War Funding, Future Troop Levels Coming Into Focus

Past Updates

While the Obama administration continues to promote a security-first approach with Afghanistan, FCNL believes that a U.S. policy of political and economic support can promote a peaceful and stable transition in Afghanistan. In order for that to happen, the U.S. government has to deemphasize military policy and work with the Afghan government and civil society to sincerely address issues of corruption, violence and poverty.

Recent Surveys

(See the original statement here.)

The Friends Committee on National Legislation has witnessed the conflict in Syria with grave concern. What beganas a powerful nonviolent movement in 2011 has since escalated into a full-blown protracted civil war. We opposeU.S. military intervention, and urge the U.S. government to support a comprehensive diplomatic settlement andgenerous humanitarian aid. FCNL advocates that the U.S. government take the following actions:

The U.S. has a long history of refusing to engage diplomatically with Syria, which has exacerbated regionaltensions. The U.S. needs to reverse course and fully utilize diplomatic approaches to conflict resolution.We are encouraged by the U.S.-Russia Syria Plan intended to secure a negotiated settlement among Syrianregime officials, internal factions and other regional actors to the conflict. It is critical that those diplomaticefforts include sustained communication with all who are party to the conflict.

In particular, the U.S. diplomatic agenda with Iran should be broadened beyond the nuclear issue to addressthe crisis in Syria. Iran has critical influence on the Syrian regime and they could play a role in getting Assadand various parts of the Syrian government to buy in to a transition. Until all key actors are included at thenegotiating table, the political tensions at play will only escalate.

Military intervention—whether through a U.S.-enforced no-fly-zone over Syria, U.S. troops on the ground, orarming of the opposition—would escalate the bloodshed. War is the ultimate human rights violation. Furthermilitarizing the conflict would destabilize an already volatile region.

As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out, imposing a no-fly-zone is an act of war. Establishinga no-fly zone would begin with the U.S. bombing Syria’s anti-aircraft system. Given the widespread presenceof Syria’s anti-aircraft systems, this would further endanger vulnerable civilians.

The U.S. government should offer generous humanitarian assistance to help ease the suffering of Syriancivilians. It is essential that this aid be politically neutral, and it must be delivered to impartial humanitarianorganizations. Proposals from Senator John McCain and others to administer aid through the SyrianOpposition Coalition would be disastrous, as it politicizes the aid and further endangers civilians.

Since 1943, FCNL remains steadfastly committed to a world free of war and the threat of war. We will continue to lobby Congress and the administration to help end the unimaginable human suffering in Syria, and for more effective and principled U.S. policies in the Middle East based on equity and justice for all.

FCNL believes that the United States should implement a policy of positive engagement with Afghanistan beyond 2014, but that a military-first relationship enshrined in a Bilateral Strategic Agreement would neglect Afghanistan’s political and economic transitions. These critical flashpoints in Afghan society should be the centerpiece of relations moving forward. Pakistan is among the regional governments that must come together in any lasting Afghan peace. FCNL hopes that Pakistan’s newly elected leadership will use its historic mandate to move towards peace with India and a more constructive role in Afghanistan’s affairs.

Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic and Center for Civilians in Conflict

“The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions” Fall 2012

This report focuses primarily on accountability and humanitarian implications for the drones program, particularly the danger drone strikes pose for civilians and the likely inability of the US to identify or address these matters in a way that is consistent with the laws of war, let alone with the ethics of a humanitarian society.

FCNL shares many of the concerns of the authors of this report. The inability to identify and acknowledge the killing of innocents is not only troubling in its own right, but challenges the dignity of people who live under the threat of drone strikes. Greater public and congressional oversight of the administration and the military is the only way to effectively challenge the morally and strategically problematic drones program.

Click here for the pdf version of our analysis.

International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law)

"Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from U.S. Drone Practice in Pakistan" September 2012

Interviewing residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) whose lives remain intimately affected by the CIA’s drone campaign in their communities, a team of researchers from the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and the Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law) was able to highlight and verify many of the allegations against the U.S. government regarding the impact of drones on individuals and their already-fragile communities.

Click here for the pdf version of our analysis.

FCNL recognizes that the complex political realities in Afghanistan will be difficult to resolve, but these developments make us confident that war is not the answer. Newly-appointed U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan James Dobbins would do well to pay attention to these events and use his new position to promote the well-being of Afghanistan against these unpopular, but well-armed, outside influences. The future of the region and U.S. interests are best served by giving the Afghan people a chance to come through the transition and break out of the cycle of war and violence they have known for so long.

While the CIA continues to promote instability and conflict in Afghanistan, FCNL believes that U.S. policy can support a peaceful and stable transition in Afghanistan. In order for that to happen, the U.S. government has to deemphasize military policy and work with the Afghan government and civil society to sincerely address issues of corruption, violence and poverty.

April 16, 2013

President Barack Obama
The Office of the President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

As people and communities of faith, we are moved to express our great concern about the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles, known commonly as drones, for targeted killings of alleged members of Al Qaeda, its affiliates and other associated forces around the world.

The use of these lethal weapons within the borders of other sovereign nations, at times without their permission, shrouded in secrecy and without clear legal authority, raises serious moral and ethical questions about the principles and the implications of this practice for U.S. foreign relations and the prospects for a more peaceful world.

A threshold question: Is the U.S. at war?

If targeted killings by drones are justified as acts of war, they must be subject to international law on the use of lethal force within the borders of another sovereign nation. Without a clear showing of permission to use lethal force within another nation, or an imminent threat to the U.S. from that nation, these killings seriously undermine prohibitions in international law against the use of deadly force.

The administration and Congress should end the assertion that the U.S. is involved in a “global war,” allowed by the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” (AUMF), passed in September of 2001 and renewed in December of 2011, and should comply with international human rights law in all U.S. counter-terrorism operations.

If the U.S. is not at war, then other principles of human and civil rights must govern U.S. actions.

If these acts of targeted killing are police actions, rather than a matter of war, what right does the U.S. have to take these actions in another country? Rather than seeking to “eliminate” individuals from a so-called “kill list” who are suspected of involvement in or planning of violent criminal activity, or bombing sites that appear suspicious to remote drone operators, the administration should uphold U.S. and international admonitions that no one should be deprived of life arbitrarily. The U.S. should extend protections consistent with principles of human and civil rights pertaining to the pursuit and apprehension of a criminal suspect, including fair trial in a court of law. This expectation can and should be achieved in cooperation with other countries in accordance with their international obligations.

Additionally, protections consistent with principles of human and civil rights should be extended to uninvolved civilians, family members, and bystanders who often suffer in drone attacks.

Targeted killings do not address the root causes of conflicts and thus will not end violence against the U.S.

The practice of targeted killings, by drones in particular, provokes high anxiety in communities, as drones patrol neighborhoods. Drone killings destroy trust and lead increasing numbers of people to turn to fear-based responses, which may include acts we often describe as "terrorism." In addition, as the killings injure and threaten people who were previously uninvolved, drone attacks can boost recruitment for extremist organizations.

A far more effective strategy would be to address the root causes of conflicts by creating conditions that defuse the hostility, including strategies to prevent violent conflict and to promote restorative justice practices, and effective economic development programs.

Oversight and accountability are essential.

The administration appears to be creating a new kind of warlike campaign – a militarized police action – that follows neither the rules of war nor the rule of law. We urge the administration to follow judicial due process and we urge Congress to exercise oversight to guard against continuing or extending the practice of targeted killings, without charges or trial, of individuals suspected of presenting a threat to the U.S.

The natural checks on lethal violence must be maintained.

On an individual level, military trainers know that human nature itself serves as a check on lethal violence. Coming face to face with someone described as an enemy requires a deliberate choice to override a deep human instinct against killing. Remote, technical warfare removes that very human check. As a society we have not adequately considered where this development leads us as a species. The remote nature of this type of deadly violence has the potential to encourage overuse and extension of the policy to more countries and more perceived threats. Furthermore, by increasingly relying on targeted killings, we become increasingly less able and willing to engage various conflicts in humanizing ways that are in accord with human dignity.

Mr. President, we understand these matters are not simple. Nonetheless, we feel obliged as people and communities of faith to raise fundamental moral and ethical questions about the evolving kinds of warfare this nation is now pursuing. We urge you to give these issues more careful reflection and evaluation.

Sincerely,

Friends Committee on National Legislation
Diane Randall
Executive Secretary

NETWORK
Simone Campbell
SSS, Executive Director

Church of the Brethren
Nathan Holser
Coordinator, Office of Public Witness

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
James Winkler
General Secretary

Christian Reformed Church in Northern America
Rev. Joel Boot
Executive Director

Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Eli S. McCarthy, PhD
Justice and Peace Director

Mennonite Central Committee, U.S. Washington Office
Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach
Director

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Sandy Sorenson
Director, Washington Office

Disciples Justice Action Network
Rev. Dr. Jack Sullivan
President

American Friends Service Committee
Shan Cretin
General Secretary

Disciples Peace Fellowship
Rev. Dr. Craig Watts
Co-Moderator

American Muslims for Justice
Nauman Shah and Saba Ahmed
Co-Founders

Fellowship of Reconciliation
Dr. Mark C. Johnson
Executive Director

On Earth Peace
Bill Scheurer 
Executive Director

Presbyterian Peace Fellowship
Rick Ufford-Chase
Executive Director

“Final decisions about the pace of the drawdown in Afghanistan have not yet been made” according to the budget request. “As a result, the Budget includes a placeholder for DOD’s 2014 [Afghanistan and Iraq war] funding, equivalent to the amount provided [$96.7 billion total, $88.5 billion for Afghanistan] in the President’s 2013 Budget.” This is a remarkable admission by the administration.

Your emails to the Senate, as well as a New York Times editorial blasting this dangerous move, have helped slow down the growth of cosponsors to this resolution. We need to keep up the momentum away from a back door to war. This legislation could come to a vote as early as this week, and a coalition of national advocacy groups are mobilizing citizen advocates across the country to call their senators.

Please call your senators TODAY using FCNL's special toll-free number, 855-68-NO WAR (855-686-6927). Ask for your senator by name and urge her or him to oppose Senate resolution S. Res. 65.

Here are talking points you can use:

• My name is _______ and I'm calling from _________.
• I'm asking that Senator _______ vote "no" on Senate resolution 65, the Graham/Menendez resolution because it would increase the chances of a U.S. or Israeli war with Iran.
• As the New York Times Editorial Board warned on March 9, this resolution would put “Congress on record as backing a military operation initiated by Israel at a time of Israel’s choosing” and could “hamper negotiations.”*
• Thank you.

Where is this Back Door?

As the New York Times notes, the key provision that could make war more likely is in section 1(8), which states that if Israel “is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.”

What If My Senators Support This Resolution?

You can check this list to see if your senators are already cosponsors of this dangerous resolution. Even if they are already supporters, you can still ask them to vote no on the Senate floor, and to support diplomacy, not war, with Iran.

You can also check out my analysis in the Huffington Post, and see a list of who else is speaking out against the “Back Door to War with Iran” resolution.

Thank you for all you do to prevent war with Iran.

Kate Gould
Legislative Associate, Middle East Policy

* “Congress Gets in the Way,” The New York Times, March 9, 2013

March 14, 2013

Dear President Obama,

On behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby in the public interest, I write with warm wishes for a successful visit to Israel and the West Bank and to encourage you to take the opportunity to meet with people who represent diverse perspectives of political, civil and religious societies which are often ignored in Washington. The following people and places share nonviolent, peaceful approaches to end the crises that have devastated the region.

In Israel, we hope that you would meet with one of the many former Israeli security officials who have staunchly opposed a military attack on Iran. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, called an attack on Iran “the stupidest thing I ever heard” and warned against the indefinite continuation of the Israeli military occupation, which emboldens extremists on all sides of the conflict.

In the West Bank, we hope that you will witness the Palestinian nonviolent movement. If you venture beyond the Palestinian Authority’s compound, you will see Palestinians and Israelis working for nonviolent solutions at homes and hospitals under demolition orders, accompanying children facing down the threat of militant settlers, and protesting against the separation barrier, and even planting olive trees where they have been torched.

As the Palestinian parliamentarian Mustafa Barghouthi noted, “U.S. recognition of the Palestinian nonviolence movement against the occupation would send a powerful signal that nonviolence will succeed in ending the occupation and securing a just future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

The Friends Committee on National Legislation is our nation’s oldest ecumenical lobby and fields the largest team of registered peace lobbyists. Working to achieve peace in the Middle East has long been a priority for the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). For more than a century, Quakers have worked to lift up the voices of peacemakers in the Middle East. You can witness Quakers’ work for peace across both sides of the conflict at the Ramallah Friends School, the Friends International Center in Ramallah, and various project sites where the American Friends Services Committee works in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Beyond your three-day trip, we urge your administration to engage with the nonviolent civilian peacebuilding partners to inform U.S. policy in the Middle East. We appreciate your consideration of visiting peacemakers in Israel/Palestine, and your efforts to promote non-violent solutions to conflict.

Sincerely,

Diane Randall
Executive Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation

In 2014, Afghans will assume responsibility for the well-being of their country, a long 13 years after the U.S.-led invasion began. While Afghan leadership will determine whether the country progresses towards political stability and openness and enduring peace, the United States can and should support the Afghan government and people through this defining period.

Military transition is proceeding. Half of the remaining 68,000 troops will return to the United States by February 2014 in anticipation of a major drop-off in military presence thereafter. Beginning this spring, the Afghan National Security Forces take control of the daunting task of providing civil society with room to stabilize, develop economically and participate politically.

Focusing decisions through the lens of Afghan society will create policies that do not hurt those they intend to protect and ensure that the powers that be enjoy increasing popular support. Several initiatives, including health care and education services, met great success, but large challenges persist. Afghan governance is weak, much of rural Afghanistan lacks security and access to basic services and the urban population remains politically sidelined and economically underserviced. More than anything else, Afghanistan’s future will be defined by whether the needs of its people are addressed.

Sensible U.S. involvement during this time period is critical. The end of U.S. combat operations provides an opportunity for the United States reframe its relationship with Afghanistan based on political accountability, sustainable economic development and region-led diplomacy.

The Political Transition

The Afghan government’s dependency on international funding, directive and efforts has encouraged corruption and nepotism and stunted the development of many of its most essential ministries. Poor governance and parallel political and security contracting empowered local warlords and even the Taliban and allied groups to assume local power.

The 2014 presidential election, currently set for April, will be a watershed moment for the legitimacy of the Afghan government: whether or not the upcoming elections are perceived to be legitimate will play a tremendous role in determining whether or not the people will put their faith in this political order and whether or not it will survive. It is critical that the United States and international community does whatever it can to ensure that the 2014 presidential election runs as smoothly and cleanly as possible. It should empower agreed-upon election monitoring and complaint-oversight groups and to encourage greater participation from civil society.

Along with the election, reconciliation with the insurgency remains a key political issue to address. A real dialogue between the Afghan government, its political opposition, civil society, the insurgency and regional players must take place to reduce the destabilizing effects of violence. The possibility of a lasting peace for Afghanistan and the region is stronger than has been in decades. A U.S. military withdrawal coupled with maintained economic and diplomatic support will retain trust in U.S. support and remove the Taliban’s rallying cry. Unless an agreement can be reached that will preserve the humanitarian gains made over the last ten years and meet some demands of the insurgency and its international sponsors, Afghanistan will face even greater instability and insecurity than it already does.

The Economic Transition

Afghanistan desperately needed meaningful support in 2002. Fifty-three percent of all Afghans lived below the poverty line, it suffered the highest infant mortality rate in the world and whatever governance structure remained from more than two decades of war failed to address the problems the country faced. Eleven years and almost $90 billion spent on development and governance initiatives later, much of rural Afghanistan still lacks basic security and access to services, and the urban population remains politically sidelined and economically underserviced. Programs designed to prepare Afghans for public service deepened dependence and prevented Afghans from absorbing governing skills and norms. The Afghan government relied on outside funding for 90% of its operational, security and development expenses in 2012. A steep decline in foreign aid may leave the Afghan government incapable of functioning, let alone expanding its capacities and services.

At a conference in Tokyo on July 8, 2012, the global community agreed to the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework whereby donor countries will continue to provide Afghanistan with development aid and economic investment through 2016 as long as the Afghan government meets critical accountability benchmarks. The United States is also working with Afghanistan to provide a sustainable infrastructure for resource development and to encourage regional trade. These endeavors can only succeed if the Afghan government follows through on reform efforts, and the international community maintains financial and political support for Afghanistan’s future. U.S. leadership in maintaining political will, fulfilling its commitments and rallying the other parties can ensure that this agreement becomes the backbone of a peaceful partnership for the future.

Policy Recommendations:

For Further Reading:

The Senate is considering what's been nicknamed the "Back Door to War" resolution, since it calls for the U.S. to pledge military support for a potential Israeli attack on Iran. This bipartisan resolution (S. Res. 65) introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and Robert Menendez (NJ) signals a green light for a U.S.-aided Israeli war that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned could “prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”

Take action and read Kate Gould's op-ed in the Huffington Post on this dangerous legislation.

The worst thing that anyone could do at this moment would be anything that stokes the Iranian suspicions about true US intentions […] The resolution also means happily surrendering to a foreign state the decision to start a war that would have serious repercussions for the United States.

This legislation would effectively entrust that decision to a regional state…Such a decision is an American sovereign responsibility. It cannot be outsourced.

Congress is warmongering and worse. Resolutions like S. Res. 65 would call for the United States to surrender to another country the right to sweep the U.S. into a disastrous war--a war that will spell the end of Israel as a viable state, trillions of U.S. dollars down the drain, and incalculable casualties for a decade or longer.

If there is any hope for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran, President Obama needs Congress to support negotiations. But negotiations and compromise are largely anathema in Washington, with many lawmakers insisting that any deal with Iran would be unacceptable — a stance that would make military action by Israel and the United States far more likely.

Last week, just as Iran and the major powers made some small progress in talks and agreed to meet again, two measures were introduced in Congress that could harm negotiations.

One is a Senate resolution sponsored by Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican. It says that if Israel “is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.” No one doubts that the United States would defend Israel if it was attacked by Iran; that commitment has been made repeatedly by President Obama and his predecessors. The nonbinding resolution, promoted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, would not authorize any specific action, but it would increase political pressure on Mr. Obama by putting Congress on record as backing a military operation initiated by Israel at a time of Israel’s choosing. It could also hamper negotiations by playing into Iranian fears that America’s true intention is to promote regime change.

The second measure, a bipartisan bill, would pile on tougher sanctions just as the two sides are trying to create trust after decades of hostility. The bill would further restrict business dealings with Iran, widen the list of blacklisted Iranian companies and individuals, and potentially block Iran’s access to foreign bank assets held in euros. It could unravel the international coalition against Iran by penalizing countries — like Turkey, India, South Korea and China — that have not done enough to enforce sanctions.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told the annual Aipac conference this week that there must be a “credible military threat” against Iran. Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. also assured the group that Mr. Obama would use force if needed.

The best way to avert military conflict is by negotiating a credible, verifiable agreement. It is a very long shot. But Congress needs to give the talks time to play out and not make diplomatic efforts even harder.

This could have several negative implications. First, it could be interpreted as endorsing an Israeli preventive strike against Iran, which runs counter to U.S. strategy. The U.S. intelligence community judges that Iran has not made the political decision to create nuclear weapons. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability is not imminent, hence an Israeli military strike against Iran at this moment is not necessary or justified. [The measure] could also send the message, not only to Iran, but also the wider international community, including major powers like China and Russia, that the United States is not serious about solving the nuclear issue peacefully. [The result might be for Iran] to pursue nuclear weapons more aggressively than ever before.

UPDATE: The Ambassadors prepared remarks will go live at noon, Eastern. See Ambassador Laingen's remarks and Ambassador Limbert's remarks

More information is available at fcnl.org/argo.

Washington DC – February 25, 2013 – News Release – Ambassador Bruce Laingen, the Chief of Mission held hostage in Iran recalled his words to the senior Iranian hostage taker from the ramp at Mehrabad Airport 32 years ago, “I look forward to the day when your country and mine can again have a normal, diplomatic relationship.”

Academy award-winning "best picture" Argo, has resurrected American interest in this dark diplomatic episode. Two hostages from the crisis, retired Ambassadors Bruce Laingen and John Limbert, called on the United States and Iran to learn from the lessons of the 1979 crisis rather than be held hostage to the ever-escalating cycle of confrontation that has defined U.S.-Iranian relations for decades. On the eve of the P5+1 talks in which diplomats from the United States and Iran will meet in Almaty, Kazakhstan, the Ambassadors call for broadening the scope of negotiations with Iran beyond the nuclear issue to advance a diplomatic solution.

Ambassador John Limbert, the political officer to Tehran during the 444 day crisis and President Obama’s first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran warned that confining negotiations with Iran to the nuclear issue is unlikely to yield a breakthrough. “The United States and Iran must open up dialogue on areas where there is political space on both sides to break the cycle of mistrust,” Ambassador Limbert said.

At a press conference hosted by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Friends Committee on National Legislation and National Iranian American Council, the two senior diplomats warned that the expected stalemate in Almaty should not derail efforts to broaden the diplomatic agenda to address regional security issues and other concerns with Iran through robust and sustained diplomacy.

Ambassador Laingen told reporters and congressional staffers, “I have no illusions about the past abuses of the Iranian regime. With my colleagues, I lived those abuses every day for 444 days. But negotiating with adversaries to advance U.S. interests through a process of mutual compromise is what game-changing diplomacy is all about, and it is how diplomacy can save lives and set people free—as it did for us.”

“We brought these experts together to call for real diplomacy. Sadly, both the United States and Iran continue to squander opportunities for effective diplomacy,” remarked John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “There is still time to win with diplomacy to prevent a counter-productive strike and a nuclear-armed Iran.”

“Resolving decades of U.S.-Iran tensions and preventing a disastrous war will require flexibility and creativity on both sides. Iran must be prepared to resolve concerns about its nuclear work, the U.S. must prepared to ease sanctions, and both must be ready to engage on a broader agenda beyond the nuclear issue,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

“When two former diplomats call for a rapprochement between the country they represented and the country that held them hostage, it is a wake-up call for us all about the urgency for sustained and comprehensive talks with Iran, which the Obama administration has not yet fully pursued, ” said Diane Randall, executive secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Full transcripts of the remarks are available to interested members of the press by contacting James Lewis or Kate Gould.

Press Mentions

According to recent reports, a growing number of Iranians are facing difficulties accessing food and medicine, in part due to sanctions imposed by the United States. The Iranian government's mismanagement and lack of economic transparency has also worsened the situations for Iranian patients, but there are still simple actions that the U.S. government can take to ensure that Iranians are not blocked from accessing food and medicine due to the U.S. sanctions regime.

See the original letter here.

February 4, 2013

SUBJECT: Open Channel for Food and Medicine to Iran

Dear President Obama,

We write to express our deep concern for Iranian civilians who have not been able to access life-saving medicines and humanitarian goods inside of Iran, which has been caused in part by U.S. sanctions against Iran. We urge your Administration to take all necessary steps to ensure that licensed humanitarian goods are not prevented from reaching the people of Iran as a result of U.S. sanctions imposed on the Iranian banking sector.

Thomas Pickering, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, expertly summarized the crux of this problem posed by U.S. sanctions. Referring to U.S. sanctions on the banking sector that block purchases of humanitarian goods, he explained on October 1, 2012: "we issue licenses for sales of food and medicine to Iran, but it is not legal for them to pay for it." Various recent reports have illustrated the grave impact that the shortages of life-saving medicines and humanitarian goods inside Iran have had on ordinary civilians:

In an October 2012 report on the human rights situation in Iran, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon spelled out how sanctions block Iranians from accessing food and medicine, noting that "Even companies that have obtained the requisite license to import food and medicine are facing difficulties in finding third-country banks to process the transactions. Owing to payment problems, several medical companies have stopped exporting medicines to the Islamic Republic of Iran, leading to a reported shortage of drugs used in the treatment of various illnesses, including cancer, heart and respiratory conditions, thalassemia and multiple sclerosis.”

On November 23, 2012, the BBC reported: “Hospitals, clinics and pharmacies in Iran are running out of medicine as the government cuts health funding because of international sanctions, putting the lives of thousands of people at risk.”

Recent reports by The Financial Times, Al Monitor and the International Civil Society Action Network, indicate that a growing number of Iranians do not have access to life-saving medicines. As this legislative record makes clear, Congress has established some protections to help humanitarian goods reach the people living under sanctioned regimes. Under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) the export of licensed medicines, medical devices, agricultural commodities, and food are exempt from sanctions. Congress has explicitly reaffirmed this policy in four acts authorizing sanctions on Iran which you have signed into law, including the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010; the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, and the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

While congressional sanctions distinguish between sanctionable activities and exempt humanitarian transactions, executive order sanction 13382 affects all of Iran’s largest banks and does not specify an exception for humanitarian transactions. In addition, the humanitarian licenses issued by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) expressly prohibit not only the direct involvement of these banks, but also their indirect involvement. We appreciate your Administration issuing new regulations on October 22, 2012 that allow U.S. companies to sell certain medicines and medical supplies to Iran without first seeking a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control. However, as the New York Times recently reported, “the exporters [of medicines] still face troubles getting paid” and a result, “virtually no American or European bank wants to be involved in financial transactions with Iran.” To ensure that Iranian civilians are not barred from accessing food and medicine, humanitarian transactions must be exempted from banking sanctions.

The current impasse with Iran over its nuclear program should not prohibit the export of life-saving medicines which millions of Iranian civilians depend on. We urge your Administration to take all appropriate steps to ensure authorized humanitarian transactions regarding Iran are not obstructed by U.S. sanctions. As a first step, we hope that your Administration would provide a clear statement that it is not the policy of the United States to in any manner prohibit permissible humanitarian transactions.

Sincerely,
American Friends Service Committee
Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
Center for Interfaith Engagement—Eastern Mennonite University
Church of the Brethren
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Havaar: Iranian Initiative Against War, Sanctions and State Repression
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran
International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)
Just Foreign Policy
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
National Iranian American Council
Orthodox Peace Fellowship
Peace Action
Peace Action West
Peace X Peace
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Progressive Democrats of America
The Peace Alliance
The Student Peace Alliance
United Methodist Church—General Board of Church & Society
Women’s Action for New Directions

Cc: Vice President Joseph Biden
Secretary of State John Kerry
Acting Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin
National Security Advisor Thomas Donilin
Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert Hormats
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman
Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs Lael Brainard
Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Jose Fernandez
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions Peter Harrell
Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Adam Szubin

See the original PDF of this letter.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The goal of a just peace among Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians has eluded leaders in the Middle East and in the U.S. for more than a generation. As you embark upon your second term, there is an unprecedented opportunity for your Administration to play a catalytic role in the resolution of this conflict. As faith leaders deeply committed to peace and reconciliation in this land held sacred by so many, we write to ask that you now bring the full energies of your Administration to bear toward facilitating a just, durable, and final negotiated agreement to end the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We understand the difficulty and cost of undertaking this effort. There are groups on both sides that oppose any agreement. The losses Palestinians have experienced since the Oslo Accords were signed nearly twenty years ago have deeply marred trust and made many despair for the possibility of negotiations ever producing an acceptable outcome. Israelis fear that that the losses they may face in negotiations could undermine the existence and security of their state in future generations.

Your own Administration experienced the costly challenges of working toward peacemaking during your first term, but another generation cannot wait as prospects for peace grow dimmer. The U.S. should place the full weight of its support behind the long-term well-being of Israelis and Palestinians. Proposals put forward must be feasible and convincingly address their separate national aspirations for security and justice.

American political leadership is needed now more than ever to support both Israelis and Palestinians in creating a resilient and just peace. Conversely, the consequences of maintaining the status quo, while events further complicate the feasibility of a two-state solution, may perpetuate the conflict for generations to come.Mr. President, we recognize the awesome burdens you carry for the welfare and fate of so many people at home and abroad. We pray that you will be given courage, patience, and wisdom for your decisions in this and in all other matters.

Respectfully,

(See PDF for full list of signers.)

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

As you contemplate the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and the transition to Afghan responsibility, we urge you to expedite troop withdrawal through 2013. The men and women of the United States military have achieved all that they can in Afghanistan. Now it is time to bring them home.

Operation Enduring Freedom recently entered its twelfth year, which makes it America’s longest war. The war has claimed over 2,000 American lives, with more than 18,000 Americans wounded in combat. For thousands of our returning soldiers, the trauma of protracted conflict has led to post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses, while suicide rates have reached an all-time high. Moreover, the conflict has cost American taxpayers nearly $600 billion, a number that will only continue to grow as we honor our commitment to the veterans of the past decade of war. The human costs of this war have also been borne by Afghan civilians with untold numbers of dead and wounded.

Some have urged you to pause or slow down troop drawdowns until the end of 2013 or even the end of 2014. We believe that such a course is not worth its cost in American blood and treasure. Rather, we urge you to accelerate the handover of combat responsibility to the Afghan army, completing this transition by December 31, 2013 or sooner. Moreover, we ask that you seek prior congressional approval for any US troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has expressed confidence that an expedited transition is both possible and desirable: “Our goal is to complete all of that transition in 2013,” Secretary Panetta stated in February 2012. “Hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role.” We hope that in upcoming deliberations, you will make this goal a priority.

In November 2012, a bipartisan Senate vote for an accelerated withdrawal showed how committed both parties are to bringing our troops home sooner, rather than later. An amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) that encouraged a faster end to combat operations passed the Senate by a vote of 62-33, with strong bipartisan support. In this vote, the Senate joined the American public who overwhelmingly want to bring our troops home now. As Sen. Merkley stated, “We have accomplished our initial missions of destroying al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and hunting down those responsible for 9/11. It is time to bring our troops home.”

Since 2009, we have strongly supported your commitment to ending America’s difficult and costly war in Afghanistan. The next few weeks present a genuine opportunity to fulfill this goal. We urge you to heed the wishes of the majority of Americans by finally bringing an end to our nation’s longest war.

Sincerely,

Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange

Jeff Blum
USAction

Becky Bond
CREDO Action

Peter J. Davies 
President and CEO, InterAction (retired)

Michael Eisenscher
U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)

Jodie Evans
CODEPINK

Carolyn Eisenberg
Professor of US Foreign Policy, Hofstra University.

Jenefer Ellingston
Green Party

Ambassador Peter W Galbraith
Former Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations to Afghanistan

Lt. General (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr.
Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

William Goodfellow
Center for International Policy

Matthew P. Hoh
Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy

John Isaacs
Council for a Livable World

John H. Johns, Ph.D.
Brigadier General, USA, Ret.

Mark C. Johnson, Ph.D.
Fellowship of Reconciliation

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Don Kraus
GlobalSolutions.org

Paul Kawika Martin
Peace Action

Stephen Miles
Win Without War

Gael  Murphy
United for Peace and Justice

Bob Musil
Senior Fellow, American University

Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy

Bobbie Paul
Georgia Women's Action for New Directions

Jon Rainwater
Peace Action West

Lisa Schirch
Partners for Peacebuilding Policy

Dr. William Kennedy Smith, MD
Center for International Rehabilitation

Matt Southworth
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Rev. Robert W. Tiller
Retired clergy

Leonard Weiss, Stanford University
Former Staff Director, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

Burton Wides
Former Director, President's Intelligence Oversight Board.

James E. Winkler
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Sharon Zimmerman
Women's Action for New Directions & Women Legislators' Lobby

*Affiliations for identification purposes only

Nuclear Program

The Myth:

Iran has nuclear weapons, and the U.S. has to act militarily because Iran is threatening the U.S. and Israel.

The Facts:

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the assessment of U.S. intelligence in 2012 is that Iran has not made the decision to build them. Iran does have a nuclear energy program that provides electricity for homes and schools and a program for medical research using uranium. International inspectors who regularly monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment program with visits and surveillance cameras have expressed “serious concern” about Iran’s failure to be fully transparent about details of this program.

Israel

The Myth:

The US has to attack Iran to protect Israel.

The Facts:

Many former Israeli military and intelligence officials have stated publically that U.S. attack on Iran would increase violence in the Middle East and could ignite a regional war. This would make Israel less, rather than more, secure. Iran has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, but some experts believe a military attack would push Iran into building a bomb.

Diplomacy

The Myth:

Diplomacy is impossible because Iran is bent on U.S. destruction.

The Facts:

Diplomacy isn’t easy, but it is the single most effective way to prevent war and a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran and the U.S. have a long history of miscommunication and conflict. Political statements in Iran and the U.S. often make negotiations difficult. Right now, many members of Congress want Iran to make concessions before talks even happen – if diplomacy was going to be that easy, we wouldn’t need talks in the first place! But many U.S. officials believe diplomacy is the only way to solve the conflict with Iran.

Sanctions

The Myth:

Economic sanctions are the best way to “defeat” Iran.

The Facts:

The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Iran for more than 30 years -- yet during that time, confl.ict has only increased between our two countries. In the last few years, the U.S. has dramatically escalated sanctions on Iran in ways that are having a devastating impact on ordinary Iranians and have gravely undermined diplomatic efforts. Many experts believe more sanctions will pave the path to war. A new report signed by 36 former U.S. military officers and national security experts warns of the severe costs of escalating sanctions against Iran.

Which conversation guides would be helpful for you?

Let us know!

See the original letter here.

OPPOSE PRO-WAR MEASURE ON IRAN IN NDAA CONFERENCE NEGOTIATIONS

December 6th, 2012

Dear Members of Congress,

The Friends Committee of National Legislation urges you to take action to ensure that a dangerous provision threatening war with Iran is not included in the final National Defense Authorization Act negotiated in the joint House-Senate conference committee.

If passed, this provision (Sec. 1221 in the House version of the NDAA--see page 2) could precipitate war with Iran. The language creates U.S. policy 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."

While this dangerous provision was passed in the House NDAA, it was not included in the Senate NDAA. This specific provision was opposed by the Administration in its Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP) on the House NDAA:

Military Operations: The Administration strongly objects to sections 1221 and 1222, which would require DOD to prepare and submit a plan to augment the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military activities in that region. Taken together, these provisions would infringe upon the President's prerogative to plan for military activities, including the deployment of U.S. Forces. Section 1221 also purports to declare U.S. policy toward Iran, challenging the President's well-established constitutional prerogatives with respect to U.S. foreign policy. The Administration also objects to section 1222, which would micromanage the President's decisions as Commander-in-Chief regarding the deployment of U.S. Forces.

If included, this legislation could undermine the Administration's diplomatic efforts with Iran, and push the United States closer to a war that countless military leaders and top national security officials have warned would be disastrous for U.S. national security interests. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said, "the results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world."

We strongly urge you to work to ensure that this dangerous pro-war provision is not included in the National Defense Authorization Act. We hope you will also join countless U.S. and Israeli military and security officials in speaking out against another war of choice in the Middle East.

Sincerely,

Diane Randall
Executive Secretary

______________________________

SEC. 1221. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(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.

(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.

(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.
--