Self-organization: the spontaneous emergence of global coherence out of local interaction - my dream is UnionWiki.org
Wiki
Organizing
Pedagogy
Contact
Visit P2P Foundation
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Prevent War With Iran
Americans Say No to War with Iran: Will Washington Listen?
by Sarah van Gelder
Print this articleEmail this article to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Sarah van Gelder’s Blog
Read more of Sarah van Gelder’s blog, on Iran and other issues:
Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War with Iran?
What Americans Want: National Health Insurance
Two weeks ago, I was alarmed to learn that congressional Democrats were sponsoring Resolution 362, which encourages what amounts to an act of war against Iran.
Today, there are more than 230 co-sponsors of the House resolution, but there is also growing mobilization to stop passage of Res. 362. What is especially stirring opposition is the provision that calls for:
“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.”
Implementing this would require a blockade, according to a letter from three retired Pentagon officials, and, unless sanctioned by a Security Council resolution, would constitute an act of war.The good news is that a growing outcry from the American people is causing some co-sponsors to have second thoughts, and the momentum for passage of the resolution may be weakening.Among them is Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who says in a July 9 blog:
“Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote.”
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has gone one step further: “I’m all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far,” he told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, MA. “I’m going to call the sponsors and tell them I’m changing my vote.”Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) withdrew his co-sponsorship on July 9.The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, editorialized against the resolution on June 24:
“… we are casually giving our government the right to control Iran’s borders using naval blockades. Might that be construed as an act of aggression? Only if we pay any mind to the rules set forth by the United Nations … stating that such a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war. So, are supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?”
This is a familiar discussion to those who watched the build-up to war in Iraq. This time, however, former secretaries of state from both Democratic and Republican administrations are on the same side. According to The Los Angeles Times, five of them%u2014Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright%u2014agreed at a recent round-table discussion that it is time to open a dialogue with Iran. The outcry against an attack on Iran is already having an effect, and there are plans for more. United for Peace and Justice, for example, is organizing “Days of Action” across the U.S. July 19-21.
