Thursday, July 24, 2008

Resolution 362 vis a vis Iran's rights

Here, you can find a challenge to the common disinformations about Iran's nuclear technology!

As for the "blockade" House resolution 362, proposed by the zionists Gary Ackerman (D), and Mike Pence (R):

Denis Kucinick and Ron Paul were among the first to warn against this war resolution. His concern was echoed by congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R) who strongly opposed the resolution.

Since then, other representatives ( Robert Wexler (D), Steve Cohen (D) and Thomas Allen (D) and William Lacy Clay (D)) have changed their minds and have withdrawn their initial support from this resolution.

Three retired army generals have also expressed grave concern over this resolution.


If you have not yet, do urge your representative to oppose this resolution.

WHY?
Because:
  • This resolution reprises and magnifies the Bush Administration’s longstanding sticks-and-saber-rattling-and-no-carrots approach to dealing with Iran – an approach that is increasingly recognized even by senior U.S. intelligence and military officials as inadequate and unconstructive.
  • H. Con. Res. 362 risks reinforcing the most reckless tendencies of those in the Bush administration who have not yet given up on the idea of striking Iran militarily before leaving office.
  • The sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 go far beyond existing sanctions and previously proposed sanctions for dealing with Iran. The impact of these additional sanctions would be to undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution to all of the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran.
  • For example, H. Con. Res. 362 demands that the president initiate an international effort “prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.” Implementation of such a measure would decrease chances of persuading Iran to come to the negotiating table and make impossible the kind of discreet, preparatory contacts that could help build confidence. Such a measure would also undermine efforts to resume U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad over Iraq security.
  • Furthermore, H. Con. Res. 362 contains a mixed message – on the one hand stating that it should not be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran, and on the other demanding that the President impose harsh sanctions that would be difficult if not impossible to implement outside the context of using force. This mixed message, even if unintentional, is irresponsible; in the event that the Administration does eventually try to impose a naval or air blockade on Iran, members of Congress who support H. Con. Res. 362 risk being viewed as having approved this option in advance.
  • Perversely, H. Con. Res. 362 completely fails to acknowledge the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran had abandoned its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003. It also ignores the findings of International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohammed ElBaradei, who has consistently said there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials for a nuclear weapons program.
  • Likewise, H. Con. Res. 362 fails to reflect a key finding of the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that “some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might - if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible - prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.”
  • Sanctions alone are of limited use and cannot replace diplomacy as the sole means for resolving the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran. Before pushing for another new round of sanctions against Iran, Congress should urge the President to pursue diplomacy without preconditions, a policy that has not even been tried.
  • Prominent Iranian intellectuals, academics, dissidents and human rights defenders, many of whom have suffered increasing arrests and prosecutions, have urged the U.S. to stop threatening Iran and enter into direct negotiations to resolve the crisis. Congress should listen.
  • Clearly, there are serious outstanding questions and concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The best way to resolve these questions would be for the U.S. to drop preconditions and enter into direct, comprehensive, bilateral talks with Iran.



See if your representative sponsors it.

8 comments:

Abraham said...

If people would have been smart enough and let Baktiar transition the country to a democratic system in 1979, Iran would be the beacon of human rights today. Instead, people got caught up in the moment and let the mullahs take power, execute thousands of royalists, let the quds force hunt down and kill people abroad, and are now stuck with a regime that has no respect around the world.
The Iranian people are great people, but they got what they asked for.

Pedestrian said...

I know my message is not half as urgent or important so I apologize beforehand!

But I was watching BBC's BRILLIANT earth documentary Planet Earth last night, and to my dismay, they too referred to the Persian gulf as the Arabian gulf.

This is a documentary that has sold out a number of times on Amazon, has been watched by millions of people, and it has a big following ...

You can complain here if interested ... although I'm not sure anybody could care less! They are not going to re-edit a 10 million dollar production!

However, at least they may get annoyed if more than a few people send in emails.

Cheers,
~P

MarcLord said...

Hi Naj,

I'd like to hear your feedback on abraham's comment. I fundamentally disagree with his conclusions on a number of levels, the most basic being that Iran was going to be demonized post-1979 no matter what government it adopted. The mullahs are not why Iran has been on the "Payback List" ever since.

But I'm not an Iranian moderate, so...do you think Iran has no respect around the world? Do you think it was possible to have overthrown the Shah in a manner which didn't result in much blowback?

Naj said...

Marc, Abraham, Pedestrain, sorry for not acknowledging your comments.

In response to Abraham:
I have no doubt that if the "nationalists" (i.e. Bakhtiar's party) had been given a chance at running the country, Iran WOULD have been the beacon of many things today. However, it was not only the people who favored Mullahs, it was the Americans (read William Sullivan's memoire, he was Carter's ambassador to Iran at the time of revolution) who feared the nationalist's reign. Why? Because Mosaddegh (whom they overthrew in a coup in 1957, and for which they only very recently apologized!!!!!!!) had tauhgt them the hard lesson that the nationalists in Iran are not about keeping America's interest in mind, but Iran's interest!

Now, Marclord is raising a point that is OFTEN ignored about demonization of Iran AFTER revolution. Those who remember history, would recall that the US (democrats at that time) had started demonizing the Shah's regime over its "human rights record and dictatorship!!!), somehow fanning the flames of the revolution to come.

what happened in Iran, in terms of the shift of power from the liberals (i.e. bakhtiar) to conservatives (i.e. khomeinists) correlated with the incipient neo-conservatism poised to get rid of Carter and pave the territory for the project which we are witnessing today.

don't be misled that the Iranian hostage crisis was Iran's declaration of war against the US, it was the winning card of Reagan, just as was 911 the winning card of Bush.

You see what I mean?

MarcLord said...

Naj,

yep, I see it. At the time leading up to the overthrow, the loudest new voices in American anti-Soviet policy circles were saying that strong religion, whether christian or muslim, was the best way to thwart the communist threat.

Reagan was the embodiment of that notion, and his sympathizers successfully engaged with the mullahs well prior to his election. Rapprochement with pious islam (not yet seen as extreme) was followed through on as policy all over the Mid-East, most aggressively under Bill Casey in the 1980s.

From their viewpoint, it was better to have the unpredictable mullahs in charge of Iran than a new, weak nationalist regime within easy reach of Russian weapons and aid. This position was seen as so straightforward and sensible it was pointless to argue.

Obviously we know with hindsight that there were some rather predictable consequences of encouraging theocracy in the region.

Naj said...

Mark,

interestingly, the "communists" of Iran played an important role in over-throw of Shah!

I also have to add something in response to Abraham, that it was not only the people of Iran who threw the hat to Mullahs, but the Nationalist Bazargan who allowed Khomeini a crown.

I was little in those days, but I saw with my own eyes how people from "no-where" appeared on the government scene, many were not even revolutionaries!

... sometimes i still wonder HOW on earth we have survived that mess ... no wonder my dad has coronary heart disease ...

MarcLord said...

Naj,

I'm thinking of adapting some my/your comments here into a larger post about the rise of Neocons.

And maybe you did postings about your early life and eventual emigration which I'm not aware of? If so I could use your guidance to them, and would surely appreciate your story.

Naj said...

Marc,

I will impatiently be waiting for that post.

As for my early life, I am sure there are tidbits of it here. My life is almost identical to that of MArjan Satrapi, the maker of the animation "Perspolis" ... that's the tale of my generation.

If I write my story, it will be another one of those sob-stories. And I don't like it.
Yes Revolution took a LOT OF things away from me. But, because of it, I feel stronger, and more world savvy, so no complaints :)