FCNL is opposed to all broad, indiscriminate sanctions against Iran, including the Senate's latest sanctions package (S. 2101) passed by Congress on Monday, May 21st, despite objections to additional sanctions from the U.S. business community and Iranian human rights activists. However, we are encouraged that the Senate declared that this bill does not authorize the use of force, and that one of the leading proponents of this legislation has clarified that it is the intent of U.S. policy to support approved, humanitarian trade, and called on the administration to take additional steps to clarify this policy.

FCNL has worked with a wide coalition of organizations that take a variety of stances on Iran sanctions, including agricultural and industry groups calling for humanitarian exceptions to be maintained in any Iran sanctions legislation. These advocacy efforts prevented further erosion of what is left for protections in place for humanitarian trade to Iran.

In a landmark statement, Senator Tim Johnson (SD), Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, clarified that "it is not and has not been the intent of U.S. policy to harm the Iranian people" by prohibiting licensed humanitarian trade. Senator Johnson called on the administration to emphasize that law-abiding banks facilitating these humanitarian transactions will not be punished:

"The practical financing difficulties arising today between banks and those engaging in licensed humanitarian trade can best be addressed by U.S. government officials, who should do more to make it clear that no U.S. sanctions will be imposed against third-country banks that facilitate OFAC-licensed or exempted humanitarian trade. The Administration must make that clear in public statements, in private meetings with foreign financial institutions, and elsewhere as appropriate."

Senator Johnson went on to express strong support for the humanitarian exemptions in the current Iran sanctions regime:

"Misinterpretation of U.S. law by foreign financial institutions should no longer deny the people of Iran the benefit of OFAC-approved humanitarian trade."

Read the full statement in the congressional record (p.2).

Will Administration Take the Next Step?

The next step is for the Administration to take Senator Johnson's lead in making a clear public statement that it is not the intent of U.S. policy to harm the Iranian people by prohibiting licensed humanitarian trade, and that companies that facilitate humanitarian trade or transactions should not be punished.

FCNL calls for robust, sustained diplomacy, and an end to all indiscriminate sanctions against Iran. However, even the simple step of speaking out for a humanitarian exception to the U.S. sanctions regime would make a profound difference in the lives of ordinary Iranians, and improve prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict over Iran's nuclear program, and other crises in U.S-Iranian relations.

will soon vote on whether to authorize war with Iran. Starting today, the House is debating the military authorization bill, formally known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). One of the amendments would declare that this act is not an authorization of the use of force in Iran.

Rep. John Conyers (MI), Rep. Ron Paul (TX), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) have offered this bipartisan amendment in response to widespread concern about how this bill would push the United States toward war, with billions in weapons designed to be used to attack Iran and dramatically escalate the U.S. military presence in the Mideast.

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) has also offered an amendment to call for a special envoy for robust diplomacy with Iran, which would lift the current "no contact" policy that bars U.S. diplomats from speaking with their Iranian counterparts. 

Please call your representative TODAY using FCNL's special toll-free number, 855-68-NO WAR (855-686-6927). Ask for your representative by name and urge her or him to support the Conyers/Paul/Jones/Ellison amendment to ensure that the NDAA does not authorize war with Iran, and to support the Lee pro-diplomacy amendment.

Here are talking points you can use.

• My name is _______ and I'm calling from _________

For more info, see the full list of amendments that FCNL is tracking on Afghanistan, Pentagon cuts, and other issues, find out more about the pro-war provisions in the NDAA, and see the full text of Iran amendments and Iran-related sections in the NDAA.

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

Last week you visited Afghanistan to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement. As you stated at Bagram Air Base, “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.” The core of al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in size and ability to attack Americans. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked of them. With over 17,000 dead and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, and long term costs estimated at $4 trillion for the past decade of unfunded wars, the overwhelming majority of American people want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an expedited end.

While many of us would prefer an immediate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is broad, bipartisan consensus in Congress and across America that it is time to accelerate the transition from U.S. to full Afghan control. We also remind you that any agreement committing U.S. troops to Afghanistan must have congressional approval to be binding.

Therefore, at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, we ask that you announce an accelerated transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces and the expedited withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as these can be safely and responsibly accomplished.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

Barbara Lee (CA)
Member of Congress

Walter Jones (NC)
Member of Congress

Co-Signers (92):

Adam Smith (WA),
Tammy Baldwin (WI),
Karen Bass (CA),
Xavier Becerra (CA),
Earl Blumenauer (OR),
Leonard Boswell (IA),
Bruce Braley (IA),
John Campbell (CA),
Lois Capps (CA),
Kathy Castor (FL),
Judy Chu (CA),
David Cicilline (RI),
Yvette Clarke (NY),
William Clay (MO),
Emanuel Cleaver (MO),
James Clyburn (SC),
Steve Cohen (TN),
John Conyers (MI),
Jerry Costello (IL),
Joe Courtney (CT),
Elijah Cummings (MD),
Peter DeFazio (OR),
Rosa DeLauro (CT),
John Duncan (TN),
Donna Edwards (MD),
Keith Ellison (MN),
Sam Farr (CA),
Bob Filner (CA),
Barney Frank (MA),
John Garamendi (CA),
Raul Grijalva (AZ),
Luis Gutierrez (IL),
Janice Hahn (CA),
Colleen Hanabusa (HI),
Alcee Hastings (FL),
Martin Heinrich (NM),
Maurice Hinchey (NY),
Rush Holt (NJ),
Mike Honda (CA),
Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL),
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX),
Henry C. Johnson (GA),
Tim Johnson (IL),
Dennis Kucinich (OH),
Rick Larsen (WA),
John Larson (CT),
John Lewis (GA),
David Loebsack (IA),
Zoe Lofgren (CA),
Ben Lujan (NM),
Carolyn Maloney (NY),
Ed Markey (MA),
Betty McCollum (MN),
Jim McDermott (WA),
James McGovern (MA),
Michael Michaud (ME),
George Miller (CA),
Gwen Moore (WI),
James Moran (VA),
Chris Murphy (CT),
Jerrold Nadler (NY),
Grace Napolitano (CA),
John Olver (MA),
Ed Pastor (AZ),
Ron Paul (TX),
Chellie Pingree (ME),
Jared Polis (CO),
Mike Quigley (IL),
Charles Rangel (NY),
Laura Richardson (CA),
Bobby Rush (IL),
Loretta Sanchez (CA),
Jan Schakowsky (IL),
Adam Schiff (CA),
Jose Serrano (NY),
Brad Sherman (CA),
Albio SIres (NJ),
Louise Slaughter (NY),
Jackie Speier (CA),
Pete Stark (CA),
Mike Thompson (CA),
John Tierney (MA),
Paul Tonko (NY),
Ed Towns (NY),
Niki Tsongas (MA),
Nydia Velazquez (NY),
Maxine Waters (CA),
Mel Watt (NC),
Henry Waxman (CA),
Peter Welch (VT),
Lynn Woolsey (CA),
John Yarmuth (KY)

FCNL does not support the authorization of military funds. However, we support amendments by bipartisan congressional allies to cut the military budget, end the war in Afghanistan, prevent war with Iran and reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Bill text and the full list of amendments can be found here.

The below list has been updated to indicate which amendments have been ruled in order by the House Rules Committee and of those ruled in order, how they fared on the House floor.

Afghanistan

(Out of Order) Amendment No. 101: Rep. Jim McGovern (MA) and Rep. Walter Jones (NC) planned to offer an amendment that would require the U.S. to expedite transition plans, end combat operations no later than December 2013 and ensure there is limited or no U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after December 2014. The amendment would have also struck and replaced troubling language in section 1216 (for more information on section 1216, see Matt Southworth's analysis here). 

Note: in 2011, a similar amendment recieved 204 affirmative votes. See how your member voted here.

(Failed 113-303) Amendment No. 158: Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) offered an amendment that would fund a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors from Afghanistan. The amendment was similar to H.R. 780.
How did your representative vote?

Amendment withdrawn: Amendment No. 155: Rep. Adam Smith (WA), Rep. John Garamendi (CA) and Rep. Chris Gibson (NY) would have offered an amendment to strike and replace language in section 1216 of the NDAA. The amendment expressed the need for an "expedited withdrawal" from Afghanistan, but formally authorizes Counter Terrorism (CT) operations--a dangerous and unnecessary precedent. Rep. Smith withdrew this amendment and shifted support to Amendment No. 101 (McGovern/Jones).

Iran

(Passed en bloc/without roll call vote) Amendment No. 95: Rep. John Conyers (MI) and Rep. Ron Paul (TX) offered a bipartisan amendment stating that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran.”

(Failed 77-344) Amendment No. 161: Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) and Rep. John Conyers (MI) offered an amendment that would appoint a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
How did your representative vote?

(Passed en bloc/without roll call vote) Amendment No. 133: Rep. Michael Conaway (TX) offered a dangerous pro-war amendment which would require the administration to prepare extraordinarily detailed contingency plans for an attack on Iran and put further pressure on the administration to support an Israeli attack on Iran. It also seeks to increase U.S. and Israeli military presence in the Mideast.

Note: Tell Congress not to authorize war with Iran and see Kate Gould's analysis for more.

Military Spending

(Failed 170-252) Amendment No. 42 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) offered an amendment to limit funding for the Department of Defense to a cap set by the Budget Control Act, reducing the top line number by $8 billion.
How did your representative vote?

(In Order) Amendment No. 117: Rep. Buck McKeon (CA) offered an amendment that would remove caps on defense spending set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Military Detainees

(Failed 182-238) Amendment No. 151: Rep. Adam Smith (WA) and Rep. Justin Amash (MI) offered an amendment ending mandatory military detention for terror suspects arrested and detained in the U.S. Instead, anyone arrested under the AUMF would have the right to a civilian trial in a regular (Article III) court of law. See a brief description of the amendment, with language and FCNL’s letter.
How did your representative vote?

Nuclear Weapons

(Failed 112-308) Amendment No. 11: Reps. Markey (MA), Welch (VT) and Conyers (MI) offered an amendment to delay the development of the new, long-range, nuclear-capable bomber by 10 years and delete $292 million in spending for FY 2013. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START.
How did your representative vote?

(Passed 238-162) Amendment No. 59: Reps. Rehberg (MT) and Lummis (WY) offered an amendment that would add an unnecessary provision to the NDAA to undermine the U.S. ability to implement the 2010 New START Treaty. The amendment would impose a one-for-one reduction implementation process that is impractical and militarily unnecessary.
How did your representative vote?

(Out of Order) Amendment No. 67: Rep. Ed Markey (MA) planned to offer an amendment to defund a new nuclear bomb plant in New Mexico. The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility would increase the U.S. capacity to produce nuclear weapons and would cost taxpayers around $5.8 billion.

(Out of Order) Amendment No. 165: Rep. Jared Polis (CO) planned to offer an amendment to return funding levels for nuclear weapons activities to the administration’s request. Savings resulting from the amendment would be directed to deficit reduction.

(Out of Order) Amendment No. 130: Rep. John Garamendi (CA) planned to offer an amendment to defund a new missile defense site on the East Coast. The planned site would cost up to $5 billion and uses technology that has failed multiple tests.

Note: for more information on these amendments read our action alert here.

Drones

(Failed by voice vote) Amendment No. 124: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Rep. John Conyers (MI) offered an amendment that would prohibit drone strikes on unidentified targets.

Read the full bill without amendments here.

We need your help to stop the bad amendments and push forward on the good ones. Call the Capitol Hill switchboard toll-free at 877-429-0678, ask for your member of Congress by name and let them know how you feel about some of the amendments that will be proposed.

See a full list of amendments FCNL has been watching here.

Iran Amendments

(Passed en bloc/without roll call vote) Amendment No. 95: Rep. John Conyers (MI) and Rep. Ron Paul (TX) offered a bipartisan amendment stating that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran.”

(Failed 77-344) Amendment No. 161: Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) and Rep. John Conyers (MI) offered an amendment that would appoint a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

(Passed en bloc/without roll call vote) Amendment No. 133: Rep. Michael Conaway (TX) offered a dangerous pro-war amendment which would require the administration to prepare extraordinarily detailed contingency plans for an attack on Iran and put further pressure on the administration to support an Israeli attack on Iran. It also seeks to increase U.S. and Israeli military presence in the Mideast.

National Defense Authorization Bill 2013 (H.R. 4310): Sections Relating to Iran

Section 1221—Declaration of Policy
This section would express certain findings related to the threat represented by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United States, the State of Israel, and Iran's neighbors. This section would further declare that it is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if necessary, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Iran SEC. 1221. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

Section 1222—United States Military Preparedness in the Middle East
This section includes findings that recognize the importance to the national security of the United States and its allies of conducting military exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. These exercises benefit the readiness of the U.S. military and allied forces, as well as serve as a signal to the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the willingness of the United States to defend its national security interests.

This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to submit to thecongressional defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of theenactment of this Act, a plan to strengthen the presence of the U.S. 5th Fleet in theMiddle East to include conducting military deployments, exercises, and othermilitary readiness activities.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Iran, which has long sought to foment instability and promote extremism in the Middle East, is now seeking to exploit the dramatic political transition underway in the region to undermine governments traditionally aligned with the United States and support extremist political movements in these countries.

1 SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

(2) At the same time, Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would threaten United States interests, destabilize the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower and embolden Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provide it the tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel.

(3) With the assistance of Iran over the past several years, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas have increased their stockpiles of rockets, with more than 60,000 rockets now ready to be fired at Israel. Iran continues to add to its arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, which threaten Iran’s neighbors, Israel, and United States Armed Forces in the region.

(4) Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is among the most urgent national security challenges facing the United States.

(5) Successive United States administrations have stated that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

(6) President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, ‘‘Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.’’

(7) In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option.

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

(8) Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures, sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

(9) With the impact of additional sanctions uncertain, additional pressure on the Government of Iran could come from the credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

(b) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) military exercises conducted in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman emphasize the United States resolve and the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b) by enhancing the readiness of the United States military and allied forces, as well as signaling to the Government of Iran the commitment of the United States to defend its vital national security interests; and

(2) the President, as Commander in Chief, should augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

(b) PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, steps necessary for the Armed Forces to support the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b), including— (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean; (B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

(C) discussing the viability of deploying at least two United States aircraft carriers, an additional large deck amphibious ship, and a Mine Countermeasures Squadron in the region on a continual basis, in support of the actions described in subparagraph (B); and

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

(3) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Counter-Drug Activities in Afghanistan

The committee recognizes the President’s current plan to cease combat operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The Government of Afghanistan's ability to provide security for its own population relies in part on its ability to control narco-trafficking. The committee notes that Afghanistan’s link to the worldwide drug trade promotes instability and provides funding for terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Following the end of combat operations in 2014, the counter-drug programs developed in Afghanistan will remain vital to preserving stability in the region. The committee acknowledges that over the course of Operation Enduring Freedom, the United States has invested approximately $2.25 billion in counter-drug training and programs. This investment must not be neglected by the pending withdrawal from Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for counter-drug programs and funding following combat operations in Afghanistan, and to submit a report on the strategy to the congressional defense committees by November 30, 2012. The strategy should outline the goals of both the U.S. military and civilian personnel as well as the Afghan military and police forces with respect to counter-drug programs. Also, the committee notes the need to outline timelines and resources necessary to accomplish these goals.

Study on Terrorist Organization Linkages in the Western Hemisphere

The committee notes the efforts made by the United States andgovernments in the Western Hemisphere in combating counter-drug and counterterrorism activities. The committee commends these governments for improving stability in the region as a result of counter-drug initiatives. However, the committee continues to be concerned about the increasing presence of transnational criminal organizations and internationally recognized terrorist organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere. The committee is aware that international terrorist organizations have participated in narcotrafficking, human-trafficking, and money laundering within the region, which has contributed to increasing violence. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on terrorist organizations operating in the WesternHemisphere and submit the findings of the study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee by November 30, 2012. The study should include the activities of state sponsors of terror within theregion, the current locations and organizational structure of the international terrorist groups operating in the Western Hemisphere, as well as a comprehensive analysis of the activities and strategic intentions of Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Quds Force, and Al Qaeda and its associated movements in the Western Hemisphere.

Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy Act

HR 4173

View the full text of the bill

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committee for consideration.

Legislation We Oppose

Iran Sanctions Act of 2011

S. 2101

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Not yet voted on

Pushing for Military Action Against a "Nuclear Weapons Capable" Iran

S. Res 380 - companion legislation to H. Res. 568

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Not yet voted on

More Information:
Experts push back against S. Res 380.
Contact your senator to say NO to S. Res 380.
Eight groups wrote a letter to Congress opposing this bill.
Senator Rand Paul opposes this bill.

Pushing for Military Action Against a "Nuclear Weapons Capable" Iran

H.Res 568 - companion legislation to S. Res. 380

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Not yet voted on

More Information:
Contact your senator to oppose this bill.
Eight groups wrote a letter to Congress opposing this bill.

Designate Unit of Iran’s Armed Forces as a Terrorist Organization

H.R. 3698

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Endorsement of Israeli Strike Against Iran

H. Res 271

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Not yet voted on

H. Con. Res 115 - This resolution, presented as a commemoration of the 64th birthday of the State of Israel, includes a clause on the nuclear standoff with Iran that endorses “the use of military force [against Iran] if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.”

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Not yet voted on

H.Res.630

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Prepare for War with Iran, Fund New Weapons in Persian Gulf

H.R. 4485

View the full text of the bill.

View the co-sponsors of the bill.

Status of the bill: Referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Keith Ellison (MN)
Chairman, Congressional Progressive Caucus
"Instead of spending billions on a war that is not making us safer, we could better advance U.S. national security by providing greater support to people in Middle Eastern countries fighting for freedom and democracy."
CNN, May 1, 2012

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA)
Armed Services Committee
"...I reiterate my call for an accelerated drawdown in Afghanistan. Our military efforts have largely driven al-Qaeda from that country. It is time for our troops to come home and our focus to turn to training Afghan troops and government to take over operations."
Statement on Incident in Afghanistan, March 11, 2012

Senator Max Baucus (MT)
Chair of Finance Committee
"We simply cannot afford more years of elevated troop levels in Afghanistan…a majority of Americans worry that the costs of the war in Afghanistan will make it more difficult for the government to address the problems facing the United States at home."
Letter to President Obama, March 8, 2012

Sen. Jeff Merkley
Budget Committee
"…there is no evidence that extending the U.S. combat role through 2014 is likely to materially impact the stated goals of leaving an Afghan military capable of securing the country and of developing a central government capable of delivering services and commanding the respect and loyalty of the Afghan people."
Letter to President Obama, February 6th, 2012

Sen. Bob Casey (PA)
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern, South and Central Asian Affairs
"Significant challenges do indeed remain, but based on... the significant cost of our current policy, it is time, after ten long years, to begin the drawdown process."
Senate Floor, June 21, 2011

Sen. Joe Manchin (WV)
Committee on Armed Services
“I, for one, will not look West Virginians in the eye and tell them that in order to raise the debt ceiling, vital programs and funding for Social Security, Medicare, our schools, roads, healthcare, veterans, seniors, infrastructure – will be slashed – but we will continue to spend billions building schools, roads, infrastructure in Afghanistan.”
Senate Floor, June 21, 2011

Sen. Harry Reid (NV)
Majority Leader
“The American people have war fatigue. It's been going on for a long, long time. I think the president was right when he said July 1 there's going to be a drawdown. He said that a long time ago. And there's going to be a drawdown. I am confident that it will be one that's substantial. I certainly hope so . . . The president knows how I feel. I have told him that I hope that there's a troop withdrawal, one of significance.”
Lehrer News Hour, June 17, 2011

Senator Herb Kohl (WI)
Judiciary Committee
"In light of this progress, many Americans are hoping that our forces can soon come home from Afghanistan after a decade of war. I share this desire to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan, beginning with a sizable and sustained reduction in forces this summer."
Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Secretary of Defense Gates, June 15, 2011

Sen. Chris Coons (DE)
Committee on Foreign Relations
"A substantial drawdown of forces -- which I support -- should not be the first step on a course of total disengagement from Afghanistan. Rather, it should mark the beginning of a new, more targeted counter-terrorism strategy that more wisely focuses our military and diplomatic resources on defending America's security interests."
Coons OpEd, Delaware New Journal, June 14, 2011

Sen. Dick Durbin (IL)
Assistant Majority Leader
“It’s time to bring the troops home. The president said we would start in the middle of this year and we should, in a dramatic fashion. Bring the troops home. We cannot afford, [and] it is unsustainable, to continue to lose these lives in Afghanistan…”
MSNBC, June 8, 2011

Sen. Rand Paul (KY)
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
It is the soldier's job to do his duty-but it is the citizen's job to question their government-particularly when it comes to putting our soldiers in harm's way. Does our national security still require troops in Afghanistan? After a decade in Afghanistan, do we need to reassess whether being there is in our national security interest?"
Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy speech, June 8, 2011

Sen. Bob Corker (TN)
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“All of us know the model we have in Afghanistan is not sustainable.”
C-SPAN, June 8, 2011

Sen. Carl Levin (MI)
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
"I think [President Obama] should stick to the commitment he made that there would be a significant reduction of U.S. forces in July. I think that's going to be the key issue. It's a critically important issue. There are billions of dollars involved in this decision."
MSNBC, June 07, 2011

Rep. Walter Jones (NC)
House Armed Service Committee
“If we’re going to cut programs for children who need milk in the morning, if we’re going to cut programs for seniors who need a sandwich at lunch, if we’re going to cut veterans benefits, then, for God’s sake, let’s bring back our troops from Afghanistan.”
New York Times, June 07, 2011

Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD)
House Minority Leadership 
"I think … the American people want to see is a shift from the U.S. playing the dominating role in Afghanistan to a significant and early transfer of responsibility to the Afghan people and certainly I think the end of the year, a significant, substantial draw down would accommodate that objective."
ABC News, June 6, 2011

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA)
House Appropriations Committee
“We need to begin to end this war Afghanistan. This is costing 100 Billion-plus a year. Our young men and woman have done a phenomenal job and it is time to bring them home.” 
C-SPAN, June 2, 2011

Rep. Norm Dicks (WA).
Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee
“We need to start seeing if we can do this a little faster, I think the American people would overwhelmingly like to see this brought to a conclusion sooner than 2014.”
Politico, June 02, 2011

Rep. Jim McGovern (MA)
House Committee on Rules
“I told [President Obama] that if it’s just a token drawdown [this July], I think people will be pretty outraged by that. The American people want an end to this war.” 
Washington Post, June 02, 2011

Sen. Max Baucus (MT)
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee
"To meet the growing challenges around the world, we need to start bringing our troops home from Afghanistan this July and complete the withdrawal by the end of next year.”
Senate Floor via YouTube, June 1, 2011

Rep. Harold Rogers (KY)
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee
"We're spending a lot of money in Afghanistan. I sometimes wonder what the real mission there is and the likelihood of a successful outcome. Like most Americans who have watched this war all these years, I find it is very difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the progress or lack of progress."
CQ, Politics, June 01, 2011

Sen. Jim Webb (VA)
Senate Armed Service Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee
"It doesn’t make a lot of sense to occupy territory … and become defensive, static targets, instead of finding smart ways to fight international terrorism, … we were going to be sort of ineluctably drawn into this short war and very long occupation of Iraq. And that model, in some form, also has been used in Afghanistan. It’s a model that probably heartens a lot of the people who wish us ill.”
Politico, May 24, 2011

Rep. John Garamendi (CA)
House Armed Service Committee
"I wholeheartedly support our soldiers and their families, [but] I cannot in good conscience vote to extend a war without an endgame… [fighting] Afghanistan’s internal civil war is not in the long-term national interest of the United States."
Press Release, May 12, 2011

Sen. Richard Lugar (IL)
Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“It is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, May 03, 2011

Sen. John Kerry (MA)
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“What we need is a discussion with our partners about how this war ends, what an acceptable end-state looks like, and what steps we need to take to get there.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, May 03, 2011

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Select Committee on Intelligence
“We should get out of Afghanistan. We can't win there. We can't change the country...”
Charleston Gazette, April 19, 2011

Rep. Justin Amash (MI)
House Budget Committee
“I believe we accomplished our primary goals — to disrupt al-Qaeda and those who are harboring them. But we’ve been there 10 years, and no one is telling me what the objectives are now. There needs to be an end game.”
Grand Rapids News, March 22, 2011

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA)
House Armed Service Committee
“The time is long overdue for the U.S. to depart [Afghanistan].”
The Seattle Times, March 16, 2011

Sen. Jon Tester (MT)
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
“I cannot emphasize enough the power the president had when he said we’re going to start removing troops in July, it really put pressure on the Afghans to say, ‘All right, these guys aren’t going to be here forever, we need to step up and take control of our future.’ And I think we need to continue that pressure, and when we have the possibility of removing troops, we ought to be doing it.”
Independent Record, February 6, 2011

Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State ‎
"To encourage [the multilateral diplomacy] process [in Afghanistan], a deadline should be established for reaching a residual force — say, in 18 months to two years, with the major reductions coming at the end of the process."  
Washington Post, June 08, 2011

Joe Scarborough
Political Commentator, Former Member of Congress
“We need to bring the troops home. We have been there too long. We have been spending two billion dollars a week rebuilding Afghanistan instead of spending 2 billion dollars per week rebuilding our infrastructure, rebuilding our schools, rebuilding America.”
MSNBC, June 10, 2011

Fareed Zakaria
Journalist, author, and Editor-at-Large for TIME Magazine
“When the deadline to begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan arrives in July, I hope there will be substantial troop withdrawals.”
CNN, May 10, 2011

Richard N. Haass
President, Council on Foreign Relations
“Afghanistan is simply absorbing more economic, military, human, diplomatic, and political resources of every sort than it warrants. The $110-$120 billion annual price tag…is unjustifiable given the budget crisis we face."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, May 3, 2011

Mitt Romney
Republican presidential candidate
"It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, only the Afghanis (sic) can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban."
Republican presidential debate, June 13, 2011

Newt Gingrich
Republican presidential candidate
"I think that we’re risking the lives of young men and women in a mission that may frankly not be doable...I think it's very likely that we have lost, tragically lost, the lives and suffered injuries to a considerable number of young Americans on a mission that we’re going to discover is not doable."
Politico, March 11, 2012

Rochester Area Mennonite Fellowship, NY

Kendall Meeting, PA

Storrs Friends Meeting, CT

Third Haven Friends Meeting, MD

Leonia Vigil for Peace

University Friends Meeting, WA

First Church Congregational, Rochester, NH

Pax Christi Burtonsville, MD

Jefferson Unitarian Church Peace, Liberty and Justice, CO

Amesbury Monthly Meeting, MA

Lexington Friends Meeting, KY

Greater Miami Anonymous, FL

Minnesota "Say No to War on Iran" Coalition

Patuxent Friends Meeting, MD

Topeka Friends Meeting, KS

Bridge City Friends Meeting, WA

Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, PA

Sparta United Methodist Church, NJ

Blacksburg Friends + Occupy Blacksburg, VA

Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center, OH

St. Croix Valley Friends Meeting, MN

Iowans for Diplomacy with Iran

Gunpowder Friends Meeting, MD

Martha's Vineyard Peace Council, MA

Bloomington Friends Meeting, IN

NW Iowa Peace Links

Grandmothers for Peace and Lyndale United Church of Christ, MN

Dominican Sisters Grand Rapids, MI

First Church Boston, MA

Missoula Friends Meeting, MT

Chapel Hill Friends, NC

Red River Veterans for Peace, Chapter 154, ND

Davidson Friends Meeting, NC

Pasco for Paul, FL

Rochester Monthly Meeting, NY

East Liberty Presbyterian Church, PA

Syracuse Peace Council, NY

Albany, New York Friends Meeting

Episcopal Peace Fellowship, IL

Pax Christi, Santa Cruz, CA

Grace Church Episcopal PF, MA

Crosslands Retirement Center, PA

Friends Meeting of Washington, MD

Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign

Westminster Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, NM

Homewood Friends Meeting, MD

Ann Arbor Open School, MI

Western New York Peace Center

Veterans for Peace

Peace House of Oklahoma City, OK

Nebraskans for Peace

Peace & Justice Coalition of Prince George's County, MD

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Bloomington, IN

Peace Fresno, CA

Near West Citizens for Peace and Justice, IL

Iran Project of Women Against War, NY

Cleveland, Ohio Peace Action

Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War

Carolina Peace Resource Center, SC

Minnesota Peace Project, MN

Sisters of Mercy, MD

Citizens for Peace and Justice, OR

American Farm Bureau Federation

"The Farm Bureau is the unified national voice of agriculture, working through our grassroots organizations to enhance and strengthen the lives of rural Americans and to build strong, prosperous agricultural communities."

PDF Full Text Version

"In order to continue the U.S. policy of making agricultural commodities available as humanitarian exports, Farm Bureau encourages the continued use of a general license for exports of humanitarian goods. For these transactions to occur, clear direction must be given to global financial institutions that financing humanitarian sales will not place them in violation of U.S. sanctions regulations.

Farm Bureau requests that the explicit humanitarian exemptions for U.S. agricultural commodities be maintained in any sanctions legislation against Iran. The sanctions program must ensure that the food and fiber our farmers and ranchers produce remain a core component of the humanitarian relief for the citizens of the sanctioned nation."

U.S. Dairy Export Council

"The U.S. Dairy Export Council is a non-profit, independent membership organization that represents the global trade interests of U.S. dairy producers, proprietary processors and cooperatives, ingredient suppliers and export traders."

PDF Full Text Version

"...USDEC believes it is critical to ensure that any sanctions-related legislation contains clearly stated exemptions for humanitarian exports that relate not only to the permission to send these products themselves, but also to the financial transactions that allow such sales to take place. Without this, it is likely that the export of humanitarian goods will not be able to occur since banks require very clear direction on this matter in order to ensure that permitting the financial transactions related to humanitarian exports will not risk placing them in violation of any U.S. sanctions regulations."

National Grain and Feed Association & North American Export Grain Association

"The National Grain and Feed Association, founded in 1896, is a broad-based, non-profit trade association that represents and provides services for grain, feed and related commercial businesses."

"The North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA), a not for profit trade association, established in 1912, consists of private and publicly owned companies and farmer-owned cooperatives that are involved in and provide services to the bulk grain and oilseed exporting industry."

PDF Full Text Version for Joint Letter

"Allowing the continued export of U.S. grains and oilseeds within the rubric of U.S. foreign policy-related sanctions is a critical element in maintaining the United States’ reputation as a preferred and reliable provider around the world. Making grains and oilseeds available as humanitarian exports is necessary particularly in these times of heightened concern within net food-importing countries over food security."

National Association of Manufacturers

"The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is the nation’s largest industrial trade association, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturers in the U.S. produce and export a range of goods intended for humanitarian trade, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to diapers and bandages."

PDF Full Text Version

"As Congressional consideration of sanctions proceeds, we respectfully request that strong and explicit humanitarian exemptions for licensed exports be maintained with respect to product coverage as well as the necessary financial transactions related to this trade. It is imperative that any sanctions legislation contain a clear and comprehensive humanitarian exemption to the recommended sanctions on SWIFT messaging for financial transactions.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) messaging service is the dominant communication mechanism for international financial transactions. SWIFT transmits an average of 17 million financial messages a day, facilitating trillions of dollars in cross-border payments. Without SWIFT messaging, there can be no financial transactions. Without financial transactions, there can be no licensed humanitarian trade."

The White House, the Pentagon, U.S. intelligence, and reportedly even Israeli intelligence and leaders of the Israeli military, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all have reached the same conclusions about Iran's nuclear program:

1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon-it only has a civilian nuclear program at this point
2) Iran is not building a nuclear weapon
3) Iran has not made the decision of whether or not to build a nuclear weapon in the future

"Reuters put it another way: "The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead."

Below are a sampling of quotes from U.S. and Israeli officials clarifying that while Iran's nuclear program is a source of concern, Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons. See more quotes from U.S. and Israeli officials warning against an attack on Iran.

U.S. Officials

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us." 2/8/12, Face the Nation

"I think [Iran is] developing a nuclear capability [but] our intelligence makes clear that they haven't made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon." 2/28/12, Senate Budget Committee

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

"We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.[…] We continue to judge Iran's nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran."

01/31/12, Unclassified Statement for the Record on the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Responding to question from Senator Lindsey Graham: "You have doubt about the Iranian's intention when it comes to making a nuclear weapon?"

JAMES CLAPPER:

I do […] I think they're keeping themselves in a position to make that decision but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time. [...]"

02/16/12, Senate Armed Services Committee

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey:

In response to Fareed Zakaria's question, "Do you think that is still unclear, that [Iran is] moving on a path for nuclear technology, but whether or not they choose to make a nuclear weapon is unclear? Dempsey:

"It is. I believe it is unclear, and on that basis I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us. I mean, I think that the economic sanctions and the international cooperation that we've been able to gather around sanctions is beginning to have an effect. I think our diplomacy is having an effect, and our preparedness."

2/1912, CNN

Israeli Officials

Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, head of the Israeli military (IDF):

"[Iran] is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't decided to go the extra mile."

"I don't think [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei] will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."

4/25/12, The Guardian

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak:

"[Iran has] not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons."

04/25/12, The Raw Story 

Find out more.

Find out more.

Dear Colleague,

Last weekend, the United States joined with the five permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany in diplomatic talks with Iran over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

I invite you to read the analysis below from the Friend’s Committee on National Legislation, and to become a cosponsor of my bill, H.R. 4173, which supports robust efforts to seek a diplomatic resolution in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

To become a cosponsor, or if you have any questions, contact Teddy Miller in my office.

Thank you,

Barbara Lee

Member of Congress

**********
What A Difference A Day of Iran Talks Makes

By Kate Gould on 04/16/2012 @ 02:40 PM

After ten hours of talks with Iran, opportunities for a diplomatic resolution of the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program have dramatically improved, and Congress gears up to vote on yet another attempt to kill diplomacy before the next round of talks.

After the first talks in more than a year, the parties have agreed to meet again on May 23 for an additional round of talks. Considering the high stakes involved, hitting the ‘snooze’ button on the proverbial‘alarm clock of confrontation’, as journalist Tony Karon put it, is a real achievement. Agreeing to more talks signals a commitment from all parties at the table to hold off on war—at least for now.

10 Hours of Talks: the Highlights

The most notable accomplishment of the talks were that negotiators agreed to adopt a framework for ensuring Iran’s nuclear program is solely used for peaceful purposes which is endorsed by virtually every diplomat, arms control expert, government official, citizen activist, or anyone else who is serious in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and a catastrophic war: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Agreeing to the NPT framework is a win-win-win-win-win-win-win decision for all seven parties involved. Iran ‘wins’ because under the NPT, Iran, as a signatory, has the right to a civilian nuclear program under strict international safeguards. This agreement demonstrates that the P5+1 (The U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia, and Germany) acknowledges that Iran will continue to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. This decision is a flat out rejection of the demand, that many in Congress have made, for Iran to surrender its entire nuclear program.

The P5+1 parties ‘wins’ because the NPT also requires that Iran fully cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog. The NPT also provides a more detailed framework called the “Additional Protocols”, which would ensure even more intrusive inspections and other guarantees against any attempt by Iran to weaponize nuclear material.

Unfortunately, the talks were immediately denounced by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who has pushed for a more aggressive policy toward Iran, which directly contradicts a wide swath of the Israeli military and intelligence establishment, and the Israeli population at large. In a clearly symbolic move, Senator Joe Lieberman (CT), the principal architect of legislation pressing the administration to abandon diplomacy and push toward war, stood next to Netanyahu while he blasted the talks.

While critics argue that the talks haven't produced an instantaneous solution, it's rather astonishing to see how ten hours of talks dramatically diminished the drumbeat for war. It’s all the more impressive when considering that in real terms, as the Guardian reported, the ten hours of Saturday's talks boiled down to a lot less than five hours, because the negotiations were conducted in English, requiring Farsi translation for the Iranian negotiator.

Those ten hours also included an awkward lunch break, that illustrated just how much work ahead there is to build trust between the parties. According to one diplomat’s account of the buffet lunch at Istanbul’s conference center, the P5+1 team sat on one end of the room, and Iran’s negotiating team sat at another. As if the two teams represented opposite genders at a middle school dance, there was reportedly, “no contact at all”.

Yet, with all these complications, progress the parties were still able to agree on a common framework for the talks, and to commit to further negotiations. While hawks have long insisted that anything less than an immediate solution spells failure, U.S. national security experts agree that for diplomacy to be effective, it must be sustained.

In fact, the very reason why diplomacy hasn't yielded more results is because there has never been sustained U.S.-Iran diplomacy since the countries severed diplomatic relations in 1980. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Israel, and a host of other countries recently pointed out to Congress that U.S.-Iran diplomacy has been merely a series of 'one-night stands':

“Past talks have suffered....because they have been a series of one-night stands, meetings that took place over one day, where one side or the other, either Iran or the United States, had a proposal, and the other side rejected it. They went away and then spent another six to eight months negotiating a resumption.”

Will Congress Kill Talks?

Hardliners on all sides—in Iran, the United States, and in other countries—have sabotaged promising opportunities for diplomacy before. This time, the Senate was on the verge of passing a far-reaching Iran sanctions package that could well have undermined the talks last weekend—if it wasn’t blocked by Senator Rand Paul (KY).

As early as this week, Congress is expected to vote on this sanctions bill, along with dangerous resolutions that would lower the threshold for war with Iran, and endorse ultimatums that would make diplomacy all but impossible.

With another round of talks scheduled in a month, there is great potential, but also great risk of Congress sabotaging the talks. It's a crucial time for advocates of a diplomatic resolution to the U.S.-Iran crisis mobilize, and build the political space necessary for the United States and Iran to reject impossible demands that would kill the talks, and to keep talking.

"Oppose Aggression" by Nancy Milio in The Chapel Hill News, NC, 5/9/2012

“Diplomacy with Iran” by John Corr in The Highline Times, IA, 5/01/2012

“Back Iran bill” by Pamela Gilchrist in The Santa Fe New Mexican, NM, 4/29/2012

“Observance, tikkun olam can go together” by Bunny Shuch in Jewish News of Greater Phoenix Online, AZ, 4/27/2012

"Diplomacy, Not Sabotage," by Joann Henderson, Eugene Weekly, OR, 4/26/12

"Support Use of Diplomacy with Iran," by Joanne Megna-Wallace, Newburyport News, MA, by 4/26/12

"Diplomacy is the best way forward," by Mark Perkins, Rochester Times, NY, 4/26/12

“A vote for diplomacy” by Austin Chehrazi in J. Weekly, CA, 4/26/2012

“Support diplomacy with Iran” by Andrea Clur in The Maui Weekly, HI, 4/26/2012

"Diplomacy is best way," by A. Mongere, Denton Record-Chronicle, TX, 4/26/12

"Diplomacy Deserves a Chance," by Frank Sabatini in The Republican Herald, PA, 4/26/12

"Give Diplomacy a Chance," by Jim Head, The Macomb Daily, MI, 4/25/12

"Diplomacy is the Most Effective Tool in Dealing with Iran," by Michael Shores, East Valley Tribune, AZ, 4/25/12

"Diplomacy with Iran Necessary," by FCNL Program Assistant Katherine Zager, Hartford Courant, CT, 4/25/12

"Diplomacy is the answer," by Jacob Raitt, Washington Jewish Week, MD, 4/25/12

"Resist the Frenzied Rhetoric," by FCNL General Committee member Deb Fink, Ames Tribune, IA, 4/25/12

"Diplomacy is Best Plan with Iran," by Brody Hagemeier, St. Cloud Times, MN, 4/24/12

"Peace How," by Van and Louis Hamilton and Paul Ramos, Santa Barbara Independent, CA, by 4/24/12

"Diplomacy…give it a chance." by Kelly Phelps, The Richfield Reaper, UT, 4/24/2012

"Stick with diplomacy," by Arthur Yeatman, Daily Local News, PA, 4/24/12

"Diplomacy can deal with Iran" by Richard Boyce in The Cincinnati Enquirer, OH, 4/23/2012

"Need more diplomacy, fewer scare tactics aimed at Iran" by FCNL Program Assistant Patrick Lozada in The Charlotte Observer, NC, 4/22/2012

"Support diplomacy with Iran," by Anne Mongere, The Dallas Morning News, TX, by 4/22/12

"Iran's Nuclear Program: Give Diplomacy a Chance," by Tony Rukab, The Florida Times-Union, FL, 4/21/12

"I Hope Guthrie Signs onto Iran Envoy Bill" by FCNL Intern, Hilary Johnson, in Bowling Green Daily News, KY, 04/17/2012

"Iran Won't Respond to Threats" by Urbane Peachey in PennLive, PA, 4/6/2012

"Same Specious Argument," by Ivend Holen, The Mail Tribune, OR, 4/5/12

"The time for diplomacy is now," by Ed Flaherty, The Gazette, IA, 2/7/12

"U.S. Must Avoid Another Catastrophic War" by Nathaniel Betchelder in Tulsa World, OK, 1/27/2012

Delegations from the U.S. to Israel/Palestine

Tour Groups in Israel and Palestine

Peace-Building Organizations

Delegations from the U.S. to Israel/Palestine

Christian Peacemaker Teams (Palestine)
CPT is a faith-based organization that supports nonviolent Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation, while advocating for justice and peace. They offer the opportunity to visit with human rights workers in  Palestine, to meet with individuals affected by the occupation and to engage in nonviolent public witness.
Contact: (773) 376-0550
Email: peacemakers@cpt.org

Friends of Sabeel
Friends of Sabeel is a movement started by Christian Palestinians advocating for a two-state solution and peace between Israel and Palestine. They offer alternative travel to visit Christian Holy Land sites, as well as witness the realities of political and military occupation.
Contact: (503) 653-6625
Email: friends@fosna.org

Global Exchange
Global Exchange offers multiple travel options including a fact-finding delegation to expose the realities of occupation, an educational experience learning fair trade cooperatives between Israel and Palestine, and an examination of the impact of the occupation on the environment in Palestine.
Contact: (415) 255-7296
Email: web@globalexchange.org

Interfaith Peacebuilders
Interfaith Peacebuilders' delegations meet with representatives from Palestine and Israel to discuss nonviolent solutions to the conflict and powerful, productive ways to end the occupation.
Contact: (202) 244-0821
Email: office@ifpb.org

Tour Groups in Israel and Palestine

Alternative Tours
Alternative Tours offers half day and full day tours of a West Bank refugee camp, Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho, Nazareth, Qalqilya and the Dead Sea.
Contact Abu Hassan at 0522-864205
Email: abuhasan@alqudsnet.com

Alternative Tourism Group Palestine
Alternative Tourism Group offers tours and pilgrimages that include a strong emphasis on the history, culture and politics of the Holy Land.
Contact: +972-2-2772151
Email: info@atg.ps

Breaking the Silence
Breakign the Silence is a group of ex-soldiers who share what they did and saw while serving in Hebron. Their half-day tours also include conversations with Palestinian families who are affected by the settler and soldier violence.
Contact: info@breakingthesilence.org.il

Hanthala Tours
Hanthala Tours offers full day tours of the Old City of Hebron, refugee camps and the South Hebron Hills. They can also arrange home stays and cultural exchanges for tourists.
Contact: 0599.271.190
Email: h_sharabati@hotmail.com

Holy Land Trust
Holy Land Trust offers a variety of alternative travel including Christian and spiritual pilgrimages, olive harvesting and cuisine tours, home rebuilding experience, and volunteering missions.
Contact: +970-2-2765930
Email: encounter@holylandtrust.org

Ir Amim
Ir Amim offers tours of Jerusalem that discuss Israeli policy in Jerusalem since 1967, including the socio-economic and political implications of that policy on Israelis and Palestinians.
Contact: +972-2-6233973
Email: studytours@ir-amim.org.il

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
ICAHD offers half-day tours of East Jerusalem, including the Wall, settlements and home demolitions.
Contact: +972-50-7750754
Email: tours@icahd.org

Jerusalem Reality Tours
Jerusalem Reality Tours offers half-, full- and multi-day tours around Jerusalem, showing diverse communities including refugees, settlers, Beduin, and Mizrahi Jews.
Contact: +972-0-523634370
Email: jerusalemrealitytours@gmail.com

Siraj Center
Siraj Center offers numerous travel experiences, including youth exchange programs, Christian Holy Land programs, cultural and historical programs, and host family programs.
Contact: +972-2-274-8590
Email: info@sirajcenter.org

The Telos Group
Telos Groups offers a variety of tours including highly-personalized VIP tours, intensive cultural educational experiences, Holy Land pilgrimages and more.
Contact: +202-552-9661
Email: info@telosgroup.org

Click here for Just Vision's extensive list of additional tour group options.

Peace-Building Organizations

Al Aqaba (Through the Rebuilding Alliance)
The Rebuilding Alliance is working to rebuild homes in the village of Al Aqaba that were destroyed by Israeli military occupation.
Contact: +1-650-325-4663
Email: contact@rebuildingalliance.org

Al-Haq
Al-Haq is an NGO in the West Bank dedicated to ensuring human rights in Palestine. They work to document human rights violations and to bring the violators to justice.
Contact: +972-2-2954646/7/9
To email Al-Haq, please visit their website.

American Friends Service Committee - Palestine
AFSC works in Palestine to support youth in meeting local humanitarian, economic, social and educational needs.
To contact American Friends Service Committee, please visit their website.

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
B'Tselem works to document Israeli human rights violations in Palestine and to educate the Israeli public about these events, in order to transform the widespread phenomenon of denial in Israel.
Contact: +972-2-6735599
Email: mail@btselem.org

Combatants for Peace
This organization is part of a movement founded by former Israeli and Palestinian military. These individuals who once were part of the cycle of violence decided that they must be influential actors in the fight for peace.
To contact Combatants for Peace, please visit their website.

The Friends International Center in Ramallah
The Ramallah Friends Meeting is a vital part of the community in Ramallah, working with refugees, providing shelter and offering community programs.
Contact: +972-0-2-297-1314
Email (recommended): ficr@viva.ps

Hebron Rehabilitation Committee
HRC is committed to preserving the cultural integrity of Hebron, renovating cultural and historical sites and upgrading the buildings and infrastructure of the Old City.
Contact: +97-02-2226994/3
Email: hebronrc@hebronet.com

Mossawa Center: The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel
The Mossawa Center works to promote social, political economic equality for the 1.3 million Arab citizens of Israel, while also preserving and maintaining strong cultural ties to their Palestinian heritage.
Contact: +972-4-855-5901

Parents Circle Families Forum
Parents Circle Families Forum brings together both Israelis and Palestinians who have lost loved ones due to the decades-long conflict. By engaging both sides in joint activities, they encourage a process of reconciliation.
Contact: Israeli Office: +03-535-5080; office@theparentscircle.org
Contact: Palestinian Office: +02-275-5180; alquds@theparentcircle.org

Rabbis for Human Rights
Rabbis for Human Rights gives a voice to the Jewish tradition of human rights, by championing the rights of the poor and the minorities in Israel and the Palestinians, promote the equal status of women, and more.
To contact Rabbis for Human Rights, please visit their website.

Peace Now: Israel (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem Branches)
Peace Now represents the Israeli public who are advocating for peace between Israel and Palestine. They have worked to engage both Palestine and the international community in dialogue to further the peace process.
General Email: info@peacenow.org.il
Tel Aviv Branch: +972-3-6023300; chen@peacenow.org.il
Jerusalem Branch: +972-2-5660648; Danielle@peacenow.org.il

Ramallah Friends School
Ramallah Friends School is a primary and secondary educational institution in Ramallah.
Contact: +970-2-295-2286 E
Email: jumanathalji@rfs.edu.ps

Tent of Nations
Tent of Nations brings together youth from all over the world, specifically from conflict regions, to work on a farm that is threatened to be taken over by the Israeli government.
Contact: +972-2-274-3071
To email Tent of Nations, please visit their website.

Click here for Just Vision's extensive list of additional peace-building organizations in the region.

April 9, 2012

Barack Obama

President of the United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

We write to urge you to publicly call on the Government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release from prison Abdulhadi al-Khawaja. Al-Khawaja is a Bahraini human rights defender and democracy activist who may soon die, as he has been on a hunger strike for more than two months.

Al-Khawaja was arrested one year ago in the wake of popular protests against the Bahraini government, and sentenced to life in prison. While in detention, Al-Khawaja suffered from torture and severe ill-treatment. As a result, he was admitted to the Bahrain Defence Force Hospital in April last year with a cracked jaw and skull requiring several operations on his head and face.

To protest his ongoing detention and mistreatment, Al-Khawaja began a hunger strike on February 8. In an open letter to the King of Bahrain, Al-Khawaja pledged to stay on hunger strike until "freedom or death."

After being arrested in April 2011, Al-Khawaja was sentenced to life in prison in June 2011 as part of a group trial of 21 activists and human rights defenders. This group was charged with a range of offenses related to their role in peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain in February and March 2011. International human rights organizations and the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) have stated that the trials did not comply with international standards of due process, nor even Bahrain's own criminal code, because the 21 civilians were tried before National Safety Courts, which are military courts.

The evidence is clear that Al-Khawaja and others were sentenced in violation of their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, which are protected under international law.

We are deeply concerned about the health of human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, and respectfully request that the United States urge the Government of Bahrain to release Al-Khawaja immediately, and allow him to travel abroad, including for medical treatment, if he wishes to do so.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Project on Middle East Democracy
3P Human Security
Human Rights First
AFL-CIO
Human Rights Watch
AFL-CIO Solidarity Center
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Just Foreign Policy
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain
Open Society Foundations
Physicians for Human Rights
Amnesty International
Citizens for Global Solutions
Foreign Policy Initiative
Universal Muslim Association of America
Freedom House

FCNL joins 25 national organizations on a broad coalition letter to congressional leadership supporting diplomacy with Iran and against a war of choice. These 26 leading Iranian-American, Jewish-American, Muslim-American, arms control, human rights, pro-democracy, pro-peace, and faith organizations call for any legislation advanced by Congress to support a diplomatic resolution to the standoff and make absolutely clear there is no authorization for military force against Iran. The letter also urges Congress to oppose S. Res. 380/H. Res. 568 and support H.R. 4173.
****

Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader Pelosi, Minority Leader McConnell:

We are deeply concerned by the increasing prospects of a disastrous war between the United States and Iran. At a time of dangerously escalating tensions, we urge in the strongest possible terms that any legislation advanced by Congress support a diplomatic resolution to the standoff and make absolutely clear that there is no Congressional authorization for military force against Iran.

Ultimately, America's interests with Iran will only be successfully achieved through a diplomatic solution. We strongly encourage you to advance legislation in support of this goal, such as H.R.4173, the Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy Act. This legislation would advance diplomacy by lifting the "no contact policy" that bars U.S. diplomats from speaking with their Iranian counterparts. It would also establish a special envoy to lead direct talks with Iran, and would clarify that there is no authorization for war with Iran.

Similarly, we urge you to oppose S.Res.380 and H.Res.568, which greatly hinder the Administration's current diplomatic efforts by contradicting the long established U.S. "redline" of a nuclear-armed Iran, accepted and supported by our nation's military leaders and intelligence community. By introducing the undefined term "nuclear weapons capability," Congress would needlessly open the door to war based on a threshold that experts say could apply to numerous countries ranging from Brazil to Japan. This is a dangerous and irresponsible standard upon which to base the decision for military force and, if adopted as U.S. policy, would make a war of choice far more likely while obstructing a diplomatic, inspections-based solution.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently declared that a war of choice with Iran would be a "catastrophe." Military and civilian leaders have unanimously echoed this assessment and warned that a military attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran more likely. Economists have warned that war with Iran would impose tremendous burdens on the fragile global economy, dramatically spike gas prices, and cost an untold number of jobs here at home. Members of Iranian civil society have warned that war, and even the threat of war, would be devastating for human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran. The American people expect all diplomatic and peaceful options to be exhausted before any military action against Iran is considered. Our brave servicemen and women deserve nothing less. And all Americans deserve a Congress that will ensure that the United States will never initiate an unauthorized war of choice and will instead utilize every diplomatic means at its disposal to peacefully resolve the standoff with Iran.

Signed,

National Iranian American Council
3P Human Security
American Friends Service Committee
Americans for Peace Now
Center for Interfaith Engagement at Eastern Mennonite University
Center for International Policy
Council for a Livable World
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ
Holy Name Province Franciscan JPIC Office
Just Foreign Policy
Lancaster Interchurch Peace Witness
Muslim Public Affairs Council
New Internationalism Project of the Institute for Policy Studies
Peace Action
Peace Action West
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Progressive Democrats of America
Project On Middle East Democracy
Student Peace Alliance
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Win Without War
Women’s Action for New Directions

Below is a sampling of quotes from Iranian pro-democracy and human rights activists and U.S. national security officials who have spoken out against broad sanctions on Iran, warning that they can pave the path for war. Also, see which U.S. and Israeli officials are speaking out against military action against Iran, and which government officials and foreign policy experts are promoting diplomacy.

Iranian Pro-Democracy and Human Rights Activists

U.S. Experts

Iranian Pro-Democracy and Human Rights Activists

Shirin Ebadi, first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize

"“We oppose military attack on Iran or economic sanctions because that’s to the detriment of the people."

“Not withstanding the ten years of economic sanctions against Iraq. Saddam was still there, while many people died deprived of food and medication.”

Mehdi Karroubi, reformist politician and former presidential candidate

“These sanctions have given an excuse to the Iranian government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation of the country.”

“Look at Cuba and North Korea. Have sanctions brought democracy to their people? They have just made them more isolated and given them the opportunity to crack down on their opposition without bothering themselves about the international attention.”

Mir Hossein Mousavi, Iranian political reformist

“Sanctions would not affect the government but would impose many hardships upon the people, who suffer enough as a result of the calamity of their insane rulers.”

Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi

“Sanctions have targeted the most vulnerable social classes of Iran including workers and farmers...On the one hand, the government’s mishandling of the economy has resultedi n deep recession and rising inflation inside the country, which has crippled the people of Iran and resulted in the closure of numerous factories. On the other hand, we have sanctions which are strengthening the illegitimate government.”

Zahra Rahnavard, Iranian artist and politician

“Violence has many faces, and we identify economic sanctions as a vivid face of violence. Sanctions are a silent war against any nation that has risen up for democracy. Sanctions will exacerbate violence and crackdowns. Women and children are always the first group suffering from sanctions.”

Akbar Ganji, Iranian journalist and Cato Institute’s 2010 Milton Friedman Liberty Prize winner

“Economic sanctions would destroy the middle class (and)…the Green Movement…the more economic sanctions are applied against Iran, the more the government will control the economy.”

U.S. Experts

Robert Pape, Security Expert and Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago

Attribution: Robert Pape via Wikipedia Commons

“Economic sanctions are often a prelude to using military force.”

Trita Paris, President of the National Iranian American Council and Natasha Bahrami, foreign policy researcher

“The policymakers responsible for these measures either are ignorant of or are simply ignoring the empirical evidence: broad sanctions – total financial and trade embargoes – do not have a good track record of changing target countries’ policies or of pushing them toward democracy.”

David Lektzian, Professor of Political Science at Texas Tech University and Mark Souva, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University

“When dealing with nondemocratic countries, states should avoid broad sanctions that impose high economic costs on the population at large because most people in the country are not part of the autocratic leader’s winning coalition, so the economic costs imposed on the larger population do not translate into political costs for the regime.”

Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institute

“Indeed, the United States cannot hope to bargain with a country whose economy it is trying to disrupt and destroy. As severe sanctions devastate Iran’s economy, Tehran will surely be encouraged to double down on its quest for the ultimate deterrent.”

“Even as the Obama administration has imposed the broadest and most robust multilateral restrictions on Iran in history, all of Tehran’s most disturbing policies, including its aggressive nuclear programme, proceed apace.”

“Over time, sanctions have been integrated within the regime’s ideological narrative. Like the war with Iraq in the 1908s, economic pressure represents another component of the international conspiracy to undermine the Islamic Revolution, a plot that has been foiled by Iran’s wise and righteous leaders, who have used sanctions to the country’s benefit by strengthening its indigenous capabilities and sovereignty.”

U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Not the Answer

"We believe the means that are used to seek change in society either create or obstruct the desirable ends." -FCNL Statement 03/18/2011

The Friends Committee on National Legislation is gravely concerned by the Syrian regime's violence against civilians and crimes against humanity, in addition to the potential for a protracted civil war. We strongly oppose proposals that would further militarize the conflict, including direct armed intervention and Senator John McCain's (AZ) resolution, which calls for the U.S. to provide arms to opposition forces.

We are convinced that U.S. military intervention in Syria will only exacerbate the conflict and lead to even larger-scale bloodshed. Given Syria's strategic location in the Middle East, foreign military intervention could spark broader regional violence and proxy wars, as warned by the International Crisis Group and other Middle East experts. Beneath the horrific violence in Syria lie long-standing roots of conflict, including authoritarian government, sectarian divisions, inequitable power and wealth distribution, increasing pressures on natural resources, and a brutal legacy of colonial rule and foreign intervention.

War is the ultimate human rights violation, and U.S. military intervention would only increase the violence. It would undermine the possibility of finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis, halting the violence, providing accountability for the crimes against humanity, and encouraging Syrian self-determination.

The Syrian uprising was initiated through powerful demonstrations of nonviolence. The grassroots opposition network the Syrian Local Coordination Committees (LCC) has warned against military intervention, noting that "the method by which the regime is overthrown is an indication of what Syria will be like post-regime […] If an armed confrontation or international military intervention becomes a reality, it will be virtually impossible to establish a legitimate foundation for a proud future Syria."

Specifically, the U.S. can promote the protection of civilians and a resolution of the crisis by vigorously and persistently supporting:

Intense international engagement will be critical in order for such a diplomatic and humanitarian approach to be successful. FCNL believes that these recommendations offer the best chance to stop the violence, limit the loss of life, and restore Syria's path toward peace, stability, and reconciliation.

Recommended Reading:

Government officials and foreign policy experts from both sides of the political aisle call for diplomacy, not war, with Iran. Below is a sampling of quotes from officials who advocate that the United States should be pursuing diplomacy with Iran. Find out more about how you can join the call for diplomacy with Iran. See what other US and Israeli officials are warning against military action in Iran.

President Barack Obama

"At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That’s not just my view. That’s the view of our top intelligence officials; it’s the view of top Israeli intelligence officials…it is deeply in everybody’s interests – the United States, Israel, and the world’s – to see if this can be resolved in a peaceful fashion.”

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Fmr. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and fmr. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

“Past talks have suffered[…]because they have been a series of one-night stands, meetings that took place over one day, where one side or the other, either Iran or the United States, had a proposal, and the other side rejected it. They went away and then spent another six to eight months negotiating a resumption.”

Ambassador James Dobbins, Director of RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center

“We spoke to Stalin’s Russia. We spoke to Mao’s China. In both cases, greater mutual exposure changed their system, not ours. It’s time to speak to Iran, unconditionally, and comprehensively.”

Catherine Ashton, European Union Foreign Policy Chief

“Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, while respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein

“Simply put, isolating a country doesn’t work. It only promotes a deterioration of stability and increases threat. When nations don’t talk, there is increased possibility of conflict. By contrast, serious diplomacy, given the right timing and the right opportunity, can lead to progress.”

William H. Luers and Thomas Pickering, Fmr. U.S. Ambassadors

"It is a grave and uncertain time. Patient, committed diplomacy is the only way to realize the long term and durable objectives of an Iran without nuclear weapons and a region without war…This opportunity should not be squandered.”

General James Cartwright, Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"You want to try to make sure and work hard to have an official channel that is really open for dialogue, so that the ambiguity at least can be addressed."