Iran Archive

When Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for Secretary Colin Powell, and I were visiting with members of Congress and their staff to jointly oppose a resolution that would lower the threshold for war with Iran (H.Res. 568), he warned that “this resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war”.

The military authorization bill includes billions for weapon systems designed for saber-rattling toward Iran, and possibly for use in an attack on Iran. The bill would also require the administration to prepare for war by dramatically escalating the U.S. military presence in the Mideast.

While the bill does not explicitly state that the new weapons systems it includes would be used for a war with Iran, a staffer from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) has reportedly explained that the additional funding for weapon systems 'could be used in a war with Iran'. This detailed weapons and policy outline pushing for a war with Iran is adapted from legislation (H.R. 4485) introduced last month by Rep. Mike Conaway (TX), and has been supported by only 13 Republican co-sponsors.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that has been passed by Congress every year for over 50 years. Most authorization bills are taken up once every two-five years, but Congress has a special affinity for the military authorization bill—often calling it a “must-pass” bill. This year will be no different.

Last year, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 NDAA became synonymous with indefinite detention due to provisions included that allow for detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. President Obama signed the NDAA on December 31, 2012, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes that happened on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

As early as next week, the Senate could vote on a far reaching, aggressive Iran sanctions package which is likely to include a resolution endorsing a lower threshold for war with Iran. Senator Jeff Merkley (OR), as he explained in a recent town hall meeting, has not yet taken a position on the resolution, but has acknowledged concerns that the pending Iran legislation could be considered as a push for war.

The willingness of both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress to sponsor resolutions that would press for a military action is unnerving. Fortunately, there are some in Congress willing to speak out for diplomacy. The fact is: words matter, particularly the words spoken about war by the President, leaders of other countries and the people elected to national office, such as our members of Congress.

As early as Wednesday, Senators Bob Casey (PA), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Joe Lieberman (CT) are expected to introduce a resolution that would effectively endorse a new redline for war with Iran, and a new ultimatum that, if pursued by the administration, would virtually guarantee failure for any diplomatic efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and prevent war.

Reading the recent article in the New York Times Magazine, "Will Israel Attack Iran?", you might begin to think a war with Iran is inevitable and coming very soon. But no war is inevitable until it is underway, and there are real diplomatic solutions to the escalating crisis with Iran.

President Obama finished his third State of the Union Address the same way he began it—by touting what the administration considers foreign policy successes. “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq” President Obama said, concluding his address by stating, “Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies.”

This kind of rhetoric is incredibly unfortunate. The logic contained within these thoughts says that force has worked to end wars when it has, in fact, failed to deliver long term peace and stability. We can clearly see this playing out in Iraq today—not to mention, as I wrote in December, the U.S. war in Iraq may have concluded, but the long term damage is far from done running itscourse.

Last night, the House voted 410-11 in support of a bill that would outlaw any contact between U.S. officials and certain Iranian officials, which could close down prospects for diplomatic communication and increase the threat of war.

Congress ignored the warnings of a host of former ambassadors, national security analysts, and other experts and voted in favor of this counterproductive legislation that would criminalize any contact between any U.S. government officials and any Iranian official who "presents a threat to the United States" or is "affiliated with terrorist organizations." If this legislation were to be enacted into law, in a crisis, U.S. diplomats could find themselves unable to talk to their Iranian counterparts to prevent war from erupting.

2011 has been a remarkable year in our lobbying for a world without war. I'm also acutely aware of how many challenges remain and how much work we have ahead in 2012.

As speculation mounts that a covert war with Iran is already well underway, the House is expected to vote Tuesday on a bill that could sabotage diplomacy with Iran, heightening the risk of a full-scale regional war.

After Thanksgiving, your Senator will cast some of his or her most important votes on war and peace of the year, so this is a crucial time to weigh in, and ask your Senator to vote to end current wars and prevent new ones.

More than 2,000 people took action on FCNL’s alert “War or Diplomacy? Senate Prepares to Vote” last week to ask Senators to support diplomacy, and reject anti-peace amendments to the international affairs funding bill.

That message is still crucial for the Senate to hear because even though the international affairs funding bill is now stalled indefinitely, and the Supercommittee folded completely, after Thanksgiving the Senate will resume debate on the military authorization act.

As early as this week, the Senate is expected to vote on Illinois Senator Mark Kirk's proposed amendment to the State and Foreign Operations funding bill to “collapse the Central Bank of Iran”. Some U.S. officials have called sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank “the nuclear option” because it would deal a devastating blow to the teetering global economy, and inflict untold human suffering in Iran.

Still, such an initiative is expected to receive overwhelming bipartisan support, following a letter Senators Kirk and Charles Schumer wrote to the administration calling for the administration to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which 92 senators have signed. The Kirk initiative this week appears to be similar to one offered by Rep. Howard Berman in the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, and would effectively bind the administration into imposing sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. The committee approved Berman's amendment.