“Expressing the sense of the PEOPLE regarding the importance
of a peaceful resolution of differences and preventing the
Governments of the United States and Israel from continuing/escalating
the aggression/terrorism against the PEOPLE of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
I and other Veterans For Peace from Long Island will be lobbying members of Congress first to educate them regarding what is problematic, irresponsible, and even dangerous about Senate Resolution S. RES. 380 and its counterpart in the House H. RES. 568. Then, we will encourage our Legislators to introduce and sponsor what I perhaps hubristically term the “People’s Resolution" as a more sane and efficient alternative response to the Iranian “crisis.”
Why We Should Oppose S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568
· President Obama has made clear his willingness to wage yet another war, this time to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 is much more “precautionary” and moves us further down the path to war by requiring that Iran be prevented from developing a “nuclear weapons capability.”
· S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 are shrewdly silent, however, about how to interpret a nuclear capability. In the view of many, including Senators Graham, Casey, and Lieberman, who introduced the Bill in the Senate, to delay an attack until Iran has enriched weapons grade uranium and achieved the technical knowledge necessary to manufacture a bomb is to squander a limited window of opportunity. So when exactly along the means-and-know-how continuum of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability must, according to these resolutions, intervention occur? Some have speculated that Iran is already within a year or two of having a nuclear weapon should they decide that they want or need one. So do we begin bombing immediately?
· S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 call for “the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,” a right guaranteed under the Non Proliferation Treaty. The PEOPLE of Iran understandably value their national autonomy and see such a ban as yet another attempt by the United States and Israel to subjugate their Nation. Further, Iranians argue that their nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes and necessary for their energy security, to provide medical treatment to 800,000 cancer patients, and a source of National pride.
· S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 require “the verified end of Iran's ballistic missile programs,” a demand that is unprecedented and goes well beyond what is required by the United Nations resolutions or anything ever demanded of Saddam Hussein’s pre-war Iraq.
· Given that Iran would not, could not, agree to such demands without sacrificing their national pride and autonomy, S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 render any negotiated settlement impossible and war inevitable.
· Though S. RES. 380 and H. RES. 568 are touted as “non binding,” it is only a small step from recognizing that it is in our National interest to ensure that Iran not develop a nuclear capability to deciding that military action is required to neutralize the Iranian “threat” to our National interest. Given the propensity of our President and members of Congress to see war and military adventurism as an extension of diplomacy, and embargo and economic sanctions as preferable to the hard work of negotiations, can we be confident that these resolutions do not make the next step to war inevitable?