From Coast to Coast – and around the Globe – The People Say “Stop War on Iran!” –

Actions in more than 100 cities

As the threat of war and sanctions against Iran grows, “No War on Iran” was a slogan and chant that resonated across the U.S. on the weekend of Aug. 1-2 as emergency marches, rallies, vigils, teach-ins, honk for peace picket lines and leaflet distributions were held to protest U.S.-Israeli war threats against Iran.

In response to the Emergency Call to Action issued by the Stop War on Iran Campaign in mid-June, anti-war activists in more than 100 cities voiced their opposition boldly in the streets despite the short notice in which the initial call was made and the difficulty of organizing during the summer.

Besides bringing attention to the real threat of a military strike against the sovereign country of Iran, activists also raised the new round of economic sanctions against Iran, which is another form of war.  Activists also connected Iran to the wars and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine which have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and maimed and killed an untold number of civilians and soldiers.  Many events connected the staggering financial cost of the war with the lack of health care, housing, and other human needs, as well as the foreclosure crisis and the skyrocketing cost of gas.

Below we have included reports from a handful of the many actions that took place over the weekend.  Reports are still coming in, and more will be posted on the Stop War on Iran blog – http://stopwaroniran.wordpress.com in the coming days.

This weekend’s actions were an enormous display of opposition to Washington’s plans for an attack on Iran.  But we must do more - we have to continue to organize to stop another criminal war.  The Stop War on Iran campaign is mobilizing to stay in the streets – over the next few weeks, we are preparing placards, banners, and literature to take to St. Paul, Minnesota and Denver, Colorado, for the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.  If you’re planning to be there, look for our banners and organizing tables and find out how you can help get the word out.

We also need your help to keep the message on the streets and to continue to help build a peoples movement to Stop War on Iran.  Please consider making an emergency donation to Stop War on Iran at http://stopwaroniran.org/donate.shtml to help with the costs of printing literature, preparing placards, and transportation to St. Paul and Denver.

---

New York City

An estimated 700 to 1,000 activists refused to allow two torrential thunderstorms dampen their spirits and determination to rally at Times Square and then take to the streets.  Thousands more who were shopping or just passing by stopped to listen to speeches, chants and songs that connected the wars abroad with the wars at home against the workers, the poor and the oppressed.  Joyce Chediac, a Lebanese activist and journalist and LeiLani Dowell, a Fight Imperialism, Stand Together (FIST) organizer chaired the rally.  Chants from the stage were led by activists from Nodutdol for Korean Community Development and CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities.

Larry Holmes, a leader of Troops Out Now Coalition, spoke on the imperialist nature of U.S. wars and why it is in the interest of the people in the U.S. to support self-determination, not the U.S. government.  Kazem Azin, an Iranian activist, told the crowd that the Iranian people will continue to defend their homeland against U.S. and Israeli aggression.  Former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, urged the crowd to keep organizing and resisting.  Other rally participants represented the American Iranian Friendship Committee, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Million Workers March Movement, New York Katrina/Rita Solidarity Coalition, World Can’t Wait, Al-Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition, Justice Committee, Peoples Justice, BAYAN-USA, New York Free Mumia Coalition, International Action Center, Veterans for Peace, Raging Grannies, World Can’t Wait and many more.  Activists read solidarity statements from Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee International League of Peoples Struggles (ILPS); and from the IAPSCC – International Anti-Imperialist  and People’s Solidarity Coordinating Committee in Kolkata, India; and from the Mobilization Against War and Occupation in Vancouver.

Following the rally, a youth-dominated, multinational and militant march took to the streets.  When the police tried to force the marchers on the sidewalk, they stood their ground and stayed in the streets until the march ended at Union Square, 25 blocks later.  There was a large youth contingent from Nodutdol for Korean Community Development along with organizers from the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), FIST, International Action Center and many others.

Washington, DC

On Aug. 2 a protest took place in front of the White House. One hundred and fifty protesters carried signs that included:  “Iran Didn’t Foreclose on My House” and “U.S. Out of the Middle East”. At a rally in a park, Rostam Pourzal from Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Invention in Iran spoke along with a representative from the D.C. Stop War on Iran Campaign.

The protest was multinational with a large number of people from the Iranian community along with Black activists, particularly youth, as well as Code Pink members and other anti-war activists. Media coverage of this protest included Al Jazeera, CNN and Youth and Politics Beat.  The Baltimore All Peoples-Congress members also participated.  Activists are meeting on August 12 to plan future actions.

Los Angeles, California

Two hundred anti-war protesters gathered and marched in Downtown Los Angeles Aug. 2 despite 20 violent pro-shah and pro-U.S. war counter protecters that tried to stop it. The counter protecters were violating a permit obtained by the Stop the War On Iran Coalition. In fact, the only action the police took was to attempt to arrest one of the coalition monitors defending the Stop War On Iran protest.

About 15 demonstration monitors were able to isolate and force the counter protecters out of the park to allow the program to resume. Speakers and initiators of the march represented BAYAN-USA, World Can’t Wait, FMLN, FIST, IAC. Other speakers represented South Asian Network, USLAW-Los Angeles, SEIU Local 721, Al-Awda, Anti-Racist Action, Union of Progressive Iranians and more. The march was very visible along Broadway’s mostly Latino and working class population. Some observers joined the militant march. Press included Fox news, the local Pacifica station – KPFK and Tehran News.  For updates and to find out how to get involved, see http://www.iacenterla.org.

Raleigh, N.C.

The protest convened at the State Capitol building.  Rima L’Amir from FIST made opening remarks.  Twenty pro-war men with U.S. flags tried to provoke the anti-war activists but were unsuccessful.  The march stopped at U.S. Congressman’s Bob Ethridge’s office downtown where Larkin Coffey from FIST and a speaker from the Durham Bill of Rights Defense Committee spoke. The march went to Barack Obama’s local campaign headquarters where Rev. David Foy from Black Workers for Justice spoke. Many of the Obama volunteers came outside and began registering people to vote.  Another FIST speaker talked about the role of the Democratic Party. While marching past the bus station many riders joined in on the anti-war chants and started dancing and took Stop War on Iran literature.  Ben Carroll from FIST was interviewed on National Public Radio. For more information and updates, see http://raleighfist.wordpress.com.

Houston, Texas

TONC organized an open mic protest to denounce plans to make war on Iran Aug. 1 in 100-degree heat for two hours at the Mickey Leland Federal Building.  “We have so many issues to fight right here at home.  We don’t need to make war on Iran,” said Alma Diaz, co-host of KPFT Pacifica’s “Protecto Latino Americano”. “Tomorrow morning we are going to confront the racist Border Watch at a job site and we urge you to join us.”

Signs that read, “Honk to Stop War” evoked continuous honking by drivers, waving and making peace signs from car windows.  People signed petitions for “No War on Iran”.  Council on American-Islamic Relations representative, Ali Khalili, stated, “Enough is enough.  In our name, with our money, they are killing people across the world. We waged war in Iraq. More than a million innocent men, women and children have died.”

Other activists represented there were from the Harris County Green Party, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Houston Peace Forum, Houston Peace and Justice Center, Code Pink, and Houston Coalition for Justice. Njeri Shakur from the Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, stated, “People’s lives are in a crisis with the rising gas prices, rising rents and food costs…people are sick of war and want our tax money to be spent on the real needs of the people.”

Boston, Massachusetts

Over 200 activists picketed the Army Recruitment Center Aug. 2 in downtown Boston in an action jointly organized as a Counter Recruitment Day called by the UMass/Boston Antiwar Coalition and Boston Stop War on Iran Campaign.

Shouting “We support war resisters, they’re our brothers. They’re our sisters”, the picket line stretched an entire block and was joined by activists from TONC, IVAW, Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition, Workers World Party, International Socialist Organization, Vets for Peace, Smedley Butler Brigade, Women’s Fightback Network, Stonewall Warriors and Boston School Bus Drivers Union Local 8751 USW.

Mike Spinnato from IVAW told WW that, “Reading Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States opened my eyes to the reality of what armed forces recruitment was really about”.

FIST organizer, Miya, spoke on the connection between the military recruiting oppressed youth to fight and die abroad and the need for jobs for youth, not jails and war. To get involved with the Boston Stop War on Iran Campaign, see http://www.iacboston.org.

Springfield, Massachusetts

50 people attended an Aug. 2 noontime news conference in Court Square, across from City Hall, followed by a public speak-out.  The speakers included State Representative Benjamin Swan, a civil rights activist who marched with Dr. King, and award-winning Latino poet Martin Espada.  Iranian born Behzad Samimi, now a U.S. citizen, made a strong case against a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

They were joined by Don James, President of Arise, a poor people’s rights group; Dr. “Marty” Nathan of Physicians for Social Responsibility; student John Collura of the S.T.C.C. Mobilization Against Poverty, Racism and War, along with representatives from Out Now, Wally Nelson Veterans for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee.

All three Springfield T.V. stations covered the news conference, as well as The Springfield Republican newspaper.  Nick Camerota of the Western Mass. IAC was interviewed prior to Aug. 2 on two African American radio programs about the protest.  Other protests in the state were held in Pittsfield, Orange and Tisbury.

Detroit. Michigan

Over100 multinational protesters joined a spirited protest in downtown Detroit at Hart Plaza Aug. 1 declaring “US-Israel: Hands off Iran and “Money for Housing, Not for War!”

The emergency action, sponsored by the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War and Injustice (MECAWI) (see http://www.mecawi.org) was joined by members of Peace Action, the AFT and UAW, the Moratorium NOW! coalition, Latinos Unidos, Pax Christi, the Green Party, the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights, the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, 11th Hour 4 Peace, Iranian community members and others.

A speak out took place were speakers linked the U.S.’s planned war on Iran to the domestic war most notably in relation to foreclosures, school closings, police brutality and the increasing costs of living. A similar action took place in Ann Arbor Aug. 2.

Woodstock, NY

Some three dozen people gathered on the Village Green in Woodstock, NY, to protest the potential invasion of Iraq. There was an overwhelming supportive response from passersby on foot and cars, despite the heavy rain. Rene Imperato, of the Woodstock Solidarity Committee, spoke on the plight of veterans and the horrible effects of exposure to depleted uranium by American and other occupying forces as well as the Iraqi people. Dale Wise of Veterans for Peace read poems from wounded Iraq veterans. Veterans for Peace,

Following the rally, protesters drove to Kingston to join a picketline of over two dozen people across a busy thoroughfare from the local army recruitment office at the Kingston Valley Plaza mall.

Woodstock Vietnam Veterans Against the War and www.mid-eastcrisisresponse.org. endorsed the Woodstock demonstration which was called by the Woodstock Solidarity Committee.

Atlanta, Georgia

More than 80 anti-war activists lined both sides of a busy midtown Atlanta street to oppose any economic sanctions or military attack on Iran. There were honks of approval from many passing cars and cheers from pedestrians. Leaflets urging people to contact their elected officials and voice their rejection of any blockade of Iran as contained in House Resolution 362 were distributed to shoppers.

The IAC and the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition/Atlanta action drew a number of youth and students and members of the Iranian community, some of whom came in response to a half-page “No War on Iran” ad placed in a weekly newspaper.

Chicago, Ill.

Over 125 anti-war and progressive activists attended a rally at the State of Illinois Building organized by the Chicago Coalition against War and Racism to oppose the bipartisan war threats against Iran.

The speakers’ list included public housing activist Beauty Turner; immigrant rights activist Jorge Mujica from the March 10th Coalition; Iranian activist Ali Akbari from Evanston Neighbors for Peace; Al Sutton of Chicago Labor against War; and Angie Haban of the “Holy Name 6”, activists who face charges for staging an anti-war protest during the 2008 Easter service at Holy Name Cathedral. The protesters marched to the Cook County Republican Headquarters, the Israeli consulate, and the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

(From http://www.worldwidewamm.org/home.html) At noon on Friday, August 1, the anniversary of the collapse Interstate-35 Bridge into the Mississippi River, exposing the condition of U.S. infrastructure, Women Against Military Madness, held a demonstration in Minneapolis outside of Senator Amy Klobuchar’s office, one block from the site of the bridge. National and international organizations called for worldwide emergency actions on the next day, but we held ours one earlier to coincide with the bridge collapse. Senator Klobuchar was one of the sponsors of Senate Resolution 580. The protest called for “Bridges Not Bombs! Don’t Bomb Iran!” and was attended by 40-50 activists. Many cars and bicyclists honked and gave thumbs up and thanks on the street at the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Although news crews from major TV stations fueled up at a gas station across the street as they cruised up and down Washington Ave. to take photos of the bridge, the stories in the media focused on healing and heroes after the tragedy and making the connection between the decaying U.S. infrastructure and the cost of war and the threat of war did not fit into their story line.

Vancouver, Canada

200 people, including many Iranians, rallied at the Vancouver Art Gallery to demand “No War On Iran!” In Canada, besides activists in Vancouver, British Columbia, there were also events organized in Calgary, Alberta and Sydney, Nova Scotia, in conjunction with this international call.

The rally in Vancouver was organized jointly by Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and the Iranian Community Against War (ICAW). MCs Payvand and Arash from ICAW opened the rally with chants of “Don’t Attack Iran!” and “No to Sanctions on Iran!”.

Many community activists from a variety of unions, grassroots organizations, and ethnic communities spoke at the rally, including: Alison Bodine, MAWO Co-chair (by phone from San Francisco), Phillipa Ryan, Coast Salish elder and social justice activist, Dustin Langley, a central organizer with Stop War on Iran (reading a solidarity statement via phone from New York), Ladan, an Iranian social justice activist and supporter of the Iranian Community Against War, Charles Boylan, radio host on Co-op Radio’s “Wake Up With Co-op” program and a member of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Cesar, an organizer with the Solidarity Coalition for a United Latin America, Fred Muzin, President of the Hospital Employee’s Union of British Columbia, Ali Yerevani, ICAW organizer and political editor of the Fire This Time newspaper, Nita Palmer, executive committee member and Acting Co-chair of MAWO. The rally was closed with a resolution read by Meaghan Griffiths, high school student and MAWO organizer – for a full report from MAWO and text of resolution, see http://www.mawovancouver.org/reports/080802photos.html . Activists are planning a public forum on August 12 to continue to organize and mobize – for more information, see:
http://www.mawovancouver.org/materials/posters/080821-IRAN-FORUM-SURREY.pdf

Other Aug. 2 protests

In Cleveland antiwar groups demanded “Don’t Iraq Iran” as they marched past the federal building to a rally at a downtown park.  Congressperson Dennis Kucinich made opening remarks charging the Bush administration with using the same lie–weapons of mass destruction–to justify another war. Other speakers represented the Iranian community, Peace Action, World Can’t Wait, U.S. Labor Against the War, AFSC, WILPF, Vets for Peace, Greater Cleveland Immigrant Support Network, TONC, Middle East Peace Forum, and others. A protest was also held in Columbus.

In Buffalo, a demonstration was sponsored by Buffalo Forum, the Western New York Peace Center, IAC and WWP. The anti war coalition in Buffalo recently shouted John McCain out of Buffalo.

A rush hour protest in downtown Baltimore was held Aug. 1.  Hundreds of workers honked their horn and waved as activists held signs that read, “Foreclose the war, not our homes. Roll back gas prices, not war on Iran.”

In Hicksville, Long Island, 65 people rallied, joined in a lively action at the railroad station and then took a “peace” train to the NYC rally. Activists from Vets For Peace, Code Pink, LI TONC, Pax Christi, Hicksville SDS, as well as Hicksville Students Against War participated.

The IAC organized a Stop War on Iran picket line at the Federal Courthouse in Seattle and then marched to city center. This march joined forces with a vigil against the U.S.-Israeli war and occupation against Palestine called by Voices of Palestine. There was another demonstration organized by IVAW, GI Voice and Olympia SDS at the gates of Ft. Lewis which made an appeal to the soldiers not to fight Iran.

Nearly fifty people came out in 103 degree heat in Denver to protest war threats made against Iran from the Bush regime.  Banners and signs held up by the activists received many responses from passing motorists.

In Bozeman, Montana, a vigil to Stop Wars on Iraq and Iran was held at the Gallatin County Courthouse.  Overwhelmingly, passersby, many on their way to and from a local fair, supported the demands by honking their car horns, giving peace signs or raising their fists in support.

In Tucson, a discussion was held on how the local anti-war movement can educate people about the Bush administration’s lies regarding Iran. One speaker, who had visited Iran last summer, gave a firsthand account of the gains the Iranian people have made since overthrowing the Shah in 1978.

Other Stop War on Iran protests were held in Kennebunkport, ME; Salt Lake City, UT; Louisville, Ky., Fairbanks, AK; Hilo, HI; Gate 1 of the Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Va., Naples and Miami, FL, Madison, WI and many more.  Go to www.StopWarOnIran.org for full report backs on other actions and pictures — and to help organize for the next stage of the struggle to Stop War on Iran.

Many activists have posted videos of local actions on YouTube and elsewhere – check the Stop War on Iran blog for links to videos and news coverage.

U.S. & Israel prepare for attack on Iran

Dustin Langley

President George W. Bush has given the Israeli military the go-ahead to prepare for an imminent attack on Iran. Israel is also using U.S. bases in Iraq to prepare for the attack.

Actions on Aug. 2

www.StopWarOnIran.org

The British Sunday Times of July 13 reported: “Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an ‘amber light’ to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, [a Pentagon] official told The Sunday Times.

“‘Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,’ the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support.”

No U.S. support? The Jerusalem Post reported on the same day: “On Friday, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network that IAF [Israeli Air Force] war planes were practicing in Iraqi airspace and were landing on U.S. airbases in the country as a preparation for a potential strike on Iran.”

Once again the most powerful forces of U.S. corporate power—the military-industrial-petroleum complex—are using Israel as their proxy to threaten war on surrounding countries in the region. Israel is armed, financed and politically and diplomatically supported by Washington. It cannot act on its own or without explicit permission from Washington.

At the same time that the White House is giving the Zionist military a go-ahead to bomb Iran, the U.S. Congress is moving ahead to escalate tensions in the region and possibly provoke an incident that would “justify” U.S. military action. House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 both require that the president begin a blockade of Iran.

The House resolution “demands” that the president impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Enforcing this would require a U.S. naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, which is an act of war according to international law. Approximately one-fourth of the world’s oil, including that from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which are 21 miles wide at their narrowest point.

These two resolutions have received widespread bipartisan support from members of both houses of Congress, and are expected to pass without debate or vote. A staffer in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said that once the House resolution hits the floor, it will “pass like a hot knife through butter.” Some have speculated that the bill will be put on the floor “under suspension”—meaning it will pass without even a vote.

Both resolutions accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, despite the fact that Washington’s National Intelligence Estimate report last December made it clear that every major U.S. intelligence agency believes Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

Nor do the resolutions refer to the real nuclear threat in the region: the U.S., the only country that has used nuclear weapons and currently has a massive nuclear-armed naval armada in the region. It also does not mention the apartheid settler state of Israel, which is thought to have at least 200 nuclear weapons.

At the same time, two leading senators announced on July 15 that they had reached a bipartisan agreement to expand economic sanctions targeting Iran. Senators Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) called Iran “a threat to U.S. interests.” Dodd, a former candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for president, said: “This bipartisan bill strengthens economic sanctions against Iran, and authorizes divestment from companies that do business with Iran’s key oil sector.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. is involved in “covert operations”—acts of terrorism—inside Iran. In the July 7 New Yorker, Seymour Hersh revealed that Congress has approved $400 million to fund covert operations in Iran. These operations include providing support to armed groups opposed to the Iranian government, kidnapping members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and taking them across the border to Iraq for interrogation, the manipulation of Iran’s currency, and other acts intended to destabilize the regime.

Hersh reports that these types of operations have been ongoing at least since last year, but the recent congressional appropriation signals a significant expansion of these actions.

It is clear that the Bush administration is determined to push forward with its agenda of endless war to control the oil reserves of the Middle East. It is equally clear that members of Congress—both Democrats and Republicans—are on board, just as they collaborated in authorizing the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It is imperative that progressive activists and organizations, particularly in the U.S., mobilize to stop another brutal war and demand an end to the illegal sanctions and covert operations targeting Iran.

Stop War on Iran, an international grassroots campaign, has issued an Emergency Call for protests, marches and other actions on the weekend of Aug. 2. Local organizers are planning events in more than 50 cities, including Los Angeles, Tucson, San Diego, San Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Jersey City, Albuquerque, Buffalo, New York, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Houston, Salt Lake City, Virginia Beach, Washington and more. An updated list is available at www.StopWarOnIran.org.

Now is the time to take to the streets. Only a massive grassroots mobilization can stop another bloody and illegal war. To get involved, or for more information, see www.StopWarOnIran.org.

Sanctions, diplomacy, missiles: U.S. takes aim at Iran’s sovereignty

What is the significance of the widely publicized announcement that the Bush administration has finally agreed to talk to Iran?

Have U.S. aircraft carriers, nuclear-armed and powered submarines, destroyers or missiles been pulled back from Iran’s coast? Has Washington renounced its years of sabotage, assassinations and other covert actions inside Iran? Will any of the many sanctions imposed to constrict Iran’s development be lifted or even eased?

On July 19 Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on a six-nation gathering in Geneva and “observed” nuclear negotiations between Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili and Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The talks are scheduled to resume in August, but Burns will not return for them. The one-time presence of this third-ranking diplomat is supposedly enough to show that Washington has made an effort at a diplomatic solution.

U.S. participation in the meeting came after increasingly frantic appeals from European powers and from the feudal and military regimes in the Persian Gulf region for diplomacy rather than war. They fear the destabilizing consequences of another U.S. attack. Even in top circles of the U.S. ruling class and military command, concern has been expressed about the risks and dangers of a new war.

Following his appearance at the Geneva meeting, Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Abu Dhabi with foreign ministers and senior officials of the six Gulf states, along with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. At the meeting Rice warned that Iran had two weeks to halt its development of nuclear energy or face further “punitive measures.” Iran will also be the main topic at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers the following day.

Washington says its possible next step is to push for an intense level of international sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. If council members don’t go along with its demands, the U.S. is threatening military action.

To reinforce the threat, Rice’s statement was immediately followed by an announcement from Israeli military adviser Amos Gilad that Israel was preparing to attack Iran if diplomacy failed—and that the U.S. would not veto such action.

Although Burns sat in on the Geneva meeting, the U.S. did not give its agreement to a European proposal that, in exchange for an Iranian “freeze” on its enrichment of uranium, a six-week “freeze” be put on more restrictive sanctions against Iran. Lifting the existing sanctions was not even proposed.

U.S. sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the 1978 Iranian Revolution. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council imposed three new rounds of sanctions on Iran. Now Washington is demanding new and far harsher sanctions—despite International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reports that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and a similar conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, endorsed by the 17 top U.S. spy agencies.

Iran has every right under international law and treaties to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Its nuclear power plants are all under the inspection and safeguards of the IAEA. The IAEA has continually said that there has been no illicit diversion of declared nuclear material.

It is now clear that the State Department’s one-day venture into talks with Iran was merely positioning by Washington to get its allies to agree on far harsher economic sanctions and other efforts to sabotage Iran’s national development.
Iran’s real crime

Iran has a severe energy shortage. Although it is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, its ability to refine crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel is limited. As a country with a history of underdevelopment, Iran must import more than half its refined petroleum products to fuel its new industries and a modern transportation system. Iran is now the second-largest importer of gasoline and diesel fuel in the world. (Toronto Globe and Mail, July 22)

A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and imposing “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This would amount to a blockade—an act of war—and a threat to Iran’s sovereignty. It is also an example of how U.S. policy is aimed at keeping resource-rich countries underdeveloped and under its control.

At the same time that the U.S. is trying to cripple Iran’s economy, supposedly over its nuclear program, it is pursuing a deal with India to provide it nuclear fuel and technology. India is not yet a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a member of the IAEA. Iran is both.

Iran’s real crime, in the eyes of the Pentagon and the corporate oil giants who determine U.S. policy, is that it is determined to use its resources for the further development of its own economy. The other oil-producing states in the region are corrupt semi-feudal regimes, each with a compliant and dependent ruling class. These regimes are under the total control of U.S. corporations and banks. The largest portion of their vast revenue from oil sales is wasted in purchases of U.S. weapons systems or invested in U.S. banks.

Millions of Iranian people participated in the 1978 revolution that overthrew the corrupt U.S.-backed shah. Since then, great social advances have transformed Iran. Once the people liberated their oil resources from the control of giant U.S. and British corporations, billions of dollars were available to develop Iranian industries and social services.

In less than two decades, Iran moved from 90 percent illiteracy for rural women to full literacy; more than half the university graduates are now women. Stunning improvements in totally free as well as subsidized health care meant record-breaking improvements in life expectancy, birth control and infant mortality. Even according to World Bank figures, Iran has exceeded the social gains of any other country in the region.

This is what U.S. policy makers are determined to reverse. They want control of the vast wealth that comes from every aspect of exploration, pumping, transport and refining of the planet’s most valuable and needed resource. They are willing to destroy millions of lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on war in this struggle.
Past history of U.S. talks

It is important to recall the many rounds of talks between U.S. and Iraqi delegations before the war. The U.S. repeatedly demanded the authority to carry out inspections in Iraq any time, any place, to search for non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Just before the Pentagon attack, there was the heaviest round of diplomatic talks involving Iraq, members of the U.N. Security Council and Washington’s European allies. The talks were aimed at imposing still stricter sanctions, supposedly to gain Iraq’s total disarmament. This was years after U.N. inspectors had declared Iraq fully disarmed.

It is also important to remember the U.S./NATO “peace talks” with the Yugoslav government in Rambouillet, France. U.S. negotiators gave Yugoslavia an ultimatum: accept total U.S./NATO military occupation and dismemberment or face massive bombardment. When the Parliament of the Yugoslav Federation voted overwhelmingly to refuse the NATO “peace” demand of occupation of their sovereign territory, the Pentagon began 72 days of massive bombardment followed by the NATO seizure of Kosovo.

The U.S. conducted five years of “peace negotiations” with theVietnamese while escalating its bombardment, including carpet bombing.

Secretary of State Rice has announced the U.S. is considering the establishment of an “interests section” in Tehran and compared it to the interests section that the U.S. has maintained for decades in Cuba. “We have an interests section in Cuba, so I wouldn’t read thawing of relations into anything,” she said. Throughout the decades that Washington has maintained an interests section in Havana, the blockade of Cuba, sabotage and attempted assassinations of Cuban leaders have continued.

U.S. “talks” are too often preparation for the next stage of war. It is important for the movement on a global scale to remain on the alert and to understand that U.S. imperialism’s aims and plans have not changed.

Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff: Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

reprinted from CASMII:

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Click [here] to download this paper in PDF format.

[Last Updated January 2008]

INTRODUCTION

Five years into the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq and its consequent catastrophe for Iraqi people, peace loving people throughout the world are appalled by the current Iran-US standoff and its resemblance to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq . The hawks, headed by Dick Cheney in Washington , are now shamelessly calling for a military attack on Iran . The same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq is now pushing for a military attack on Iran . The same distortions which were attempted to dupe the western public opinion for the invasion of Iraq , are now used to pave the way for another illegal pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran . As in the case of Iraq , the UN Security Council Resolutions against Iran , extricated through massive US pressure, are meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy for such an attack.

Contrary to the myth created by the western media, it is the US and its European allies which are defying the international community, in that they have rejected negotiations without pre-conditions. They show their lack of good faith by demanding that Iran concede the main point of negotiations, namely, suspension of enrichment of uranium which is Iran ’s legitimate right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, before the negotiations actually start.

The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions.

Here, we debunk the main unfounded accusations, lies and distortions by the US and Israel and their allies while highlighting the main reasons to oppose sanctions and military intervention against Iran .

IRAN ‘S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME: FACTS AND LIES

1 . There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran . The US and its allies pressure Iran to prove that it is not hiding a nuclear weapons programme. This demand is logically impossible to satisfy and serves to make diplomacy fail in order to force regime change. Numerous intrusive and snap visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, totalling more than 2,700 person-hours of inspection, have failed to produce a shred of evidence for a weapons programme in Iran . Traces of highly enriched uranium found at Natanz in 2004, were determined by the IAEA to have come with imported centrifuges.

In July 2007, IAEA and Iran agreed on a work plan with defined modalities and timetable to clarify all issues of concerns in relation to Iran ’s nuclear programme. On 27 th August 2007 IAEA announced that “The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use ”. The Agreement also cleared Iran ’s plutonium experiments, which the Cheney Camp had accused of being evidence of Iran ’s weaponisation programme.

Dr Mohammad El-Baradei, the IAEA Director General, said on 7 th September 2007, “For the last few years we have been told by the Security Council, by the board, we have to clarify the outstanding issues in Iran because these outstanding issues are the ones that have led to the lack of confidence, the crisis” , “We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponisation of their programme”.

Two years earlier, in June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, was asked by Swissinfo if Iran was intent on building a nuclear bomb. He replied: “My impression is not. My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this Additional Protocol. They did not have to.”

2. Iran ’s need for nuclear power generation is real. Even when Iran ’s population was one-third of what it is today, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, negotiating on behalf of President Gerald Ford, persuaded the former Shah that Iran needed over twenty nuclear reactors. With Iran ’s population of 70 million, and growing, and its oil resources fast depleting, Iran may be a net importer of oil in just over a decade from now. Nuclear energy is thus a realistic and viable solution for electricity generation in the country.

3. The “crisis” over Iran ’s nuclear programme lacks the urgency claimed by Washington . Weapons grade uranium must be enriched at least to 85%. A 2005 CIA report determined that it could take Iran 10 years to achieve this level of enrichment. Many independent nuclear experts have stated that Iran would face formidable technical obstacles if it tried to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5% purity required for electricity generation. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, because of contamination of Iranian uranium with heavy metals, Iran cannot possibly enrich beyond even 20% without support from Russia or China. IAEA director, Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei, too, reiterated in October 2007 that “I don’t see Iran , today, to be a clear and present danger. And our conclusion here is supported by every intelligence assessment I’ve seen that even if Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, it’s still three to eight years away from that”..

4. Iran has met its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran voluntarily accepted and enforced safeguards stricter than IAEA’s Additional Protocol until February 2006, when Iran ’s nuclear file was reported, under the pressure from the US , to the Security Council. (The US , by contrast, has neither signed nor implemented the Additional Protocol, and Israel has refused to sign the NPT.)

Iran ’s earlier concealment of its nuclear programme took place in the context of the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam. Not only the U.S. , Germany , and the UK were complicit in the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam which were used against Iranian soldiers and civilians but Israel ’s destruction of Iraq ’s Osirak reactor in 1981 was treated with total impunity. Iranian leaders then concluded from these gross injustices that international laws are only “ink on paper”.

But the most direct reasons for Iran ’s concealment were the American trade embargo on Iran and Washington ’s organized and persistent campaign to stop civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran from any source. For example, in 1995 Germany offered to let Kraftwerk Union (a subsidiary of Siemens) finish Iran ’s Bushehr reactor, but withdrew its proposal under US pressure . The following year, China cancelled its contract to build a nuclear enrichment facility in Isfahan for the same reason. Thus Washington systematically violated, with impunity, Article IV of the NPT, which allows “signatories the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.

Nevertheless, Iran ’s decision not to declare all of its nuclear installations did not violate its NPT obligations. According to David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, who first provided satellite imagery and analysis in December 2002, under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, ” Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it.”

5. Iran has given unprecedented concessions on its nuclear programme. Unlike North Korea , Iran has resisted the temptation to withdraw from the NPT. Besides accepting snap inspections under Additional Protocol until February 2006, Iran has invited Western companies to develop Iran ’s civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium would not be diverted to a weapons programme. Such concessions are very rare in the world, but the U.S. and its allies have refused Iran ’s offer.

6. Enrichment of uranium for a civilian nuclear programme is Iran ’s inalienable right. Every member of the NPT has the right to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear programme and is entitled to full technical assistance.

But with the US as the back seat driver and in violation of their assistance obligations, France , Germany , and the UK insisted throughout the three years of negotiations that Tehran forfeit its right, in return for incentives of little value. Some European diplomats admitted to Asia Times Online on 7th September 2005, that the package offered by the EU-3 was “an empty box of chocolates.” But “there is nothing else we can offer,” the diplomats went on to say . “The Americans simply wouldn’t let us.”

7. The Western alliance has not tried true diplomacy and relies instead on threats. Iran refuses to suspend its enrichment of uranium before bilateral negotiations begin, as demanded by the White House, because it suspects Washington will stall with endless doubts regarding verification of suspension.

WESTERN HYPOCRISY

8. The UN resolutions against Iran , in contrast to the treatment of the US allies, South Korea , India , Pakistan , and Israel , smack of double standards. For example, in the year 2000, South Korea enriched 200 milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77%), but was not referred to the UN Security Council.

India has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections and has developed an atomic arsenal, but receives nuclear assistance from the US in violation of the NPT. More bizarrely, India has a seat on the governing board of IAEA and, under US pressure, voted to refer Iran as a violator to the UN Security Council. Another non-signatory, Pakistan , clandestinely developed nuclear weapons but is supported by the US as a “war on terror” ally.

Israel is a close ally of Washington , even though it has hundreds of clandestine nuclear weapons, has dismissed numerous UN resolutions and has refused to sign the NPT or open any of its nuclear plants to inspections.

The US itself is the most serious violator of the NPT. The only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in war, the US has refused to reduce its nuclear arsenal, in violation of Article VI of NPT. The US is also in breach of the Treaty because it is developing new generations of nuclear warheads for use against non-nuclear adversaries. Moreover, Washington has deployed hundreds of such tactical nuclear weapons all around the world in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.

9. Iran has not threatened Israel or attacked another country. The track records of the US , Israel , the UK and France are very different. These so called “democracies” have a bloody history of invading other countries. Iran ’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has declared repeatedly that Iran will not attack or threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and banned nuclear weapons as sacrilegious. Iran has been a consistent supporter of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East .

The comments of Iran ’s President Ahmadinejad against Israel have been repeated by some of Iran ’s leaders since 1979 and constitute no practical threat. The statement attributed to him that “ Israel should be wiped off the map” is a distortion of the truth and has been determined by a number of Farsi linguists, amongst them, Professor Juan Cole, to be a mistranslation. What he actually said was that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. Ahmadinejad has made clear that he envisions regime change in Israel through internal decay, similar to the demise of the Soviet Union . Iranian leaders have said consistently for two decades that they will accept a two-state solution in Palestine if a majority of Palestinians favour that option.

This is in sharp contrast to the explicit threats by Israeli and the US leaders against Iran , including aid to separatist movements to disintegrate and wipe Iran off the map [9], as reported by Seymour Hersh and Reese Erlich . There is considerable evidence of clandestine operations by the US , British and Israeli agents who are arming, training and funding terrorist entities such as Jundollah in Baluchistan, Arab separatists in Khuzestan, and PJAK in Kurdistan . These concrete attempts at disintegration of Iran , as well as the 100 million dollars congressional funding for ‘democracy’ promotion in Iran , constitute aggression and are interference in Iran ’s domestic affairs and Iranian people’s rights of sovereignty. They violate the bilateral Algiers Accord of 1981, in which Washington renounced any such actions in the future.

Furthermore, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, former UN ambassador, John Bolton, Senator Lieberman, as well as presidential candidates Guilliani, Romney and McCain are openly advocating and pushing for pre-emptive military attack on Iran. The French President, Sarkouzy, and his Foreign Minister, Kouchner, the new recruits to the Neo Cons camp, have added their voice to this chorus for war . British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, too has not ruled out the pre-emptive military option against Iran .

Iran is no match for Israel , whose security and military needs are all but guaranteed by the US . Iran is surrounded on all sides by the US Navy and American bases.

Iran has not invaded or threatened any country for two and a half centuries. The only war the Islamic Republic fought was the one imposed by Saddam’s army, which invaded Iran with the backing of the US and its allies. When Iraq used chemical weapons, supplied by the West, against Iranian troops, Iran did not retaliate in kind. When Afghanistan ’s Taliban regime murdered eight Iranian diplomats in 1996 and remained unapologetic, Iran did not respond militarily.

10. The US “democratization” programme for Iran is a hoax. Although violations of human rights and democratic freedoms do occur too often in Iran , the country has the most pluralistic system in a region dominated by undemocratic client states of the US . It is sheer hypocrisy for the US, which turns a blind eye to the gross human rights abuses by its allies, such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Libya, and Egypt, to misrepresent its agenda in Iran as a “democratization” programme. Washington ’s pretensions ring especially hollow when one remembers that in 1953 Iran ’s nascent democracy under Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq was overthrown by the CIA, which restored a hated military dictatorship for the benefit of American oil conglomerates.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED

11. There are no legal bases for Iran ’s referral to the UN Security Council. Since there is no evidence that Iran is even contemplating to weaponize its nuclear programme, no grounds exist for this sidelining of the IAEA.

Michael Spies of the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy has clarified the issue: “Under the Statute (Art. 12(C)) and the Safeguards Agreement, the Board may only refer Iran to the Security Council if it finds that, based on the report from the Director General, it cannot be assured that Iran has not diverted nuclear material for non-peaceful purpose. In the past, findings of `non-assurance’ have only come in the face of a history of active and ongoing non-cooperation with IAEA safeguards. The pursuit of nuclear activities in itself, which is specifically recognized as a sovereign right, and which remain safeguarded, could not legally or logically equate to uncertainty regarding diversion.”

The IAEA director, Dr ElBaradei, has in fact consistently confirmed that there has been no diversion of safeguarded nuclear material in Iran . He has asserted unambiguously in his interview with New York Times on 7 th September 2007 that in Iran “we have not come to see any undeclared activities … We have not seen any weaponisation of their programme, nor have we received any information to that effect” . He has also repeatedly urged skeptics in Western capitals to help the IAEA by sharing any possible proof in their possession of suspicious nuclear activity in Iran .

The IAEA-Iran work plan of August 2007 has reconfirmed this. It has stated that all declared nuclear activirties in Iran have been verified to be for peaceful purposes. It has also cleared Iran of its plutonium experiments which had been regarded as a smoking gun by the US .

Dr ElBaradei has nevertheless said, under pressure from Washington , that he cannot rule out the existence of undeclared nuclear activities in the country. However, according to the IAEA’s Safeguards Implementation Report for 2005 (issued on 15 June 2006), 45 other countries, including 14 European countries, in particular Germany , are in this same category as Iran .

Moreover, according to the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, certifying non-diversion of nuclear material to military purposes for any given country takes an average of six years of inspections and verification by the IAEA. In the case of Iran , these investigations have been going on for only about four years now.

Iran ’s file, therefore, must be returned to the jurisdiction of the IAEA and the rules of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US and its allies violated the rules by exerting massive pressure on the IAEA to report Iran without any legitimacy to the UN Security Council. For example, David Mulford, the US Ambassador to India , warned the Government of India in January 2006 that there would be no US-India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran at the IAEA. On February 15th 2007, Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-Proliferation, admitted publicly that the US coerced India to vote against Iran. Clearly, reporting Iran to the UN Security Council and the subsequent adoption of the Resolutions 1696 and 1737 have been carried out with US coercion and have thus no legitimacy at all.

The IAEA report on the outcome of the “work plan” between Iran and the IAEA released on 15/11/07 has confirmed that ” Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provide (needed) clarifications and amplifications,” . The report has stated that Iran had made “substantial progress” towards clarifying outstanding questions about its nuclear programs , that “The agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programs are consistent with its findings” and that “We will however continue to seek corroboration and to verify the completeness of Iran’s declarations”. It has also confirmed repeatedly in various parts of the document that, in relation to all issues of ambiguity such as past black market procurement and concealment, Iran ’s statements are consistent with the information independently available to the agency.

The response from the US/Israel and their allies has been immediately negative, accusing Iran of “selective cooperation” with the IAEA. Shaul Mofaz , Israel ’s deputy prime minister, called for the sacking of Dr ElBaradei over the IAEA’s recent report on Iran . The US is pressing with the demand for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment, which is Iran ’s inalienable right as a signatory to the NPT. Probably under direct pressure from the US and its allies, trying to discredit the successful collaboration of Iran with the IAEA, the report has at the same time pointed to the agency’s “diminishing knowledge” about Iran ’s current nuclear programme. Such a situation, as Dr ElBaradei later asserted in his speech to the Governors’ Board of the IAEA in November 2007, is true of (over forty) countries that do not enforce the additional protocol. In the case of Iran , which is singled out among these countries by the west for political reasons, the US and its European allies bear the direct responsibility for this situation. As previously pointed out, they coerced the Governors Board of the IAEA to report Iran ’s file to the UN in 2005 and early 2006, which prompted Iran to suspend its voluntary enforcement of the Additional Protocol and to resume enrichment of uranium.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran , issued on December 3, refutes the US and Israeli accusations that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons programme. The statement vindicates Iran ’s claim that the decision by the Governors Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report its nuclear file to the UN Security Council in February 2006 and the subsequent Security Council resolutions and sanctions against Iran lack legitimacy.

The NIE report had been held for nearly one year in an effort by Vice President Cheney’s office to force the intelligence community to remove some of the dissenting judgments on Iran ’s nuclear program.

Representing the views of 16 US intelligence agencies, the NIE on Iran sharply reverses its 2005 version that claimed Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The report assesses that Iran ’s alleged military nuclear work ended in 2003, but fails to provide any evidence that such activity ever existed. If proof for this assessment had been found, it was the obligation of the US to provide it to the IAEA for on-the-ground verification.

A senior IAEA official was quoted by the IHT on December 4: “despite repeated smear campaigns, the IAEA has stood its ground and concluded time and again that ‘there was no evidence of an undeclared nuclear weapons program in Iran ‘”.

While the IAA and Iran are collaborating to resolve the final components of the outstanding issues on the Iranain nuclear programme by March 2008, the US and its European allies have pushed for a third round of the UN sanctions against Iran when according to its own intelligence Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme.

SANCTIONS NOT A GOOD IDEA

12. Dr ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that more sanctions are counterproductive. Economic sanctions on Iran will harm the people of Iran , as they were devastating to Iraqis, resulting in the death of at least 500,000 children. Sanctions would not however bring the Islamic Republic to its knees. Instead, any kind of sanctions, including the so-called “targeted” or “smart” sanctions, are viewed by the Iranian people as the West’s punishment for Iran ’s scientific progress (uranium enrichment for reactor fuel). As sanctions tighten, nationalist fervour will strengthen the resolve of Iranians to defend the country’s civilian nuclear programme.

13. Sanctions are not better than war; they can be exploited as a diplomatic veneer and a provocative prelude to military attack, as they were in Iraq . Thus, countries which support sanctions against Iran are only falling into the US trap in aiding the war drive on Iran .

STATEGIC SHIFT TO MULTI-FOCAL TARGETS

14. A US attack on Iran is imminent. The end of George Bush’s presidency in 2009 could be a serious set back for the NeoCons’ hegemonic dreams to control the energy resources in the region. He is unlikely to leave office bearing the legacy of failures in Afghanistan and Iraq and particularly leaving Iran a stronger player in the region. Thus the likelihood of military attack on Iran before Bush leaves office is a reality. Washington insiders have told security analysts that preparations for military attack have been made and are ready for execution.

Since January, in addition to the nuclear issue, the US has also focused its propaganda to falsely implicate Iran in the violence and failures of US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq . The Iran-US bilateral dialogue this summer was derailed amidst accusations that Iran aided the killing of American soldiers by providing sophisticated weapons and training to Afghan and Iraqi fighters. As in the nuclear case, Washington has provided no proof .

British Foreign Minister, David Miliband, admitted in an interview with the Financial Times on 8 th July 07 that there was “No Evidence” of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq . Likewise, the British Defence Minister, Des Browne, in August 07 maintained categorically that “No Evidence” existed of Iranian government’s complicity or instigation in supplying weapons to Iraqi militias. The Washington Post, too, reported from Iraq that hundreds of British troops combing southern Iraq for sign of Iranian weapons have come up empty-handed. Furthermore, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and Al-Maleki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, have stated Iran ’s positive role in providing whatever limited stability there is in both these countries. Nevertheless, G eorge Bush’s speech on 28 th August, authorizing the American military to “ confront Tehran ’s murderous activities”, and the deployment of British troops to the Iranian border to guard against Iran ’s “proxy war” in Iraq , signaled a systematic building towards a casus belli for another illegal pre-emptive war. The Kyle-Lieberman Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill, too, accused Iran of killing American servicemen in Iraq and nearly authorized the military to take all necessary action to combat Iran .

A third focus in the US war drive has now been launched by branding Iran ’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. This unprecedented move in US foreign policy and international relations is the proclaimed basis for imposing the toughest sanctions ever on Iranian banks, companies and individuals.

These new measures represent a massive escalation in the US war drive, they are a prelude to a military attack on Iran and provide the legal pretext for the US military to wage war on Iran without the prior approval of the US Congress.

ILLEGALITY OF A MILITARY ATTACK

15. Foreign state interference in Iran violates the UN charter. According to Seymour Hersch, the US is running covert operations in Iran to foment unrest and ethnic conflict for the purpose of regime change. Unmanned US drones have also entered into Iranian air space to spy over Iranian military installations and to map Iranian radar systems. These actions violate the UN Charter’s guarantee of the right of self-determination for all nations.

The Bush Administration has also confirmed, in the 2006 US National Security Strategy, its long term policy for pre-emptive military action against Washington ’s rivals. Former British prime minister, Tony Blair, supported this policy in his 21st March 2006 foreign policy speech, and his successor Gordon Brown has not rejected the pre-emptive use of military force against Iran . However, unprovoked strikes are illegal under international law. To remove this obstacle, John Reid, the then British Secretary of Defence, in his speech on 3rd April 2006 to the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, proposed a change in international law on pre-emptive military action.

16. Reports of nuclear attack scenarios against Iran can serve to raise the public’s tolerance for an act of aggression with conventional military means. People of conscience and sanity must not only condemn even contemplation of a nuclear attack, but also denounce any conventional attack.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTACK ON IRAN

17. Bombing cannot end Iran ’s nuclear programme. Since Iran already has the expertise to enrich uranium up to the 3.5% grade for a fuel cycle, no degree of bombing will halt Iran ’s civilian nuclear programme. On the contrary, the resulting mass casualties and destruction would strengthen the voices that argue Iran , like North Korea , should build a nuclear deterrent.

18. An attack on Iran will unite Iranians against the US and its allies. A great majority of the public in Iran support the country’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. This has been confirmed by all opinion polls conducted in the country, including polls taken by Western institutions. Therefore, a bombing campaign will not lead to an uprising by the Iranian people for regime change as envisaged by the US . Rather, it would ignite nationalist feelings in the country and unite the population, including most of the government’s critics, against the West.

19. A nuclear attack on Iran would fuel a new nuclear arms race and ruin the NPT. Any military intervention against Iran will lead to a regional catastrophe and expanded terrorism. Senator McCain, the Republican presidential hopeful, who has himself advocated the use of force on Iran , has predicted that an attack against Iran will lead to Armageddon. American or Israeli aggression on Iran , coming on the heels of the Iraq disaster, would inflame the grievance and outrage of Muslims worldwide and help jihadi extremists with their recruitment campaign. The region wide conflagration resulting from an Israel/US attack on Iran would dwarf the Iraq catastrophe.

20. The cause of democracy in Iran will suffer gravely if the country is attacked. President Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric severely undermined the reformist movement in Iran at a time when the country’s president promoted Dialogue Among Civilizations. Bush’s hostile posture strengthened the hands of Iranian hardliners and contributed to the reformist movement’s electoral defeat in 2005. That setback would be dwarfed by the consequences of a military assault on the country.

Copyright 2008, CASMII

Bush Supports Israeli Plan For Strike On Iran: Report

from the Huffington Post:

Last month Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker reported that the Bush Administration has stepped up covert operations inside Iran. Now the Times of London, citing information from a senior Pentagon official, says that Bush backs an Israeli plan for a strike on that country’s nuclear facilities:

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

full article here

H. Con. Res. 362 and S.R. 580: No Lies! No War!

from Counterpunch:

There are now 238 members of the House signed on as cosponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 362 “expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.”

On Wednesday, William Lacy Clay, Jr. of Missouri’s 1st District became the first and only member to withdraw his sponsorship.  On Tuesday afternoon, a group of fifteen of us visited Clay’s St. Louis office and spoke with him for 30 minutes via teleconference.  While we would like to claim that our conversation with him and our subsequent refusal to leave his office at closing time were key to his reversal, this isn’t the time for tallying political wins.

House Concurrent Resolution 362 and its companion, Senate Resolution 580, pave the way for open war with Iran.  It is that simple, and we must be equally clear and bold in our opposition.

full article here

Congress to vote on war resolution

The House is expected to vote at any time on House Resolution 362 (text below), which calls on the President to implement a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to stop shipments of gasoline, and to subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspection requirements.

This blockade is intended to heighten tensions and pave the way for military action by the U.S. or Israel.

Sign the petition now – tell Congress, President Bush, Halliburton, and the Media – Stop War on Iran!

—————————————————————————————-

H. Con. Res. 362: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in…

Bill Status
Introduced: May 22, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Status: Introduced
Go to Bill Status Page

Text of Legislation

HCON 362 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 362

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

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2008

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

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas Iran has consistently refused such offers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress–

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program; and

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

Is U.S. preparing another war—on Iran?

Is U.S. preparing another war—on Iran?
By Deirdre Griswold
Published Jun 29, 2008 10:39 PM

Israel on June 2 carried out military maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean. As many as 100 F-16 and F-15 jets supplied to Israel by the Pentagon were involved alongside Israeli helicopters with long-range fuel tanks. The F-16 is a jet fighter also equipped to carry a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, rockets or bombs.

The target of the exercise was 900 miles from Israel, roughly the same distance as Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. Numerous news accounts said the maneuvers were a rehearsal for an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

What was Washington’s reaction to Israel’s blatant threat to commit aggression and violate international law with U.S.-supplied weapons?

Two days after the war move, President George W. Bush held a press conference in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Bush tried to deflect criticism of Israel’s military moves by saying, bizarrely, “Iran is an existential threat to peace.” He might as well have said, “Bring ‘em on!”

Yet another war?

U.S. imperialism is already bogged down in highly unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is pressuring and bribing other countries to put up troops that the Pentagon can’t provide, short of reinstating the draft and igniting a rebellion among the youth of this country.

Every “sweep” or bombing by U.S. forces, with the inevitable widespread death and destruction that powerful weapons cause, just stiffens the resolve of millions of people in these countries and throughout the region to resist the invaders.

The people of the U.S. have turned decisively against these wars. They remember the lie about Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction” that Bush used to bulldoze support from Congress and the media and which paved the road to invasion.

The U.S. has recently bombed within Pakistan in the name of Bush’s fictitious “war on terror.” It has sponsored an Ethiopian-backed invasion of Somalia, backed up by the CIA and ships of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, including the humongous aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower.

Yet the warmakers in Washington are now brazenly organizing an international campaign of intimidation against Iran, laying the basis for a possible air attack on yet another country. While the Iranian government is taking all these threats very calmly, the potential for the threats to turn into actual aggression is real.

On June 23, undoubtedly after much pressure from Washington, the European Union announced it was imposing sanctions on Iran, including a freeze on the assets of the Melli Bank, the country’s biggest.

Iran has done nothing wrong

The excuse given for all this warlike activity against the country with the world’s fourth-largest known oil reserves is that Washington “suspects” it has a nuclear weapons program. This is such a huge lie that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El-Baradei, has threatened to resign if Iran is attacked.

Here are the facts:

Back in 2003, the Iranian government signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that treaty, it has the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

According to the IAEA, which has carried out many inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, there is absolutely no evidence that it is building weapons. Iran has said publicly many times that it has no weapons program and needs to develop nuclear power for the day when its oil starts running out.

With the world demand for oil rising every day, this is a real possibility that all oil-producing countries face. Iran, however, is not a small sheikdom like Kuwait (2.5 million people) or a desert kingdom like Saudi Arabia (27 million), but a country with more than 65 million people and a developing economy that needs energy. Its oil reserves are about 83 percent of Iraq’s, but its population is almost two and a half times as large.

It is not surprising or sinister that it would want to invest in diversifying its energy sources now, at a time when its oil sales are still ample and command a strong price.

On the other hand, everyone knows that Israel does have nuclear weapons. Jane’s Defense Review, which is considered the most authoritative source in the world on this subject, says Israel has up to 200 nuclear warheads and that its nuclear weapons program began in the 1960s. Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician, was abducted by Israeli agents in 1986 for revealing details of this program to the world media.

Israel, unlike Iran, has never signed the non-proliferation treaty or joined the IAEA.

So why isn’t Bush saying that Israel is an “existential threat to world peace”?

Israel is the tail, not the dog

Some rabid anti-Semites in the U.S. say this is because Israel dictates U.S. foreign policy. This is saying that the tail wags the dog. The truth is that the non-Jewish ruling classes in the U.S. and some European countries, especially Britain, have long regarded a Zionist settler state in the Middle East as a potent ally in their struggle to deny the Arab and Persian peoples control over their land and most valuable economic asset—oil.

That is why the U.S. has bankrolled the state of Israel to the tune of $102 billion since 1948. By the Pentagon’s standards, it’s been a cheap way to project U.S. imperialist power in that part of the world. By contrast, the war in Iraq has cost more than $531 billion in five years—and that’s not counting the future costs of disabled veterans and other “collateral” expenses.

Oil companies, the huge transnational banks linked with them and their associated think tanks—like the Rockefeller-funded Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission—have been dominant players in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They have produced many of the political figures who have persuaded the government to launch wars over this lucrative commodity.

Today, workers in the U.S. are hurting badly over high oil prices. The imperialist war policies of the Bush administration have contributed mightily to this—by creating havoc in Iraq, by the Pentagon’s consumption of vast quantities of oil and by creating an atmosphere akin to panic in the futures markets.

But where is the political opposition to all this? Not in Congress. No one is rising to condemn Bush for using Israel against Iran. No one is linking the oil companies’ record profits—in a time of recession—to U.S. wars of aggression in the Middle East. No one is telling workers here that their enemy is not Iran or Iraq, but ExxonMobil and BP.

In the presidential race, Barack Obama says he’s for negotiations with Iran’s leaders while reiterating his unconditional support for Israel. John McCain goes even further and rejects diplomacy. But diplomacy, it should be said, is only another tactic in imperialism’s overall strategy of world domination. If talks don’t produce the results the imperialists want—in this case, Iran’s capitulation—what comes next? Neither imperialist party rules out military action against Iran.

All this leaves any hope for real struggle against the warmongers on the shoulders of the masses of people themselves. Turning from passive opposition to active resistance is needed more than ever.

For information on mobilizing against a new war on Iran, see www.StopWarOnIran.org.

What’s Behind the Drive to War with Iran?

from Political Affairs Magazine:

While the bill also does not specifically authorize military force, it sets the conditions and prepares an excuse for military action down the road. Indeed, if its logical outcome is achieved, a naval blockade of Iran, it could be viewed as an act of war. This fact has prompted organizations such as JustForeignPolicy.org, Friends Committee on National Legislation, and United for Peace and Justice to urge opposition to the bill.

As most Americans seek a way out of the Iraq war and are prepared to hand power over to the Democratic Party with a mandate to do so, the drumbeat for war against Iran may just be the last resort the Bush administration has at it disposal to forestall such a political realignment. It is unfortunate that some Democrats feel the need to go along with a policy that could block their efforts to regain power in the 2008 elections.

Other Democratic leaders, however, are taking a stand. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has warned the Bush administration that a drive for war with Iran could prompt impeachment hearings. Wrote Conyers in a letter to Bush last May: “[I]t is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued.” full article here

HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

from Common Dreams

Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

by Alan Nasser

The current tension among political observers as to whether the U.S. and/or Israel will undertake military action against Iran before president Bush leaves office has been greatly intensified by the prospect that Congress will pass a frightening resolution, HR 362, as early as this week.

The Demands of HR 362

HR 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, calls for the president to enact more draconian economic sanctions against Iran. These include an embargo against any imports of refined petroleum. (While Iran is of course a major exporter of oil, it imports at least 40% of its refined petroleum.) The wording of the Resolution is chilling in the extreme: “Congress… demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by… prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.” The resolution is moving quickly through the House and could pass as early as this week.

The “stringent inspection requirements” listed would require a naval blockade, thereby constituting an act of war. And this is how the resolution would be perceived by virtually all Iranians. The result would surely marginalize moderates in Iran who would shun retaliatory measures against the Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric, which has been escalating since fall of 2007. Iranians would unify behind their most belligerent leaders and the country would have been handed, by the president and Congress, powerful reasons to develop nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence.

The final clause of the Resolution contains a classic example of political doubletalk: “… nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” But an embargo-with-inspections scheme can be put in effect only by means of a blockade, which logically entails the use of force.

Congressional Democrats, the IAEA and Factual Falsehoods in HR 362

There is more support now than there was a year ago in Congress, especially among the Democrats, for military action against Iran. Thus HR 362’s co-sponsors include 96 House Democrats and 111 House Republicans. These are the same Democrats whom Americans voted into Congress, in November 2006, as majorities in both houses, based on what voters believed to be the Democrats’ opposition to war in the Middle East.

To add insult to injury, HR 362 justifies its content with demonstrably false accusations about Iran’s nuclear program. The Resolution charges that Iran’s importing and manufacturing of centrifuges are “covert” and “illicit.” But under both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and Iran’s agreements with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these activities are entirely permitted. The IAEA has publicly stated its support of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which it states is in full accord with all treaty requirements to which Iran is subject.

Late last October IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei remarked to CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. … I very much have concern building confrontation, because that would lead to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we would end up on a precipice, we would end up in an abyss.” ElBaradei’s most recent statements repeatedly echo these October remarks.

The Role of AIPAC

That HR 362 has been so warmly received on Capitol Hill is a sad testimony to Congress’s willing dependence on external interests which cannot be assumed to be identical to those of most Americans. The Resolution is known to have been initially drafted by the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. In early June AIPAC sent more than a thousand lobbyists to Congress to whip up support for this Resolution.

Congress’s well known subordination to AIPAC’s agenda should not be construed as a democratic response to the wishes of the American Jewish community. Polls show that more than 80% of Jewish-Americans oppose an attack on Iran. Congress’s compliance to AIPAC’s interests amounts to obeisance to a foreign State, not to any domestic constituency.

HR 362 and the Pre-Invasion Rhetoric Re Iraq: Preludes to War

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s decision to impose severe extensive sanctions against Iraq, the White House last October unilaterally imposed harsh economic sanctions against a number of important Iranian institutions. In addition to targeting more than 20 Iranian companies and the country’s 3 major banks, the sanctions were announced as aimed mainly at Iran’s uniformed security force, the Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC), which the Bush administration characterized, with no evidence, as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction” and RGC’s Quds Force, which has been branded as a “supporter of terrorism.” These two accusations were the main pretexts for the invasion of Iraq.

Since Quds is part of RGC, and the latter is a state institution, the branding of Quds as a terrorist organization was ipso facto to brand Iran as a terrorist state.

Just as Washington had earlier cooperated with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (by providing him with, among other things, chemical weapons), so too had Washington benefited from Quds’s provision of arms to the U.S.-backed Muslim government in Bosnia, its aiding the forces fighting the Soviet military in Afghanistan, and its support for those fighting the Taliban. Quds even assisted, with U.S. approval, Kurdish guerrillas’ assault on the Baathist regime of Saddam.

The demonization of former allies has been common to Washington’s war preparations against both Iraq and Iran. In both cases perhaps the principal objectives have been to shut down the possibilities for a negotiated settlement, and to provide a “legal” framework for war by specifying the pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

The Democrats’ overwhelming support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq is well known. Their legislation prior to the October 2007 sanctions is perhaps less well remembered. Shortly before Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the October sanctions, the Democratic-led house passed legislation that would impose sanctions on non-U.S. energy companies doing business in Iran. The legislation passed by an overwhelming 397 – 16 vote.

Democratic leaders justified this legislation as cutting off funding for Iran’s (entirely legal) nuclear program. But the legislation was surely motivated in large part by the intention to eliminate any competitive advantage that might be enjoyed by competitors of U.S. oil companies, which no longer have access to Iran-based profits.

HR 362 is a major extension of the October sanctions. The latter were intended to deal a damaging blow to Iran’s economy. The RGC is not merely a military institution. It performs a broad range of economic activities. Its engineering unit includes among its major projects a $2 billion dollar contract to develop Iran’s main gas field, a $1.3 billion contract for a new pipeline to Pakistan, the construction of a Tehran metro extension, a high-speed rail link connecting the capital and Isfahan, the expansion of shipping ports and the construction of a major dam.

The October sanctions are known to have already had a significant impact on Iran’s economy. HR 362 is intended to intensify that damage, to take negotiations off the table, to provoke Iranian hard-liners. Its passage would constitute another giant step toward what Mohamed ElBaradei called “an abyss.”

Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa. His articles have appeared in The Nation, Monthly Review, Commonweal, and a number of professional journals.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/08/10204/

HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

from Common Dreams:

by Alan Nasser

The current tension among political observers as to whether the U.S. and/or Israel will undertake military action against Iran before president Bush leaves office has been greatly intensified by the prospect that Congress will pass a frightening resolution, HR 362, as early as this week.

The Demands of HR 362

HR 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, calls for the president to enact more draconian economic sanctions against Iran. These include an embargo against any imports of refined petroleum. (While Iran is of course a major exporter of oil, it imports at least 40% of its refined petroleum.) The wording of the Resolution is chilling in the extreme: “Congress… demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by… prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.” The resolution is moving quickly through the House and could pass as early as this week.

The “stringent inspection requirements” listed would require a naval blockade, thereby constituting an act of war. And this is how the resolution would be perceived by virtually all Iranians. The result would surely marginalize moderates in Iran who would shun retaliatory measures against the Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric, which has been escalating since fall of 2007. Iranians would unify behind their most belligerent leaders and the country would have been handed, by the president and Congress, powerful reasons to develop nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence. full article

Iran ready for U.S. ‘War Resolution’

from Press TV:

Iran is fully prepared to meet its domestic gasoline needs in the event of tougher US-imposed sanctions or a blockade on gasoline imports.

“We are currently facing no problem in importing the gasoline we require and will be able to produce gasoline in the quickest time,” said Iran’s Oil Minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari, in reference to bills in the US Congress.

Supported by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version, Resolution 580), known together as the ‘Iran War Resolution’ can be considered a means of imposing harsher sanctions on oil-rich Iran. read full article here