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

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

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

Shirin Ebadi's Life May Be in Danger

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

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

New Resource on Strait of Hormuz

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

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

Not in the Spirit of the Olympics

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

Iranian Woman May Be First from the IRI to Medal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Senate Sanctions Bill Introduced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran in the 2008 Democraty Party Platform

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

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

Representative Schakowsky on H.Con.Res. 362

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

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

Below is the full text of the letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky,
Member of Congress

I'm Back

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

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

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