No War with Iran Resolution Toolkit
The downloadable copy is available at
www.citiesforprogress.org
Table
of Contents
-
Berkeley, CA Sample Resolution
-
Basic Sample Resolution
-
Guide to Getting a
Resolution Passed in Your Community
-
Talking Points on Iran
-
Additional Talking Points
-
Resources
o
Anti-War
Legislation
o
Opinion
Pieces/Talking Points
o
Websites
Contact
Information
Karen
Dolan
Director, Cities for Progress/Cities for Peace
Fellow,
Institute for Policy Studies
1112 16th St NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
kdolan@igc.org
202.234.9382 x228
Berkeley, CA Sample Resolution
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WAR WITH IRAN
WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.68 states that the Peace and
Justice Commission shall "Advise the Berkeley City Council on all matters
relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace...,” and “The
residents of Berkeley have continually demonstrated their concern for peace and
justice based on equality among all peoples..."; and
WHEREAS,
Iran poses no imminent nuclear threat as it could take Iran eight years to
manufacture a nuclear device, or in extreme worst-case scenario, three years,
and the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no proof that Iran
diverted nuclear material to a weapons program, and a senior United Nations
(U.N.) diplomat in Iran said regarding Western spy services’ tips about secret
Iranian weapons, "Pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has
proved to be wrong”; and
WHEREAS,
up to five United States (U.S.) generals and admirals are willing to resign
rather than approve what they see as a reckless attack on Iran, and an attack
on Iran could backfire, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein have both called for
diplomacy in accordance with international law rather than preemptive war; and
WHEREAS,
the U.S. has ratified the U.N. Charter which states that no nation shall use
force or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any nation (Article
2.4) and
that, only if attacked, a nation may respond only once before informing the UN
and bringing the conflict before the U.N. Security Council (Article 51); and
WHEREAS,
on February 24, 2007 U.S. religious leaders met in Tehran with President
Ahmadinejad who declared that Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear
weapons and stated that he has no reservation about talks with American
officials if there is goodwill, and in
2003 Dick
Cheney and Karl Rove reviewed an offer from the Iranian government to increase
transparency of its nuclear program and hold negotiations, according to Colin
Powell's former chief of staff, which offer the Bush administration ignored,
and the CIA tried to censor related reporting, yet Halliburton sold key
components for a nuclear reactor to Iran; and
WHEREAS,
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that only the
Congress has the authority to declare war; and
WHEREAS,
while recognizing that inflammatory rhetoric may discourage diplomacy, it does
not constitute a security threat, and dozens of Iranian scholars reacted to the
Tehran Holocaust conference by condemning the immoral stance of Holocaust
denial, as did the U.N. General Assembly.
NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council commend Representative
Barbara Lee for sponsoring H.R. 770 “To prohibit the use of
funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change
in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an
imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and
statutory requirements for congressional authorization,” and request that
Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein cosponsor Senator Jim Webb's bill
prohibiting funds for military operations in Iran without the consent of
Congress, and that they recommend an appropriations amendment or rider to
restrict funds, such as:
[1] No
funds from any source shall be used for any military action against Iran,
Syria, or any new target, and
[2] Any
executive violation shall be construed as a high crime and misdemeanor.
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council encourage concerned
Berkeleyans to ask amenable contacts in other districts to lobby their
Representatives to cosponsor H.R. 770 and get it out of Committee, and their
Senators to cosponsor Senator Webb's bill.
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Berkeley supports the International Atomic
Energy Agency's efforts to verify Iran's nuclear activities, encourages Iran to
cooperate fully with those efforts, and applauds the action of the United
Nations General Assembly in condemning Holocaust denial.
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council direct the City Clerk, with a
Peace and Justice Commissioner's assistance, to send copies of this signed
Resolution promptly to
U.S.
Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jim Webb, Bernard Sanders, Robert
Byrd, Chair Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph Biden, and Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid; U.S. Representative Barbara Lee, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, Chair House Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Lantos, Chair House
Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Chair House Intelligence Committee
Silvestre Reyes; the National Conference of Democratic Mayors and the U.S.
League of Cities; and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. General
Assembly President Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa.
Basic Sample Resolution
WHEREAS,
The Bush administration is significantly ratcheting up its threats against
Iran, in the context of arguing about a battle between "moderates"
and "extremists" in the region.
WHEREAS,
U.S. efforts to control or undermine Iran are long-standing, and are rooted in
Iran's historic role as one of only two indigenous regional powers in the
Middle East (with water, wealth and size) who can contend with U.S. domination
there.
WHEREAS,
A U.S. (or U.S.-Israeli) strike on Iran, especially with the nuclear
"bunker-buster" bombs being talked about, would be deadly for tens or
hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and would be a preventive attack - in
violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the UN Charter, and other
parts of international law, as well as the U.S. Constitution.
WHEREAS,
Overheated U.S. rhetorical accusations against Iran are expanding earlier allegations
about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to claims (including show-and-tell but
absent real evidence) that Iran's government is directly responsible for
"killing American troops" in Iran. Current U.S. policy in Iraq calls
for "dual escalations" - an escalation in troop numbers inside Iraq,
and a geographic escalation from Iraq to Iran.
WHEREAS,
Iran is not a threat to the United States. It does not have a nuclear weapon
and is not threatening to attack the U.S; it is a signatory to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UN's nuclear watchdog agency has found no
evidence of a nuclear weapons program; Iran's nuclear power program, including
enriching uranium, is legal under the NPT. Back in 2003 Iran had proposed a
comprehensive "grand bargain" with the U.S., which the Bush
administration has ignored.
WHEREAS,
The February 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) asserts that Iran's
involvement in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver of violence"
there.
WHEREAS
the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate provides a consensus assessment of all
U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program,
and that Iran makes decisions regarding its nuclear capacity on the basis of
cost-benefit, rational analysis,
WHEREAS
the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate confirms what the UN's International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director and 2006 Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed
el-Baradei has said for many years, that Iran is years away from even the
capacity to create a nuclear weapon, and therefore there is no urgency and
negotiations are called for ...
WHEREAS,
The consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran will be dire, regionally inflammatory
and prohibitively costly in both material and human costs, and
WHEREAS,
The cost to the city of ___________ for the war in Iraq has been $___________
thus far
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF X CALLS ON OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO ENSURE:
- No military attack on Iran
- A Congressional "Boland
Amendment" for Iran to preempt any funding for any attack on Iran
- Diplomatic, not military
engagement with Iran
Maintain pressure against BOTH escalations of the Iraq
War - no escalation of troops, and no geographic escalation into Iran.
Guide to Getting a
Resolution Passed in Your Community
The following is a simple guide to getting a City Council
Resolution passed in your community. A City Council Resolution campaign is not
a "one size fits all" effort but the following are ideas to get you
started.
Step-by-Step Guide To Getting a Resolution Passed in Your City.
·
Gather a Coalition to Support the Effort
·
Survey Your Council
·
Gather Signatures of Support
·
Identify Council Member Allies
·
Hold a Public Education Event
·
Outreach to the Media
·
What to do if you face resistance in your council?
Gather a Coalition of Local Organizations
to Support the Effort
Many communities have existing community organizations, neighborhood
associations, peace and justice coalitions. If a coalition does not exist in
your community, a City Council Resolution campaign is a great opportunity to launch
an effort to amass the power of different groups and constituencies to advance
progressive policies in your community. Think outside the box! Gather a host
committee with representatives from different constituencies including
faith-based groups, students and youth organizations, peace and justice groups,
sympathetic business groups, groups that work on poverty, immigrant groups,
racial justice organizations etc. Call a first meeting to launch this idea.
Survey Your City/Town Council
If you are unsure about where your City Council stands on your issue of
interest, you may want to start by surveying the Council so you can assess who
are your allies, swing members, and those that will pose a tough challenge.
Call each office and ask the Council Members (or their staff) if they would
generally support a Resolution in favor of your effort. This effort can be
divided amongst different organizations. Make sure there is a point person who
is collecting the results of the survey to report back at the next meeting.
Gather Public Signatures
If you already have a resolution draft in mind that you would like to have the
Council pass you may want to spend some time gathering petition signatures from
the Councilpeople’s constituents. This will help leverage Council Members'
support and may help in getting similar language passed by the Council instead
of a watered-down version. Ask the members of your coalition to each collect a
stack of signatures.
Identify Council Member Allies
Identify your strongest ally(s) on your City Council and set up a meeting with
him/her to discuss introducing a resolution. Bring education packet to share
with them including talking points, copies of City Council resolutions from
other communities, newspaper articles, costs to your community and signed
petitions. Ask the Council Person(s) to take the lead in garnering the support
of other Council Members. Ask the Council Person to approve the language in the
draft resolution. This process may take a number of days and a fair amount of
negotiating.
If the Council Person agrees to take the lead, set up a follow up meeting with
the Council Person's aid. To secure the support of other council members and to
move the process along swiftly it is often easier to work with aids.
Talking
Points on Iran
Taken from United for Peace & Justice
<http://UnitedforPeace.org>
Escalating Threats of U.S. Attacks Against Iran
Institute for Policy Studies, Phyllis Bennis, 2/15/2007
**
The Bush administration is significantly ratcheting up its threats against
Iran, in the context of arguing about a battle between "moderates"
and "extremists" in the region.
**
U.S. efforts to control or undermine Iran are long-standing, and are rooted in
Iran's historic role as one of only two indigenous regional powers in the
Middle East (with water, wealth and size) who can contend with U.S. domination
there.
**
A U.S. (or U.S.-Israeli) strike on Iran, especially with the nuclear
"bunker-buster" bombs being talked about, would be deadly for tens or
hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and would be a preventive attack - in
violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the UN Charter, and other
parts of international law, as well as the U.S. Constitution.
**
Overheated U.S. rhetorical accusations against Iran are expanding earlier
allegations about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to claims (including
show-and-tell but absent real evidence) that Iran's government is directly
responsible for "killing American troops" in Iran. Current U.S.
policy in Iraq calls for "dual escalations" - an escalation in troop
numbers inside Iraq, and a geographic escalation from Iraq to Iran.
**
Beyond rhetoric, U.S. provocations include sending a second aircraft carrier
group to the Persian Gulf, sending minesweepers to the Strait of Hormuz,
arresting Iranian officials legally working in Iraq, openly backing the
anti-Iranian Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEQ) guerrillas, appointing a naval flier as
head of Central Command, continuing pressure in the United Nations to expand
sanctions against Iran.
**
Iran is not a threat to the United States. It does not have a nuclear weapon
and is not threatening to attack the U.S; it is a signatory to the NPT and the
UN's nuclear watchdog agency has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons
program; Iran's nuclear power program, including enriching uranium, is legal
under the NPT. Back in 2003 Iran had proposed a comprehensive "grand
bargain" with the U.S., which the Bush administration has ignored. The
February 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) asserts that Iran's
involvement in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver of violence"
there.
**
The consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran will be dire. The evidence looks
cooked, like a repeat of pre-Iraq invasion lies, but even if Iran was closer to
a nuclear weapon or had sent weapons into Iraq, there is no legal or moral
justification for a preventive attack.
**
Israeli rhetoric against Iran largely parallels U.S. claims; unlike the run-up
to the Iraq War, Israel and the pro-Israeli lobbies in the U.S. are pressing
hard and early to attack Iran, and any Israeli involvement would significantly
undercut Congressional opposition.
**
The U.S. pressure on American-dependent Arab regimes to back a U.S. (or
U.S.-Israeli) attack on Iran include imposing a "rising Shi'a threat"
framework over regional events and renewing the appearance of
Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.
** The U.S. is more isolated now
than at any time since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War; no U.S. allies
except Israel are supporting calls for a U.S. attack on Iran.
What should it be done?
- No military attack on Iran
- A Congressional "Boland
Amendment" for Iran to preempt any funding for any attack on Iran
- Diplomatic, not military
engagement with Iran
- Maintain pressure against
BOTH escalations of the Iraq War - no escalation of troops, and no
geographic escalation into Iran
- Build people-to-people ties
between Americans and Iranians, including work with the Iranian community
in the United States
- Support for a WMD-free or
Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone throughout the Middle East
Even the New York Times has editorialized that the Bush
administration is "bullying" Iran. Noting that "the one tactic
the administration is refusing to consider is diplomacy," the Times warned
that Bush "could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and
if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country
along." The temperature of anti-Iranian rhetoric is escalating rapidly,
particularly since Bush's January speech on Iraq and his State of the Union
address. While U.S. antagonism towards Iran is an old story, the particular
timing of the current escalation is linked to the ever-clearer failure of U.S.
strategy in Iraq.
The framework for the current
drumbeat is the claim that Iran is at the center of the bad-guy side of the new
Middle East divide allegedly pitting the "moderates" (read: the good
guys - the absolute monarchs, flawed "democracies" and military
dictatorships of the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) against
the "extremists" (read: the bad guys - Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda, Hamas,
Hezbollah…). The framework is sometimes overlaid with Washington's "good
Sunnis, bad Shi'as" grid for dividing regional political forces (the
opposite of how they view the Iraqi situation). But even regionally that
doesn't work since neither Syria nor Hamas are Shi'a-dominated, and Hezbollah's
Shi'a base is allied with a host of Christian, secular and even a few Sunni
forces. And the Sunni leadership of al-Qaeda, of course, are anti-Shi'a in the
extreme.
U.S. interest in controlling Iran,
or at least undermining its independence, sovereignty and potential power, is
not a new phenomenon. The U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Iranian
leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953; installed, armed and protected brutal
dictatorships (the Shah of Iran); cut off diplomatic relations and imposed
tight economic sanctions (the Islamic Republic from 1979); and provided seed
stock for biological weapons, targeting information for chemical weapons, and financial
backing for Iran's enemy (Iraq) throughout the years of the Iran-Iraq War
(1980-1988).
The reasons have not changed. Iran
is one of only two countries in the Middle East that contains the three
prerequisites for indigenous power: oil/wealth, water, large land and
population. The only other country is (or was…) Iraq. Iran and Iraq
traditionally competed for territory, oil rights, military control, and
regional influence; this competition was always that of national interests -
economic, military, influence. The two nation-states competed - not because
Iran was Shi'a and Iraq's government privileged its minority Sunnis and was
allied with largely Sunni Arab regimes, but for the same reason that Germany
and France or Argentina and Brazil historically fought regional wars -for
territory, money and power.
Later the U.S. moved strategically
to prevent either regional power from challenging overall U.S. domination of
the Middle East. It was on that basis that the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein's
Iraq throughout the Gulf War - because Iran was stronger, so the U.S. weighed
in on the side of the weaker competitor to keep the war going and encourage
both regional challengers to waste their blood and treasure fighting each
other, rather than turning on the U.S. So U.S. interest has always been in
controlling Iran's oil (less for direct access, which was never a real
necessity or real problem, than for control of pricing and supply, and to be
able to act as guarantor of access for Washington's allies and now competitors
such as China and India) and suppressing its regional influence.
Washington's current anti-Iran
campaign has pushed Arab governments towards a much harsher stance against
Iran. The same regional competition that once led to the Iran-Iraq War is already
resulting in a new regional contest between Iran and a Saudi-led (and
U.S.-backed) consortium of Arab governments. Saudi Arabia is not an indigenous
regional power either on its own or even backed by the other weak and
legitimacy-challenged states in the area, and the current conflict is unlikely
to lead to an "Iran-Arab" war. But the new U.S.-backed high profile
of the Saudi king (in negotiating the recent internal Palestinian ceasefire,
for instance) must be seen in the context of Washington continuing to encourage
regional competitors to challenge Iran.
What's wrong with a U.S. attack on
Iran?
Bush administration claims that
negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies
before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this
time.
Iran does not have nuclear
weapons, and has not threatened the United States. Under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the U.S. is absolutely prohibited from using - or even threatening to
use - nuclear weapons against Iran, a non-nuclear signatory of the NPT. But the
Bush administration has threatened exactly that, specifically by circulating
calls for use of nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs to destroy hardened
sites attached to Iran's nuclear power program. According to the National
Academy of Sciences "the use of such a weapon would create massive clouds
of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack,
including to other nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas,
the number of casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand…"
Any U.S. military strike on Iran -
ANY strike - would be a violation of international law prohibiting preventive
war. And George Bush now admits that "preventive war" - not only his
earlier claim of pre-emptive war - is indeed his strategic doctrine. According
to the International Court of Justice, even threatening to use nuclear weapons
is a violation of international law - and the Bush administration is
threatening to use nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs to attack Iran.
The Bush administration seems to
have recognized that their efforts to win public support (in the U.S. and
internationally) for a preventive attack on Iran on the basis of Iran's alleged
but never seen nuclear weapons program have failed. Too many people, in the
U.S. and globally, remain suspicious because of the legacy of the
administration's false claims regarding Iraq's alleged WMDs. As a result, new
rhetorical accusations - similarly unproven - are now being floated, claiming
that Iran is directly responsible for "killing American troops" by
providing bomb equipment to Iraqi insurgents. The heated language is clearly
designed to mobilize "protect the troops" sentiments and to galvanize
Americans' anger, regardless of whether the claim is true. And members of
Congress including some Democratic opponents of the Iraq war are asserting that
regarding Iran, "all options must remain on the table."
U.S. policy towards Iran now is
going far beyond rhetorical accusations. Current U.S. strategy in Iraq calls
for "dual escalations" - not only an escalation in troop numbers
inside Iraq itself, but a geographic escalation of the war from Iraq to Iran.
That strategy has had visible military components. A second aircraft carrier
group is en route to the Persian Gulf, joining the first carrier, with its
partner ships, bombers and fighter-planes, already in place. The U.S. has kept
a carrier group off the Iranian coast since about 1980; sending a second
represents a significant escalation. Months ago, the Pentagon also sent
minesweepers to the Strait of Hormuz. This was widely viewed as a pro-active
move in the expectation that Iran would respond to any attack by blockading the
Straits, through which a huge percentage of Middle East oil flows to the rest
of the world.
In some of the most provocative
actions, the U.S. command announced its intention to "seek out and
destroy" Iranian networks found in Iraq, and U.S. troops have already
raided sites in Iraq where Iranian diplomats, legally present in Iraq with the
permission of the Iraqi government, were working. A number of Iranians were
arrested, of whom several are still being held despite calls from both Tehran
and Baghdad for their release. And the Bush administration continues to
pressure the United Nations to expand the sanctions imposed on Iran despite the
IAEA having found no evidence of illegal nuclear weapons in Iran.
In other actions, Bush appointed
as the new chief of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon. He will oversea
the two massive ground wars in landlocked Afghanistan and almost-landlocked
Iraq, even though he is a Navy pilot. It was widely assessed as a sign that
future expansions would be looking to naval and air power, rather than
"boots-on-the-ground," with Iran as the most likely candidate. CNN
has reported that Bush has asked Strategic Command - which oversees the U.S.
nuclear arsenal - to prepare plans for a possible U.S. attack on Iran.
And new reports are emerging
indicating that neo-conservative analysts inside the Bush administration and in
right-wing think tanks influential in the White House, are actively promoting
Iranian exile leaders and especially the Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian
opposition guerrilla cult once backed by Saddam Hussein and listed as a
terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
We must include in our opposition
an understanding of "even if" rules. All evidence points to the
likelihood that the Bush administration is lying, that there is no actual
evidence to support the recent allegations. But even if Iran was trying to
build a nuclear weapon for some time in the future, even if Iran was sending
some weapons into Iraq, there is no military necessity, no legal or moral
justification for a preventive U.S. attack.
What kind of threat does Iran pose?
Iran is not a threat to the U.S.
As a non-nuclear signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has the
right (like all the 185 or so such signatories) to build and use nuclear power
plants, and to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. (We may believe this to be
a huge problem for the NPT, since the technology for nuclear power is
essentially the same as that required for nuclear weapons, but nonetheless it
is the law. And in the context of our own government's refusal to abide by its
own disarmament obligations under the NPT, American officials are particularly
ill-placed to deny Iran's right to enrichment technology.) The UN's nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concern
over some lack of transparency in Iran's program, but it has found no evidence
of a nuclear weapons program.
The U.S.-led demand that Iran give
up its enrichment activities is not based on even a claimed Iranian violation
of the NPT. Rather, it is simply a U.S. declaration that it "does not
trust" Iran, and that therefore the UN Security Council should agree to
enforce an Iranian halt in enrichment. The demand has no basis in international
law or the terms of the NPT.
Shortly after the U.S. invasion of
Iraq in 2003, Iran proposed a comprehensive "grand bargain" with
Washington. It reportedly offered more stringent IAEA inspection of Iran's
nuclear activities, acceptance of the 2002 Arab League proposal that would
allow normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal
from all the 1967 occupied territory, ending material support to Hamas from
Iran, and providing the U.S. with names of al-Qaeda operatives in Iranian
custody. In return it asked for the U.S. to go after the anti-Iranian
Mujahideen el-Khalq. But the U.S. government never took the offer seriously.
It has been known for years that
what Iran wants, beyond the specifics, is a security guarantee from the U.S. -
giving up "regime change" or other efforts to attack or undermine
Iran. Such a guarantee cannot be offered by the UN, the European Union, or any
other country, only by the world's sole military superpower. But the U.S. has
never been prepared to offer such a guarantee.
The Bush administration is now
focusing on the claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers
inside Iraq. But the February 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) makes
clear that Iran's involvement in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver
of violence" there. The February 11, 2007 press conference in Baghdad that
purported to "prove" that the highest levels of the Iranian
government were providing bombs to Iraqi insurgents simply showed the weapons,
"without providing direct evidence," as the New York Times reported.
Two days later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace,
said he saw no evidence that the Iranian government was actually involved in
arming militias in Iraq.
In London's Independent, the
respected Middle East analyst Patrick Cockburn wrote, "the evidence
against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for
Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the United States and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The
allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. … It implies the Shiites have
been at war with the U.S., when in fact they are controlled by parties which
make up the Iraqi government."
Aside from the problem of lack of
proof, there is a huge problem of hypocrisy in the U.S. making threats against
Iran for ostensibly supporting militias, given that the U.S.-backed Iraqi government
is itself inextricably bound up with support for various Iraqi militias.
Further, even as it continues threatening Iran and accusing it of
"meddling" in Iraq, Washington officials are publicly weighing the
efficacy and advantages of shifting their current support for Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki to support instead the leader of the most pro-Iranian party in
Iraqi politics, SCIRI. And there is the overarching hypocrisy of the U.S. -
which illegal invaded, bombed, and continues to occupy the entire country of
Iraq from 8,000 miles away- threatening war against Iran on the grounds that
Iraq's next-door neighbor is the one "meddling" in Iraq's affairs.
The Bush administration continues
to reject any diplomatic solution in Iran. It has ignored recent developments
that should have led to significant easing of U.S. anti-Iran hysteria,
including the new assessments indicating that Iran's nuclear enrichment program
is facing serious technological hurdles and is not progressing well; and that
Iran is opening its Isfahan nuclear site to IAEA diplomats (even if not yet to
a new team of IAEA inspectors) and journalists. Even more crucial, the U.S.
continues to ignore the fact that in elections following the deliberately
provocative Holocaust-denial conference sponsored by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the struggling president's party suffered a serious electoral
defeat.
Is there really a serious
possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran?
The Bush administration has proven
its willingness to ignore public opinion, run end-runs around Congress, violate
international law, and engage in the most reckless, dangerous foreign policy
disasters. An attack on Iran would be just as illegal as the 2003 invasion of
Iraq. Although some of the leading neo-con forces key to the Iraq war are now
outside of the administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Perle, others), and
those who continue to call for "regime change" in Iran face some
louder challengers inside the administration, they remain a potent and
influential force in Washington.
An attack using nuclear
"bunker-buster" bombs would be explicitly a violation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and which prohibits any
attack with nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state. The U.S., in threatening
to use nuclear weapons against Iran, is directly undermining the no-first-use
assumptions that have prevented nuclear war for more than half a century. In
fact, the International Court of Justice has ruled that for a nuclear
weapon-state such as the U.S. to even threaten to use a nuclear weapon against
a non-nuclear signatory like Iran is a violation of the NPT. Iran is, even
according to U.S. officials, at least four years and more likely closer to ten
years from having the capability of making a nuclear weapon, even if it chose
to do so. The U.S. remains in violation of the NPT's requirement (in Article
VI) that it, along with the other four recognized nuclear powers, move towards
full and complete nuclear disarmament.
An attack on Iran would be far
more dangerous even than attacking Iraq. Militarily, Iran remains a strong
regional power; although Iran's military is not close to the capacity of the
Pentagon, it has not been destroyed by a dozen years of crippling global
sanctions as Iraq was. Iran remains influential in the region, and the
consequences of an attack would be felt far beyond Iran's own borders.
Like the situation in pre-invasion
Iraq, Americans have little familiarity with the people, culture and country of
Iran, and the demonization of all things Iranian that began in 1979 with the
overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran has continued. Many members of
Congress, even those strongly opposed to an attack on Iran, have little
understanding of the dangers, of what might happen "the day after" a
U.S. attack.
Although no one is calling
directly for an invasion of ground forces into Iran, the threat of a U.S.
airstrike against Iran - "surgical" or otherwise - could well bring
swift Iranian counter-attack, in self-defense (which much of the world would
recognize as authorized under UN Charter Article 51 allowing self-defense after
attack) or retaliation. Iran's actions could include a direct attack on U.S.
troops in Iraq, or in other neighboring countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman,
Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti, or elsewhere. It could attack U.S. interests through
proxies, particularly in Iraq. It could destabilize Iraq even further, while
uniting Iraqis (and Arabs across the region) even more strongly against the
U.S. Iran might attack Israel, particularly if the U.S. claimed that its attack
on Iran was somehow tied to "protecting" its Israeli ally. And it
could use the oil weapon - manipulating prices or supplies, or even more
dangerously, Iran could sink a ship to block the strategic oil waterway, the
Strait of Hormuz.
What is Israel's connection to the
U.S. escalation against Iran?
Israel's role, and the role of the
pro-Israeli lobbies (both the traditional Jewish organizations and newer
right-wing Christian Zionist groups) in pressing for a military strike against
Iran are much stronger than they were during the run-up to war in Iraq. (In
that period the main pro-Israeli forces weighed in strongly to support war in
Iraq largely after the decision had already been made for the war.) Many Israeli
officials have long viewed Iran as a much greater threat than Iraq, and the
recent leak to the British press regarding detailed Israeli preparations for a
strike on Iran was clearly orchestrated to ratchet up the threat.
However, Israel holds the fourth
most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, and its conventional military is by
far the most advanced in the region even without its strategic alliance with
the Pentagon. As a result, there are divisions even among Israeli elites, and
some key sectors, particularly some in the military, do not share the
government's obsession with an alleged Iranian "threat."
The problem here in the U.S. is
that among government, policy and media elites, it is taken as a matter of
unchallengeable "fact" that Iran IS a threat to Israel, that all
threats Israel claims are real, and that any threat to Israel is necessarily a
threat to the United States. Because this view is predominant in Congress, the
involvement of Israel in any way with a U.S. attack on Iran - whether to
support an attack carried out by the Israeli military itself, or conducted by
the U.S. ostensibly because of a concocted claim that Iran is threatening its
Israeli ally - would seriously undermine Congressional opposition. As a result,
those advocating for such opposition must be prepared to confront members of
Congress, their staff, newspaper editorial boards, etc., with the reality that
not every rhetorical attack against Israel reflects an actual, let alone an
existential threat, and that not every threat against Israel represents a
threat to the U.S. They should also be reminded, particularly recognizing
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's penchant for ugly anti-Jewish rhetoric,
that he is not the only power center in Iran (he is particularly less than
all-powerful in the military), that his party suffered a serious electoral
defeat after the Holocaust-denying conference, and that U.S. threats against
Iran only serve to strengthen his sector of Iran's elite.
What is the regional and
international reaction?
Washington is attempting to win
Arab government support for a U.S. or perhaps U.S.-backed Israeli attack on
Iran, through two strategies. One involves the claimed concerns about an
"extremist" or "rising Shi'a threat" to the region, in
which the Bush administration wants to win "moderate" Arab
governments to an anti-Iranian position. Its claimed basis is Iran's support
for anti-government forces in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine (Hamas), and even
Iraq (with several Shi'a militias, despite their strong backing from parts of
the government and the parliament). There even seems to be some interest in
trying to divide Syria from Iran.
The other strategy is reflected in
the recent Bush administration moves to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,
including Condoleezza Rice's trip to the region and the convening of the
so-called "Quartet." The resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks
(made more feasible after the Fatah-Hamas unity process in the recent
Saudi-brokered Mecca Accord), however inconclusive, will allow Washington to
push Arab governments to accept a U.S.-backed anti-Iran escalation on the
grounds that Arab public opposition will fade because of a new initiative on
Israel-Palestine. It is not likely to work, but weak and U.S.-dependent Arab
regimes, still facing their own crises of legitimacy, may feel they have no
choice but to comply.
The escalating threats against
Iran are taking place at a moment in which failures in Iraq are more obvious
than ever, and in which the U.S. is again increasingly isolated
internationally. Germany and Italy have issued arrest warrants against dozens
of CIA agents involved in the kidnapping and "extraordinary
rendition" of European citizens sent to be tortured around the world.
Canada's right-wing prime minister and former Bush-backer Stephen Harper
publicly excoriated the White House for keeping Canadian citizen Maher Arar on
the U.S. "no-fly" list despite Arar's absolute exoneration (complete
with official apology and an $8.5 million settlement) by Canada. Russian
President Vladimir Putin condemned as "very dangerous" what he called
Washington's "unconstrained hyper-use of force." And even in loyal
Britain, Tony Blair's heir-apparent Gordon Brown has made clear he is
considering a very different relationship with Washington than that of
"Bush's poodle." It is possible we are seeing the rise of a new
incarnation of the anti-war "Old Europe" of the months before Bush's
2003 invasion of Iraq.
In Congress, there are a number of
bills pending, including those by Republican former war-supporter-turned-critic
Republican Congressman Walter Jones, and the courageous California
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who have introduced bills that take steps towards
prohibiting a U.S. attack on Iran. While neither would absolutely prohibit any
attack on Iran, both take significant steps towards using Congress'
Constitutional power of the purse to prohibit funding for "regime
change" efforts and other attacks. Either of these bills could emerge as
the new "Boland Amendment" for Iran - reclaiming the role of the 1982
bill that prohibited the Reagan administration from using U.S. funds in its
covert contra war against Nicaragua. While the original Boland Amendment did
not unequivocally cut off funds, it did capture the breadth of both public
anger and congressional opposition to the war, forcing the administration to do
an illegal end-run around Congress to continue funding the contras, ending up
in what quickly became known as the "Iran-contra scandal" that nearly
brought down the administration.
What does the peace movement need
to do and demand?
- Peace activists face a huge
challenge of expanding our work - to challenge the possibility of a new
war in Iran, without abandoning the on-going work to stop the war in Iraq.
The peace movement must challenge both escalations now underway in Bush's
war: the so-called "surge" in Iraq, and the geographic expansion
to Iran while continuing to call for a complete and immediate end to the
entire war.
- No military attack on Iran -
"even if" Iran sent some weapons into Iraq, or some day in the
future decided to build a nuclear weapon, that does not justify a military
attack.
- We should demand a
Congressional "Boland Amendment" for Iran to preempt any funding
for any attack on Iran. None of the current resolutions provide an
absolute prohibition, but any of them could emerge as more politically
powerful than their actual language.
- There must be diplomatic, not
military engagement with Iran. Iran is not a threat to the U.S., so any
attack would represent a preventive war, illegal in international law.
- We need to build
people-to-people ties between Americans and Iranians, including work with
the Iranian community in the United States. We must fight against the
demonization that has historically allowed U.S. policy to impose crippling
economic sanctions against the people of countries whose governments
Washington opposes.
- In the long-term, we should
support calls that have come from the Middle East for more than a quarter
of a century to create a WMD-free or Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone throughout
the Middle East, including an end to Israel's nuclear arsenal and a
prohibition against U.S. nuclear-armed submarines or other nuclear weapons
in the area. We should demand that the U.S. implement its own 1991 call
for a WMD-free zone, found in Article 14 of UN Security Council resolution
687 that ended the 1991 Gulf War.
___________________________________________________________________________
Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the
Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her
most recent books are Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN
Defy U.S. Power, and the just-released Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli
Conflict: A Primer. Both are available from Interlink Publishing www.interlinkbooks.com.
Additional Talking Points
The most important evidence of the split
within the powerful came with the release of a new National Intelligence
Estimate on December 3rd. The NIE, reflecting the consensus
view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, made clear that Iran did not
have a nuclear weapon, did not have a program to build a nuclear weapon,
and was less determined to develop nuclear weapons than U.S.
intelligence agencies had earlier claimed.
When the NIE was released there was a
sigh of relief from many quarters – in the U.S. and around the world. How
could anyone now claim there was any legal or moral pretext for threatening
Iran? But somehow the release of the NIE did not stop Washington's talk
of war. The day after the NIE was released, the Washington Post headline
read "U.S. Renews Efforts to Keep Coalition Against Tehran." The
White House, the president, the vice-president especially, all continued
ratcheting up the rhetoric. The president had been told of the NIE's
overall conclusions months earlier, back in the summer of 2007. It
must have just been lucky happenstance that about the same time the Bush
administration began to change the nature of their threats against Iran. It
must have been just a coincidence that at about that same time they started
focusing not on nuclear claims, but instead on allegations that Iran was
responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers occupying Iraq. Suddenly
Washington had an entirely different reason to threaten war against Iran.
It was just luck, of course. Just in case the claims of Iranian nuclear bombs
proved false, the Bush administration still kept "military options"
against Iran on the table.
It was going to be a long campaign.
Facts on the ground would have little to do with it.
INTRODUCTION
Tensions between the United States and
Iran have a long and inglorious history, stretching back three-quarters of a
century. But the 21st century edition of the U.S.-Iran crisis
began heating up around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and then
again escalated early in 2006, as the U.S. war raged and conditions in occupied
Iraq deteriorated.
The crisis began – and continued – with
an escalation of rhetoric emanating from the White House, in language
frighteningly similar to that which had preceded the U.S. invasion of
Iraq. The same words were coming from the president, the
vice-president, the secretary of state – "nuclear weapons program," "inspections
aren't enough," "they can't be trusted," "the IAEA isn't
doing enough…" At first it was all about Iran's supposed nuclear
weapons "threat."
In 2003, just a few weeks after the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, Iran had offered to negotiate a comprehensive solution with
the U.S. According to then Middle East senior director of the National
Security Council, Flynt Leverett, Iran acknowledged the need to address
Washington's concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program, and raised specific
concessions it might be willing to make. They included the possibility of
ending support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israeli-occupied Gaza, and ending
the arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon. What Iran wanted in return from the
U.S., beyond some specifics regarding lifting economic sanctions and ending
Washington's ban on Iran's entry to the World Trade Organization, was a
security guarantee. It was an offer of normalized relations between the
U.S. and Iran, something that had not existed since 1979 when the U.S.-backed
shah was overthrown. In return Iran wanted a guarantee that the U.S.
would not attack, or invade, or attempt "regime change" in
Iran. A grand bargain indeed.
Except it was rejected. The
"realists," including then Secretary of State Colin Powell were
reportedly interested. But within a few days, the proposal was rejected and the
State Department rebuked the Swiss ambassador for even having passed it along.
According to Powell's former assistant, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, "as with
many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no
fingerprints," Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney
with the blessing of George W Bush."
There was to be no grand bargain.
Resources
Anti-War Legislation
S. 759: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-759>
H.R 770: Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-770>
Rep. Walter B. Jones' Bill Concerning the Use of Military
Force in Iran
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.14:>
Senator Robert C. Byrd's Resolution Concerning the Need for
Congressional Authorization of any United States Use of Force
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.RES.39:>
Opinion Pieces/Talking Points
Americans Don't Know: There's a Plan on the Table to Resolve the Nuclear Standoff with Iran, 7/7/08
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-dont-know-there_b_111199.html>
Preparing the Battlefield, 7/1/08
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh>
Acting Locally:
Will Chicago Push Back Against Iran Warmongering?, 5/12/08
<http://www.alternet.org/story/85010/>
Taking a Stand Against War, 5/11/08
<http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080511_taking_a_stand_against_war/>
A plea to quiet
drums on Iran, and try talk, 5/11/08
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-iran-war_thinkmay11,0,7229998.story>
John Bolton: US should bomb
Iranian camps, 5/6/08
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1931520/John-Bolton-US-should-bomb-Iranian-camps.html>
United
States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp, 5/4/08
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3868063.ece>
Dealing with Iran’s Hardliners, 4/4/08
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5123>
The Candidates on Iran, 4/4/08
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5122>
Iran in the Crosshairs, 2/28/08
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5025>
Nervously
and Rapidly, Iran courts Egypt, 2/14/08
<
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4967>
India and
Israel eye Iran, 2/13/08
<
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4959>
For an Iran Policy, More Nixon Less Bush, 1/10/08
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4883>
The Day After: Iran, Phyllis Bennis, 10/30/07
<http://www.fpif.org/fpifoped/3225>
IAEA Report Contradicts Major Media Narrative On Iran - The
Huffington Post, Sean-Paul Kelley, 5/23/07
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seanpaul-kelley/iaea-report-contradicts-m_b_49136.html>
Iran Disinformation - TomPaine.com, Rick Perlstein, 5/17/07
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seanpaul-kelley/iaea-report-contradicts-m_b_49136.html>
Neo Cons Driving Iran Divestment Campaign - Inter Press
Service, Jim Lobe, 5/17/07
<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22594>
How Congress Can Stop Bush From Attacking Iran - Mother
Jones, Jonathan Schwarz, 5/2007
<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22589>
Websites
Cities for Peace
<http://www.citiesforpeace.org>
Global Exchange
<http://www.globalexchange.org>
CODEPINK
<http://codepink4peace.org>
Women Against War
<http://www.womenagainstwar.org>
Arms
Control Center
<http://www.armscontrolcenter.org>
StopWarOnIran.org
<StopWarOnIran.org>
After Downing Street
< http://www.afterdowningstreet.org>
No War on Iran!
<http://nowaroniran.com>
United for Peace and Justice
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=98>
Institute for Policy Studies
<http://ips-dc.org>
Peace Action
<http://www.peace-action.org/>
AntiWar.com
<http://antiwar.com>
Just Foreign Policy
<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/iran_peace_proposal.html>
Declaration of Peace
<http://declarationofpeace.org/declare-peace-nonviolent-action-contingency-plans>
