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.
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."
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.
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."
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 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.
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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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
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.”
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...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.
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."
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.
