During the Rob Kall Radio Show on June 25, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) graciously took time from discussing his new book, "Fire Breathing Liberal" and his push for impeachment inquiries to address concerns that were being raised regarding this resolution that he, himself, cosponsored.

The issue at hand was the language in the resolution that "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."

Confession: I had to look up inter alia to find that it means "among other things."

As an invited caller, I shared with Congressman Wexler my experience the prior evening. I read the passage above to a group attending a lecture by Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Colonel, USAF, ret, a fighter pilot in Vietnam, who also directed the DoD "Star Wars" programs under Ford and Carter. Bowman is on a speaking tour to restore the Constitution and hold the Bush administration accountable through impeachment.

As I read from Res. 362, a collective groan rose from the audience as people scrambled for pen and paper to take down the information. Dr. Bowman declared it was something we had to fight. He paused and reflected before stating, "It cuts very close to being a declaration of war."

In response to this, Rep. Wexler offered, "Let me start by just creating a foundation from my view which is that I intensely distrust President Bush particularly as it relates to the use of military force."

He went on to state that, "We have a responsibility to prevent President Bush from unilaterally attacking Iran similar to what he did, of course, with Iraq." This is the reason, he added, that he is also a cosponsor of H.R. 3119. This resolution prohibits the use of funds for military operations in Iran without prior authorization by Congress.

Congressman Wexler explained that "Resolution 3119 could not be clearer in indicating that Congress will not give Mr. Bush a blank check and that we support a policy of engagement rather than military force."

Researching H.R. 3119 immediately following Wednesday’s interview found that it was introduced one year ago and has gained little traction with only 29 cosponsors - all Democrats. Three more names, including Rep. Wexler’s, were added on June 26 bringing the total count to 32. At this point, H.R. 3119, legislation that has not passed, really serves as no deterrent.

In detailing his reason for supporting 362, Mr. Wexler remarked "I signed on to the resolution you spoke about initially because I believe and I still do, although I understand your concern and I respect it, that 362 called for enhanced economic - as you read - economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions."

In respect to the language that follows that calls for President Bush to "prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products," and begin "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles," etc. entering or departing Iran, Congressman Wexler contended that the resolution "makes no reference whatsoever to the use of military force, it makes no reference, of course, to any language that would support an embargo. Although, again, I want to point out that I understand your concern and I understand your reluctance because it is strong language."

Indeed, the word "embargo" cannot be found within the four-page document, but prohibiting trade or commerce with another country in order to isolate it, e.g. preventing refined petroleum products from entering Iran, is by definition an embargo.

When pressed by Rob that comments coming in to him were pointing to a Naval blockade, Rep. Wexler dismissed it by saying there is no language in the resolution that calls for a Naval blockade. Again, the word "blockade" is not used. But, any effort to prevent supplies from reaching a country - which this resolution calls for - is after all a blockade.

Ultimately, the congressman conceded that he understood the "concern that the mechanism of enforcement in theory might be a Naval blockade." "But," he explained, "that’s the use of a military confrontation act and that is not something that I would support unless there was prior congressional approval. I understand the concern particularly in that it’s President Bush that we are talking about, but I don’t think reasonably that there is any language in 362 that authorizes a Naval blockade. If there is, I would not have signed it."

I asked, "What then would imposing stringent inspection requirements on persons, vehicles, ships - what would that look like then?" Rep. Wexler replied, "It’s a good question." So pleased was I that I asked a "good question," I failed to recognize that the conversation drifted into a discussion over the concern of a "nuclearization" of the Middle East and the question was never addressed. Lesson learned.

Often times what is not written into legislation or little things that are inserted such as "inter alia" can be far more damaging than what is actually written.

What lessons have we learned from the Bush administration? 1. If the President and Vice President are given a blank check, for example the 2001 "Authorization for Use of Military Force," they will surely take full advantage of it. 2. If the President and Vice President are not given permission by Congress to wreak havoc - they will anyway.

Follow-Through

One attribute, among others, that separates Rep. Wexler from many of his colleagues on the Hill is his willingness to engage in dialogue beyond the perfunctory sound bite. One thing about Rob Kall, editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com is his drive to go the extra mile. Not a common practice these days in the corporate-owned mainstream media. Rob, looking to clarify some issues regarding 362, reached out the following day to Congressman Wexler who readily agreed to continue the conversation. Look for Rob’s upcoming article about the media aspect of this.

The dominant theme presented to Rep. Wexler in follow-up was the question of what really is going to keep President Bush, who already unilaterally and preemptively attacked a sovereign nation with no repercussions from a Democratic majority, from repeating the scenario with Iran.

Rep. Wexler, in his reply, held fast to his belief that H. Con. Res. 362 would not open the door to any military action by the U.S. against Iran. He explained, "First and foremost H. Con. Res. 362 is a non-binding resolution which is only a statement/expression of Congress without any force of law."

While it is true that the resolution is non-binding. It is ironic that a non-binding resolution would "demand" the President take a specific action. Even more ironic is the fact that what is being asked seems to be right up the Bush administration’s alley.

Mr. Wexler again reiterated that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."

But, if the President takes the direction to, for example, prohibit export of refined petroleum products to Iran or restrict movement of Iranian officials who are not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s "pursuit of nuclear weapons," and it triggers a military conflict which in all likelihood Bush will not back away from, Congress can wash their hands and say, "Hey, we said there was nothing in our resolution that authorized that."

Congressman Wexler, in his follow-up with Rob Kall, emphasized again the call for all this to happen with the support of the international community.

The issue of an international context was reinforced in a dismissive reply on June 25 by Ackerman and Pence who claim criticism of the resolution is "utter nonsense."

The resolution does demand that the President "initiate an international effort." Is it enough for the President to place a few calls to "initiate" an international effort and then call it a day? I don’t know. The resolution doesn’t say. What it also doesn’t say is that the actions demanded within the resolution require UN approval.

Many believe the fact that the U.S. unilaterally attacked Iraq was not the overriding problem in 2003. Would support of the international community have made our venture into Iraq acceptable and legitimate? I think not.

A Democrat and a Republican Speak Out

Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) who is not seeking reelection in November after losing to incumbent Frank Lautenberg in the Senate primary, made a rather bold and unexpected statement regarding the Bush administration and Iran at a public forum on Iraq on June 13. Andrews was an early and staunch supporter of the Iraq war and has routinely taken a tough stance on Iran. During his Senate primary campaign, he received the endorsement of the Political Action Committee of Cherry Hill for his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.

Andrews stated [see video] "There is a real and consistent concern that the government of Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Now there has been saber rattling about this. There’s going to be an attempt, I believe, to "Gulf of Tonkinize" this issue before the November election and I think you can anticipate all kinds of Naval adventures in the Persian Gulf that will try to be used as a pretext for an attack upon Iran. I think that that will be the strategy in the November election." A call earlier today to Rep. Andrew’s office for further comment has yet to be returned.

There was no mention of specific legislation. Still, his remarks add credence to what many fear - that the President could use this demand, non-binding as it is, to create an embargo against Iran to provoke the Iranian government. To date, Rep. Andrews has not cosponsored H. Con. Res. 362.

GOP Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), like Andrews, served 18 years in Congress. Gilchrest, who stated that he regrets his early support of the Iraq war, also lost his state’s primary this year.

On June 26, Rep. Gilchrest took to the House floor. He questioned what the impact of Resolution 362 and its tightening of sanctions on Iran in a broader way would have on U.S. policy in the Middle East and the impact of the conflict between the two nations.

He responded to his own questions by stating, "I will say, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, that Resolution 362 will exacerbate, make much more difficult, the problems in the Middle East, and the relationship of Iran with the United States, and the relationship of Iran. Knowledge and an informed policy in the Middle East, a surge of diplomacy, can make a key difference. When Nikita Khrushchev said he was going to bury the United States, what was Eisenhower’s response? He invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States to tour the Nation, and it began to lessen the conflict between the two countries."

He concluded by stating that in the fall of 2007, 58 House members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter to the parliament in Iran asking for a parliamentary exchange. That letter, he said, "was hand-delivered by some of us in Lisbon to Iranian parliamentarians. They took it to Iran. And what is their response to us? They want a dialogue. There are members of the Iranian parliament that want a dialogue. Consensus and dialogue. We need more carpenters. Vote against Resolution 362."

A Unique Perspective

There is an unspoken understanding that online discussions concerning Israel, AIPAC, Iran and the U.S. Congress often descend rapidly into accusations of politicians being "beholden" - or worse - to AIPAC and Israel and alternatively, charges of anti-semitism are often volleyed back without effort made to find common ground. This does little to promote the shared goal of a peaceful Middle East.

I reached out to Rabbi Michael Lerner, an activist and editor of Tikkun, a progressive Jewish and interfaith magazine, for his thoughts.

Rabbi Lerner stressed that he was not an "insider in this struggle," but openly shared his perspective. He observed that "AIPAC and many other parts of the American Jewish establishment have bought into the paradigm of ‘domination over the other’ as the only way to achieve safety and security in this world."

He added "There are the majority of American Jews who do not support the war in Iraq and would not support a war in Iran unless it was perceived as being Israel’s only path to self-defense."

When asked specifically about H. Con. Res. 362, the Rabbi explained, "From our standpoint, the blockade of Iranian oil is a provocative step meant to push Iran into taking counter-steps that would then allow Israel or the U.S. to provide their own people with alleged justification for a larger assault."

Rabbi Lerner emphasized that "The major forces pushing this are NOT the State of Israel and the American Jewish establishment, but Vice President Cheney and the oil companies whose interests he serves. It is they who worry most about Iran emerging as the dominant force in the Middle East, particularly as the US moves out of Iraq in the years following an Obama election to the presidency."

"After having fought a war in Iraq so that we could hand over the oil fields to the US oil companies, something that was vigorously denied in the past but in the past few weeks has become the explicit goal of the US puppet regime in Iraq, US oil interests are not willing to see their promised mega profits be threatened by Iran. They imagine that this may be their last moment (that is, from now till Jan. 20, 2009 when the new president takes office) at least for another four or eight years, and so they want to do something that could provoke a larger war that the new president would have to support."

As it relates to members of Congress, Rabbi Lerner concludes, "The American Jewish Establishment, operating through AIPAC and many other sources, has aligned itself with this crusade of folly, first in Iraq and now in Iran. And, they have been able to call upon many of their supporters in Congress to do likewise."

Alternatives

Rabbi Lerner does see another option. "We in the Network of Spiritual Progressives call it the "Strategy of Generosity" and we’ve developed a specific manifestation of that when we call for a Global Marshall Plan as the best way for the U.S. and Israel to achieve homeland security."

They have found that this is the "only plausible alternative to the ‘Strategy of Domination’ and this has been introduced to Congress as House Resolution 1078 two months ago by Congressman Keith Ellison and others."

Please read more of Rabbi Michael Lerner’s remarks in his OpEdNews post here.

A final thought: Those of us who disagree with the course our government has established can blog and comment relentlessly, but without consistent direct action, we won’t veer far from it. As Ray McGovern, CIA analyst turned activist, often says - sometimes you gotta put your body into it.

]]> http://cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com/?p=39 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:14:10 +0000 cheryl biren-wright http://cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com/?p=39

]]> http://detainthis.wordpress.com/?p=318 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:49:25 +0000 detainthis http://detainthis.wordpress.com/?p=318 By Muhammad Sahimi ∙ AntiWar.com ∙ July 8, 2008

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a resolution (HR 362) that calls on the Bush administration to take strong action against Iran, including a naval blockade of its ports. A similar resolution is being considered by the Senate (SR 580). The two resolutions are supposedly non-binding. They also mention explicitly that they are not granting the Bush administration any authorization to stage military attacks on Iran. Their language, however, is warlike. In particular, a naval blockade of Iran's ports is certainly tantamount to a declaration of war.

One would expect that, on a matter as crucial as dealing with an important and influential Islamic nation such as Iran, especially after all the lies and exaggerations that were sold to the public in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, the resolutions that are being considered would speak the truth about Iran. That is not the case, though. Both resolutions are replete with factual errors, exaggerations, half-truths, and even outright lies. Below, actual sentences from the two resolutions are in italics; my analysis follows in normal text.

The Senate Resolution

"For nearly 20 years Iran had a covert nuclear program, until the program was revealed by an opposition group in Iran in 2002."

Outright lie: Iran did not have any covert nuclear program for nearly 20 years. What it did have was a small nuclear research program that was safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). What Iran did not declare to the IAEA for many years was the construction of the Natanz facility for uranium enrichment, which was not illegal. The subsidiary arrangements part of Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA stipulates that Iran was obligated to inform the agency of the existence of any nuclear facility only 180 days prior to introducing any nuclear materials into the facility. In February 2003 Iran did just that, then introduced nuclear materials into that facility in summer of 2003.

Interestingly, the resolution does not name the "opposition group," because it would be embarrassing to mention that the group is the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a group despised by the Iranian people and listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. The MEK has been in exile since 1981. It spied on Iran during its war with Iraq and helped Saddam Hussein's regime to ruthlessly suppress the uprisings by the Kurds and Shi'ites after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that the government of Iran has engaged in such covert activities as the illicit importation of uranium hexafluoride, the construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, the importation of centrifuge technology and the construction of centrifuges, and the importation of the design to convert highly enriched uranium gas into a metal and to shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon, as well as significant additional covert nuclear activities."

Lies and exaggerations: The uranium hexafluoride was imported from China, which, like Iran, is an NPT member state. China was supposed to report the transaction, but it did not for many years. The matter has now been completely clarified, and the material is safeguarded by the IAEA.

As explained above, construction of the uranium enrichment facility was not an illicit activity, because Iran had no legal obligation to declare it. Indeed, the IAEA has never ever called the construction "illicit" or "illegal."

Iran has never done any experiment with plutonium, except when the shah was in power. What the Islamic Republic did do was experiment with polonium-210, not plutonium. In its February 2008 report to the Board of Governors (BoG) of the IAEA, the agency declared its satisfaction with the resolution of the issue.

Manufacturing or importing centrifuges does not violate the Safeguards Agreement. In fact, centrifuges are not even covered by the Safeguards Agreement, because they are also used for many non-nuclear purposes. Only when the centrifuges are to be used for nuclear experimentation is Iran legally obligated to report to the IAEA the intention for the tests 90 days before carrying them out. The IAEA has been fully informed by Iran, in due time, of all such activities.

As for the document for converting uranium fluoride to uranium metal, Iran had claimed that the A.Q. Khan network gave the document to Iran, without Iran asking for it. In its May 2008 report, the IAEA confirmed Iran's contention by reporting that the government of Pakistan had confirmed the existence of an identical document there. From a practical point of view, since Iran has had for many years, with full knowledge of the IAEA, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, it does not make sense for it to pursue such a process.

The documents for designing a nuclear warhead are the subject of negotiations between Iran and the IAEA. Iran claims that the documents are not authentic, and it has demanded to see their original copies, which the IAEA cannot provide. There is considerable doubt about their authenticity.

Most importantly, in a February 2008 report to the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, declared that, "We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran's enrichment program."

"The government of Iran continues to expand the number of centrifuges at its enrichment facility and to enrich uranium in defiance of 3 binding United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities."

Incomplete story: Sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council had no legal basis, because the IAEA has never found Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or in breaches of its Safeguards Agreement that could "further a military purpose," the precise language of the agreement.

The reason for sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council was its rejection of the demand by the BoG of the IAEA to suspend its enrichment activity. The IAEA and its BoG have, however, no legal authority to make such a demand. Therefore, there was absolutely no legal basis for sending Iran's dossier to the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council could not issue its resolutions against Iran under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is exclusively for the cases that pose a threat to the peace or international security, unless it first identifies, as the UN Charter demands, the threat. However, the UN Security Council refused to identify the threat. Instead, it merely referred to the resolution of the BoG of the IAEA which, as discussed above, had no legal basis.

In addition, Iran has stated repeatedly that, if the nuclear dossier is sent back to the IAEA, it will be willing to negotiate a temporary suspension of its enrichment program. In fact, Iran did suspend, on a voluntary basis, its enrichment activities from October 2003 to February 2006.

"The government of Iran has announced its intention to begin the installation of 6,000 advanced centrifuges, which, when operational, will dramatically reduce the time that it will take Iran to enrich uranium."

Misrepresentation: In compliance with its Safeguards obligations, Iran has declared to the IAEA its intentions for installing more centrifuges. There is also nothing illegal about adding more centrifuges, so long as it is declared to the IAEA. Moreover, the manufacturing and installation of the 6,000 advanced centrifuges will take years, not the short time that the resolution seems to imply.

"The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reports that the government of Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003 and that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as early as late 2009."

Exaggerations: The NIE never presented any hard evidence that Iran was actually involved in the design of a nuclear warhead before 2003. Even if Iran was working on the problem before 2003, it was only at the design stage, as Iran had no highly enriched uranium to manufacture a nuclear warhead. In fact, it will not have highly enriched uranium any time soon, if ever.

As for manufacturing a bomb, there must first be an intention, but the IAEA has certified time and again that there is no evidence for such a goal. At the same time, 2009 is a worst-case scenario pushed by Israel. Most estimates, including the NIE's, are from 2010-2015. But, most importantly, Iran cannot use its present facility to produce highly enriched uranium, unless it leaves the NPT and expels the IAEA inspectors. Iran has said repeatedly that it has no intention of leaving the NPT.

"Allowing the government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security."

False: As long as Iran's enrichment facilities are safeguarded by the IAEA, their potential for making a nuclear weapon is latent and under tight control. In addition, Iran has indicated its willingness to sign the Additional Protocol, which will grant the IAEA much more intrusive power for inspection. In fact, Iran voluntarily carried out the provisions of the Additional Protocol from October 2003 to August 2005. Finally, in 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding production of nuclear weapons.

"If it were allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons capability, the government of Iran could share its nuclear technology, raising the frightening prospect that terrorist groups and rogue regimes might possess nuclear weapons capabilities."

False: Iran has been accused of supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, but it has never been accused of sharing conventional weapons technology with them. So why would Iran share nuclear technology with any group or nation?

In addition, any nuclear material manufactured in any nation has a "genetic" signature. If it is used anywhere, experts can identify its origin. Iranian leaders are fully aware that if they provide nuclear materials to any terrorist group, their origin can be identified, leading to massive retaliation by the international community.

"Allowing the government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would severely undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation regime that, for more than 4 decades, has contained the spread of nuclear weapons."

False: The non-proliferation regime has already been greatly weakened not by Iran, but by three U.S. allies and friends: Israel, Pakistan, and India, none of which is an NPT member state. Even if there were a military dimension to Iran's nuclear program, it would be due to the nuclear arsenals of Israel and Pakistan and the presence of the U.S. forces in the Middle East. In addition, if the U.S. transfers its nuclear technology to India, it would be violating its own NPT and non-proliferation obligations.

"It is likely that one or more Arab states would respond to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability by following Iran's example, and several Arab states have already announced their intentions to pursue 'peaceful nuclear' programs."

Half-truth: Three Arab states that may seek peaceful nuclear programs are U.S. allies. One is Egypt, with which the U.S. has close military, intelligence, and economic relations, providing it with nearly $2 billion in annual aid, which is critical to Egypt's solvency. Why doesn't the U.S. discourage Egypt's intentions?

The second nation is Saudi Arabia, the known oil reserves of which are twice as large as Iran's, with a population 1/3 of Iran's. Why can't the U.S. use the same logic with the Saudis that it has tried to use with Iran by telling them, "You have too much oil and, therefore, no need for nuclear technology for the foreseeable future." In addition, if this really concerns the U.S., why has it not protested the Saudi agreement with France for obtaining nuclear technology?

The third nation is the small island of Bahrain, where the U.S. 5th Fleet is headquartered. Bahrain has no conceivable need for nuclear reactors. If the U.S. is worried about the spread of nuclear technology, why has it agreed to sell the technology to Bahrain?

In addition, if the Arab nations did not try to acquire nuclear weapons after Israel developed them in the 1960s, why would they want to do so in reaction to the peaceful nuclear program of Iran, a Muslim nation?

"Allowing the government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would directly threaten Europe and ultimately the United States because Iran already has missiles than can reach parts of Europe and is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles."

Outright lies: Iran has no program for intercontinental missiles. In fact, the Arms Control Association stated in October 2007 that Iran could not develop an intercontinental missile by 2015, even if it wanted to. Iran's present missiles cannot reach any part of Europe except Turkey, its neighbor. Iran's missiles are purely defensive, because such missiles are offensive weapons only if the nation that owns them has the ability to project power far beyond its borders. Iran does not have such ability, nor is there any evidence that it aspires to have it. In addition, Europe is Iran's most significant commercial partner. Why would Iran attack its commercial partners?

"The government of Iran has repeatedly called for the elimination of our ally, Israel."

False: Aside from some inconsequential and often deliberately mistranslated rhetoric, Iran has never had any plan to attack Israel. It actually purchased weapons from Israel during its war with Iraq, and Iranian oil is reaching Israel indirectly. Iranian leaders are also fully aware that any attack on Israel will bring a massive counterattack by both Israel and the U.S. In fact, many Iranian leaders have stated repeatedly that it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their own conflict.

"The government of Iran has advocated that the United States withdraw its presence from the Middle East."

Misrepresentation: Iran is not the only nation that has called on the U.S. to withdraw its forces from the Middle East. Many nations consider the presence of the U.S. forces to be the greatest source of instability in the Middle East. Moreover, why is Iran's advocacy an "offense"?

"The United States, the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have offered to negotiate a significant package of economic, diplomatic, and security incentives if Iran complies with the Security Council's demand to suspend uranium enrichment.

"The government of Iran has consistently refused such offers."

Half-truth: Iran has stated repeatedly that it is willing to negotiate its entire nuclear program without any preconditions and that a suspension of its uranium enrichment program should be an outcome of the negotiations, rather than a precondition. Iran did freeze its enrichment activities from October 2003 to February 2006, but because Europe did not reward Iran for the suspension, as it had promised to, Iran stopped the suspension. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki just announced that Iran will soon start negotiating with the 5+1 group.

The House Resolution

Many paragraphs in the House Resolution are similar to those in the Senate version and therefore require no further response. I analyze only those s