and 408 to 6.

"This legislation would codify and expand export and import bans on goods to and from Iran. It would freeze assets in the U.S. held by Iranians closely tied to the regime.

"It would render sanctionable a U.S. parent company if that parent company uses a foreign subsidiary to circumvent sanctions. It expands the Iran Sanctions Act to cover not only oil and all natural gas but related industries. It authorizes state and local governments in the United States to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. It increases U.S. export controls on countries that are directly involved in trans-shipment or illegal
diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran. And it requires the Administration to report all foreign investments of $20 million or more made in Iran's energy sector - action which they have not done, notwithstanding the existing law -- and to determine whether each such investment qualifies as sanctionable.

"Since 1996, the Executive Branch has never implemented the sanctions in the Iran Sanctions Act, even though well over a dozen sanctionable investment deals have since been concluded with Iran by international companies. The Administration hasn't even made a determination as to whether any of the investors are sanctionable. This bill will close that loophole.

"The legislation before us also reaffirms our nation's commitment to multilateral diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it explicitly states that nothing in this Act authorizes the use of force.

"Based on previous votes, this body is committed to ending Iran's illicit nuclear program by taking measures that are peaceful but meaningful. I believe this legislation is a useful step toward that end."

House Passes Sanctions Bill

2008-09-26T22:46:00.002-04:00

Just before the Presidential debate last night, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7112, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" by voice vote on motion to suspend the rules. The bill will "impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, and to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran." H.R. 7112 is the House version of S. 3445, the Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill, and was introduced into the House by Representative Howard Berman, along with 11 other co-sponsors. As I predicted over two weeks ago, H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580 became a mute issue this Congressional session and the Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill came to the forefront with ease and little opposition in the House.

It remains to be seen what will happen in the Senate. According to CQ Today, it is not expected to see floor action in the Senate. The Bush administration has opposed the bill, as have foreign countries (primarily European allies) who see the bill as extraterritorial application of U.S. law. A group of business coalitions - including, Business Roundtable, Coalition for Employment Through Exports, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Association of Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade Council, National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, Organization for International Investment, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and USA*Engage - and Americans for Peace Now also oppose the bill.

What Kissinger Really Said About Diplomacy with Iran

2008-09-26T22:44:00.001-04:00

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

Iran Has a Republican Guard?

2008-09-26T22:06:00.003-04:00

If you watched the Presidential debate tonight, one might think so. John McCain spoke about Iran's "Republican Guard" and brought up the Kyl-Lieberman amendment from 2007 to label the Republican Guard a terrorist organizaiton. Barack Obama took a cue from McCain and continued the discussion regarding the "Republican Guard." Someone needs to tell them the Republican Guard was Saddam's military. Iran has the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Berman Sanctions Legislation

2008-09-26T13:25:00.002-04:00

Here is Representative Howard Berman's (D-CA) sanctions legislation listed as item five on the House Suspension Calendar for September 26, 2008. The bill is the House version of the Dodd-Shelby "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2008."

Palin on Iran

2008-09-26T11:11:00.003-04:00

Below is an excerpt of the transcript from Katie Couric's day two interview with Sarah Palin, which includes more comments from Palin on Iran.

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger..

Palin: It's dangerous.

Couric: is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?

Palin: No, we need to express our rights and our concerns and…

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Berman Dear Colleague on Iran Sanctions Bill

2008-09-26T10:43:00.001-04:00

Support the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008
From: The Committee on Foreign Affairs
Date: 9/26/2008
September 26, 2008

Support the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008

Dear Colleague:

Later today, the House will consider the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 under suspension of the rules. I urge you to join me in supporting this important measure.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act will significantly strengthen our nation's peaceful efforts to counter Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. The legislation contains versions of two measures that have previously passed the House: HR 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was approved by the House on September 25, 2007, by a vote of 397-16, and H.R. 2347, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which was passed on July 31, 2007, by a vote of 408-6. This bill will help strengthen the hands of the United States by leading efforts to ensure that if Iran does not end its quest to obtain nuclear weapons and its support for international terrorism, Iran will face meaningful economic measures.

The legislation will undercut Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorism by:
-Codifying and expanding export and import bans on goods to and from Iran;
Freezing assets in the U.S. held by Iranians closely tied to the regime;
-Making a U.S. parent company liable for the violation of U.S. Iran sanctions if the parent company uses a foreign subsidiary to circumvent sanctions;
- Increasing the ability of the Treasury Department to combat terrorist financing;
- Authorizing state and local governments to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector or extending this amount of credit; and
- Increasing U.S. export controls on countries that are directly involved in trans-shipment or illegal diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran.
- Requiring the Administration to report all foreign investments of $20 million or more made in Iran's energy sector and to determine whether each such investment qualifies as sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act.

The legislation reaffirms our nation's commitment to multilateral diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, and explicitly states that nothing in the Act authorizes the use of force against Iran. I have attached a summary of the bill.

Please contact David Beraka at david.beraka@mail.house.gov to cosponsor this legislation.

I urge you to support this important measure.

Sincerely,
/s
HOWARD L. BERMAN
Chairman

Sanctions Suspense

2008-09-26T08:42:00.006-04:00

The Dodd-Shelby Iran Sanctions bill is on the House Suspension Calendar as item number five for today, Friday, September 26, 2008. The bill was initially put on the Calendar yesterday, but the House did not have time to debate it. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and other supporters of the nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and India, added a version of the Dodd-Shelby Iran sanctions and divestment bill (House bill text still not available) in order to garner more support to pass the India nuclear cooperation agreement approval. Hill sources initially said that Representative Berman planned to combine the Iran sanctions and India nuclear cooperation approval bills, but according to CQ Today, he will no longer do so after being pressed by the Bush administration to keep the issues separate.

The move is largely reminiscent of Santorum’s Last Stand. Some INW readers may recall a similar midnight hour effort (literally) to pass an Iran sanctions bill on September 30, 2006 before the mid-term elections. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) was able to spearhead a movement to pass the Iran Sanctions Act to give him one last legislative victory before facing off in a tough race against now Senator Bob Casey (D-PA). The difference between then and now is that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) was about to expire and Congress had to do something to renew sanctions against Iran before they legally lapsed. The sanctions bill then was largely an extension of the 1996 ILSA, however, it appropriately dropped Libya sanctions.

Today’s story has a somewhat different twist. Instead of simply renewing, the bill that will likely be voted on Suspension today would impose much broader sanctions against Iran include enabling legislation for divestment efforts across the U.S. Unlike 2006, Iran sanctions are not pending lapse, yet Democrats and Republicans alike are using the Iran sanctions bill for their electioneering purposes yet again in the midnight hour before recessing to campaign. If the sanctions bill is voted on, Members of Congress will surely point to their co-sponsorship and vote as proof of being tough on Iran and tough on national security. And, Congress may be under even more pressure to do something given that the controversial H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580 are not likely to be taken up today or before the end of the legislative session.

What will happen remains to be seen. In order to become law, the Senate will also need to pass the bill and the President would then need to sign it. However, it would take just one Senator to block a unanimous consent agreement, which would be required to bring the bill up for a free-standing vote. The Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill was excluded from the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill, but it did have significant support in the Senate even from those like Senator John Warner (R-VA) who simply objected to its inclusion based on principle. With little time remaining, it is possible that the bill could be held up in the Senate. Hill sources said yesterday that it was conceivable that Finance Committee Chair Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) could add the combined India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement-Iran Sanctions bill to the $700 billion bailout package. However, that may be less likely now since Representative Berman has agreed to keep the measures separate and the House will vote on an India nuclear cooperation approval bill that is identical to the version already passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Stay tuned…

State Department: Iran Remains Country of Particular Concern for Violations of Religious Freedom

2008-09-25T17:05:00.001-04:00

The State Department has just released its 2008 Annual International Religious Freedom Report. According to the report, Iran remains a country of “particular concern” for its “particularly egregious violations of religious freedom.” The report lists abuses of religious freedom in Iran in the last year, including significant abuses and discrimination against the Baha’i community, but also against the Christian, Sufi, Sunni and Jewish communities.

The report notes that while the U.S. does not have direct relations with Iran, “it calls on other countries that have bilateral relations with the country to use those ties to press the Government on religious freedom and human rights matters.”

Read the full report here.

Report: Diplomacy Iran Key to Resolving U.S. Tensions with Muslim World

2008-09-25T16:36:00.002-04:00

Search for Common Ground and Consensus Building Institute released a new report on September 24, 2008 entitled, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim Worl d.” The report presents the consensus of the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement, comprised of 34 leaders including a former Secretary of State and a former Deputy Secretary of State, former members of Congress, a former U.S. envoy on the Middle East peace process, and leaders and experts from business, faith communities, foreign policy and social sciences.

As part of strategy for reversing extremism, the report recommends elevating diplomacy as a primary tool for resolving key conflicts among Muslim countries and engaging both allies and adversaries in dialogue. It specifically calls for engaging Iran “to explore the potential for agreements that could increase national security, while seeking Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments.” (page 20)

Under a “Call for Action,” the report calls on the next President and Administration within the first three months to “initiate a major and sustained diplomatic effort to resolve regional conflicts and promote security cooperation in the Middle East, giving top priority to engagement with Iran and permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” (page 22)

The report cites that the majority of the American public wants the U.S. to make greater use of diplomacy and dialogue with adversaries, including Iran. “However, there is little support for advocating democracy or increasing foreign aid.” (page 45)

The report finds that heightened tensions with Iran is among five drivers of tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world. “The U.S. confrontation with Iran has added to the widespread perception that the U.S. intends to dominate the Middle East militarily for the foreseeable future.” (page 50) It does note, however, that all Muslims in the Middle oppose the U.S. confrontation with Iran.

The report expounds on the complex and competing interests between the U.S. and Iran. While the U.S. has done much to signal to Iran it is willing to force, this approach has not succeeded in limiting Iran’s influence in the region or in undermining those in Iran who are hostile towards the U.S. The report states, “It is unlikely that the U.S. and its allies (both Muslim and Western) could do substantially more to constrain Iran’s economic or military options, or undermine its government, without resorting to force. At this point, the U.S. should expand the contacts with Iran that the Bush administration has recently initiated.” The goal of such talks should be to pursue the potential for “mutually beneficial agreements on regional security, diplomatic and economic relations.” Simultaneously, the U.S. should continue seeking international verification of Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty (page 56).

The report goes on to state that dialogue with Iran could be particularly important for resolving the conflict in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and gaining assistance in Afghanistan.

Americans for Peace Now and DeLee: U.S. Must Engage Iran

2008-09-25T13:25:00.003-04:00

Debra DeLee has an Op-Ed in JTA this week in which she argues, that the United States does not have to like Iran's president to engage in real diplomacy with his country, and engaging Iran in order to safeguard vital U.S. national security interests is not appeasement. DeLee says that the American-led strategy to cajole, threaten and sanction Iran into submission hasn't stopped its nuclear program.

Americans for Peace Now also released a new statement on September 24, 2008 calling on the Presidential candidates to support diplomacy with Iran as part of its "Responsibility over Rhetoric" initiative aimed at the Obama and McCain campaigns. Below is the full statement from APN. Like the DeLee Op-Ed, the statement calls on the candidates to embrace a serious, success-oriented approach to the challenge of Iran, involving a strategy of sticks and carrots, and founded on direct, determined diplomacy with Iran.

APN to Presidential Candidates: Support Iran Diplomacy

For years Iran’s leaders have espoused virulently anti-U.S., anti-Israel positions, complemented by moral and financial support for extremists and terrorist organizations – including Hamas and Hezbollah. The rise to power of President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad – arguably the most anti-Western, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Iranian leader in history – has heightened concerns about Iran’s intentions in the region and in the world. These concerns have grown over the past decade, as Iran has tenaciously pursued a nuclear program.

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a potential existential threat to Israel and is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. An unchecked rogue Iran will likely continue to use support for terrorist groups to further destabilize the region and threaten Israel and other vital U.S. interests, including in Iraq and Lebanon. Moreover, in the absence of an effective international strategy to deal with Iran, domestic pressure for Israel to take matters into its own hands will continue to grow.

Unfortunately, instead of an orchestrated international effort to engage Iran and address these very serious issues, the U.S. has worked to ensure that the world follows its lead in adopting a one-dimensional strategy toward Iran – a strategy that seeks to threaten, browbeat, and sanction Iran into submission.

This strategy has failed. It has not stopped Iran's nuclear program or Iran’s reckless meddling in the region. Perversely, it may even have had the opposite effect: Just as American politicians routinely bolster their patriotic credentials by talking tough about Iran, today Iranian hard-liners -- including Ahmadinejad -- burnish their own nationalist credentials with pledges to stand up to American “bullying.” Indeed, such nationalist rhetoric is one of the only planks Iranian hard-liners have left to run on, given the domestic economic and social challenges facing their country. It should surprise no one that pushed into a corner, many Iranians -- including those who don't support Ahmadinejad -- have come to view the nuclear program as a symbol of national honor and pride.

And while it is true that the United States has at times offered to engage Iran in a limited manner, such engagement has been preconditioned on Iran first freezing its nuclear program. This approach – in which, as a precondition to negotiations, Iran is required to take an action that from its perspective should be the outcome of negotiations – has been unsuccessful. Preconditioning negotiations in this manner does not constitute genuine diplomacy.

Ahmadinejad is a populist rabble-rouser whose anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric is repugnant. His country's support for terrorist groups throughout the region is abhorrent. Nobody is suggesting that America’s next President should embrace him.

But just as clearly, demonizing Ahmadinejad while constantly reminding him that "all options are on the table" does not constitute the basis for a responsible or effective Iran policy. Sanctions are indeed a potentially powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, but they simply will not suffice as a replacement for diplomacy in resolving our differences. Clearly the option for military action is always available, but that option and even its threat must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

Addressing the challenges posed by Iran requires a smarter strategy -- combining carrots and sticks, incentives and sanctions -- and strong U.S. direct engagement and leadership. The next U.S. President does not have to like Ahmadinejad to engage in real diplomacy with his country, and engaging Iran in order to safeguard vital U.S. national security interests is not appeasement. Rather, as the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran underscored, it is the kind of sensible and responsible foreign policy that is long overdue. A bipartisan group of five former Secretaries of State, speaking together at a September 15, 2008 forum, agrees:

Madeleine Albright (who served under President Bill Clinton): “I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries you have problems with…I think it’s one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this [current approach]…”

Gen. Colin Powell (who served under President George W. Bush): “…we should start to talk to them. Don’t wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions.”

Warren Christopher (who served under President Bill Clinton): “…our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them ‘Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians.’ We can’t be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can’t be stopped, because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor…”

James Baker (who served under President George H.W. Bush): “We ought to engage. Yes… We’re all saying that you [the next U.S. President] ought to engage…”

Henry Kissinger (who served under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford): “…I am in favor of negotiating with Iran…”

Such a diplomatic effort will not be easy; indeed it will almost certainly be a long and arduous process. Nor is its success a foregone conclusion. But such an effort is indispensable if the United States is serious about dealing with serious challenges to U.S. foreign policy goals and to U.S. national security interests posed by Iran.

Americans for Peace Now urges the Presidential candidates to:

>>>> Enunciate a clear recognition that the current U.S. approach to Iran, consisting almost exclusively of sanctions and saber-rattling, has failed.

>>>> Embrace a serious, success-oriented approach to the challenge of Iran, involving a strategy of sticks and carrots – sanctions and meaningful incentives – and founded on direct, determined diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions.

>>>> Abandon casual rhetoric about U.S. or Israeli first-strike options, and discard the notion that the guiding policy of the U.S. must be that “all options are on the table.” Clearly, the option for military action is always available, but it must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

CNN Transcript with Five Former Bipartisan Secretaries of State Agreeing on Talks with Iran

2008-09-24T09:00:00.002-04:00

CNN has posted the transcript of the forum with the five former Secretaries of State at George Washington University, which aired on September 20, 2008. During the forum, the five former Secretaries of State, both Republican and Democrat, once again agreed that the next President of the United States should engage Iran in direct talks. Below is the excerpt of the transcript that includes the discussion on Iran.

AMANPOUR: Secretary Baker, you just talked about strategically, not tactically. Let's talk about Iran, which has been a strategic and tactical headache for the United States over the last 30 years.

Let's say, in the few weeks after the inauguration of the next president, a message comes from Iran that the Iranians are ready to do a deal, all conditions on the table. Is the advice to the next American president to once again put conditions to expect Iran to cry uncle or to engage?

Secretary Albright?

ALBRIGHT: I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries that you have problems with and take the Russians (ph)... AMANPOUR: So what do you advise the president when he gets this message across his desk or it comes to the State Department that the Iranians are seeking feelers?

ALBRIGHT: You begin to look at what level to talk at. And actually, something like that happened when we were in office. And you begin to find the right level.

And I think it's one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this. And I -- while there are many issues, ultimately, Iran has benefited the most from the war in Iraq. And I think that we need to deal with them.

AMANPOUR: The intelligence assessment that's going to be given to the next president says that Iran, they believe, will continue to seek to enrich uranium, but at the moment they don't see evidence of building a weapon.

Can the United States, despite all that's been said up to now, can the world live with a nuclear Iran?

POWELL: The Iranians are telling us that they are developing a nuclear program and they're doing it for civilian use and for power generation.

Once you know how to do that, that 5 percent enrichment, you can scale it up to 90 percent enrichment and make a weapon.

So I agree with Madeleine, and I suspect my other colleagues, that we should start to talk to them. Don't wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions. We were talking to them up through the middle of 2003.

AMANPOUR: So take the initiative?

POWELL: Yes. Why shouldn't we?

(CROSSTALK)

POWELL: We did.

BAKER: We did. In our administration, way back in '91.

POWELL: We were talking to them through 2003 at a low level. And then it was stopped. And so find a way -- and don't make it, "Let's get together and talk just about nuclear weapons or just about this or just about that." Start a dialogue at a low level and let it grow over time.

SESNO: Might the next president have to have a showdown with his Israeli allies, to tell them to hold back?

CHRISTOPHER: I must say our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them, "Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians. We can't be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can be stopped," because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor.

And if that's what the Israelis are advocating, I think that we have to tell them that we think their military options are very poor and we don't want to go down that route.

SESNO: So neither candidate, neither of the men who would be president has taken the military option with respect to Iran off the table?

CHRISTOPHER: I didn't say to take them off the table.

(CROSSTALK)

BAKER: Can I just say one -- one more thing? When I was in office, we had a standing policy with the Iranians. We were ready to talk to them, provided it would be done at an official level, at the level of the secretary of state, and they did -- they wouldn't -- they didn't have enough domestic political support for that.

Having vilified us as the Great Satan for so long, they couldn't get the domestic political support necessary to meet with us. So it wasn't the case of our -- we hadn't been isolating Iran from that standpoint. We offered to meet with them at the level of secretary of state.

And I think a well-placed, quiet, private phone call to the Iranian leadership, if you can find out which leaders to talk to, to the effect, "Look, if you do so much as aim a missile or anything else toward Israel or toward anything else, toward Israel or toward us, our strategic nuclear deterrent can be re-aimed in 20 seconds," they would understand that, I think.

AMANPOUR: I'm sure they would.

(LAUGHTER)

But the question is, do you want to change the policy? And do you want to actually try to engage for strategic reasons?

BAKER: We ought to engage, yes.

AMANPOUR: To use them for help in...

POWELL: I think we're all saying yes.

BAKER: We're all saying you ought to engage, I think. I don't know. I haven't heard Henry. He may not.

(LAUGHTER)

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

ALBRIGHT: I think also we need to make clear that what we're doing is not counterproductive. At the moment, I think we don't understand Iranian society. It is not monolithic. There are various aspects of the fact that Ahmadinejad is not particularly popular. There are economic issues.

And the more that we go around vilifying them, we create -- put him a stronger position. And so not only should we do these steps that the others have been talking about, but we have to make sure that we're not undercutting what we want to do by creating a bigger problem than we have.

AMANPOUR: So it looks like there's possibly some different advice to the next president.

New Assessment Calls for Security Council Action on Iran

2008-09-24T08:43:00.003-04:00

A new assessment of the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran released this week by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel concludes that the two main areas for concern in the report are the "current uranium enrichment activities" and "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear development program. The assessment argues that it is now up to the United Nations Security Council to decide how things will go.

The assessment states there are "three main possible future directions: strong economic and diplomatic sanctions to force Iran into serious negotiations; military action; or a nuclear Iran. The Council can and should act if it does not want the situation to further deteriorate." It recommends that the Security Council "adopt a threefold program: a) prohibit sale of any goods to Iran with the exception of food and medical supplies b) prohibit external travel of Iranian residents by not issuing entry visas to UN member states except for humanitarian or health reasons or for negotiating purposes, and c) start, with the appointment of a sub-committee or other agreed negotiators, serious ongoing negotiations with Iran on the complete cessation of nuclear fuel activities in Iran and on vital mutual security issues, including security guarantees to Iran, abandonment of Iranian assistance to terror organizations, and the establishment of normal relations with all nations."

The assessment concludes, "If the Security Council or major political blocs do not quickly agree on the strong sanctions-negotiations route, the possibility of a military action will become more realistic. If that does not happen, there will be no way to avoid the least desirable option – a nuclear weapons Iran"

Churches for Middle East Peace Statement on Iran

2008-09-24T08:37:00.002-04:00

Churches for Middle East Peace has released a new policy statement on Iran. Below is the full statement.

CMEP Policy Statement on Iran: September, 2008

Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) calls for robust U.S. diplomacy throughout the Middle East to resolve conflicts and reduce tensions, including direct, serious and sustained negotiations with Iran. CMEP views with deep concern the possible development by Iran of a nuclear weapon and Iran's ongoing support for Hezbollah and Hamas. As a coalition representing a wide variety of American Christians, we deplore the anti-Israel statements of Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

To address the current impasse, the United States should pursue a comprehensive diplomatic strategy vis-à-vis Iran, together with international partners, that maximizes non-military options to avoid escalation and strengthens global and regional nuclear nonproliferation efforts, including bolstering support for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a strategy must include economic and diplomatic incentives and should recognize that, while sanctions – carefully targeted not to impact vulnerable civilians and constantly evaluated for effectiveness – are preferable to the use of force, they are not a replacement for diplomacy.

CMEP opposes any pre-emptive military action against Iran, as well as provocative rhetoric or measures that increase the threat of confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. Military conflict with Iran would likely spark a dangerous regional crisis and would further marginalize moderating forces within Iran.

The vigor of the human rights discourse and vibrancy of civil society in Iran, even under formidable pressure from authorities, is promising and can be best furthered by diplomatic openings with Iran. CMEP supports efforts to build relationships and understanding between the people of Iran and America, including promoting more people-to-people exchanges among religious leaders and civil society.

CMEP remains committed to supporting vigorous U.S. diplomacy to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict and views diplomatic engagement with Iran as integral to fostering regional peace, security and stability.

NPR Interview with Ahmadinejad

2008-09-23T10:11:00.002-04:00

NPR's Steve Inskeep interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The interview transcript and audio are available online here.

New Report Outlines Recommendations for Next U.S. President

2008-09-23T10:02:00.002-04:00

A new report entitled “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development” has just been published by the National Security Initiative of the Bipartisan Security Center. The task force was co-chaired by Ambassador Daniel Coats and former Senator Charles Robb (VA). Other task force members included Ashton Carter, Admiral Gregory Johnson (U.S. Navy, Ret.), General Ronald Keys (Ret.), Dennis Ross, Henry Sokolski, and Steve Rademaker, among others. Kenneth Katzman and Micahel Rubin served as consultants to the project and Michael Rubin is credited as the primary drafter of the report.

The report concludes that a new and comprehensive diplomatic strategy, with calibrated financial and military leverage, will be the next administration’s best option. While the report says its seeks a diplomatic solution to the Iranian challenge, involving direct engagement between the U.S. and Iran, it says such engagement should only be done under the right conditions, and the U.S. should only enter diplomatic relations from a position of strength. Furthermore, if diplomacy fails, the next president might have to turn to “less optimal solutions,” including military action, if diplomacy fails within a reasonable timeframe. It says that “while a ‘grand bargain’ resolving all issues between Washington and Tehran would be an attractive outcome, the United States does not have the luxury of time given the intractability of issues and the Iranian government’s decision to accelerate its nuclear program.”

The report warns that opening dialogue with Iran without preconditions could backfire, and the U.S. should limit talks with Iran to a predetermined time period. It states, “Any formal dialogue with Iran absent suspension of enrichment could backfire: Not only would the United States implicitly void all UN Security Council resolutions demanding a cessation of Iranian uranium enrichment, but Iranian authorities are likely to interpret U.S. flexibility as acquiescence to the Iranian position that it must be permitted to enrich—all the more reason to increase multilateral sanctions as any new incentives are contemplated.”

The report also states that the “Europeans make war with Iran more likely if they do not strengthen sanctions against Iran and effectively end all commercial relations.” It calls on the next President to “clarify to the Europeans that only by standing firmly together diplomatically and ratcheting up the pressure on the Islamic Republic can we improve the chance to avoid more robust action.”

The report calls for ramping up sanctions and closing existing loopholes in current U.S. and United Nations sanctions. According to the report: “The U.S. Treasury Department’s quiet diplomacy with European banks should continue. Many European banks and companies have stepped back from operations in Iran when confronted with evidence of the Islamic Republic’s deceptive financial practices. Washington should press for expansion of sanctions upon Iran’s banking sector. Even without European acquiescence, the next occupant of the Oval Office should consider applying Section 311 of the U.S.A Patriot Act to designate additional Iranian banks up to and including Bank Markazi, the central bank, because of their involvement in deceptive financial practices. Such action would, in effect, remove Iranian banks from the international financial stage. Negotiations could commence immediately to achieve greater transparency in Iranian financial dealings.”

The report also address the possibility of using a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports if diplomacy should fail. According to the report, “Some have proposed an embargo of gasoline exports to Iran but, in practice, there are too many suppliers to enforce fully without a blockade. However, even a partially effective embargo might have a psychological impact on the Iranian people, representing a cost for the Iranian leaders. An actual blockade of Iranian gasoline imports would have a much greater impact since, despite rationing, the Islamic Republic still must import about 25 percent of its refined petroleum needs, the majority of which enters Iran through sea ports. The Iranian regime feels vulnerable about its stability and a tighter rationing of gasoline or a spike in gasoline prices would likely spark further social discontent and political upheaval.” If blockading imports should fail, the U.S. should then blockade exports, an action the report views as a final sanction before military action.

The report recommends an “information campaign” to accompany all diplomatic and sanctions efforts, calling for increases in funding for Voice of America and Radio Farda. The report cautions, It is not the place of Washington to support any political groupings outside Iran or ethnic interests inside the country. However, the next president should recognize the importance of an independent civil society and trade union movement inside Iran and encourage their growth through any appropriate means.” The report does not elaborate what those means are.

Finally, the report concludes that military action is “a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear development, even if it is unlikely to solve all our challenges and will certainly create new ones.” The report acknowledges risks inherent in the military option saying, “Military action against the Islamic Republic would incur significant risks, whether such action involves a limited air strike or a more sustained air and naval campaign such as the imposition of no-fly zones and a full blockade. Any military action would run the risk of significant U.S. and allied losses, rallying Iranians around an unstable and ideologically extreme regime, triggering wide-scale Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks against Israel, and producing unrest in a number of the Persian Gulf states. An initial air campaign would likely last several days to several weeks and target both key military and nuclear installations. It should not target civilian facilities, and might not require ground troops beyond Special Forces. While a successful bombing campaign would retard Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. It would also require years of continued vigilance, both to strike previously undiscovered nuclear sites and to ensure that Iran does not resurrect its military nuclear program… A military strike would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

The report concludes, “It may be too late to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power state, but it is not too late to prevent the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear weapons threat.”

Download the full report here.

Iranian General Killed in Ethnic Resistance Clash

2008-09-19T09:38:00.009-04:00

Fars News Agency is reporting that Brigadier General Mohammad Sar-Golzaie and three other Iranian security forces were killed in clash on Thursday night with the Sunni militant group Jundullah (Soldiers of God) in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jundullah claims to be fighting for Sunni rights in Iran, but it is considered a terrorist organization by both Iran and Pakistan and believed to have links to Al Qaeda.

Seymour Hersh claimed in July this year that the U.S. government has supported Jundullah as part of covert operations inside of Iran under a policy of "my enemy’s enemy is my friend." A previous report by ABC News in April 2007 said, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states."

ABC News then reported in May 2007 that Bush had authorized a "non-lethal" covert operation in Iran to destabilize the Iranian government. Seymour Hersh argued in "Preparing the Battlefield" that in late 2007 at the same time the updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was being released, "Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran... 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." A Presidential Finding is highly classified but must be issued in order get covert intelligence operations underway. At a minimum, it must be made known to both the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, as well as to the ranking members of Intelligence committees in both chambers. Once approved, monies can be re-aportioned in appropriations bills and relevant appropriations committee members briefed. According to Hersh, both the Democratic and Republican leadership were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration's covert operations expansion.

New House Resolution on Covert Operations

2008-09-19T09:38:00.004-04:00

On September 18, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced H.R. 6951, "To prohibit the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran." The short title of the legislation has been changed to “Transparent Actions over Covert Tactics in Iran Act 0f 2008” or the “TACT in Iran Act.” The bill has six co-sponsors, including Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-NM), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), James McGovern (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Cyber-Feminism in Iran

2008-09-18T17:05:00.004-04:00

Lucy Morillon has an excellent article on cyber-feminism in Iran that highlights the Campaign for Equality and the role of the internet in the campaign for women's rights.

Morillon writes: "After a wave of repression in the ’80s, Iranian mothers were reticent to let their daughters contest the new order. In contrast, today many support their daughters fighting for equal rights and some older women even get involved themselves. The power of the Internet, accessible to everyone, has removed the class barrier, allowing all woman to receive and exchange information." Yet, she notes that "in recent years. women’s rights have become one of the top subjects targeted by government web censors, along with sites advocating political reform or hosting pornography."

Morillon also tells the stories of several courageous women's right activists, such as Parvin Ardalan and Amir Yaghoub Ali, a member of the Men’s Committee of the One Million Signatures Campaign. Read the full article here.

Defense Authorization Bill Eludes Iran Amendments

2008-09-18T16:15:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, the Senate approved S.3001, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, by a vote of 88-8. A manager’s package of amendments was proposed and included Senator Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008” (Amendment No. 5572), as well as several other Iran-related amendments. However, the manager’s package would have required unanimous consent to be added to the bill and some Republicans objected to earmarks in the report accompanying it. Thus, the Senate approved a version of the bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the addition of two of four amendments debated on September 10 – one earmarking $89 million to deploy the missile defense X-band radar at a classified location; and one extending the five-year statute of limitations on contractor fraud in Iraq.

It is important, however, to note that Iran is not entirely absent in the Senate version of the FY'09 Defense Authorization bill as evidenced in the justification of two missile defense related sections in the May 12, 2008 report accompanying S. 3001:

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of missile defenses in Europe (sec. 232)
“…They also said they would develop options for a comprehensive NATO missile defense architecture to provide coverage of the portions of NATO Europe that would not be covered by the planned U.S. deployment, in order to inform any future political decision by NATO on whether and how to provide defensive coverage for the portion of its territory that would not be protected against ballistic missiles, including from the hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles that exist today.” (Page 136)

Arrow missile defense program
“The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $74.3 million is for the U.S.-Israeli cooperative program of development and procurement for the Israeli Arrow missile defense system. The Arrow Weapon System provides Israel defense against regional ballistic missiles, including against Iran’s Shahab–3 missile.” (Page 251)

Prior to the ultimate vote on the FY’09 Defense Authorization bill, Senator Dodd made a plea on the Senate floor asking for his amendment to be brought up separately. Senator Dodd argued, “It would be a great travesty, in my view, for us to leave here having the other body having adopted similar language. This is the one opportunity for this body to embrace an economic sanctions proposal, which would give us tremendous leverage in our efforts to bring Iran to that table.” Senator John Warner (R-VA) objected to taking it up separately, but he did note that he had supported the inclusion of the amendment in the manager’s package. Below is the full text of the Senator Dodd’s plea and Senator Warner’s response (thanks yet again to Lara Friedman for digging it up).

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION -- (Senate - September 17, 2008)

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senator from Michigan is maybe doing so, but as I understand it, there was objection raised to the consideration of a managers' amendment regarding, I guess, 100 amendments. One of those amendments is a proposal of Senator Shelby and I, along with a unanimous vote of our Banking Committee, after lengthy discussion. It was the Iran sanctions proposal, which took a lot of work and effort to put together.

This was a comprehensive package, widely endorsed across the country by organizations to give us the kind of leverage necessary for us to bring Iran to the negotiating table diplomatically to reduce the threat that their potential nuclear arsenal poses to us, our allies, the State of Israel and others.

I appreciate the fact that the managers of this bill had included this amendment in their managers' package. It would be a great travesty, in my view, for us to leave here having the other body having adopted similar language. This is the one opportunity for this body to embrace an economic sanctions proposal which would give us tremendous leverage in our efforts to bring Iran to that table.

To lose that opportunity would be a serious loss of opportunity for this country. So, again, my dear friend from Virginia was here. Therefore, on behalf of those of us on the committee, unanimously, the Dodd-Shelby Iran sanctions divestment nonproliferation amendment to the DOD authorization bill, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any agreement with respect to S. 3001, it be in order for the Senate to consider amendment No. 5572 and that the amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, I wish to advise the Senator that the vote to take place right now is on final passage. It has been agreed to by unanimous consent. Prior thereto, the distinguished chairman raised the question of the package to which you refer.

I, personally, approved of putting in the amendment. It had been my hope, I say it is now no longer my hope, my disappointment, that that could not be achieved along with about 100 other amendments from both sides of the aisle.

So at this time I have to object and ask the Chair for regular order for the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

New Report Highlights Human Rights Deterioration in Iran

2008-09-18T15:41:00.004-04:00

A new report from Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran documents the human rights situation in Iran. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency, executions have risen nearly 300% and human rights protection has deteriorated to new lows. According to the report 29 men were hanged on a single day in July 2008, but the authorities announced the names of only 10 of them. The total number of executions has nearly quadrupled, rising from 86 cases in 2005 to 317 cases in 2007. Prosecution of dissidents for their beliefs and opinions has also intensified in recent years. Human rights defenders are routinely harassed and imprisoned for reporting and documenting rights violations. Iranian authorities have systematically thwarted peaceful and legal civil society efforts to advocate for women's rights. Women's rights advocates have been beaten, harassed, persecuted, and prosecuted.

Bob Barr: U.S. Should Talk to Iran

2008-09-18T15:37:00.002-04:00

Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr said today that the U.S. should talk to Iran. "While the Bush administration has steadfastly declined to engage in talks with the government of Iran, five former Secretaries of State - Republican and Democrat - recently exhibited a great deal more judgment and understanding of world affairs in calling for actual talks with Tehran. Talking does not mean sacrificing U.S. interests. Rather, talking is a means to further U.S. interests.” Read his full statement here.

Senator Dodd Pushes Iran Sanctions Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

2008-09-17T09:39:00.002-04:00

On September 15, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) went on the record to push for his bipartisan sanctions bill, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3001). Hat tip to Lara Friedman for sending along. Below are some the most relevant excerpts.

"We are considering, of course, the Defense authorization bill. This proposal, adopted and developed by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in conjunction with my Republican colleague and friend, RICHARD SHELBY of Alabama, former chairman of the committee, would impose tough new sanctions on the Government of Iran, to authorize investors to divest from companies active in Iran's energy sector and to combat the proliferation of black market weapons networks overseas...

"Let me be clear. Sanctions against the Government of Iran are not an end unto themselves but, rather, one means of driving a resolution of the problem of Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions. The Europeans' recent decision to impose additional financial sanctions on Iran is a very positive development that exerts further pressure to that end. The approach embodied in the bill I am talking about this afternoon is targeted and strategic, maximizing the economic leverage of the United States, our partners and allies in Europe and elsewhere, and international investors, while avoiding the risk of a more indiscriminate approach...

"Last year, the committee conducted a hearing on the effectiveness of Iran sanctions. Working with the administration, the Banking Committee acted swiftly to strengthen the U.S. trade/investment ban, and ultimately we saw enactment in October of the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act. This new law holds violators of U.S. sanctions law accountable, adding, I might add, jail time and severe fines against those investing in Iran or other state sponsors of terror...

"The Government Accountability Office then issued a report last December raising questions about whether our current sanctions regime against Iran furthers U.S. policy objectives and how they might be made more effective. Among other things, that report concluded that the ongoing illegal transshipment of sensitive dual-use technologies from often unwitting U.S. and other Western suppliers to countries such as Iran--sometimes through three or four levels of suppliers--is one very effective way around current U.S. sanctions...

"The missile tests that Iran conducted in July were provocative, and its persistent refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council demands--despite a host of sanctions already in place--is very troubling. Iran's behavior with respect to weapons proliferation, support for terrorism, destabilization of its neighbors, and threats against our allies and interests demands a very serious response...

"We only have a few weeks remaining in this legislative session. We will not return to actually legislate until late January of next year. I would hope we would find time, whether on this bill or some other vehicle, to enact, as I am confident we can, with a strong bipartisan vote, this Iran sanctions idea. This bill is one very important part of that response...

"First, the bill expands the definition of 'person' under the Iran Sanctions Act to include financial institutions, underwriters, guarantors, and other business entities and extends the applicability of sanctions to oil and gas pipelines and tankers. It imposes a broad ban on imports directly from Iran to the United States and exports from the United States to Iran of those few items still able to be shipped while exempting food and medicines to Iran, certain informational materials, and aids to navigation designed for safe operation of commercial aircraft.

"The bill also provides for a freezing of assets of those members of the diplomatic community or Iranian military who have been identified by the President of the United States as active in weapons proliferation or terrorist activity. The bill clarifies that U.S. entities that establish a subsidiary for the purpose of getting around U.S. sanctions laws can be held liable for the activities of their subsidiaries. The bill also increases funding to the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence of the Treasury Department to ensure that the international financial system is not used by those who support terrorism or engage in proliferation-sensitive activities.

"Finally, this bill imposes new requirements that the President actually make a determination and report every 6 months to Congress regarding the sanctionability of certain eligible investments in Iran's energy sector. This is designed to address the problem of billions of dollars in oil and gas investment projects being subject to sanctions--over $27 billion in eligible oil and gas investments since 1999, according to the Congressional Research Service--but successive administrations refusing to make final determinations required by law, much less impose appropriate sanctions on entities involved in such projects, I might add, have raised some certain issues...

"In addition to expanding U.S. sanctions on the Government of Iran, this bill would also provide a simple formula for divestment from firms which invest significant amounts in Iran's energy sector with provisions patterned after the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act that we all voted for earlier this year...

"The rationale for this is straightforward. Many of us believe Americans should be able to divest from energy firms doing business with the Iranian regime whose policies they abhor and which by their presence indirectly help to prop up that regime. They should be given the tools they need to make socially responsible decisions, and investors who choose to divest--States, large pension and mutual funds, and others--should be held harmless for these decisions. Likewise, firms which continue to do business in the energy sector in Iran should recognize the substantial risks involved in this decision and adjust their strategies accordingly...

"This bill is as much about enabling investors to manage risk as about having Congress set foreign policy. Make no mistake. Investing in Iran these days is risky business, and investors should be fully informed of those risks going in. This bill does not require divestment, it simply permits it, as with the Sudan legislation--if the investments in Iran's energy sector are substantial and if the divestment process is crafted consistent with the provisions of this bill...

"How would it work? First, the amendment authorizes States and localities to divest from companies involved in the energy sector in Iran and sets universal divestment standards. Secondly, the bill allows mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with companies involved in these key sectors and offers limited protection from lawsuits for those choosing to divest or not to invest in the first place, while preserving their normal fiduciary duties. Third, this bill allows State and local governments to divest their public pension funds from businesses invested in Iran's energy sector. Fourth, it establishes a new mechanism for disclosure for firms divesting their holdings in such entities and sunsets, I might add, the divestment mechanism when the President of the United States certifies that Iran has ceased its support for international terrorism and its support of weapons of mass destruction...

"Let's be very clear about what this amendment achieves in terms of divestment--and what it does not do. It does not outsource foreign policy to State and local governments or run afoul of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, as some have claimed. Rather, it protects the rights of investors to make socially responsible decisions--to refrain from holding assets that may serve to bolster the Government of Iran. It allows States and other investors to divest in a relatively uniform way, if they so choose, so they may avoid the complications of diverging approaches...

"Under this bill, States can act out of concern for the long-term financial and reputational risks posed by an affiliation with certain investments in the nation of Iran. Once identifying these specific risks, States are to inform the companies with a notice detailing such issues--not merely based on a foreign policy concern but on the State's assessment of the economic risks posed by investments in firms involved in certain energy-related business in Iran. It thus outlines a Federal divestment policy--a complicated and yet very clear path consistent with U.S. unilateral and multilateral sanctions already imposed, I might add--and authorizes investors to act consistently with that policy, again, if they so choose...

"Finally, and very importantly--unlike other legislation acted upon by Congress--the amendment I am offering provides new incentives for countries to strengthen their export control systems to stop the illegal diversion of sensitive and dual-use technology to countries such as Iran and imposes additional licensing requirements on those who refuse to cooperate..."

Rep. Hank Johnson on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-09-17T09:34:00.002-04:00

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) responded to a constituent regarding concerns that provisions in H.Con.Res. 362 might be misconstrued as calling for a blockade against Iran. Rep. Johnson said he will work to amend or delete the provision. Below is the text of his letter.

September 8, 2008

Dear XXX:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H.Con.Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace and stability in the Middle East.

As you know, H.Con.Res. 362 pushes for an international diplomatic response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is currently before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has 220 bipartisan cosponsors.

I chose to cosponsor this bill in response to reports about possible covert military operations in Iran. It appears that the Bush administration is already moving in the direction of war against Iran and we now know that the President does not feel he needs authorization from Congress. As a result, I felt it was important to push for what is essentially a non-binding statement from Congress that stresses the need to focus on diplomacy and working with other nations to lessen the threat from Iran.

H.Con.Res. 362 admittedly has some strong language. The strongest language requests internationally backed inspections of items departing or entering Iran. It is important to note that such functions have been conducted by the United Nations and called for in numerous UN resolutions. However, I certainly understand this part of the resolution could be misconstrued and I will push for an amendment that either deletes this statement or clarifies it further.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I share it and believe that if Congress acts appropriately, we can successfully constrain any additional actions the Bush administration may look to take in Iran.

I am eager to hear your concerns and look forward to working with you. For more information, please visit my office online at www.hankjohnson.house.gov. Thank you again for contacting me.

/s
Hank Johnson

Treasury Designates Quds Force Deputy Commander

2008-09-17T09:22:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Treasury designated five individuals and two entities under Executive Order 13438 for threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and the Government of Iraq. The Treasury Department's action freezes any bank accounts or other financial assets found in the United States belonging to those listed and prohibits Americans from doing business with them.

Abdul al-Reza Shahlai, deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' al Qods (Jerusalem) Force, was among those designated. According to Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, "These individuals are targeting and planning attacks against innocent Iraqis, the Government of Iraq, Coalition Forces, and U.S. troops. Their lethal and destabilizing tactics, especially by Iran's Qods Force, are intended to undermine Iraq as it strives for peace and prosperity."

Shirin Ebadi Once Again Urges Against Military Action

2008-09-16T09:47:00.002-04:00

Despite continued threats against her life at home, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi once again urged against U.S. military action against Iran on September 13, 2008. During a visit to Los Angeles to participate in a PeaceJam event, Dr. Ebadi told the Los Angeles Times, "If there is a military attack on Iran, people will forget their differences with the government, and they will defend their country. It will also damage our human rights movement, because the government will expand its powers and limit freedoms using the excuse of national security."

New IAEA Report on Iran

2008-09-16T09:20:00.004-04:00

The Institute for Science and International Security has published the September 15, 2008 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report by Director General Mohammed ElBaradei on Iran on its website.

According to the report, the IAEA has been able to continue to verify non-diversion of declared nuclear material. Iran has provided the IAEA with access to the material and to accounting records. "However, Iran has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information."

According to the report, "There remain a number of outstanding issues, identified in the Director General’s last report to the Board (GOV/2008/15, para. 14), which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme." To resolve outstanding questions related to the alleged weaponization studies and other key outstanding issues that remain of serious concern, the report calls on Iran to "provide more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defence industries." The IAEA also calls on Iran to provide relevant documentation and access to individuals. According to the Director General's report, "Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran."

The report also notes that Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities, as demanded by Security Council resolutions. Iran has also continued to make some progress on the installation of new cascades and the operation of a new generation of centrifuges "for test purposes."

In response to the report, China called on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, but distanced itself from calls for sanctions, saying that sanctions will not resolve the nuclear crisis. Meanwhile, talks between German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on September 15 left much to be desired, according to reports. Steinmeier reiterated that the June offer to Iran from the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany was serious.

Five Former Secretaries of State Once Again Urge Talks with Iran

2008-09-16T09:12:00.002-04:00

Five former Secretaries of State, both Democrat and Republican, once again urged for the next U.S. president to talk with Iran during a forum at George Washington University on September 15, 2008. Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III spoke about and took different positions on a number of issues, but the one on which they all agreed is that the U.S. should be talking to Iran. At a University of Georgia forum on March 15 this year, all five secretaries also agreed that the next president should open talks with Iran.

New Policy Briefing on Iran

2008-09-16T09:02:00.003-04:00

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has just published a new policy brief by George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies and Director of the Nonproliferation Program, entitled, "Iran Says 'No' - Now What?" Perkovich argues that the cost of defiance of United Nations Security Council demands for Iran to halt enrichment activities should be greater, but the benefits of cooperation should also be greater. Perkovich offers a three-step approach for the next U.S. president:

• Give Iran one last, time-limited chance to negotiate suspension of its fuel-cycle-related activities. The European Union, Russia, China, and the United States have consistently increased offers of incentives to Iran without signs that Iran is willing to negotiate at all. Interlocutors should set a date to stop bidding unless Iran clarifies that there are conditions under which it would suspend.

• If Iran rejects the opportunity, break off negotiations and focus on developing a consensus to maintain international sanctions as long as Iran remains in violation of Security Council and IAEA resolutions. Rather than defending a redline Iran already crossed, the United States should build resolve within the UN Security Council and among allies for continued sanctions and robust consequences should evidence emerge of new Iranian weaponization activities.

• Finally, clarify the international redline. Even if Iran is able to weather sanctions, it may be persuaded to accept stringent safeguards and verifications inspections to prevent weaponization. Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but the international community could define its redline for Iran as weaponization, further violation of nonproliferation obligations, or withdrawal from the NPT. The United States and the Security Council should insist on an understanding that the use of military force would be authorized should evidence of ongoing weaponization activities emerge. However, military force must be limited to enforcement of nonproliferation obligations and not encompass a wider campaign to weaken or destroy the Iranian government.

New Bill to Prevent Funding for Overthrow of Iranian Government

2008-09-16T08:59:00.001-04:00

This week, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) will introduce the “Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008,” which prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense from providing covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran. The resolution is based on amendments Rep. Lee has previously submitted to legislation for consideration, including Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act. Below is the full text of the new bill.

A Bill
To prohibit the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) The security of the United States is not enhanced when the United States acts in a manner that leads other nations to distrust its public pronouncements, question its motives, and view its actions with suspicion.

(2) Engaging in covert or clandestine activities intended to undermine or overthrow the Government of Iran is antithetical to democratic values and respect for the rule of law.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO COVERTLY OR CLANDESTINELY SUPPORT THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), no funds appropriated to the Federal Government may be obligated or expended by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

(b) EXCEPTION FOR DECLARATION OF WAR.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if a declaration of war by Congress with respect to Iran is in effect.

Other Amendments Related to Iran in the Defense Authorization Bill

2008-09-13T16:04:00.006-04:00

In her weekly Legislative Round-up, Lara Friedman points out four more amendments to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, in addition to the two already posted on INW (Dodd-Shelby Sanctions Legislation and the Brownback annual report on Iran's military power and strategy).

As I have said repeatedly and consistently throughout the year, the most likely vehicle for passing legislation on Iran this year is amendments to must-pass legislation. It is very clear that both Democrats and Republicans are using the Defense Authorization bill as means for politicking and proving their toughness for dealing with Iran, which is proving an important issue in this election cycle. I will not be surprised if all of the amendments on Iran are considered germane and voted on during the debate of the FY'09 Defense Authorizaton bill next week. In my humble opinion, the debate on the non-binding H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580 is basically a distraction at this point as the Senate prepares to debate and pass binding legislation on Iran, though still possibly subject to a veto, that will include more of the same wrong-headed approach for dealing with Iran, i.e. more punitive measures (e.g. sanctions, divestment, more money for missile defense, etc.) without any meaningful change in U.S. policy that includes incentives (e.g. a real credible offer for sustained, direct diplomacy without preconditions).

Here are the other four Iran amendments submitted, as included by Lara in her ever-fabulous Weekly Legislative Round-up:

SA 5359: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), SA 5358 would amend language in the bill related to the authorization of funds for the Airborne Laser System program. The original bill states that funds may not be obligated or expended for the program until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable." The amendment would change this to a certification that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable relative to the ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs."

SA 5360: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), this amendment is similar to SA 5488, requiring an annual (rather than biannual, as stipulated in SA 5488) report on military power of Iran. The report would be required to address: "(1) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy of Iran during the 20-year period beginning on the date of such report, and the relationship between such strategies and the current security situation in the Middle East and Central and South Asia. (2) The size, location, and capabilities of the land, sea, air, and irregular forces of Iran, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lebanese Hezbollah, and any other force controlled by the Iran or receiving funds or training from the Iran. (3) Developments in and the capabilities of the ballistic missile, nuclear, and chemical and biological weapons programs of Iran. (4) The degree to which Iran depends on unconventional, irregular, or asymmetric capabilities to achieve its strategic goals. (5) The irregular warfare capabilities of Iran, including the exploitation of asymmetric strategies and related weapons and technology, the use of covert forces, the use of proxy forces, support for terrorist organizations, and strategic communications efforts. (6) Efforts by Iran to develop, acquire, or gain access to information, communication, nuclear, and other advanced technologies that would enhance its military capabilities. (7) The nature and significance of any arms, munitions, military equipment, or military or dual-use technology acquired by Iran from outside Iran, including from a foreign government or terrorist organization, or provided by Iran to any foreign government or terrorist organization. (8) The nature and significance of any bilateral or multilateral security or defense-related cooperation agreements, whether formal or informal, between Iran and any foreign government or terrorist organization. (9) Expenditures by Iran on each of the following: (A) The security forces of Iran, whether regular and irregular, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (B) The programs of Iran relating to weapons of mass destruction. (C) Support provided to terrorist groups, insurgent groups, irregular proxy forces, and related activities. (D) Bilateral military aid."

SA 5362: Offered by Sen. Coleman (R-MN), this amendment would bar the U.S. from entering into an agreement for nuclear cooperation with Russia, bar the export and transfer/re-transfer of nuclear material, facilities, or components to Russia, until the President certifies that "Russia has suspended all nuclear assistance to Iran and all transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran, including the SA-20 system" or " Iran has completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs" and "all Russian forces have been withdrawn from the undisputed territory of the sovereign state of Georgia and Russia has complied with its obligations under the cease-fire agreement signed on August 15, 2008."

SA 5425: Offered by Sen Kyl (R-AZ), to amend a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States mandated in the bill to include a review of, among other things, "The ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs, including the following: (A) The existing inventories of short-range, medium-range, long-range, and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles of each such country, and the ranges of such missiles based on possible launch points. (B) The ballistic missile programs currently under development by each such country, including, for each such program, an assessment of-- (i) the ranges of the ballistic missiles under such program; (ii) the fuel propulsion systems for such missiles; (iii) the booster and warhead characteristics of such missiles; and (iv) the capacity of such missiles to employ countermeasures, decoys, or multiple re-entry vehicles. (C) The ballistic missile tests and exercises of each such country since 2005. (D) The proliferation of ballistic missile hardware, technology and expertise of each such country. (E) The ballistic missile launch facilities of each such country, whether existing or under construction."

Senator John Kerry on Iran

2008-09-12T15:36:00.002-04:00

Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) responded to a constituent letter outlining concerns with the U.S. approach toward Iran. Below is the Senator Kerry's response, which details his position on how the U.S. should move forward.

Dear XXX:

Thank you for writing me with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on a foreign policy issue which demands nothing less than our full efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

As our nation's intelligence agencies made clear in December 2007, now is the time for a sustained and assertive diplomacy to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Sustained diplomacy does not mean that the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons has gone away. In fact, we know that Iran once had a secret nuclear weapons program and that it continues to produce fissile material that can serve as fuel for a nuclear weapon. The question is how best to address this challenge, and the best way forward is through careful diplomacy.

I believe we must deliver a strong message to the Iranians as part of a comprehensive approach that imposes effective, multilateral sanctions should they continue to defy the will of the world. As part of our multilateral diplomatic efforts, the U.S. and our allies must offer real incentives for verifiable nuclear cooperation.

The recent incident in the Persian Gulf makes clear that we cannot afford to let our guard
down - and it also highlights the importance of dialogue so that miscommunication or misinterpretation of the motives on either side doesn't lead to heightened tensions. The U.S. Navy's firm but measured response to Iran's recent provocations deserves our admiration and I'd like to express my appreciation for their continued vigilance.

To ensure that America's policy remains steadfast and smart, and that counterproductive saber-rattling doesn't trump common sense, it's important for Congress to be very clear with the Bush
Administration. Because I do not want to see the President lead the American people into a wrongheaded war with Iran, I have cosponsored legislation with Senators Webb, Clinton, and Whitehouse to prohibit the use of funds for military action against Iran unless approved by Congress. As the elected representatives of the people, Congress-not the President-has the constitutional authority to decide matters of war and peace, and to use the power of the purse to enforce our will. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and it's essential that we act that way.

Please rest assured that I am continuing to press for an effective diplomatic solution in regards to Iran. Thank you again for your letter. Do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other matter of importance to you.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

Sarah Palin on Iran

2008-09-12T15:09:00.000-04:00

In an interview with Charles Gibson for ABC News, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin outlined her stance on Iran. Palin said that nuclear weapons under the control of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be "extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe." She also asserted the U.S. should pursue sanctions against Iran and cannot back-off. If Israel were to strike Iran militarily, Palin believes the U.S. should not second-guess Israel. Below are the excerpts on Iran from the interview transcript.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Rep. Speier on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-09-12T13:56:00.001-04:00

Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA), who took former Representative Tom Lantos’ congressional seat, responded this week to a concerned constituent that she is seeking an amendment with other co-sponsors to H.Con.Res. 362. According to Rep. Speier, “...upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade. Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil.”

As I have said repeatedly, amending the resolution misses the point. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives.

Those Members of Congress working to amend the resolution are simply offering a bandaid for a resolution that should be scrapped altogether. These Members of Congress are misplacing their efforts in a game of appeasement between constituents and a very powerful lobby who is advocating its passage so they can score members of Congress in this election cycle.

Below is the full text of Rep. Speier’s response to her constituent.

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your letter in opposition to H. Con. Res. 362, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY). As you know, I am a cosponsor of this bill and while our opinion differs on the bill, I am certain we share similar views on Iran.

I do want to make one thing very clear: under no circumstances do I support military action against Iran. In fact, both the Ackerman resolution and another resolution I cosponsored, H. Con. Res. 33 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR), specifically state that the President cannot engage in military action without Congressional authorization. This authorization for war is something that neither I, nor the majority of my colleagues, have any intention of providing. What I do support is using a carrot and stick to encourage Iranian leaders to abandon their nuclear weapons program. The threat of economic isolation is the stick, while full diplomatic relations and the economic benefits that come with it is the carrot.

We need to redouble diplomatic efforts and prevent further bloodshed in the Middle East. This includes encouraging Iran to stop any pursuit of nuclear weapons. That said, you do make some very valid points, and upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade.

Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil. I promise to listen and to make a serious effort to continue listening even when we happen to disagree.

Hearing from my constituents helps me to stay on top of a subject and really figure out what is in the public's interest. Thank you, again, for your comments.

All the best,

Jackie Speier
Member of Congress

Dodd-Shelby Sanctions Bill Submitted as Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

2008-09-12T13:12:00.004-04:00

On September 11, 2008, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) submitted their “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008” as an amendment (S.AMDT.5485) to the Fiscal Year 2009 Nation Defense Authorization Act (S. 3001).

It is unclear whether the Senate will consider the amendment. According to an article in CongressNow, “Democrats may delay consideration of the Defense authorization bill until next week after gridlock on amendments stalled progress on the legislation” on September 11. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had hoped to finish the bill by yesterday, disagreements over what amendments will be offered to the bill have slowed it down.

New Resource on Iran

2008-09-12T13:08:00.002-04:00

Richard A. Kauffman who traveled to Iran with a Learning Tour sponsored by Mennonite Central Committee, has just published, "Understanding Iran,” a three-part study series that introduces the people, culture, history, politics and religion of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The study, meant for adult Christian education classes, small groups and other study sessions, raises questions about the relationship between the United States and Iran, the nuclear issue and the need for better understanding and respect between Christians and Muslims, among other things.

Kauffman is senior editor and book review editor for the Christian Century magazine, and senior editor of Leader magazine, a Mennonite Church USA publication for lay and ordained leaders. “Understanding Iran” can be purchased for $14.00 online at The Thoughtful Christian.

Rare Victory for Women's Rights in Iran

2008-09-11T16:06:00.001-04:00

On September 9, 2008, the Iranian Parliament voted down a polygamy law that was ironically proposed to the “Family Support Bill” under Article 23. The law would have allowed a man to take a new wife without the consent of the first, as is currently required. The law was opposed by leading women’s activists, including Iranian race car drive Laleh Seddigh, women’s rights campaigner Sassan Tahmasebi and Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, among others. According to The National Newspaper, “Dozens of women’s rights campaigners protested against the polygamy article outside the Iranian parliament” in August.

Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, who maintains that under Islam, women have equal rights to men, also voiced opposition to the law. He said that a second wife without the permission of the first would be a holy offence under the Quran. Ali Larijani, speaker of the Parliament, also expressed reservation to the measure.

The victory is no small feat given the increasing threats against and arrests of women’s right activists in the last couple of years.

Florida District Court Overturns Law Restricting Academic Travel to Iran

2008-09-11T14:27:00.001-04:00

On August 29, 2008, a federal judge struck down a Florida law that restricts students, faculty members, and researchers at the state’s public colleges and universities from traveling to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. According to a Chronicle of Education article, “The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida had challenged the law in court on behalf of the Faculty Senate at Florida International University, arguing that the statute violated faculty members’ First Amendment rights and impinged on the federal government’s ability to regulate foreign commerce.” The law, which passed in 2006, prevents students, professors, and researchers at public universities and community colleges in Florida from using state or federal funds, or private foundation grants administered by their institutions, to travel to countries listed as state sponsors of terrorism. Those at private colleges in Florida are forbidden to use state funds for that purpose. Judge Patricia Seitz’s decision overturned an earlier ruling upholding the ban, maintaining that while state funds may not be used for travel to those countries, nearly all such trips rely on private funds.

Brownback Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill

2008-09-11T14:04:00.003-04:00

On September 30, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced an amendment on Iran (No. 5360) to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report, in both classified and unclassified forms, on Iran's current and future military strategy. Below is the full text of the amendment.

SA 5360. Mr. BROWNBACK submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3001, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1233. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF IRAN.

(a) Annual Report Required.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than March 1 each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the current and future military and security strategy of Iran.

(2) GENERAL SCOPE OF REPORTS.--Each report shall address the current and probable future course of military-technological development of the Iran military and the tenets and probable development of the grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of military organizations and operational concepts, of Iran during the 20-year period beginning on the date of such report.

(3) FORM.--Each report shall be submitted in both unclassified and classified form.

(b) Elements.--Each report under this section shall include analyses and forecasts with respect to the following:

(1) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy of Iran during the 20-year period beginning on the date of such report, and the relationship between such strategies and the current security situation in the Middle East and Central and South Asia.

(2) The size, location, and capabilities of the land, sea, air, and irregular forces of Iran, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lebanese Hezbollah, and any other force controlled by the Iran or receiving funds or training from the Iran.

(3) Developments in and the capabilities of the ballistic missile, nuclear, and chemical and biological weapons programs of Iran.

(4) The degree to which Iran depends on unconventional, irregular, or asymmetric capabilities to achieve its strategic goals.

(5) The irregular warfare capabilities of Iran, including the exploitation of asymmetric strategies and related weapons and technology, the use of covert forces, the use of proxy forces, support for terrorist organizations, and strategic communications efforts.

(6) Efforts by Iran to develop, acquire, or gain access to information, communication, nuclear, and other advanced technologies that would enhance its military capabilities.

(7) The nature and significance of any arms, munitions, military equipment, or military or dual-use technology acquired by Iran from outside Iran, including from a foreign government or terrorist organization, or provided by Iran to any foreign government or terrorist organization.

(8) The nature and significance of any bilateral or multilateral security or defense-related cooperation agreements, whether formal or informal, between Iran and any foreign government or terrorist organization.

(9) Expenditures by Iran on each of the following:

(A) The security forces of Iran, whether regular and irregular, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

(B) The programs of Iran relating to weapons of mass destruction.

(D) Bilateral military aid.

(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.

Statement of Administration Policy Regarding Iran Amendments to Defense Authorization Bill

2008-09-10T10:59:00.004-04:00

On September 9, 2008, the Bush administration released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 (S. 3001). The SAP was delivered to Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI). The Senate began considering amendments to the Defense Authorization bill this week. Below are the SAP statements regarding Iran amendments to the FY’09 Defense Authorization bill.

Iran: The Administration also strongly opposes any amendments that would restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran.

Other Issues:

Iran – Other Possible Amendments: The Administration strongly opposes proposed Iran sanctions legislation recently reported out of both the Senate Finance and Banking Committees. Most objectionable are certain provisions in the bill reported out of the former committee that would ban completely, until conditions are fulfilled, nuclear cooperation under proposed agreements for cooperation. The Administration has firmly and consistently maintained that conforming nuclear cooperation agreements should be dealt with only in accordance with existing provisions of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. The bills would also serve, if enacted, to divide the multilateral coalition that has come together to oppose Iran’s nuclear programs, by requiring the Administration to submit “blacklists” of foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector and determine whether each reported investment qualifies a sanctionable offense under the Iran Sanctions Act. The Administration continues to stress with our international partners that “business as usual” with Iran is ill-advised. As a result of our pressure and that of our international partners, several foreign firms have announced they will not be making further investments in Iran’s energy sector.

H.Con.Res. 362 Gets Eight New Co-Sponsors; One Withdraws

2008-09-10T10:32:00.003-04:00

Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter on September 8, 2008 once again urging members of Congress to sign onto H.Con.Res. 362. The controversial resolution currently has 270 co-sponsors, with eight new representatives who added their name on September 8, 2008 – Representatives John Hall (D-NY), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Medeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) and Laura Richardson (D-CA). Representative George Lewis (D-GA) also withdrew his co-sponsorship on September 8. Below is the full text of the most recent Ackerman-Pence “Dear Colleague” letter.

Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying:
Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362

September 8, 2008

Dear Colleague:

We write to encourage you to join us as sponsors of H.Con.Res.362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

Iran is backing and arming militias and terrorists fighting the United States and our allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; it is the proud patron of both the Hamas take-over in Gaza and the Hezbollah insurrection against the Lebanese government; it is the major funding source for numerous terrorist groups and, increasingly, Syria its fellow state-sponsor of terrorism, and it is radically reorienting regional security calculations. Meeting the threat posed by Iran is an urgent challenge that will require America to work closely with the international community, and especially with partners in the Middle East.

Though the stakes are high and time is short, the resolution is explicit in stating that meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic and economic levers. To our surprise and dismay, however, some have mistakenly suggested the resolution calls for a "naval blockade" or even amounts to "a declaration of war."

These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense. The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders.

The threat from Iran is real and growing, and must be addressed so that today's efforts by Iran at subversion and proliferation do not, tomorrow, become the seeds of new and more terrible conflict in the Middle East. Please contact Dalis Blumenfeld (dalis.blumenfeld@mail.house.gov) at the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia at 202-225-3345 if you'd like to be added as a sponsor.

Sincerely,

s/ Gary L. Ackerman
Chairman

s/ Mike Pence
Ranking Minority Member

House Subcommittee on the
Middle East & South Asia

Iran in the 2008 Republican Party Platform

2008-09-03T11:09:00.002-04:00

The final version of the 2008 Republican Party Platform is finally available online. Below is the excerpt on Iran from page 13 of the platform.

"We express our respect for the people of Iran who seek peace and aspire to freedom. Their current regime, aggressive and repressive, is unworthy of them. The Iranian people, many of whom risk persecution to speak out for democracy, have a right to choose their own government.

"As a rogue state, Iran’s leadership supports terror, threatens its neighbors, and provides weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq. We affirm, in the plainest words we can use, that the U.S. government, in solidarity with the international community, will not allow the current regime in Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.

"We call for a significant increase in political, economic, and diplomatic pressure to persuade Iran’s rulers to halt their drive for a nuclear weapons capability, and we support tighter sanctions against Iran and the companies with business operations in or with Iran. We oppose entering into a presidential-level, unconditional dialogue with the regime in Iran until it takes steps to improve its behavior, particularly with respect to support of terrorism and suspension of its efforts to enrich uranium.

"At the same time, the U.S. must retain all options in dealing with a situation that gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the safety of our friends."

Statement on Iran in the Final Version of the Democratic Party's Platform

2008-08-15T16:25:00.004-04:00

I don't believe any of the wording has changed since I posted the draft, but below is the final wording on the Democratic Party's position on Iran, as expressed in the Report of the Platform Committee approved on August 9, 2008 and entitled "Renewing America's Promise." The Council on Foreign Relations has published the full text of the platform here. I have not yet seen the Republican Party Platform or a draft position on Iran, but will post when I do.

Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons (Page 34)
The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. We will present Iran with a clear choice: if you abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, you will receive meaningful incentives; so long as you refuse, the United States and the international community will further ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions inside and outside the U.N. Security Council, and sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime. The Iranian people and the international community must know that it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing.

Shirin Ebadi's Life May Be in Danger

2008-08-15T12:51:00.005-04:00

According to several news sources, Shirin Ebadi's life may be in danger. Recently Dr. Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate and human rights defender, announced that she would take on the case of the Baha'i leadership arrested in May on security charges and sent to Evin Prison. In retaliation, over the last few weeks the Iranian state media has conducted a smear campaign claiming that Dr. Ebadi's daughter, who attends McGill University in Canada, has converted from Islam to Baha'i. Some sources also claim that state-run media are also accusing Dr. Ebadi of converting as well. Dr. Ebadi has vehemently denied the conversions, which would be considered apostacy or abandoning Islam and worthy of death under Sharia law. The smear campaign is largely seen as fear-mongering to force Dr. Ebadi to abandon her tireless work for human rights within Islam inside Iran and around the world.

Click here to read a statement from the Nobel Women's Initiative supporting Dr. Ebadi.

New Resource on Strait of Hormuz

2008-08-15T12:46:00.001-04:00

The Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin has produced a new online resource entitled "Strait of Hormuz: Assessing Threats to Energy Security in the Persian Gulf." The resource can be accessed here.

According to the website, the project is intended to help assess the threat to oil flows through the Strait. It provides background on the political, economic, business, technical, and military issues involved in potential disruptions. Oil producers, tanker and insurance companies, and regional and global military forces would all react to any attack on Persian Gulf shipping.

Not in the Spirit of the Olympics

2008-08-15T11:20:00.002-04:00

Last weekend, Mohammad Alirezaei became the most recent Iranian athlete to bail out of a competition where he would have been matched up against an Israeli. Alirezaei was set to compete against Israel's Tom Be'eri in the 100 meter breastroke, when he dropped out at the last moment claiming to be sick. Canada's "The Star" opines, "Having Israelis and Iranians swimming together at the same time in the same pool would have created one of those magic Olympic moments, adding to that fiction we love that the Olympics are apolitical." Indeed, there plenty of examples of athletes from conflicting nations overcoming grudes in Olympic history, including even this Olympics when Russian and Georgian female air pistol atheletes embraced on the podium after medaling.

Iranian Woman May Be First from the IRI to Medal

2008-08-15T11:11:00.002-04:00

In the spirit of the Olympics, ABC News has a story profiling Sara Khoshjamal, a Tae Kwondo champ who will compete in Beijing and "could be the first woman from the Islamic Republic to medal."

Update to Posting on Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

2008-08-13T17:28:00.005-04:00

I want to draw INW readers' attention to an update today to the posting entitled "Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580," published on August 12. I received additional information from a brilliant source that I thought would be relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the resolutions. Below is the new information added into the posting. My deepest gratitude to Lara Friedman for all her work on this issue!

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.
These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

Haaretz: U.S. Attempts to Block Israeli Attack on Iran

2008-08-13T11:57:00.001-04:00

Haaretz, a liberal-leaning Israeli newspaper, has an article worth reading by Aluf Benn entitled, “U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities.” The article states that the Bush administration has rejected Israeli requests for offensive military equipment that would improve its ability to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It also states that the Administration has warned Israel against militarily attacking Iran as it would undermine U.S. interests and demanded Israel give prior notice if it indeed decides to attack Iran.

According to the article, senior Israeli officials originally hoped that President George W. Bush would order an U.S. strike against Iran before leaving office because Jerusalem believes that the U.S. is better equipped and Israel could not withstand Iranian retaliation if it strikes alone. The article goes on to state that Israel has recently concluded that President Bush is unlikely to attack Iran and will instead focus on ratcheting up the diplomatic pressure and sanctions against Iran.

The articles states that a series of private messages from senior American officials, including President Bush, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, were accompanied by a series of leaks by the Pentagon regarding Israeli military exercises and intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran.

According to the article Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s recent trip to Washington focused his conversations with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney on Iran. “But the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk. Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.”

The article also stated, “Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.”

According to the article, the U.S. offered to compensate Israel for rejecting all of its proposals by stationing an advanced radar system in Israel, linking Israel directly into the U.S. early warning satellite network, and increasing U.S. funding for the development of the Arrow-3 and Iron Dome missile defense systems.

U.S. Announces New Sanctions Against Iranian Companies with Ties to Nuclear and Missile Programs

2008-08-12T18:05:00.002-04:00

On August 12, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department designated five entities for their ties to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. According to the Treasury Department press release, the designations were made pursuant to Executive Order 13382, “which is aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters, and at isolating them from the U.S. financial and commercial systems. Designations under E.O. 13382 are implemented by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, and they prohibit all transactions between the designees and any U.S. person, and freeze any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction.”

The entities designated are the Nuclear Research Center for Agriculture and Medicine (a/k/a Karaj Nuclear Research Center), the Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center, Jabber Ibn Hayan, Safety Equipment Procurement Company and Joza Industrial Company. All five of the entities designated have also been previously designated under United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran for its nuclear program.

According to Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey, “These five nuclear and missile entities have been used by Iran to hide its illicit conduct and further its dangerous nuclear ambitions.”

Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

2008-08-12T11:53:00.005-04:00

Across the country, organizations and community groups have mobilized opposition to H.Con.Res. 362, a controversial non-binding resolution calling for more punitive measures against Iran. The combined efforts of all of the organizations and individuals have successfully put speed bumps on the road for a resolution that staff from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office initially said would “pass like a hot knife through butter” before the 4th of July recess. So far, four Representatives – Tom Allen, Steve Cohen, Danny K. Davis and William Lacy Clay – have withdrawn support. Several others, including Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Mike McNulty (D-NY), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) have expressed that they may do so if language is not changed.

It is no small feat getting Members of Congress to change their co-sponsorship on an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) supported resolution, particularly in an election year. Perhaps most importantly though, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has refused so far to markup the resolution in his committee because of the controversy that has been raised regarding Clause 3, which “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.” Critics have argued that depending on interpretation and implementation, this paragraph could be considered as calling for a blockade against Iran, which would be considered an act of war under international law.

While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, even if this clause is changed or removed, the remainder of the resolution is still provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Meanwhile, Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), the original co-sponsors of H.Con.Res. 362, continue to defend the resolution. The number of Members co-sponsoring the resolution has crept up to the current total of 261. If it reaches 290 (or 2/3 of the total number of Members of Congress), Rep. Ackerman can request that the resolution be brought up for a vote on the Suspension Calendar. If this were to happen, no amendments could be offered to the resolution. However, Rep. Ackerman has backed himself into a corner by refusing so far to make changes to the language in the resolution and as a result H.Con.Res. 362 will likely remain held-up for the foreseeable future.

The most realistic scenario for breaking the stand-off in the House would be for the Senate to take up the companion resolution to H.Con.Res. 362. Although just as provocative, the Senate version, S.Res. 580, is worded in a slightly different way and does not contain the clause that most critics of H.Con.Res. 362 have gone after which could be interpreted as calling for a blockade against Iran. The third paragraph in S.Res. 580 does not demand a "stringent inspections regime," but "demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran.”

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.

"These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

"We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

If S.Res. 580 is either attached as an amendment to must-pass legislation (more likely) or brought to the Senate floor as a stand-alone measure (less likely), and it passes, the House could then take up the Senate version. The reality, however, is that Congress has an extremely full plate in September leading up to the elections and this is not a guaranteed scenario. Nonetheless, it is still urgent for organizations and individuals remain vigilant on both resolutions and to continue to weigh in with their Senators and Representatives.

Real News Network Video: Isreali PM Candidates' Positions on Iran

2008-08-08T14:59:00.001-04:00

New Senate Sanctions Bill Introduced

2008-08-08T14:42:00.001-04:00

On August 1, 2008, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) introduced S. 3445, a “bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran, and for other purposes.” On the same day, S. 3445 was reported to the Senate from the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with written report Number 110-443 and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 939. According to the Summary on THOMAS, Senator Dodd is currently the only co-sponsor of the legislation, even though it was announced on July 15, 2008 that Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) would join Senator Dodd in introducing the legislation.

Title I of the legislation would prohibit the importation, directly or indirectly, of all Iranian products into the U.S., with the exception of information and informational materials. It would also prohibit the export of all American products, directly or indirectly, to Iran, with the exception of agricultural commodities; medicine; information and informational materials; articles to provide humanitarian assistance; and goods, services or technologies necessary for the safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft manufactured in the U.S. In addition, the bill would freeze the assets of people that have engaged in activities such as terrorism or weapons proliferation. It also extends the assets freeze to assets that sanctioned persons transfer to family members or associates. S. 3445 would also prohibit U.S. and foreign companies that meet sanctions criteria from entering into procurement contracts with the federal government. All of these provisions are subject to a waiver, however, if deemed by the President to be in the national interest.

S. 3445 would also hold parent companies liable for violations of sanctions by foreign subsidiaries, though the President may waive the sanctions if it is in the national interest and if he submits a report describing the reasons for such a determination to appropriate Congressional committees. S. 3445 would also require the President, within 180 days of enactment of the bill and every 180 days thereafter, to report to the appropriate Congressional Committees on eligible foreign investments made in Iran's energy sector since January 1, 2008 and the determination of the President on whether such investments qualify as sanctionable offenses.

Section 107 of the bill expresses the Sense of Congress that the President immediately impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.

Title II of S. 3445 also enable States, local governments and institutions of higher education to divest public assets from certain companies doing business in Iran. The bill requires any of these entities to provide notice to the Department of Justice when they enact an Iran-related divestment law. It also requires these entities to inform companies before divestment and give the companies at least 90 days to comment on the decision. Section 203 of Title II provides a “safe harbor” for Asset Managers for divestment decisions made in accordance with the bill.

Title III of S. 3445 requires the Director of National Intelligence to identify countries where sensitive U.S. technology is being illegally transshipped to Iran via other countries, and to report annually to the Secretaries of Commerce, State and the Treasury, as well as to Congress. Section 303 would require the Administration to initiate contact with countries of “possible diversion concern” and offer incentives to them to strengthen their export control regimes, improve information sharing and support legitimate trade in high-technology goods. According to the bill “If countries fail to cooperate with such initiatives, then, under subsection (b), the Administration would be required to designate a country as a ‘Destination of Diversion Concern.’ … Exports to a country designated as a `Destination of Diversion Concern' would be subject to additional licensure requirements; more stringent license review, which could result in fewer approvals or more conditions on licenses; delayed authorizations due to increased end-user checks; and finally, a decrease in authorizations due to diversion risks for such countries.” Section 304 would require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on whether or not to extend the “Destination of Diversion Concern” system to countries other than Iran.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill would cost $121 million in 2009 and $496 million over the 2009-2013. In addition, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce revenues by about $6 million over the 2009-2018 period. The costs of S. 3445 fall within budget functions 150 (international affairs), 370 (commerce and housing credit), and 800 (general government).

The bill would impose private-sector mandates by prohibiting imports from and exports to Iran, as well as by freezing assets of certain individuals. it could also impose a mandate on exporters by specifying additional license requirements on exports to certain countries that are designated “Destinations of Possible Diversion Concern.” According to the CBO, the cost of complying with the mandates in the bill are uncertain and it cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of complying with the mandates would exceed the annual threshold for private-sector mandates established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).

Iran in the 2008 Democraty Party Platform

2008-08-08T13:17:00.004-04:00

A draft of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform is now available online. Below is the excerpt on the Democratic party's position on Iran, which can be found on page 36 of the draft.

Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled and direct high- level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. We will present Iran with a clear choice: if you abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and threats to Israel you will receive meaningful incentives; so long as you refuse, the United States and the international community will further ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions inside and outside the U.N. Security Council, and sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime. The Iranian people and the international community must know that it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing.

Representative Schakowsky on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-08-06T14:10:00.003-04:00

Below is a letter from Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) responding to concerns expressed by a constituent regarding H.Con.Res. 362. Though many of her constituents have urged her to withdraw her co-sponsorship of the resolution, Rep. Schakowsky continues to defend her support for it and she claims that it is not a declaration of war against Iran. Rep. Schakowsky claims that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a "peaceful option" for dealing with Iran, but she has also urged Representatives Ackerman and Pence, as well as the democratic leadership, to delay action on the resolution.

Representative Schakowsky's position on H.Con.Res. 362 highlights an important point that is really missing from the discourse on this resolution. While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, demanding that the President impose harsh sanctions that would be difficult if not impossible to implement outside the context of using force, the resolution has broader implications. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Below is the full text of the letter.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H. Con. Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the international threat posed by Iran. I appreciate hearing from you, and I strongly share your concern about the importance of avoiding military conflict with Iran.

I have consistently and vehemently opposed any move toward armed conflict with Iran, and I have cosponsored legislation favoring diplomatic and political solutions to address ongoing U.S.-Iranian tensions. Among the bills that I have cosponsored are: H. Con. Res. 33, expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress; H.J.Res. 14, stating that no previous provision of law authorizes use of military force against Iran; H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which emphasizes that U.S. should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem; and H.R. 3119, to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

H. Con. Res. 362 is not a declaration of war against Iran. Instead of advocating military pressure, this resolution calls on the President to use economic, political, and diplomatic pressure to avoid further confrontation with Iran. One reason that I support this legislation is that it brings together 220 cosponsors, representing a wide cross-section of political views, in emphasizing that U.S. policy should focus on economic and diplomatic solutions, not military action.

In addition, this resolution emphasizes the importance of an international effort to address the Iranian issue. I am a strong proponent of diplomatic engagement and this legislation specially "demands that the President initiate an international effort" - not take unilateral action. The United States is not the only nation that would face a threat if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, and it is vital that we work in cooperation with other members of the international community to address the crisis.

While I believe that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a peaceful option to resolve a growing international crisis, I respect your concerns regarding a provision that has been read by some as allowing a military blockade to be initiated. I have contacted the original sponsors of this resolution, Congressmen Ackerman and Pence, and they have made it clear that a naval blockade or any other use of military force was not their intent in writing this resolution. I have urged them and the House leadership to delay any action on this bill. It is important that no action occur that can be interpreted by the Bush Administration as a signal for military action, even if that is not the intent of the provision.

I am extremely concerned by the threat Iran continues to pose to the Middle East region. However, I am also worried by the escalating rhetoric and saber-rattling by the Bush Administration and the ever-growing indications that the President is looking to begin yet another war in the Persian Gulf region.

As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I will continue to work to bring our troops home from Iraq and to avoid military confrontation with Iran. While Iran must be held accountable for its threatening behavior, there is no military solution to resolving this conflict. The only solution is to use diplomacy, working with the international community.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this critical subject. Please feel free to be in touch whenever I can provide assistance.

Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky,
Member of Congress

I'm Back

2008-08-06T10:00:00.002-04:00

I apologize for the long lapse in postings. I had a bad swimming/cliff jumping accident about two weeks ago during which I fractured my spine in three places. Though I am somewhat limited, I'm home and doing well recovering. I feel very blessed that I will have a full recovery and will not need surgery.

Now, back to Iran. Link TV has produced a documentary of the June 10 "Time to Talk to Iran" even on Capitol Hill, providing an opportunity for American citizens and U.S. Congressional representatives to use a row of 60’s-era red “hotline” telephones to talk directly to ordinary Iranians in Tehran, including a 60-year-old petroleum engineer, a software designer, a French literature professor and a high school student.

The Link TV footage is unique in that they had a crew in Tehran to film the other side of some of the conversations. The 60-year-old petroleum engineer agreed to allow Link TV to film him while he was speaking on the phone with Americans. Click here to watch the documentary.

Special Note to INW Readers

2008-07-28T21:54:00.000-04:00

Iran Nuclear Watch is on an unaticipated and unavoidable vacation for the week. For legislative updates in the final weeks before Congress recesses, I encourage INW readers to check out and subscribe to Americans for Peace Now APN Weekly Update.

Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Closed Hearing on Iran

2008-07-25T10:36:00.000-04:00

On July 24, 2008, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a closed session "to receive a briefing on Iran from Dolores A. Powers, Deputy Iran Mission Manager, Alan R. Pino, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, and William J. Keller, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction, all of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Jeffrey D. Feltman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; and James R. Clapper, Jr., Under Secretary for Intelligence, Michael G. Vickers, Assistant Secretary for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities, and Lieutenant General Carter F. Ham, USA, Director, J-3 Operations Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the Department of Defense."

House Foreign Affairs Committee Passes Bill on U.S.-Russia Nuclear Cooperation

2008-07-25T09:57:00.001-04:00

On July 23, 2008, Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) introduced H.R. 6574, a bill to implement an agreement for nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. The legislation was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Science and Technology. On July 24, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a session to markup the legislation. It was passed by Voice Vote.

Sections 201 and 202 of H.R. 6574 include two certification requirements related to Iran. According to the bill, "No license may be issued for the export of nuclear material, equipment, or technology to the Russian Federation pursuant to the Agreement for any fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees for such fiscal year that:
1) Russia "has taken, and is continuing to take, effective actions to prohibit, terminate, and prevent the transfer of goods, services, or technology as defined in this Act to the Government of Iran" for the preceding 12 months; and
2) Russia "is fully and completely supporting United States efforts to achieve effective international and United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran in response to Iran's nuclear program."

Below is the full text of Sections 201 and 202.

SEC. 201. CERTIFICATION OF ACTIONS BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON NONPROLIFERATION MATTERS.

(a) Certification- No license may be issued for the export of nuclear material, equipment, or technology to the Russian Federation pursuant to the Agreement for any fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees for such fiscal year that the requirements of subsection (b) have been met.

(b) Requirements- The requirements referred to in subsection are the following:

(1) The Government of the Russian Federation has taken, and is continuing to take, effective actions to prohibit, terminate, and prevent the transfer of goods, services, or technology as defined in this Act to the Government of Iran.

(2) For the preceding 12-month period--

(A) there has been no cooperation with respect to any activity described in paragraph (1) between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Iran or any national of Iran based on all credible information available to the United States at the time of the certification; and

(B)(i) there has been no cooperation with respect to any activity described in paragraph (1) between any national of the Russian Federation and the Government of Iran or any national of Iran based on all credible information available to the United States at the time of the certification; or

(ii) the Government of the Russian Federation has--

(I) terminated any significant cooperation between any such Russian national and the Government of Iran or any such Iranian national;

(II) instituted effective measures to prevent a reoccurrence of any such cooperation; or

(III) prosecuted any such Russian national.

(c) Limitation- A certification of the conditions described in clause (ii) of subsection (b)(2)(B) may not be used to satisfy the requirements of such subsection for three or more consecutive fiscal years.

(d) Sunset- The provisions of this section shall be effective for the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION OF COOPERATION BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON IRAN SANCTIONS.

(a) Certification- No license may be issued for the export of nuclear material, equipment or technology to the Russian Federation pursuant to the Agreement for any fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees for such fiscal year that the requirements of subsection (b) have been met.

(b) Requirements- The requirements referred to in subsection (a) are that the Government of the Russian Federation is fully and completely supporting United States efforts to achieve effective international and United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran in response to Iran's nuclear program.

Update on H.R. 6545

2008-07-25T09:28:00.000-04:00

On July 23, 2008, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6545, a bill introduced by eight democratic co-sponsors "To require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues." H.R. 6545 was passed by a vote of 414-0 under Suspension of the Rules. It was then referred to the Senate, where it was read twice and referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Section 2 of H.R. 6545 requires "Not later than January 1, 2009, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues relating to rapidly escalating energy costs. Such assessment shall include an assessment of" among other things "(4) the national security implications of potential use of energy resources as leverage against the United States by Venezuela, Iran, or other potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices."

California Labor Federation Opposes Military Attacks on Iran

2008-07-24T13:12:00.000-04:00

On July 23, 2008, the California Labor Federation passed a resolution opposing the controversial concurrent resolutions H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580. The resolution also calls for a deescalation in the confrontation with Iran. It also urges the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to take similar actions. Below is the full text of the resolution, a copy of which will be delivered to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House; Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader; and the entire California Congressional Delegation.

Resolution to Stop Escalating the Confrontation with Iran and Reduce the Danger of Another Military Conflict in the Persian Gulf

WHEREAS, the Bush Administration appears intent on ratcheting up tensions with Iran over development of its nuclear energy capabilities, and this escalation has raised the danger of a miscalculation or provocation that could result in military conflict between the U.S. and Iran, possibly involving Israel as well; and

WHEREAS, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNPT) and no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Iran is in violation of any international treaties; and

WHEREAS, Iran, as a signatory to the NNPT, has a right to pursue the pursue the development of nuclear energy for peaceful uses, including uranium enhancement, and IAEA has found Iran to have met all the treaty requirements to which it is subject; and

WHEREAS, Rep, Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has introduced a resolution in the House, which is cosponsored by 231 other members of Congress, and a concurrent resolution has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Evan Bay (D-IN) cosponsored by 33 other senators that calls upon the president to immediately impose additional sanctions on Iran, including prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products, and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and

WHEREAS, such an embargo can be construed under international law as an act of war, and in an atmosphere of rising tensions could trigger military confrontation and conflict; and

WHEREAS, under circumstances of increasing danger of military conflict with Iran the price of oil has been driven even higher on the international market; and an embargo enforced against Iran by the U.S. Navy could lead Iran to cut off oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world supply of oil is transported, resulting in a huge additional increase in the price of oil, while driving into the conflict all the other nations affected by the cutoff; and such conflict could quickly spiral out of control in a wider regional war; and

WHEREAS, the Congress has already given the president unlimited authority to initiate military actions anywhere in the world under the 2003 resolution adopted at the outset of the invasion of Iraq, and thus the president will feel no obligation to bring a decision about whether to launch an attack on Iran to the Senate for ratification as required by the Constitution;

THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Labor Federation calls upon members of the House and Senate to reject H.R. 362 and S. 580, and to make clear to the president that he has no unilateral authority to initiate unprovoked military action against Iran or an embargo which could easily result in military conflict with Iran, or to support in any way such actions initiated by Israel or any other country, and that the United States should pursue instead conflict resolution through diplomatic alternatives in conjunction with the IAEA and the United Nations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be communicated to the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate, and all House and Senate members in the California Congressional delegation, and further, that copies also be forwarded to the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to urge that they too take such actions.

Approved at the California Labor Federation Convention July 23, 2008

Senators Endorse U.S. Interests Section in Tehran

2008-07-24T11:04:00.000-04:00

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to President Bush on July 24, 2008 endorsing the opening of an interests section in Tehran. Below is the full text of the letter.

Dear Mr. President:

We are encouraged by recent revelations that your Administration is actively reviewing the possibility of opening an interests section in Iran, and write to express our support for this limited but strategically significant U.S. diplomatic presence. By establishing direct contact with the people of Iran, facilitating their travel to America, and increasing our understanding of Iran's complicated domestic politics, this initiative will advance our national interests.

Along with your welcome decision to send Under Secretary of State William Burns to Geneva to join in talks with Iran over its nuclear program, this will send a positive message to the Iranian people and the international community about our intentions and enhance our ability to apply greater pressure on the Iranian government.

As you know, Iranians are among the most pro-American people in the Greater Middle East. Many hold the United States in high regard as a country that cherishes the values of freedom, tolerance, and human dignity. Despite our strong differences with their government over its nuclear ambitions, support for international terrorism, and hateful rhetoric towards Israel, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said that "[w]e are determined to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people." Opening an interests section in Iran, as we have done in other countries such as Cuba, is a highly-visible way of accomplishing this important objective.

The United States has not had any diplomatic presence in Iran since the hostage crisis in 1979. As a result, Iranians who are interested in traveling to the United States must go to Dubai to obtain U.S. visas, impeding familial, cultural, and scientific exchanges that over time can begin to transform Iran. The more frequently that ordinary Iranians have an opportunity to interact with Americans, the more likely they are to ignore their government's propaganda demonizing our country.

At the same time, a limited diplomatic presence in Iran would improve our understanding of the competing political factions that influence Tehran's decision-making. As Under Secretary Burns recently acknowledged, our knowledge of Iran's political and policy-making processes is currently rather limited. Iran already operates an active interests section in Washington, DC, ostensibly for these types of reasons, so our own diplomats are at a relative information disadvantage.

While we recognize that this initiative alone will not resolve our profound disagreements with Iran's leaders, we believe it is a step in the right direction with the Iranian people. If it comes to pass, we look forward to working with your Administration to provide any necessary congressional support.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your reply.

Two More Representatives Withdraw from H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-23T11:25:00.000-04:00

On July 22, 2008, Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Thomas Allen (D-ME) joined Representative William Lacy Clay in withdrawing there names as co-sponsors of the controversial resolution H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the statement from Rep. Allen on his withdrawal. Alternet published an article on July 23, 2008 on efforts to oppose the resolution entitled “Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran.”

Rep. Tom Allen’s Statement on H. Con. Res. 362

Washington, D.C. (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)---U.S. Representative Tom Allen issues the following statement today regarding his decision to remove his name as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 362:

"I cosponsored H. Con. Res. 362 because I believe that the Iranian regime poses very real threats to stability in the region and that it is in our national security interest to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, there is language in this resolution that may imply Congressional approval of a blockade of Iran. I want to be perfectly clear about where I stand: I believe our nation should be engaging in tough diplomatic talks with Iran that will permanently dismantle that country's nuclear weapons program, and that sanctions should be part of that strategy. However, I do not support the idea of a blockade. Since the resolution has not been amended to address these concerns, yesterday, I removed my name as a cosponsor."

New House Resolution on Implications of Potential Use of Energy Resources as Leverage Against the U.S.

2008-07-23T11:06:00.000-04:00

On July 17, Representative Donald Cazayoux (D-LA), along with Representatives Ron Klein (D-FL), Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Travis Childers (D-MS), Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Paul Hodes (D-NH) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), introduced H.R. 6545, a bill "To require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues."

Section 2 of H.R. 6545 requires "Not later than January 1, 2009, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues relating to rapidly escalating energy costs. Such assessment shall include an assessment of" among other things "(4) the national security implications of potential use of energy resources as leverage against the United States by Venezuela, Iran, or other potential adversaries of the United States as a result of increased energy prices."

The bill was referred to the House Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select).

HFAC Members Go to New York

2008-07-22T17:43:00.000-04:00

On July 22, 2008, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) Chairperson Howard Berman (D-CA) led a delegation of committee members to New York to meet with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. envoy to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad, Undersecretary General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe and the U.N. representatives of Britain, France, Russia and China. According to HFAC announcement, the delegation received briefings on a wide array of issues, "including Iran's nuclear weapons program" (their words, not mine).

Other members of the delegation were: Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY), Dianne Watson (D-CA), Brad Miller (D-NC), David Scott (D-GA), Russ Carnahan (D-MO), Jim Costa (D-CA), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Ron Klein (D-FL), and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) (a former member of the committee and current leader of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue).

The delegation coincided with a periodic meeting of the Security Council on the Middle East. Inner City Press is the only media outlet so far to carry a story on the delegation. Little else is known.

Undersecretary of Commerce Addresses WINEP on Iran

2008-07-22T16:45:00.001-04:00

On July 22, U.S. undersecretary of commerce Mario Mancuso, who leads the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mancuso said, “While Iran is not ten feet tall -- much less ascendant -- it nonetheless represents a challenge that is as comprehensive as it is grave.”

Mancuso told the audience that BIS is responding to the Iranian threat in the following ways:

“First, we are refining the list of items that we control to ensure that we are focused on sensitive items. Because very little can be traded today with Iran, this initiative operates indirectly, but powerfully, by focusing attention and resources to our global non-proliferation efforts.

“Second, to enhance the export control system's overall effectiveness, we are providing more information to our private sector stakeholders -- our front-line partners in the enforcement of our regulations-- about customers around the world that raise concerns for us.

“Currently, we maintain three separate lists: the Denied Parties List, the Unverified List, and the Entity List. The Denied Parties List is a list of individuals and entities that have been denied export privileges. The Unverified List is a list of parties where BIS has been unable to verify end use in the past. The Entity List is a list of parties whose participation in a given transaction triggers license requirements. All of these lists are available on our website, www.bis.doc.gov.

“Third, we are sharpening our enforcement efforts to focus on those areas of greatest concern to us: proliferators, terrorists, and nations of illicit transshipment concern. Every day, our BIS special agents work closely with other federal law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, to conduct investigations and punish violations of our export control regulations. Our agents also work with our colleagues in the national security and intelligence community to provide expert analytic support to broader national security efforts.

“This past May, with critical BIS support, DOJ successfully prosecuted two separate cases of a U.S. exporter attempting to ship radiographic and computer equipment to Iran. In another recent case, BIS special agents provided crucial support to indict two munitions dealers for conspiring to transfer military aircraft parts to Iran. Some of the particular charges in this latter case carry up to a twenty-year prison sentence, and fines of up to $1 million.

“When foreign companies take controlled U.S. technology and illegally transfer it, they also face serious repercussions. In the past few weeks alone, we have issued several Temporary Denial Orders suspending the export privileges of multiple non-U.S. companies and individuals for knowingly re-exporting U.S. origin aircraft to Iran. These are just a few of the Iran-related cases our team is actively working on. There have been others in the past, and we suspect that there will be significant other cases in the future.

“Finally, we are also working with our partners and allies around the world to enhance their system of export controls in order to eliminate gaps in the system and to maximize the effective impact of our efforts."

Mancuso called for the reauthorization of the Export Administration Act (EAA), which has been in lapse since 2001, and applauded Senator Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) for introducing legislation to reauthorize it. Mancuso said the administration strongly supports this legislation, and urged Congress to move quickly to pass it.

Read the full text of Mancuso’s prepared remarks here.

Flynt Leverett on P5+1 Talks

2008-07-22T16:26:00.000-04:00

Iran Provisions in Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations

2008-07-22T12:31:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I posted the language in the Senate Appropriations Committee report on the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill. As with most appropriations bills this year, it is not likely that the Foreign Operations Appropriations will be considered by the full House or Senate.

Below is the full text of the Iran-related sections in the S. 3288 the FY'09 Foreign Ops Appropriations bill.

Transparency in Broadcasting (page 26-27)
SEC. 114. Funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘International Broadcasting Operations’’ in this Act for programs and activities supporting international broadcasting to the Middle East and Iran in fiscal year 2009 may be made available if the United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Inspector General reports to the Committees on Appropriations that such broadcasting meets the standards in the Office of Inspector General report ISP–IB–08–45, May 2008.

Democracy Fund (page 44)
(e) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to $20,000,000 shall be made available for programs to promote democracy in Iran and to counter the political influence of the Government of Iran in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza: Provided, That none of such funds may be used for educational and cultural exchanges.

Prohibition Against Direct Funding for Certain Countries (page 77-78)
SEC. 706. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Syria, unless the President determines that assistance to such countries is important to the national interest of the United States and notifies the Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the regular notification procedures: Provided,That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank or its agents.

Special Notification Requirements (page 96)
SEC. 719. None of the funds appropriated under titles II through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended for assistance for Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Iran, Haiti, Libya, Ethiopia, Mexico, or Cambodia except as provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

Iran in the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

2008-07-21T13:23:00.002-04:00

Last week, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees completed mark-up of the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations. However, as with most appropriations bills this year, it is not likely that the Foreign Operations Appropriations will be considered by the full House or Senate.

Today, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released a report of the mark-up of S.3288, the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill for the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on July 18, 2008. The Senate version of the bill contains $20,000,000 for democracy programs in Iran and “prohibits the use of funds under this heading for educational and cultural exchanges.” The bill also contains a provision regarding monitoring and reporting on broadcasts to the Middle East and Iran.

Below is the full text of the Iran-related provisions in the Senate report of the FY’09 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

(Page 51) Iran.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for democracy programs for Iran, and prohibits the use of funds under this heading for educational and cultural exchanges.

(Page 27) Transparency in Broadcasting.—The Committee remains concerned with the integrity of U.S. broadcasting overseas and includes a provision to ensure that the Inspector General of the Department of State and BBG continues to monitor and report on the content of broadcasts to the Middle East and Iran. BBG programs are intended to reach countries where fair and unbiased local media is limited and therefore broadcasting a variety of views are required. The Inspector General’s report (ISP–IB–08–45, May 2008) noted several ways to strengthen the transparency and accountability of broadcasts, such as adherence to a journalistic code of ethics, rigorous training programs and internal monitoring. The Committee reiterates its strong support for free and fair broadcasting, and in particular the importance of providing many points of view to maintain balanced reporting.

The Committee notes that the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, lays out strict standards and principles for U.S. international broadcasting that define its journalistic mission and responsibilities. The Committee directs the members of the BBG to rigorously oversee all broadcasting programs funded under this heading to ensure they are within authorized mandates and that limited resources are used effectively. The BBG is directed, in conjunction with the MBN, VOA, and RFE/RL, to make public English transcripts on a case by case basis if requested by the Committee. The Inspector General for the Department of State and BBG should, through its normal oversight of BBG activities, inspect random translations.

Protest at Pelosi's Home on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-21T10:47:00.000-04:00

Over 100 anti-war activists held a protest at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's home last weekend. Click here to watch KRON Channel 4’s evening news video on AntiWar.com.

Global Pulse on Missiles and Diplomacy

2008-07-18T15:10:00.000-04:00

Representatives Call for Supporting the MEK to Overthrow Iranian Regime

2008-07-18T08:11:00.001-04:00

On July 14, 2008, Representatives Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Bob Filner (D-CA) called on Congress to support the cult "People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known as the MEK." Reps. Tancredo and Filner urged the MEK be taken off the list of terrorist organizations and called on the U.S. to provide support for the organization to overthrow the regime in Iran. Below is the full text of both speeches.

---

HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
OF COLORADO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 14, 2008

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, in the 1980's the United States supported and helped arm the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation of their country, a policy later portrayed in the award-winning Tom Hanks movie, "Charlie Wilson's War.'' Today we need to show support for dissidents fighting to overthrow the terrorist regime in Tehran. It will come as a surprise to most Americans that we are not doing so.

In that struggle to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, not all of those Afghan freedom-fighters were fighting for democracy. It was a coalition of forces who had one thing in common: they wanted the Soviets out of their country. We supported them, and they won. Not only did the Soviets leave Afghanistan, within four years the Soviet Union imploded.

One of the main groups fighting to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime is the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI)--also called the MEK--and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). Strangely, instead of assisting these dissidents, our Department of State decided to label them terrorists in 1997.

In the decade since, a debate has raged about whether the designation of the MEK as a terrorist group was driven less by the facts than it was a desire on the part of State Department bureaucrats to curry favor with "moderates'' in the government of then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Either way, it is has become clear that this "good will gesture'' on the part of the State Department failed to yield any progress with Tehran.

The MEK advocates a secular democratic government for Iran, one that that respects human rights and basic freedoms (including freedom of the press and freedom of religion) and has provided intelligence and assistance about the activities of the Iranian regime in Iraq, and Tehran's covert nuclear program. Moreover, a number of the group's members are under the protection of Coalition troops in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the group was recently the victim of a missile attack at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This is a testament to how much Tehran fears the group.

I hope the Iranian regime will refrain from future attacks of this nature, as Ashraf's residents are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Their well being is and continues to be the obligation of the Coalition troops in Iraq, and the Iraqi government.

This raises another interesting point. Not only does the MEK not behave like a terrorist group, in many respects the U.S. government does not treat them like one.

The MEK is a group that the United States and the west should cultivate as we seek an organic, democratic change agent in Iran.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom has already come to this conclusion in removing the MEK from the British terrorist list earlier this year.

Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were willing to enter into an alliance with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to defeat Hitler. We used every ally and every resource to defeat the Axis Powers. Yet today, in dealing with the terrorist regime of Iran, a regime that daily threatens to destroy Israel and the U.S. (the "Great Satan'') and is actively seeking the means of fulfilling that threat, we cannot find it in our interest to render aid to the People's Mujahideen of Iran because of its checkered past.

It is time for the western world to re-examine our treatment of the MEK in the wake of the UK court decision.

For starters, the political goals behind designating the MEK as a terrorist organization here in the U.S. have failed to materialize. If anything, the Iranian government has become more aggressive and repressive in the years since the MEK designation. Iran is supporting violence and terrorism from Baghdad to Beirut, has defied U.N. demands to end its nuclear enrichment program, and shows no signs of moderating its behavior--test firing missiles yesterday in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

What better way to send a message to Tehran than to free the MEK from the international stigma that comes with the 'terrorist' label.

This year's U.S. State Department Country Reports on Terrorism rightly brands the Iranian government as the number one state sponsor of global terrorism. Iran has also been the principal supplier of IEDs to terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Despite continued efforts at diplomacy, financial sanctions, and--in the case of placing the MEK on various terrorist lists--outright appeasement by many western countries, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that his country will never yield its "dignity'' by suspending its uranium enrichment program.

U.S., EU and UN negotiators have been talking with Tehran about its nuclear program for many years, but Tehran has shown no sign of changing course. And why should they when we keep handcuffs on Iranian dissidents who might cause the Iranian regime real problems?

If western efforts at "dialogue'' and "diplomacy'' are to be successful, they must be more than opportunities for Iran to stall for time while moving forward with their nuclear program. A willingness to negotiate with carrots doesn't work unless one is willing to use a few sticks as well.

Today, there no longer remain any legal or political justifications for maintaining the MEK on the terror list. I therefore urge our government to seriously reconsider its stance on the democratic opposition of Iran and remove the group from our list of terrorist organizations.
It's time to take the handcuffs off of the MEK.

END

====================

SPEECH OF
HON. BOB FILNER
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of democracy in Iran and stability in Iraq. We in the United States Congress must work together for a stable and democratic Iraq. Today, there is undisputable evidence that Iran is the main contributor to the violence in Iraq which causes American and Iraqi casualties.

On July 4, Iran fired yet another GRAD missile at Ashraf City, the residence compound of the Iranian resistance--the People's Mujahadeen Organization of Iran. Iran's mercenaries in Iraq have also been busy calling for arrest, trial, and expulsion of these ``protected persons'' living in Ashraf. Our soldiers are protecting Ashraf in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. Iranian action has therefore endangered them as well.

I have said many times that the mullahs in Tehran do not hold all the cards. The Iranian regime's aggressive policies are rooted in the weakness of their regime. The unrelenting assault on the civil and human rights of the Iranian people is a direct response to the illegitimacy of the extremist theocratic government. A military attack on Iran would be a tragic mistake. Yet, it is an error almost as grave to think that continued appeasement of the Iranian regime is the only alternative to war.

Reasonably, Western democracies, with the support of the peace activist community, should use all peaceful means possible to isolate the Iranian regime and to avoid war. However, the desire for a peaceful resolution of this crisis has led into policy choices which provide Iran with the legitimacy it craves and a strengthened diplomatic hand.

The most notable remnant of the West's unsuccessful attempt at "engagement'' with Iran is the designation of the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known as the MEK, as a foreign terrorist organization. The MEK provided significant intelligence that helped blow the whistle on Iran's clandestine nuclear weapon and missile development programs.

The MEK has already been removed from the United Kingdom list of terrorist organizations. Late last month, the British parliament approved the order put before it by that country's home secretary and removed the MEK from the UK blacklist. In light of the recent developments, the United States must seriously consider the court's findings as well as the present political environment and also remove the limitations it has placed on the MEK.

We must stop appeasing Iran and shift our support to the Iranian people. They are our best allies against Iran's aggression. Iranian people have an unwavering longing for freedom and democracy. We must work together to acknowledge their resounding rejection of extremism and move to support their efforts for democracy in Iran.

State Department Announces Requests for Proposals

2008-07-17T15:22:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) last week announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) from organizations interested in submitting proposals to support the advancement of democracy and human rights inside Iran. Due to current sanctions on Iran, United States Government funds may not be used for activities involving the Government of Iran. The Bureau anticipates making awards in amounts of approximately $350,000 - $1,250,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement these programs. Applicants must submit proposals using www.grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on August 6, 2008.

The full RFP can be located at the State Department's website.

For questions related to proposal submissions, please contact Jessica Lieberman, 202.647.9734, liebermanjd@state.gov or Ramiro Martinez, 202.261.8008, martinezRA@state.gov. Once the RFP submission deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review and decision process has been completed.

Holt Amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act

2008-07-16T15:44:00.002-04:00

An amendment to update the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate submitted by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) to the 2009 National Intelligence Act (H.R. 5959) was agreed to by voice vote during the debate on the bill. H.R. 5959 was agreed to and overwhelmingly passed by the House on July 16, 2008. The White House has threatened to veto the bill because it, in addition to other provisions, it "contains new requirements that the executive branch provide more complete briefings for all members of the intelligence oversight committees."

Below is the full text of the amendment.

At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following new section:

SEC. 418. MEMORANDUM TO HOLDERS OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAN.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall issue a memorandum to holders of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled `Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities' regarding any intelligence on the nuclear program of Iran that has been gathered or emerged since the publication of such National Intelligence Estimate in October, 2007.

The Least of All Sanctions Legislation Evils

2008-07-16T15:21:00.003-04:00

On July 15, Senate Banking Committee Chair Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) announced they will introduce new bipartisan sanctions legsislation entitled the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008.” The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will mark-up the legislation on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 10 am. The full text of the legislation and designation is not yet available. However, Senators Dodd and Shelby released a summary of the legislation along with the announcement.

At best, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 can be described as the least of all sanctions legislation evils. However, the legislation sends the wrong signal from Congress just as there seems to be a very significant shift in administration policy on diplomacy with Iran. This legislation could harm diplomatic efforts not only with Iran, but also harm relations with European allies, Russia, India and others.

Based on the summary, the legislation differs from the Iran Sanctions Act of 2008, formally introduced by Senator Max Baucus on July 7, 2008, in a few significant ways.

First, perhaps most important, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 drops the controversial provision that would bar nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia until Russia halts missile and nuclear energy aid to Iran. This provision has proven to be the most significant roadblock to both the Iran Counterproliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) and the Iran Sanctions Act of 2008 (S.3227).

Instead, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 adds a section (and creates a new term) on “Destinations of Possible Diversion Concern.” According to the summary, the legislation would require the “Director of National Intelligence to submit to the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and the Treasury, and appropriate Congressional Committees, a report that identifies all countries that the Director believes are of concern with respect to trans-shipment, re-exportation or diversion of sensitive technologies to an entity owned or controlled by the government of Iran.” Countries that appear to be targets of this provision include Russia and India, and perhaps others. Such countries would be subject to additional licensing requirements for sensitive technologies if they fail to improve export control systems. However, this provision includes a presidential waiver if such a waiver is in the national security interest of the United States.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 maintains a provision to make U.S. parent company liable for violations of sanctions by foreign subsidiaries. However, according to the summary, “The provision does not apply to those firms which terminate business with such an entity or which divest themselves of the subsidiary within 90 days of the legislation’s effective date. The President may waive this requirement if he determines that such a waiver would be in the national interest of the United States, and reports to Congress on the reasons for the waiver.”

Also of significance, the summary of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 does not include a provision in the Iran Sanctions Act on World Bank Loans to Iran calling for a report on loans to Iran and a reduction in the U.S. contribution to the World Bank if any loans are granted to Iran.

According to the summary, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 also does not appear to contain provisions in the Iran Sanctions Act calling for greater programming in radio broadcasting to Iran, authorizing exchange programs or making it the policy of the U.S. to support the establishment of an international regime for the assured supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful means under a multilateral authority, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

According to the summary, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 adds a significant section on divestment from Iran. The legislation “Expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. government should support efforts by State and local governments to divest from, or prohibit investment of the assets of state or local governments in, a person that the government determines poses a financial or reputational risk.”

The legislation will also authorize, though not mandate, state and local divestment from Iran’s energy sector. According to the summary, “Patterned after legislation enacted last year to enable divestment from firms investing in certain sectors in Sudan, the Chairman’s mark gives authority to State and local governments to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in the energy sector in Iran, or extends $20 million or more in credit to be used for investment in the energy sector in Iran. While not mandating divestment, this authorization is designed to recognize that investors may have moral, prudential or reputational reasons to divest from companies that accept the substantial business risk of operating in countries subject to international economic sanctions.”

In addition, the bill will require “advance written notice to persons to which the measure is to be applied; offers an opportunity for comment by the person to which the measure would be applied (including an opportunity to demonstrate that the person does not engage in the prohibited investment activities related to Iran’s energy sector); urges care by State or local governments related to erroneous targeting of divestment; and requires written notice to the Department of Justice within 30 days of enactment of divestment legislation or adoption of other similar divestment measures.”

If enacted, the legislation would also give cover to asset managers as it would amend “the Investment Company Act of 1940 to prohibit legal action against asset managers who, based on credible information available to the public, choose to divest assets from, or avoid investing in, persons investing $20 million or more in Iran’s energy sector, or extending credit for such investments in Iran’s energy sector.” In addition, it would require “the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise current regulations as necessary to require disclosure of Iran divestment actions.” Finally, the section on divestment expresses the sense of Congress that managers of certain Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 pension plans may divest assets from Iran’s energy sector without breaching their fiduciary obligations “if their decision is made based on credible publicly available information, and is conducted consistent with current Department of Labor regulations related to economically targeted investments.

Although some of the provisions and wording may differ slightly or have been finessed, the reality is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 only repeats the failed approach to dealing with Iran in previous and pending sanctions legislation. It’s time for Congress to think beyond pursuing an “all sticks and no carrots” approach to Iran.

Lee Amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act

2008-07-15T21:13:00.003-04:00

UPDATED: Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) submitted an amendment to the House Committee on Rules for consideration to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act, H.R. 5959. The amendment would have provided "that no funds authorized may be used to support or maintain a covert action intended to undermine or overthrow a government of a member nation of the United Nations." The Rules Committee met on July 15 and rejected the amendment.

Iranians Speak Out on Regime Change Slush Fund

2008-07-15T19:25:00.001-04:00

On Wednesday, July 16 the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will meet to mark-up the FY'09 International Affairs budget. Included in the budget is the so-called program to "promote democracy" in Iran, the regime change slush fund.

As I have previously written, the FY'09 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) includes $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran, this is more than triple the spending amount for Fiscal Year 2008, which is estimated at $21.623 million.

While the FY'09 budget for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which also falls under Function 150, does not state exactly how much of the International Broadcasting Operations funds ($654 million requested) will be devoted to Iran, it does request $1.2 million to be used to launch Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Azerbaijani broadcasts to Iran. It is also unclear how much of $522 million in requested funding under the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs will be allocated to Iran-related programs, but the funding will "provide new opportunities for American students to learn critical need languages." In addition to four other languages, the initiative focuses on Farsi.

While it is unlikely that a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill will be passed and signed into law (a Continuing Resolution is more likely), the mark-up of the bill in the House subcommittee is an opportunity to raise issues regarding the controversial program. Today, I received an email from more than 30 prominent and credible civil society representatives in Iran specifically calling on Congress to drop the program. I can only hope that Members of Congress will heed their call. Below is the full text of the letter.

Message of peace and friendship to the people of United States of America: Request for the Congress and President of USA

We are a group of independent Iranian civil society representatives engaged in scientific and humanitarian work in our country. Some of us are also engaged in social service activities beyond our borders. While working for common causes, we often hold hands with civil society partners from other parts of the world, including members of the US scientific and civil society community. Because of the many compatriots we have in your country, we feel a special human bond linking us together. We are non-partisan and have no political agenda

We extend our warm greetings to the people of America and wish peace, friendship and prosperity for all. We hope logic, reason and justice will prevail and remove the dark clouds casting a shadow and constraining communications and collaboration between us.

We want to look beyond troubling issues such as the US intervention, that toppled the democratically elected popular government of Mossadeq and the drama of hostage taking of US diplomats by Iranian students. We want to look at the positive responses and deep empathy shown by people of the two countries, when Iran faced the aftermath of the Bam earthquake tragedy and US faced the consequences of the man made disaster of September 11.

We are confident that our message will be heeded. Our request to the US Congress and to the US President is to scrap the fund for promoting democracy in Iran. This will pave the way for us to strengthen our bonds for people to people cooperation between America and Iran, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH SIDES. Yes, we are confident that we can achieve what both governments have declared as intentions, but have failed to achieve in practice.

How Iranians look at the fund:
(a) Iran has had a sad history of external interference. Iranians have deep suspicion of any foreign inspired initiative. No credible civil society member would want to be associated with such a fund. Even opposition figures and prominent democracy and human rights activists in Iran have called for the termination of the democracy promotion program.

(b) The fund has undermined Iran.s home grown civil society initiatives. It has fueled paranoia of US and Israel conspiracies to undermine political stability bring about regime change and install a pro-American government. Thus, the fund has provided a pretext for distrust and suspicion, leading to narrowing of space for independent civil society.

(c) Contrary to US laws and international norms of transparency, the recipients of the US funding are secret. Thus, those in contact with western partners are placed at risk of being treated as potential conspirators and become the target for crack down by the Iranian
government.

(d) If governments of both sides are sincere about supporting people to people collaboration, the best way is for both of them to step aside and let the scholars and civil society members work without restrictions that are based on unsubstantiated suspicion, and remove legal obstacles of the sanctions, issuing of visas, etc. Terminating the democracy promotion fund is the first step for the US and releasing all people, who have been imprisoned on suspicion of connection with the US Government, is the first step for the Iranian Government. These steps will provide incentives for action by independent scholars and civil society activities. Obviously, the cooperation of the two sides must adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability and being free from any political agenda.

Here is the gist of our message:

1. To the great people of America, which has drawn on the best of talents from all over the world, including Iranians: We extend our hands in love, friendship and cooperation, transcending differences of governments. There is much to gain from our collaboration, including infusing rationality, compassion, peace and tolerance into policies and practices of our Governments. Through our on-going dialogue, we hope together to identify people-based programs and mechanisms for collaboration. Through the wonderful centers of science and technology, and through your universities and centers of higher learning and your civil societies, we hope to give concrete shape to our mutual aspirations, which will serve not only the people of our two countries, but citizens of the whole world.

2. To the members of Congress: As representatives of the people of America, including the large number of Iranian Americans, we look to you to support us through the power of the people you represent. We request you to encourage the Government to abolish the fund, which has caused so much pain and stress to a significant part of Iranian civil society.

Without interference or funding from the two governments, we can together develop and expand our cooperation. Governments must be facilitators and not caretakers. We also need to see easing of the severe restrictions the sanctions have placed on our mutual cooperation.

3. To the American President:. You have declared your deep respect and affection for the Iranian people. We want to take you at your word. So, here is a group of independent Iranians asking you:

(a) to dismantle the fund for democracy, which has had an outcome completely opposite to your declared goals

(b) to set up a non-partisan panel of scholars to study ways and means of easing sanctions so that independent and genuine Iranian civil society and scholars can cooperate with their US counterparts, observing universally accepted code of ethics, including transparency, accountability and partnerships based on equality and equity. We will respect international law, and the laws of both countries. What we do not like about the laws, we will try and change through non-confrontational dialogue and committed advocacy.

4. We have used various channels to communicate with our own government: Some of us have already engaged various state authorities in a dialogue designed to foster trust and confidence. We will hold the Government to the promises made, and accountable to the laws of Iran, including rights of citizens.

We hope our peaceful, non-confrontational discourse, free from any political motivation, will be taken seriously and we can, through strengthening of genuine and independent people to people cooperation serve the real interests of both countries.

So far signed by:

Elham Ahmadnejad
Bijan Khajehpour
Pari Namazi
Soraya Bahmanpour
Hesam Aldin Naragi
Heliya Faezi Pour
Robabeh Sheikholeslam
Jabiz Sharifian
Setareh Forozan
Samira Farahani
Simin Hanachi
Simin Naseri
Shirin Niyazmand
Ali Ardalan
Alireza Rabiei
Fatemeh Farhang Khah
Forozan Salehi
Lili Farhadpour
Mohammad Baquer Namazi
Mohamad Ali Barzegar
Mojgan Tavakoli
Mostafa Tourabi Zadeh
Masomeh Torabi
Molouk Aziz zade
Mona Moghadaci
Naser Yousefi
Nasrin Jazani
Naghmeh Yazdanpanah
Shadi Azimi
Giti Shambayati
Yasaman Aghajani

Obama on Iran

2008-07-15T15:37:00.000-04:00

On July 15, presumed Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama delivered a speech on national security entitled "A New Strategy for a New World." During the speech, Senator Obama laid out his strategy for making America safer; ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Regarding his strategy on Iran, Obama stated:

"By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.

"We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

"There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That’s why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence – including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

"We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That’s the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.

"The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time."

Rep. Mike Thompson on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-15T15:28:00.000-04:00

Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) has joined a growing movement in Congress against provocative language in H.Con.Res. 362 as indicated in a response to a constituent on the matter. Below is the full text of the letter.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding H Con Res 362. Like you, I remain strongly opposed to any military action against Iran. Questions have been raised about the intent of a specific passage in the bill, and I would like to clarify the purpose of the bill and update you on its current status.

"On May 22, 2008, Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) introduced this resolution to call on the President to use economic, political and diplomatic means to discourage Iran from pursuing further nuclear development. However, some have suggested that the resolution is an attempt to authorize a military blockade of Iran. Moreover, serious concerns have been raised that the Bush Administration may use the resolution, as currently written, for political cover to justify a blockade, military action or even invasion of Iran.

"In an effort to directly address these concerns and clarify his intent, Rep. Ackerman sent a letter to all Members of Congress on July 10, 2008 in which he stated: "some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced [H Con Res. 362]. as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow 'Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.' Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question."

"House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has indicated that he has no intention of moving the bill through his committee unless the language is first altered to ensure that there is no possible way it could be construed as authorizing any type of military action against Iran.

"Furthermore, you should know that I will withdraw my support for the bill if this change is not made. I firmly believe that while the situation in Iran is of serious concern, any preemptive use of military force would be counter-productive and harmful to American interests. I remain committed to diplomacy as the most affective means of resolving conflicts throughout the region.

"Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and our district."

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress

John Bolton:Diplomacy::Jack Ripper:Surgery

2008-07-15T15:14:00.000-04:00

Wall Street Journal ran an Op-Ed today by John Bolton entitled “Israel, Iran and the Bomb” in which he advocates military strikes on Iran. Now this may come as a bit of a surprise, especially after Fox News just last week asked Bolton if his past statements advocating military action against Iran still represent an "accurate reflection" of his views, and he said "no.”

According to Bolton, “Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point.

“Tehran's efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years.

“More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time.”

Bolton goes on to advocate military attacks, arguing, “… Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's. With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all.”

Bolton also attacks Barack Obama and the EU3 for calling for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran. Instead, he endorses John McCain’s call for a missile defense system and makes the case for voting Republican in the November elections.

Bolton concludes, “Thus, instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can. These subjects are decidedly unpleasant. A nuclear Iran is more so.”

Senators Dodd and Shelby Introduce New Sanctions Legislation

2008-07-15T14:03:00.000-04:00

Today, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, announced a new piece of legislation entitled the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008” that will expand U.S. sanctions on Iran. The Banking Committee will consider the legislation on Thursday, July 17 at 10 am in 538 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

According to a joint announcement, Senator Dodd said, “Iran’s missile tests last week underscore its serious threat to our allies and interests in the region. This bipartisan bill strengthens economic sanctions against Iran, and authorizes divestment from companies that do business with Iran’s key oil sector to increase pressure on its government to meet the demands of the international community. It also helps to prevent the illegal diversion of sensitive U.S. technologies to Iran. This legislation is a critical component to efforts to advance peace and stability to this vital region.”

“I am pleased to join Chairman Dodd in supporting this important legislation,” said Senator Shelby. “Iran is a growing and serious threat, and it is imperative that the United States avail itself of every possible measure to ensure that Iran changes its behavior in a manner that promotes peace and stability. This legislation is a step in that direction, and I look forward to helping Chairman Dodd advance it.”

I will post additional analysis on the legislation very soon.

Senate Banking Committee Moving Forward on Sanctions Bill

2008-07-14T17:25:00.001-04:00

Today, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) announced plans to move forward with marking up the Iran Sanctions Act of 2008 (S.3227) in his committee on Thursday. The bill was formally introduced in the Senate on July 7, 2008 by Senator Max Baucus and has already been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 863, though no date for consideration on the Senate floor has been set. The Iran Sanctions was also not referred to the Senate Banking Committee, though both the Banking and Foreign Affairs committees are claiming jurisdiction over the bill. For more analysis on the bill, click here.

According to Senator Dodd today: "I'm also preparing to go forward, on Thursday, with our Iran sanctions bill. We'll be noticing that today, as well -- obviously, as events unfold during the week, but my plan is to have a markup of the Iran sanctions bill on Thursday, as well."

Archaelogists Give Good Reason for Not Helping Iran's Cultural Sites

2008-07-14T16:16:00.000-04:00

During its annual meeting held June 29-July 4 in Dublin, the World Archaeological Congress passed a resolution urging colleagues to refuse any military requests to draw up a list of Iranian sites that should be exempted from air strikes. According to the resolution, "Such advice would provide cultural credibility and respectability to the military action."

According to NewScientist.com, "Instead, delegates were advised to emphasise the harm that any military action would do to Iran's people and heritage. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, bombing damaged important monuments, including the Al-Zohur Palace in Baghdad, and museums and archaeological sites were later looted - even though archaeologists had been consulted in advance. 'If these archaeologists had little impact in terms of saving even the few selected archaeological sites listed, what did they achieve?' asks Yannis Hamilakis of the University of Southampton, UK."

There are currently nine World Heritage sites in Iran, including Persepolis and the Armenian Monastic Ensembles just designated on July 6, 2008. In addition, there 61 sites that have been submitted to the Tentative List.

Delay: War with Iran Possible

2008-07-11T15:19:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, July, 10, 2008, former Republican House Minority Leader Tom Delay appeared on Hardball With Chris Matthews. During the interview, DeLay said it was possible the U.S. would go to war with Iran before the elections and called for a blockade against Iran. Below is the transcript of the exchange from the show.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we are going to go to war before the election?

DELAY: I think it‘s possible with Iran.

MATTHEWS: Do you think Israel might want to take a—Olmert is—they have got a weak government in Israel. He may be and feel in a position he has to act to show his strength. You know what is going on over there. You know that region. We may decide—Cheney may say and influence the president to say, look, if Israel has to attack, it will take them 2,000 sorties to do the job. We could do it in a day. Why don‘t we do it clean and get it
over with, because we will get blamed anyway?

DELAY: And particularly if Obama is the next president.

MATTHEWS: Well, tell me what you think, as a conservative. Do you think we should move over there between now and the election?

DELAY: Absolutely. We should have moved a lot earlier.

MATTHEWS: What should we do?

DELAY: Well, first and foremost, we should blockade Iran, quit dallying around in all this diplomatic and sanctions. They‘re obviously not working. But you could go straight to a blockade of Iran.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And what would happen then?

DELAY: They would stop driving their cars. And the pressure at home would start growing by—by huge amounts. But we should never take a military strike off the table.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What about Olmert calls up you and—he calls up you and says, should I go? What would you say?

DELAY: I would say go.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Attack?

DELAY: But maybe we want to go. Maybe it is better for the U.S. to do it, rather than Israel to do it.

MATTHEWS: Is that where you are on that right now?

DELAY: That‘s where I am.

MATTHEWS: Go?

DELAY: No, not right now. But if things deteriorate over the next two to three months, then, that option has to be considered.

MATTHEWS: Because you said one of the reasons being that Barack Obama is coming into office possibly and that he wouldn‘t do it.

DELAY: He wouldn't do it, not at all.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think this is a common belief around the White House crowd, of the Dick Cheney crowd and the president? Do you think they‘re actually thinking about acting now, while they still have a chance to end that nuclear threat from Iran?

DELAY: I can‘t answer that. I‘m not in touch in them. I haven‘t talked to them. So, I really have no feel for that.

Retired Military Leaders Oppose H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-10T15:26:00.000-04:00

Today, three retired military leaders sent a letter to Congressional lawmakers urging them to abandon a resolution pertaining to Iran that is making its way through Congress. The retired military leaders say H.Con.Res. 362 is “poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous.” The full text of the letter – signed by Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., US Army (ret.); former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. Lawrence J. Korb; and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, US Navy (ret.) – is posted below.

July 10, 2008

To: Members of the House of Representatives

From:
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, US Navy (ret.)
Dr. Lawrence Korb, Former Asst. Secretary of Defense
Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., US Army (ret.), Chairman, Center for Arms Control and Nuclear Nonproliferation

The concurrent resolution making its way through the House of Representatives pertaining to Iran (H. Con. Res. 362) is poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous in our view. We urge Congress to abandon this resolution for the following reasons.

The language demanding the President initiate an international effort “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” is of particular concern because 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.
Immense military resources would be required to implement such inspections of cargo moving through the seas, on the ground and in the air. The international community has shown no willingness to join in such an activity. Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war.
Implementation of measures called for in the resolution could complicate our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and could cause oil prices to soar.
Senior Pentagon officials, as well as many in the Administration and in Congress, have stated publicly that a diplomatic solution with Iran is the best course. The sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 go far beyond existing sanctions and previously proposed sanctions for dealing with Iran. The impact of these sanctions would be to undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution.

The sponsors argue that H. Con. Res. 362 as a concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, which is true, but it clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. In our view, H. Con. Res. 362 in no way furthers our diplomatic efforts or those of our European allies and should be abandoned.

Another One Jumps Ship

2008-07-10T13:47:00.000-04:00

On July 9, Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO) removed himself as a co-sponsor of H.Con.Res. 362. There are currently 231 co-sponsors of the controversial resolution, including 105 Democrats and 126 Republicans. Although Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced that he was changing his co-sponsorship status, this is not yet reflected on the Library of Congress bill summary and status.

Meanwhile, today the House Foreign Affairs Committee announced that it will mark-up several resolutions during a committee hearing scheduled for July 16, 2008. H. Res. 1008, Condemning the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, is among the resolutions to be marked-up. Although the HFAC announcement did not included H.Con.Res. 362 among the resolutions scheduled to be marked-up, it is entirely possible that it can still be added to schedule.

Giving Neocons the Fingar

2008-07-10T13:29:00.000-04:00

Bob Dreyfuss has a great posting on The Dreyfuss Report, his blog on The Nation's website. Dreyfuss writes:

"Yesterday afternoon, as guests balanced buffet lunches on their knees, one of America's top intelligence official made some provocative and fascinating comments about the current US-Iranian impasse.

What he said was like a thumb in the eye to neoconservatives and assorted other sabre-rattlers.

The official was Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In effect, Fingar is the nation's top intelligence analyst. Previously, he headed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, one of the few (very few) US intelligence agencies to have mostly gotten Iraq right in 2002, when the CIA and Pentagon agencies were hyperventilating about the threat of Iraqi WMDs...

First, Fingar insisted that the United States has to take Iran's legitimate security concerns into account. 'Iran,' he said, 'like the classic 'even paranoids have enemies' idea, lives in a tough neighborhood. It has reason to feel insecure.'

Part of the reason for Iran's insecurity, he said, was the fact that the United States has armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Recognizing that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point' for US policy, he said. 'We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure.'"

Fingar also spoke about Iran's recent missile tests, how Iran is tied to energy supplies and hegemonic control of the Gulf.

Iran Sanctions Bill Could Undermine Diplomacy

2008-07-10T12:21:00.000-04:00

With pressure on both houses of Congress to pass legislation imposing more sanctions against Iran, and without key opposition from the oil lobby, the Iran Sanctions Act of 2008 could be passed yet in the Senate. But the act could harm diplomacy not only with Tehran, but also with Moscow, thanks to provisions that are opposed by the Bush administration as well as several senators. Read the full story on the website of Political Research Associates.

Rep. Ackerman Continues to Make the Case for H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-10T11:56:00.000-04:00

While some Members of Congress, like Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and others, are expressing regrets on H.Con.Res. 362, Rep. Gary Ackerman continues to make the case for his controversial resolution. Today Rep. Ackerman circulated a new "Dear Colleague" letter based largely on his comments to the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday.

Below is the full text of the "Dear Colleague" letter.

H.CON.RES. 362: The FACTS

July 10, 2008

Dear Colleague,

In the Middle East, wherever you see crisis and violence, you'll probably find Iran working to threaten regional stability and U.S. national interests. It’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its desire to interfere with and undermine legitimately elected governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and its arming of Shia militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan all speak to the need for the international community and the United States to confront Iran’s regional ambitions in a significant and coordinated way.

That’s why, last year, the House has passed legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and to encourage divestment in companies that do business in Iran. These efforts are designed to convince Iran to abandon both its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. In short, sanctions measures are an attempt to avoid war, not to start it. For this reason I drafted H.Con.Res. 362, both to express the deep concerns of Congress about Iranian behavior, and to call for additional non-military pressure to be applied to Tehran.

So it is with puzzlement that I find that some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced, along with Mr. Pence and cosponsored by a majority of the House, urging the President to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran” as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify what H.Con.Res. 362 does and does not do.

First, it is a concurrent resolution. As we all know, it doesn't get presented to the President, and it doesn't get signed, and it thus does not either become law or have the force of law. It's the sense of Congress. Assertions that the resolution constitutes a declaration of war are just absurd.

Second, the final whereas clause of the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question. This resolution should not be the straw man that some would seek.

Third, the resolution calls on the President to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” To point out the obvious, there is no mention of military pressure, much less a blockade and the effort the President is called upon to make is international and diplomatic, not unilateral and military.

Fourth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting countries, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Fifth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for inspections of everything going into or coming out of Iran. This step, like the petroleum export ban, neither mandates nor requires a naval blockade to be put into effect. The inspections called for would be done at ports of embarkation and disembarkation, not by blockade.

Lastly, the whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it. Put simply, the only way to find a blockade or a declaration of war in the text of H.Con.Res. 362 is to insert them by the amending power of imagination alone.

Sincerely,

s/GARY L. ACKERMAN

Chairman

House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

UNA-USA Statement on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-10T09:41:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2008

UNA-USA STATEMENT ON
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 362

Ambassador William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the USA, today issued the following statement concerning House Concurrent Resolution 362 expressing the sense of Congress regarding US policy toward Iran.

The United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) expresses its concern over provisions of House Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res.) 362 that could be interpreted as demanding the violation of important principles and obligations of the United Nations Charter.

H. Con. Res. 362 would seek to toughen United States policy toward Iran in ways that could increase the possibility of conflict between the two countries, while appearing to eschew active engagement with our friends and allies in the United Nations to build the essential broad international consensus needed to address Iran’s nuclear program and related issues.

In particular, UNA-USA believes that the approach advanced in the concurrent resolution, including specifically “demands” that the President undertake an international effort to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products; to impose “stringent inspection requirements” on all persons, transport and cargo entering Iran; and to forbid the international movement of any Iranian government officials not involved in the current negotiations to suspend that country’s nuclear program, can be construed to authorize forcible actions that violate fundamental principles of international law.

Where the concurrent resolution calls on the President to undertake an “international effort” to increase pressure on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, UNA-USA urges the sponsors of the resolution to specifically require that any such international effort be undertaken “within the United Nations Security Council”.

UNA-USA believes that the United States should work through the Security Council on all measures that would be intended to bring pressure on Iran. We encourage all nations to refrain from using language that can be interpreted as threatening the use of force, noting that “the threat or use of force” is explicitly in violation of the United Nations Charter except in the case of self-defense or upon authorization by the UN Security Council.

UNA-USA recognizes that Iran has not complied with Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program. The Security Council has been methodically giving effect to its resolutions by collectively agreed sanctions. We believe that the United States is more likely to realize its goals in this area by working with others than by going it alone.

Regime Change Slush Fund Shrouded in Secrecy

2008-07-10T08:57:00.000-04:00

Jason Leopold at The Public Record, has an excellent article today on the State Department's Iran Democracy Fund.

Leopold writes:

"An aggressive effort by the State Department to fund regime change in Iran is ongoing, but the State Department has refused to provide lawmakers with specific details of the program other than to say that the core mission of the initiative is to assist 'those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression, greater rights for women, more open political process, and broader freedom of the press.'

Congress has appropriated more than $120 million to fund the project. The State Department has spent most of the money on the U.S.-backed Radio Farda, Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe, and to broadcast Persian programs into Iran via VOA satellite television...

Next Wednesday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations will consider the fiscal year 2009 budget that calls for setting aside $65 million for additional regime change and democracy promotion efforts inside Iran...

But just the possibility that some Iranians may be linked to American led efforts to overthrow the Iranian government, or have accepted money from the Bush administration, has led to numerous arrests last year.

Emaddeddin Baghi, a human rights activist based in Tehran who was sent back to prison in September said “it is neither wise nor morally justifiable for the U.S. to continue its path” of promoting regime change by trying to give money to dissidents.

Last year, Haleh Esfandiari, was arrested and sent to a prison in Tehran on charges of spying for the U.S. He was incarcerated for eight months, four of which were spent in solitary confinement.

Some funds, according to State Department sources familiar with the how the program is run, have also been secretly funneled to exile Iranian organizations, and politically connected individuals in order to help the U.S. establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

In June of 2007, the State Department said it would spend $16 million on democracy promotion projects that extends beyond broadcasting. However, to date the State Department has not released details on how it intends to obligate or expend those funds...

In an October column published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Esfandiari, the director of Woodrow Wilson Center’s Middle East program said 'the fact that the identity of Iranian recipients of U.S. aid is regarded as classified information by the U.S. government feeds the regime's paranoia and casts suspicion on all Iranian' non-government organizations...

Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 2003, explained that 'no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept' State Department funds to promote a policy of regime change because 'Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous.'

'They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone,' Ebadi wrote in a May 30, 2007 column published in The International Herald Tribune. Ebadi’s column was published as Congress approved emergency supplemental legislation to fund the Iraq war, which contained a $75 million earmark for the State Department’s Iran Democracy project.

'The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has also created immense problems for Iranian reformists, democratic groups and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hard-liners in Iran are terrified by the prospects of a 'velvet revolution' and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts,' Ebadi added. 'Thus, Washington's policy of 'helping' the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired. It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West.'

New Film on Civilian Diplomacy

2008-07-09T15:18:00.000-04:00

Golden Gate Cinema is shopping around a new revealing documentary, "Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations.” The film chronicles an American college student's journey to Iran; challenging the conventional media portrayal of the country. Below is a trailer for the film.

Rep. Wexler Call for Change in H.Con.Res. 362 Language

2008-07-09T14:52:00.000-04:00

Today, Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) called on Congress to change the language in H.Con.Res. 362 because of concerns expressed by Americans across the country.

According to Rep. Wexler, "It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that 'nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran' that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as 'a green light' to use force against Iran.

"The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an 'international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.'

"I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.

"To that end, I am not willing to leave even the 'slightest crack' open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran...

"As we debate H. Con. Res. 362, it has become clear that Congress must counter the Administration's tendencies of preferring armed conflict over diplomacy, and we must make every effort to change the text of this resolution. The stakes are too high for Congress to kowtow to this Administration; therefore, I am preparing to offer amendments to H. Con. Res. 362 and articulate a responsible policy that places America in the strongest possible diplomatic position to thwart Iran's nuclear program and the difficult security challenges we face."

Ackerman Uses HFAC Hearing to Present Case on H.Con.Res. 362

2008-07-09T13:51:00.000-04:00

In the House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing held today on "U.S. Policy Towards Iran" with Undersecretary of State William Burns, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) used the opportunity to make a statement on H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the full text of his prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN
CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
July 9, 2008
U.S. Policy Towards Iran and H. Con. Res. 362

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s hearing. I want to welcome Undersecretary Burns back before the committee although I’m sure we are happier to have him back than he is to be back.

Mr. Chairman, in a region that contains crises of varying degrees everywhere you look, Iran still stands out as a significant threat to regional stability and U.S. national interests. It’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its desire to interfere with and undermine legitimately elected governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and its arming of Shia militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan all speak to the need for the international community and the United States to confront Iran’s regional ambitions in a significant and coordinated way. That’s why, last year, the House has passed legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and to encourage divestment in companies that do business in Iran. These efforts are designed to convince Iran to abandon both its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. In short, sanctions measures are an attempt to avoid war, not to start it.

So it is with puzzlement that I find that some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced, along with Mr. Pence and cosponsored by a majority of the House, urging the President to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” They describe that as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify what H.Con.Res. 362 does and does not do.

First, it is a concurrent resolution. As my colleagues know, it doesn't get presented to the President, and it doesn't get signed, and it thus does not either become law or have the force of law. It's the sense of Congress. Assertions that the resolution constitutes a declaration of war are just absurd.

Second, the final whereas clause of the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question. This resolution should not be the straw man that some would seek.

Third, the resolution calls on the President to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” To point out the obvious, there is no mention of military pressure, much less a blockade and the effort the President is called upon to make is international and diplomatic, not unilateral and military.

Fourth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting nations, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Fifth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for inspections of everything going into or coming out of Iran. This step, like the petroleum export ban, neither mandates nor requires a naval blockade to be put into effect. The inspections called for would be done at ports of embarkation and disembarkation, not by blockade.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it. Put simply, the only way to find a blockade or a declaration of war in the text of H.Con.Res. 362 is to insert them by the amending power of imagination alone.

I thank the Chairman for calling today’s hearing and I look forward to listening to our witness.

McCain Does It Again

2008-07-09T10:14:00.000-04:00

On July 8, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the presumed Republican Presidential Nominee, responded to the AP report on rising to U.S. exports to Iran, saying "Maybe that's a way of killing 'em." "I meant that as a joke, as a person who hasn't had a cigarette in 28 years, 29 years," he added, laughing. I don't think most people find this or his "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" joke so funny.

H.Con.Res. 362 Not Topic of HFAC Hearing

2008-07-08T18:33:00.000-04:00

According to a Congressional staffer, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on July 9 entitled "U.S. Policy Toward Iran" will not include mark-up of the controversial H.Con.Res. 362.