| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Update on Persepolis tablets, diplomacy and "redlines"
We accomplished a number of goals, including protections for the Persepolis Tablets, votes to make clear there is no authorization for war with Iran and to support diplomacy, and a rejection of shifting the redline for war and placing a "zero enrichment" ultimatum on U.S.-Iran talks.
It
has been a whirlwind week on Iran policy as the U.S. gears up for new
talks with Iran. We
accomplished a number of goals: we got protections for the Persepolis
Tablets, there will be votes to make clear there is no authorization for
war with Iran and to support diplomacy, and there was a rejection of
shifting the redline for war and placing a “zero enrichment” ultimatum
on U.S.-Iran talks. Below is a summary of the week’s activities and some of the immediate next steps we are working on.
Protecting the Persepolis Tablets
First,
our recent efforts to protect the Persepolis Tablets from a Senate
sanctions bill were successful! Thanks to thousands of letters you
sent to your Senators, and to our direct consultations with the
Senate and affected parties, the sanctions bill has been amended
to no longer put the Persepolis Tablets in jeopardy. This
doesn’t mean our work is complete—we still need to fix the law once and
for all to ensure these artifacts are never seized from universities and
museums—but for today, we have prevented the worst from happening.
While
we still oppose the broad sanctions bill, we also succeeded in getting the
Senate to add language stating that there is no authorization for war
with Iran.
Zero enrichment and the war
“redline”
Thanks
to the overwhelming response from everyone who called their Representative
this week regarding H.Res.568 (and who sent letters over the
past two months), the lead Democratic sponsor directly addressed the
issues we raised.
Howard
Berman (D-CA) went on the record to clarify there is no
authorization for war and that “nuclear weapons capability” does not
mean zero enrichment. This is a critical point—this resolution was the top lobbying ask for groups opposed to diplomatic
resolution. “Nuclear weapons capable” was supposed to be code for “zero enrichment,”
which is a diplomatic nonstarter for an inspections-based
solution. It also was supposed to lower the President’s
threshold for war with Iran from nuclear-armed to
nuclear-capable.
With
this week’s action, Congress is closer to the Obama Administration than to
the Netanyahu government on the important question of what is our end-goal
to resolve the nuclear dispute. We still oppose this
resolution, which did pass overwhelmingly, but these on-the-record comments and
clarifications provide serious, much needed political support for
diplomacy to succeed.
Opposing war and supporting
diplomacy in the Defense bill
Finally,
there are two important amendments that will get a vote as part of the
annual Defense bill in the coming days. The first, sponsored by John
Conyers (D-MI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Walter
Jones (R-SC), would contain binding language that the bill does
not authorize war with Iran. The second, offered by
Barbara Lee (D-CA) would require the appointment of a special
envoy for Iran diplomacy—one of the provisions in H.R.4173, which NIAC has
strongly supported. There are, however,
dangerous amendments regarding military preparations that will also
get a vote which we are strongly opposing.
We
are organizing grassroots action to tell the House to vote YES on the No
War amendment and the Pro-Diplomacy amendment, and to vote NO on a pro-war
amendment. Please send a letter to your Representative by
clicking here.
Read more at National Iranian American Council
Source:
