1.

[From UFPJ's Iran Working Group]

IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO WAR: ASK YOUR REP TO OPPOSE H.CON. RES. 362

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a new resolution that could effectively demand a blockade against Iran -- an act that would be widely seen as an act of war and could invite Iranian retaliation, possibly leading us into a shooting war.

Over the last three weeks, 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor this resolution, but we think many do not realize its dangerous implications.

This resolution (H. Con. Res. 362) was introduced by Representative Gary Ackerman. The most alarming provision "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."

Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be seen as an act of war. Congressional sources say the bill might first go to committee, which gives us a little more time to pressure our representatives. But whether or not it goes first to committee, or directly to the floor of the House, action on H. Con. Res. 362 is needed now. We urge you to ask your representative not to support this dangerous step toward war with Iran.

Congressional leaders seem to have assumed that there would be little opposition to this punitive measure against Iran, and they have put it on a fast track to passage. But due to the threat of war, many organizations and reasonable members of Congress are working overtime to stop this bill. Won't you join them?

Please take action now -- ask your representative to oppose this dangerous path that could lead directly to war with Iran.

You can find the full text of the resolution and list of co-sponsors here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

Yours,

Robert Naiman and Mike Lynn
Co-Conveners, UFPJ's Iran Working Group

2.

Newsflash

AIPAC (PROBABLY) ISN'T PUSHING FOR AN ATTACK ON IRAN
By Dan Fleshler

Israel e News
June 16, 2008

I have read even more drivel than usual about AIPAC in the blogosphere these days, and thought I would explain a few things to those who have never attended an AIPAC Policy Conference.

First of all, AIPAC does not appear to be trying to prod the U.S. to bomb Iran. If it is, I have not seen any credible evidence, just a lot of inferential yammering by those whose stock-in-trade is to promote the notion that the so-called “Lobby” is a bunch of bellicose fifth columnists.

Here, for example, is Justin Raimondo, an articulate libertarian whose Antiwar.com is an increasingly popular source for all things anti-Israel and anti-AIPAC: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s visit to the U.S. is part of a concerted effort, by the Israeli government and its American lobbyists, to convince U.S. lawmakers -- and, most of all, President George W. Bush -- that the time to attack Iran is now.”

At last week’s Policy Conference, attendees got a distinctly different impression. Sure, there was obligatory tough talk about the perils of a nuclearized Iran. Sure, anyone who asserted or hinted that the military option should remain on the table could count on applause in the small seminars and the large plenary sessions. Of course the notion of unconditional dialogue with Iran was an object of scorn.

And, yes, the action agenda pushed for tightened sanctions against Iran. AIPAC called for its grassroots troops to descend on Congress and urge passage of the Iran Counterproliferation Act in the Senate, and to promote a slightly tougher, non-binding resolution from Reps. Gary Ackerman and Mike Pence. But, as described by Ron Kampeas of JTA, one of the smartest reporters in Washington: "The language of the [Ackerman-Pence] resolution is sensitive to the political realities of a presidential campaign that has made the possibility of war against Iran a partisan issue: It explicitly counts out military action -- a point hammered home in the AIPAC talking points.

“'The resolution specifically states that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to be an authorization for military action,' the sheet says. 'In fact, the sanctions called for in H. Con. Res. 362 are the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability by avoiding military action.'

"Additionally, the action part of the resolution opens by declaring 'that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently.'

"Notably absent from AIPAC’s talking points is any mention of military force -- a prospect that spooks Democrats and would discomfit an organization that prides itself on its bipartisanship."

Kampeas is spot on. I suspect a large part of the membership would have been upset by overt war-mongering. I know this is a rather inconvenient truth. Painting the AIPACers with a broad brush as a dangerous, evil band of Likud supporters and war-hungry “neocons” makes it much easier for those who oppose the group to mobilize, and to write angry op-eds and blog posts filled with reckless generalizations that ignore complex, institutional truths. Mea culpa: I’ve written a few of those myself.

Dismissing AIPAC as nothing but a support group or cheering section for Dick Cheney and Richard Perle feeds the hunger of those on the far left and far right for a bogeyman, an organization that can serve, along with Israel itself, as a kind of totemic hate object, a repository of all that is wrong. I am trying to write a book about the conventional Israel lobby and my task would be much easier if AIPAC could be summed up so glibly. But I’m afraid it can’t.

The inconvenient truth is that many of its members and board members are centrist Democrats; they are politically moderate, at least by American standards. They want the U.S. to keep Israel strong by giving it a qualitative military edge because they believe Israel’s neighbors still want to destroy it. They are deeply worried about Iran and the dangers they believe it poses to Israel and to the U.S., especially to American troops in Iraq. But they are not irresponsibly trigger happy.

Even Philip Weiss, a hero of the cabal-watchers, was initially a bit perplexed when, in the first policy conference he attended, he found himself rubbing shoulders with attendees and listening to speakers who were moderate, temperate, and as desirious of peace as he is (although they don’t care as much about Palestinian suffering or Palestinian rights as he does).

My friend and fellow Ameinu board member Judy Gelman, described the AIPACers in an email to the organization’s leadership: "Who goes to AIPAC? This year’s conference had over 7500 participants, about 1200 of who were students. The attendees also included many large congregational groups. I don’t know how many rabbis brought congregants but 4 rabbis were acknowledged as having brought more than 100 congregants with them. Two of these congregants were large Conservative shuls from L.A., one of which (Valley Beth Shalom) had over 200 participants (the other was Sinai Temple). Stephen Wise Synagogue from N.Y. (also Conservative) was one of the others. So the participants at the Policy Conference are not a group of wild-eyed reactionaries. Kippot are rare and tzitzit almost completely absent.

"It is pretty much the people you would be sitting next to at Holy Holidays at a Conservative shul. Like most Jews, these are largely Democrats -- not the most liberal Democrats, but still Democrats and mostly from N.Y., CA, Chicago, Philly, Southern Florida, but also from the smaller Jewish communities like Tulsa, Salt Lake City, and Orlando. From these smaller communities, it is not uncommon for AIPAC activists to overlap heavily with the Federation and local congregational leadership. AIPAC gives these people (mostly people of considerable wealth) a way to connect to Israel politically, and also to connect with their local politicians on behalf of Israel. What AIPAC 'sells' them is a way to be informed about Israel and a way to be involved for Israel."

She’s right. Most of them are not “neocons.” They are just very worried about Israel. They come to these conferences expecting guidance and instruction about how they -- and America -- can help to keep it safe. It’s not much more complicated than that. What’s more, although they were urged to suppress partisan poltical instincts, many of them cheered for Obama not only because they were glad he expressed support for Israel; they also cheered for him because they were Democrats and, like the rest of us, want an end to the Republican reign of error.

Of course, there are also vocal, irrepressible militarists in that organization. In a speech to the plenary on Monday night, Executive Director Howard Kohr gave, I think, some clues about the pressures on him from that wing of AIPAC. After rattling off the many dangers posed by Iran and the need to sanction it, he said: "Now, I have spoken to you and I know you feel a real sense of frustration. Of impatience. You have asked me, from New York and Los Angeles, what more can we do? You wonder, is there still time for our efforts to work? My friends, I understand your concern.

"But I want to make the case to you today that the path of political and economic sanctions is still the best immediate option. There is still time . . . to persuade Iran through sanctions that its leader cannot vow to wipe Israel off the map. It cannot promise to visit destruction on Israel, and escape the consequences of its actions . . . My friends, we cannot lose our determination to stay on this path -- together we must make it clear that Iran must change its behavior."

He could have gone much further. He could have revved up the crowd to show the attentive world that these American Jews were serious about doing whatever was necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, he urged the AIPACers to trod what was, at least in their Manichean version of reality, a middle path.

I still think they are wrong, these AIPACers, about a good many things. They are wrong to ratchet up tensions with Iran and favor all sticks and no carrots. They have been wrong about Draconian restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority and will continue to be wrong in their opposition to evenhanded American diplomacy in the Middle East. I still think an alternative political bloc, a lobby for the rest of us that encourages a new American course in the Middle East, is necessary. The stony, uncomfortable silence that greeted Sec. of State Rice when she dared to refer to the “daily humiliations” suffered by Palestinians is reason enough to develop that alternative.

But if we want to change the current, conventional Israel lobby, we need to understand how it actually works and who is in it, not create straw men and straw women.

--Dan Fleshler, a media and public affairs strategist in New York City, spends much of his free time trying to convince the American Jewish community to support Israel’s peace camp and an end to Israeli settlement expansion. He is a board member of Ameinu and Americans for Peace Now, two American Jewish organizations that advocate active, balanced U.S. engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a two-state solution. He is also a board member of the Givat Haviva Educational Foundation, which supports efforts to promote co-existence between Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens and the empowerment of Israeli Arabs. Fleshler has ghost-written and placed in major American newspapers numerous op-eds on behalf of dovish Israeli and American Jewish leaders during the last two decades.

3.

IRAN WAR RESOLUTION MAY BE PASSED NEXT WEEK
By Geoffrey V. Gray

Antiwar.com
June 23, 2008

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill’s key section “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.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension -- meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

4.

Text of legislation

HCON 362 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 362

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2008

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

Whereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is legally bound to declare and place all its nuclear activity under constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

Whereas for nearly 20 years, in clear contravention of its explicit obligations under the NPT, Iran operated a covert nuclear program until it was revealed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002;

Whereas the IAEA has confirmed such illicit covert nuclear activities as the importation of uranium hexafluoride, construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, importation of centrifuge technology, construction of centrifuges, and importation of designs to convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon;

Whereas Iran continues to expand the number of centrifuges at its enrichment facility, as made evident by its announced intention to begin installation of 6,000 advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium, in defiance of binding United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment activities;

Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009;

Whereas an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;

Whereas Iran's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and its close ties to Syria raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others;

Whereas Iran continues to develop ballistic missile technology and is pursuing the capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads;

Whereas Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, and a member of the United Nations;

Whereas the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have offered, and continue to offer, to negotiate a significant package of economic, diplomatic, and security incentives if Iran complies with the United Nations Security Council's resolutions demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment;

Whereas Iran has consistently refused such offers;

Whereas as a result of Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the United Nations Security Council, taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter, the international community has imposed limited sanctions over the past 2 years that have begun to have an impact on the Iranian economy;

Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions;

Whereas Iran has used its banking system, including the Central Bank of Iran, to support its proliferation efforts and its assistance to terrorist groups, leading the Department of Treasury to designate 4 large Iranian banks proliferators and supporters of terrorism;

Whereas Iran's support for Hezbollah has enabled that group to wage war against the Government and people of Lebanon, leading to its political domination of that country;

Whereas Iran's support for Hamas has enabled it to illegally seize control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, and to continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;

Whereas Iran continues to provide training, weapons, and financial assistance to Shi'a militants inside of Iraq and antigovernment warlords in Afghanistan;

Whereas those Shi'a militant groups and Afghan warlords use Iranian training, weapons, and financing to attack American and allied forces trying to support the legitimate Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas Iran is further destabilizing the Middle East by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;

Whereas through these efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers vital American national security interests; and

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

That Congress --

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) 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; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

5.

U.S. SEES A FRIENDLIER FACE IN IRAN
By Trita Parsi

Asia Times Online
June 6, 2008

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF06Ak03.html

WASHINGTON -- Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has long argued that the United States and Iran need to have a dialogue with each other at three different levels: between their executive branches, between their civil societies, and between their legislatures.

While the George W. Bush administration has opposed direct contact with the Iranian executive branch, and while its "Iran Democracy fund" has rendered civil society exchanges more difficult, according to prominent human-rights organizations, Tehran bears overwhelming responsibility for the failure to initiate a parliamentarian dialogue between the two countries.

But change may be in the air. The new speaker of Iran's parliament, the Majlis, is the former nuclear negotiator who resigned over President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's inflexible position on the nuclear file, Ali Larijani.

The election of the former hawk, now turned relative pragmatist, has been interpreted as a blow to Ahmadinejad and an indication that the conservative camp in Iran is growing increasingly impatient with their hardline president. Larijani's more flexible posture on the nuclear issue, his relatively tempered rhetoric and his declared openness to talks with the U.S. has fueled speculation that if he were to successfully challenge Ahmadinejad in the March 2009 presidential elections, a significant opportunity for U.S.-Iran diplomacy would emerge.

But even if he were to remain the speaker of the Majlis, Larijani would enjoy opportunities to pursue unprecedented parliamentarian diplomacy. There has been no shortage of efforts to connect Iranian and U.S. lawmakers. The willingness to initiate such a dialogue -- and willingness to accept the political risk it entails -- has been much stronger on the U.S. side, however.

In September 2000, several U.S. lawmakers attended a meeting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for parliamentary speakers. The purpose was to get a chance to converse with the then speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Mehdi Karroubi, who was in New York for the United Nations Millennium summit.

Among the U.S. lawmakers attending the reception at the Met were New York Democratic representatives Gary L. Ackerman and Eliot L. Engel, as well as Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Iranian delegation included the sole Jewish lawmaker in the Iranian parliament. Among the many issues discussed was a U.S. proposal to increase formal exchanges between the two legislatures. The Iranians never gave a firm commitment.

In October 2001, only a few weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, a few U.S. lawmakers headed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter invited the then Iranian ambassador to the U.N., Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, to a private dinner in a senate chamber -- the first visit of a senior Iranian diplomat to the U.S. Capitol since the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Among the several lawmakers attending the dinner was ambassador Nejad-Hosseinian's daughter-in-law, a U.S. citizen. Though the Iranian diplomat did not meet with any administration officials during his visit, the dinner could not have taken place without the permission of the George W. Bush administration. The Iranians never reciprocated that invitation.

In August 2003, a Republican lawmaker and a senior Democratic senate staffer participated in a "track-II" meeting in a European capital with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials. Though the lawmaker acted independently from the Bush administration, U.S. officials hoped Tehran would permit an Iranian lawmaker to attend the meeting as well to elevate it to an official parliamentary exchange. No Iranian lawmaker attended the meeting, however.

In January 2004, the Bush administration gave the green light for a second dinner invitation to Iran's U.N. ambassador to a congressional dinner in the Capitol building, only a few doors away from the speaker's office. The discussions with ambassador Javad Zarif centered on developments in Afghanistan and Iraq and the need for U.S.-Iranian cooperation, but also on a proposed trip by congressional staff to Tehran as a prelude to a visit by members of Congress.

Though the Iranians initially were positive, and though travel preparations were made on the U.S. side and a group of half a dozen staffers was selected to go on what would have been a groundbreaking visit, the Iranians withdrew their invitation at the last minute, citing political circumstances in Iran.

U.S. lawmakers did not cease to extend invitations to their Iranian counterparts, however. In 2007, a senior Democratic senator arranged for Zarif to visit the Senate and meet with a dozen high-ranking lawmakers. A few months later, several U.S. congressmen sent an invitation via the Iranian U.N. mission to the Iranian speaker of the Majlis, offering direct parliamentarian dialogue.

After a few months, Haddad Adel, the recently ousted Majlis speaker, sent a two-page reply, mostly citing Iranian grievances with U.S. foreign policy while avoiding a direct response to the U.S. invitation. Instead, the last paragraph in the letter indicated a general openness to exchanges without making any specific commitments.

The greater U.S. interest in parliamentarian exchanges is partly due to the nature of the U.S. political system, with its independent branches. For U.S. lawmakers to operate outside of official U.S. foreign policy is not uncommon, nor has it been inconsequential. Personal diplomacy by U.S. lawmakers has paved the way for openings to countries like Vietnam and Libya.

Iranian lawmakers, however, don't share this trait of operating in the foreign policy realm independently of their executive branch. In recent years in particular, the Majlis has been in lockstep with Ahmadinejad on this issue, due to Adel's political ties and alliance with the Iranian president. Adel's lukewarm reaction to the U.S. invitation to parliamentary talks was partly due to internal Iranian rivalries: the exchanges of letters had been facilitated by the Iranian U.N. mission under the leadership of Zarif -- a key opponent of Ahmadinejad.

With Larijani as the new speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian legislature is now headed not only by a political rival of Ahmadinejad who seems eager to counter the Iranian president, but also by someone who over the years has begun to appreciate the utility -- and necessity -- of diplomacy.

--Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S., a Silver Medal Recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award, the most significant award for a book on foreign affairs.