Senator John Kerry on Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.