Ron Paul on Potential Attacks Against Iran and H.Con.Res. 362

Berman on Iran

Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard L. Berman (D-CA) delivered remarks at the start of debate on H. Con. Res. 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. He made the following statement in regards to Iran:

"On the other end of the military spectrum, a theologically-based state – the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose President says Israel should be 'wiped off the map' – is developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles."

Israel Project

The Israel Project has collected statements on Iran from Key Presidential Candidates and Current and Former U.S. Legislators. Statements so far include:

• U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh
• U.S. Sen. Joe Biden
• U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback
• U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton
• U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd
• Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards
• Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
• Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
• U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk
• U.S. Sen. Barack Obama
• U.S. Rep. Jon Porter
• Gov. Mitt Romney
• U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman
  

Carol Giacomo also wrote this article about the statements for Reuters.

Gov. Richardson on Engaging Iran

At a speech before the Center for National Policy, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson called for engaging Iran without preconditions and without illusions.

According to Richardson:

"We need to stop threatening the Iranians and talking about regime change. Instead, we need to start applying meaningful pressure, while working with them to change their behavior. We also must dialogue with moderate and pragmatic elements in both the Iranian political class and in the broader society, including business people and students who have supported moderate politicians in the past, and may do so again in the future."

His prescription for proceeding:

"As you know, US government representatives have met recently with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq, and there have also been US-Iranian meetings to talk about Afghanistan and our shared interest in preventing a return to power by the Taliban. These are all steps in the right direction, but the US needs to go further and propose broad, bilateral, unconditional negotiations with Iran -- with all subjects open for discussion. Support for such talks has come from many figures in the US foreign policy establishment, including Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. Only in the context of intensifying dialogue can we start to communicate better with Iran, and to find ways to reconcile our differences.

Our message to Iran must always have two components:

1) We must respect their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy, and we must let them know that gestures toward peace and reconciliation will be reciprocated with meaningful economic benefits and security guarantees;

2) We must stand absolutely firm with our international partners in letting the Iranians know that we will never allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, and that they will pay a high price if they continue to support international terrorists.

In short the message to the Iranians must be clear: work with the international community and you will be safe and prosperous. Continue to defy the international community and you will suffer and economically- and politically-damaging international sanctions."

He also stressed the need for a "more intelligent and effective American policy towards the entire Middle East":

"I have said before that there is a civil war within Islam between extremists and moderates. We must open an ideological front in the war against violent Jihadism, which is the single biggest threat our country faces.

To do that, we must do everything we can to isolate the extremists and to strengthen moderates across the Islamic world. And a good place to begin is with Iran -- where pragmatists and moderates are waiting in the wings as hard-line policies fail and as President Amadenejad’s popularity continues to slide.

We need urgently to re-engage the Middle East peace process with a high-level permanent envoy tasked with building the bases for a just peace. Continued deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will only provide aid and comfort to our enemies in the Islamic world. We must use all our sticks and carrots to strengthen Palestinian moderates and to promote a two-state solution that guarantees Israel’s security.

In the Persian Gulf, we need to work constructively with both Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians on a wide range of security, economic, and energy initiatives that will promote stability in that crucial part of the world.

In the Levant, we need to talk directly to Syria in order to foster political stability in Lebanon and to encourage an Israeli-Syrian agreement on the Golan Heights."

Watch Republicans Go Boom

Here is a new video entitled "Watch Republicans Go Boom" from the Council for a Livable World on Republican Presidential candidates position on dealing with Iran.

Nuclear Safeguards and Supply Acts

Senators Lugar and Bayh, both from Indiana, have introduced a companion bill, S. 1138, to the International Fuel Bank bill introduced by Rep. Lantos on February 7, 2007. At the heart of the bills is a bargain: any country that forgoes uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities should be assured access to nuclear fuel at a reasonable cost. If enacted into law, the bills would provide $50 million for the establishment of the international nuclear fuel bank.

The principal issue if this ever becomes law, will be getting other countries in the world to go along with it, particularly when the United States continues to fail to fulfill its Article VI obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treat. Yes, remember that old thing? It's the bargain the U.S. and four other nuclear weapons states (Britain, China, France and Russia) struck with all of the world nuclear have-nots in 1968 in which they agreed to pursue in good faith negotiations for the elimination of their nuclear weapons. The other part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain was that non-nuclear weapons countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and in exchange they have the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. (As somewhat of a side note, Charles Furgeson at the Council on Foreign Relations has a new report out on nuclear energy that I highly recommend.)

So, back to the bills. It is clear that Iran and a few other countries are clearly targets for the measures. Senator Lugar's said when he introduced S. 1138:

"The future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the larger nonproliferation system it supports is in doubt. The existing safeguards regime used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has succeeded in forestalling nuclear weapons programs in the world's advanced industrial states, several of which were weighing the nuclear option 40 years ago. Unfortunately, this regime has failed to keep pace with the increase in the global availability of nuclear weapons technology, especially the technology and equipment for uranium enrichment and spent nuclear reactor fuel reprocessing, which can produce fissile material for weapons. Now the road to nuclear weapons can be traveled by determined countries with only a minimal industrial base. While the number of recognized nuclear weapon states has not dramatically increased over the years, the dangers of proliferation have become all too apparent as demonstrated by the A.Q. Khan network, the Iranian, North Korean, and Libyan examples."

Rep. Lantos also made clear he was targeting Iran when introduced his version of the bill, H.R. 885. He said: “If Iran’s nuclear program is truly peaceful, Tehran should welcome an opportunity to ensure a stable supply of nuclear fuel from an internationally-supported nuclear fuel bank located in a safe nation. If Iran is instead building a nuclear weapon, its nefarious intentions will be quickly exposed should it refuse to participate in this important project.”

Rep. McDermott on Iran

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) went on record with his position on Iran on April 18, 2007. Rep. McDermott stated:

..."The President has escalated the military presence in Iraq at the same time he has escalated the military rhetoric concerning Iran. The President's accusations against Iran are being planted like seeds in fertile ground. Is this how the President cultivates diplomacy, or is he sowing the seeds for another war?

"The House must pass legislation that would require a debate and a vote before the President orders U.S. Forces to launch a military strike against Iran. This is the people's House, and the American people have spoken. They don't trust the President, and they are worried about his saber rattling toward Iran.

"I think of it this way: If Iraq is a quagmire, and it is, then Iran will be quicksand, with America sinking deeper and deeper into a disastrous foreign policy grounded in brute force and producing brutal consequences: thousands of American soldiers dead, tens of thousands of American soldiers gravely wounded, billions of dollars borrowed and wasted, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed and injured, a raging civil war.

...

"Instead of doing something constructive, the President ordered a military escalation in Iraq that is destructive. The Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. The American people want us out of Iraq. But the President drives us deeper and deeper into Iraq and then threatens military action against Iran.

"As a lame duck President and as slave to his own failed foreign policy, Congress must ensure that the President cannot unilaterally strike Iran in the remaining months of his failed presidency. Congress must pass legislation that preserves the checks and balances to guarantee that the President must listen to someone other than the Vice President.

"America cannot afford to remain on a hair trigger until a new President takes the oath of office in January 2009, but that is exactly what will happen unless Congress steps up to ensure that the President stands down on a military strike against Iran. We must take away his blank check."

McCain Sings Bomb Iran

I don't even know what to say to this except that it is disgusting. Here is a video of Sen. McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Sec.Def. Gates: Diplomacy with Iran is Working

On his tour through the Middle East, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear program are working and should be given a chance to succeed. At a news conference with his Isreali counterpart Amir Peretz, Gates said, "We agreed it was important to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through diplomacy, which appears to be working. These things don't work overnight, but it seems to me clearly the preferable course to keep our focus on the diplomatic initiatives, and particularly because of the united front of the international community at this point."

Democratic Presidential Candidates on Iran

In a MoveOn virtual Townhall meeting on Iraq this week, here's what some of the Democratic Presidential Candidates had to say about Iran:

Senator Clinton
"Fourthly, we need to convene an international conference; it is time we bring other countries together to help forge a stable future for Iraq. I have long advocated engagement with countries in the region including Iran and Syria, and I applaud speaker Pelosi and her delegation for going to the region, as I applaud the Republican delegation that did likewise. We have to start a process to deal with those countries."

Senator Obama
"Well, I’ve been saying for a year that we have to realize that the entire Middle East has a huge stake in the outcome of Iraq, and that we have to engage neighboring countries in finding a solution. Now, I believe that includes opening dialogue both Syria and Iran. We know these countries want us to fail… I’m under no illusions there, but I also know that neither Syria nor Iran want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, and terrorism, and refugees and violence, since those could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region, including within their own countries."

Senator Dodd
“Well, I believe the President should seek authority from Congress in advance of taking military action against Iran or any other state for that matter. Now, under extreme circumstances, unforeseen circumstances, emergencies, I think it would be appropriate for the President, any President, to act to repel an attack in our country or armed forces that are legally positioned around the world.”

Lantos Blasts Back at Bush

In response to the White House's comments that it would be "unproductive and unhelpful" for members of Congress to visit Iran, Chairman Tom Lantos of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs issued this statement today:
"Members of Congress are not simply potted plants, though the White House apparently would like them to be. Congress plays an important role in determining policy and providing funding for America's international policies. It is important for us to get first-hand information on these critical issues facing our nation, because as we have unfortunately seen, we cannot rely on the Administration to give us accurate and untainted information."