| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Background: The Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War through Diplomacy Act (H.R.4173)
On March 8, 2012, Rep. Barbara Lee introduced new legislation to support direct Iran negotiations, lift the "no contact policy," and prohibit funding for war with Iran.
On March 8, 2012, Rep. Barbara Lee and nine of her colleagues in the House introduced H.R.4173 - The Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War through Diplomacy Act.
WHAT DOES H.R.4173 DO?
- Supports
sustained, direct negotiations with Iran by establishing a U.S. diplomatic envoy to
lead talks - Lifts
the “no contact policy” that blocks U.S. diplomats from
communicating with Iranian counterparts - Prohibits
funding for war against Iran without Congressional authorization
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
To prevent war, resolve
the nuclear standoff, and effectively address human rights, we must eliminate
obstacles to a diplomatic breakthrough
- Under the current “no contact policy,” U.S.
officials are barred from any contact with Iranian officials unless they obtain
explicit permission from the Secretary of State.
There have only
been two bilateral meetings between the U.S. and Iran since Obama took office
- Those meetings never
moved beyond the nuclear file to other critical areas like human rights. To successfully resolve the standoff,
diplomacy will need to be persistent, direct and sustained. A U.S. envoy to direct such efforts can
ensure we effectively uses all diplomatic tools at its disposal to achieve a
solution.
Diplomacy is the
only solution for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran
- Former
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified to Congress that “only
an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would
plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons.”
Iranian human
rights and democracy defenders have warned that war threats undermine their
cause
- Akbar Ganji: “Even
speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things
extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran.” - Shirin Ebadi: “Dictators
actually like to be attacked by foreigners,” Ebadi said yesterday, “so using
excuse of national security, they can put away their opposition.”
Military leaders
agree: Iran war would be disastrous, a diplomatic solution is needed
- Former CENTCOM
Commander Admiral Fallon: “No one that I’m aware of [in the military]
thinks that there’s any real positive outcome of a military strike or
some kind of conflict.” - Former JCS Vice
Chair General Cartwright: “You want to try to make sure and work hard to
have an official channel that is really open for dialogue, so that the
ambiguity at least can be addressed.” - Gen. Michael Haden (ret.), CIA Director under
Bush: “When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that
[attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran
that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.” - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “A military strike would only
delay Iran’s nuclear program, while the regime’s resolve to build a weapon, if
it so chooses, may only be hardened.” - Former JCS Chairman Admiral
Mullen: “We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold
War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we
don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it
right
The American
public supports diplomacy with Iran, not military strikes
- 81% of Americans support direct U.S.-Iran talks to resolve the nuclear
standoff (WaPo/ABC poll 3/10/12). - Only 24% of Americans support “a military
strike,” versus 69% who support continued diplomatic efforts (World Public Opinion/PIPA poll 3/13/12).
Tell Your Member of Congress to cosponsor H.R.4173
Read more at National Iranian American Council
Source:
