GROUNDSWELL, from Peace Action West

Top 3 idiotic statements on Iran policy (this week)

I could probably actually blog about this every single week and find plenty of fodder, but this week I saw some particularly egregious statements that undermine our efforts to enact effective diplomatic relations with Iran:

#3:  “Mr. Chairman, our best chance to avoid war with Iran is to make sure that Mr. Khomeini [sic] and Mr. Ahmadinejad know that all options, including the military option, Mr. Chairman, are on the table, should they continue to defy those standards of behavior that all responsible members of the international community must respect in order to coexist.”

-Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

This statement is notable not just for its inability to distinguish been various Supreme Leaders of Iran (perhaps John McCain would advise him to call it a “senior moment”). 

Rep. Franks made this remark while proposing an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would have required the Department of Defense to develop and maintain a military option against Iran and report on Iran’s progress on uranium enrichment. The amendment was passed in a watered-down version, which still drew objection from some members of the committee.  Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) stated, “The language in [Rep. Franks’] amendment and the language in Mr. Hunter’s amendment in effect is a declaration of war on Iran.” Franks obviously thinks our current policy of rattling our saber at Iran exceptionally effective, and hasn’t given much weight to the idea of diplomatic engagement as a far better route to avoiding war.

#2: “This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know.”

“Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.”

- Right wing radio host Bill Bennett and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

If I didn’t already have a full-time job, I might start a blog chronicling all the idiotic things Joe Lieberman and his buddies say.  Think Progress featured Bennett’s glowing analysis of Hillary Clinton’s “transformation” from Lieberman’s appearance on Bill Bennett’s radio show.  First of all, last time I checked, Hillary Clinton was a 60-year-old woman, not a girl.  Secondly, starting an unprovoked war on Iran that would devastate its civilian population is not a drinking game, it’s a crime.  I can only hope that Lieberman's colleagues in the Senate can minimize the damage Lieberman wants to inflict on our foreign policy and the United States' standing in the global community.

#1: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

-President George W. Bush, addressing Israel’s Parliament

By now you have probably all heard this one, and it’s so outlandish it almost doesn’t need an analysis (though since Lieberman also offered that Bush “got it exactly right,” perhaps I’ll offer an alternative viewpoint).  I suppose it’s not surprising that President Bush has no idea what diplomacy actually is since he hasn’t engaged in it effectively.  If he did decide to engage Iran, it sounds like he would have his advisers in a room trying to come up with an “ingenious argument” to convince Iran to forgo uranium enrichment. If he had ever expressed interest in engaging in diplomacy, he would know that it is a tough, pragmatic process that isn’t just talking for the sake of talking, but includes putting a broad range of issues on the table and using carefully calibrated combinations of pressure and incentives. President Bush has also adopted one of my biggest political pet peeves—pulling out some comparison to Hitler as a way to seal up a political argument, regardless of how inappropriate the comparison is. Given the fact that most of Bush’s foreign policy has consisted of “foolish delusions,” there is no reason to give much weight to his ideas of what our foreign policy with Iran should look like.

Honorable mention for appropriate response to idiotic Iran statements:

"This is bulls**t, this is malarkey, this is outrageous!"

-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), responding to Bush's comparison of proponents of diplomacy with Iran to Nazi appeasers

CO-2: sharing our foreign policy vision with the candidates

Carolyn Bninski, me, and Babak Talebi

This week was my first of a series of meetings to talk to prospective members of Congress before they are even elected, and provide them resources on foreign policy issues and share the vision of foreign policy that our supporters in the district want to see.

My first stop on my 2008 congressional district tour was Boulder, CO.  Rep. Mark Udall is leaving his seat to run for the Senate seat that opened up when Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) decided to retire.  There are three strong candidates running for the seat: Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis and Will Shafroth.  All three have pledged to vote against funding for the war in Iraq unless it is used for withdrawal of US troops, which already puts them on track for a better voting record than Udall, and indicated they were likely to be open to our message about reforming US foreign policy.

I was joined in the briefings by Babak Talebi of the National Iranian American Council and Carolyn Bninski and Adrienne Anderson from the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. We provided resources, talking points and recommendations on promoting diplomacy with Iran, working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the local environmental impact of nuclear development and ending the war in Iraq.  It was a great opportunity to discuss these issues with the candidates while they are in the midst of campaigning, and lays a good foundation for a relationship with whichever candidate wins the primary on August 12.

In addition to meetings with the candidates, I was able to lay the groundwork for some collaboration with other groups that are doing wonderful and important work in Colorado.  It was good to hear from Carolyn about Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice’s work to hold Rep. Udall accountable on ending the war in Iraq.  Jane from Colorado Progressive Coalition had useful information about the local political climate, and their work pressuring Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave on a number of important progressive issues, including ending the war.  I also got a tour of Boulder from Debra, who has started a meetup in Boulder for Peace Action West supporters to get together and plan local actions to end the war. (Contact me if you are interested in planning local actions in your area too!)  In this challenging work, it is always inspiring to meet people who are doing important, effective advocacy and I look forward to continuing to work with all of them.

When not engaging in interesting political discussions, I also enjoyed escaping the bay area heat wave and getting a taste of Colorado.  If you find yourself in the area, I recommend having some tea at the Boulder Dushanbe Tea House and having some chicken (or tofu) curry at Kim To Go.

at the Boulder Dushanbe Tea House

Military strikes against Iran will harm human rights activists

With a chorus of war drums and no sign of interest in pursuing direct and unconditional diplomacy, the US continues to push a foreign policy approach that is counterproductive to ending Iran’s nuclear program and tackling its influence in Iraq. As an American woman working for nuclear nonproliferation and to prevent war with Iran, I am thankful for women's rights advocates in the US who helped us gain the right to vote and paved the way for more women to be involved in political work. This is why I want to highlight one of the little noticed effects of US saber-rattling: the damage done to Iranian human rights activists, particularly women.

All too often, hostile rhetoric glosses over who “the enemy” really is. Much like here in the United States, where many of us disagree with the Bush administration’s policies, not everyone in Iran supports the policies of their government. In fact, there is a strong women’s rights movement being built in Iran. But the US policy towards Iran is not helping, and may be hurting, their cause.

Current saber-rattling and any US attack against Iran would rally Iranians behind hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and place at risk those who criticize the government’s policies: women and reformists. Nobel Prize-winning human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi warned in a recent interview with the Nation that

US threats against Iran and rhetoric about regime change could make things worse, giving Iran's leaders an excuse to intensify repression.

In addition, Ebadi is highly critical of the Bush Administration's efforts to promote democracy in Iran, particularly the creation of a multimillion-dollar fund to assist Iranian activists. "When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side," she says. "It gives Iran an excuse for what it does." All credible Iranian activists have refused to accept American funding, and most of the money has been funneled into radio broadcasts and other US propaganda.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has released a new report that mentions some of the ways women’s rights are being repressed in Iran.

With the government of President Ahmadinejad, the status of Iranian women has deteriorated precipitously. A “Program for Social Safety” allows the authorities arbitrarily to harass women for not wearing “appropriate Islamic dress.” A “Family Protection Act” has been promulgated that would harm the welfare and rights of women further, by legitimizing polygamy, allowing temporary marriages, marriage at the age of only 13, and other measures. Furthermore, a system of quotas has been introduced giving males an unfair advantage in obtaining admission to the system of higher education.

And earlier this year, the government ordered independent magazine Zanan shut down, silencing one public forum for debate on women’s rights.

According to reports from Iran, authorities said that the magazine was a “threat to the psychological security of the society” because it showed Iranian women in a “black light.”

The truth is, the magazine respected and celebrated Iranian women by offering articles on health, parenting, legal issues, literature and women’s achievements. One recent article argued that laws codifying unequal treatment of women in Islamic countries lacked justification under Islamic law and could be changed. The only psychological threat Zanan posed was to the regime’s authoritarian and anti-feminist pathology.

Iranian reformists point to their recent parliamentary elections, held after the third round of UN imposed sanctions, as a sign that sanctions are not working. The election of so many conservatives will help to consolidate the power of the current regime, which maintains that their nuclear program is a matter of national sovereignty.

Advocating that the US pursue diplomacy with Iran will not only help to prevent another deadly war, it will also aid women’s rights advocates in Iran. We need strong leadership in Congress for a more comprehensive approach to Iran. You can take action by asking your member of Congress to support legislation calling for direct and unconditional diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran.

Merida Initiative: A Continuation in the Cycle of Violence

On Wednesday, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the "Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized? Crimes Authorization Act of 2008.” Also known as “Plan Mexico”, a less than popular name due to its resemblance to “Plan Colombia”, the initiative calls for a foreign aid package of close to $1.6 billion meant to combat drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico. A bulk of the money has been specifically designated to fund the acquisition of military equipment such as helicopters and weapon systems.  This is, in my opinion the worst plan proposed at the worst time.

For one, it fuels a widespread speculation that the so-called “aid” is part of a larger strategic national security initiative, “a sort of Marshall Plan for Latin America, that runs parallel to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  It also begs to question whether infusing Mexico with a multibillion military project will have the same effect as it has had in Colombia, where an increase in human right abuses and paramilitary violence have taken place since Plan Colombia was implemented seven years ago.

While President Felipe Calderon touts his government’s revamped efforts to address widespread drug-related violence in the country and while he views the Merida Initiative as a much needed step in the right direction; widespread reports of human rights violations and abuses at the hands of Mexican security forces have hit an all-time high. Opposition groups in Mexico have denounced the initiative as a ploy to strengthen the military’s policing role in Mexican society, to increase counter-intelligence and anti-subversive mechanisms and to provide the government with resources for stronger involvement in the affairs of individuals, all of which has been disguised under the umbrella of a drug war, such as was the case with Plan Colombia.

While the social components of the initiative seem to hit the high notes of an otherwise flat symphony, some wonder whether these represent mere demagoguery. As the Latin American Working Group has rightly pointed out,

“Not a penny of the Merida Initiative will provide aid to reduce poverty, it further skews aid to Latin America in the direction of security assistance rather than aid for public health, poverty reduction, and disaster assistance. The Merida Initiative also does nothing to solve the problems on our side of the border that increase violence in Mexico and Central America: the United States’ demand for illegal drugs and the flow of U.S. firearms into the region.”

What is in the package is a strong military and strategic component that falls short of sending U.S. troops to Mexican soil, such that it provides strict guidelines for the training of Mexican troops, it counsels Mexican agencies on U.S. requirements enlisting private U.S. enterprises to assist in anti-narcotics equipment and guidance and provides for mere human rights and ethics “suggestions” in dealing with bystanders and society at large. In other words, the “aid” has been formulated as an incentive and reward to Calderon’s government, and a slap in the face to Human Right defenders in Mexico.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. As Bloggers Unite celebrates this remembrance with the credo “that all people are born with basic rights and freedoms that include life, liberty, and justice,” it is imperative that we take a closer look at the effects that our involvement in different regions and countries around the world is having to its citizens. The Merida Initiative, Plan Colombia, The Iraq war, have all been sold to the America public as efforts in democratization, peace, prosperity and security, all of which have shown exactly the opposite. They have destabilized regions, fueled insurgencies, increased violence cycles and most importantly they have threatened the core principles of the rights to life, liberty and justice.

U.S. lacks evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq to support attack

While arguments that the US must strike Iran to eliminate its nuclear program have lost traction, recent rhetoric from the Bush administration has switched to suggest a new justification for attacking Iran. After weeks of US accusations that Iranian weapons are killing US soldiers in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reports Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner made no mention of Iran during a new briefing in Baghdad:

A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.

When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.

How embarrassing. Even if a smoking gun were to be found, Stephen Kinzer’s article in the Chicago Tribune gives compelling reasons why a military attack against Iran would backfire and actually increase any threats currently posed by Iran.

It is easy to foresee some of the results that might follow an American bombing campaign against Iran. They include a wave of revenge attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; a surge of terrorism against Western targets; a retaliatory Iranian attack on Israel; a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes; and rage in neighboring Pakistan, a frighteningly unstable country that has both nuclear weapons and powerful political factions sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

An American attack on Iran also would greatly strengthen President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is now so unpopular among Iranian voters that he may not even seek re-election next year. People everywhere rally behind their leaders when their country is attacked. It is contrary to U.S. interests to take steps that would strengthen the Ahmadinejad faction, which makes no secret of its contempt for reason and the rule of law.

In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, and in the absence of alternatives, the U.S. might be justified in risking even these awful consequences. But there is an alternative, one the U.S. has never tried: direct, bilateral, comprehensive and unconditional negotiations.

With the consequences of a military attack so high, doesn’t it make sense to exhaust diplomatic options? Yet Congress has continued to push for punitive sanctions rather than a more comprehensive approach that includes direct negotiations without preconditions. Kinzer makes an excellent point that there are many ways that Iranian and American interests overlap, and opportunities to provide incentives for Iran’s cooperation.

Iran can help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is Al Qaeda's bitter enemy. Iran is terrified of instability in Pakistan. Iran wants to limit Russian influence in the Middle East. Iran's oil infrastructure is in a state of collapse and needs billions of dollars in investment, something the U.S. is well-positioned to provide.

Currently, there is legislation in the House calling for direct talks between the US and Iran. You can help promote diplomacy between our countries by clicking here to ask your representative to support the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act of 2008.