Recently, I was selected to be a member of the peace delegation going to Washington, D.C. to meet with Congress, at the request of Sara Haghdoosti, founder and executive director of Berim.org. Now, some of you may know her from her article in the Sydney Morning Herald, railing against the effects of sanctions on the common person in Iran. You can view that article here: How can trying to feed a family be opportunistic?. Some of you who follow United Nations news may remember her from her campaign where she teamed up with MoveOn.org, Credo, Peace Action West, Just Foreign Policy, and Win Without War and delivered over 100,000 signatures to the U.S. mission to the UN. If you don't know her, no biggie. Here's an interview done by Flaming Sword of Justice, powered by MoveOn.org:
Berim Interview. The purpose of this peace delegation? To get the new sanctions bill, introduced by the Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Robert Menendez, who had the idea to team up with chief sanctions pushers Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill), repealed or dead in the water. We are planning to meet with members of Congress on the 4th of February and explain why this is a bad idea to impose new sanctions. Why is it a bad idea? I'm glad you asked. Let me tell you what this new bill entails, first. The scope of these certifications the President would have to meet are ENORMOUS and almost impossible to meet, realistically.
The "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013", or S. 1881, is claimed by supporters that putting the bill into action would not effect the negotiations in a negative manner. Has anyone actually read this thing? Let me read some of the key parts of this bill...
Section 301(a)(2)(I) requires President Obama certify, in order to suspend application of the new sanctions, that “Iran has not conducted any tests for ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kilometers.” Has anyone noticed that this makes the new sanctions not only contingent on Iran's nuclear program, but also on its missile programs? This section also doesn't specify a time period. There is a requirement in section 301(a)(1) for a certification every 30 days. We all know the President's detractors would say this would imply one, so any past missile tests done by Iran beyond 500 km could make it impossible for him to ever meet this section's certification.
Section 301(a)(2)(H) requires Obama also certify that “Iran has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned, or otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or United States persons or property anywhere in the world." Again, there is no time period, so any past terrorist support would make it impossible for him to make this certification. Even if there were a time limit, this means if Hezbollah blows up a bomb near a U.S.-owned building anywhere in the world, Iran gets blamed, making the certification impossible. Again, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Section 301(a)(2)(F) requires Obama certify that the US will seek an agreement “that will dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure.” While they may agree to dismantle some of their nuclear infrastructure, there is no way they will dismantle all of their infrastructure. It's completely unreasonable to think that. This one is a lose-lose.
Section 301(a)(3), which is the part about suspending the sanctions beyond 180 days, adds a requirement that an agreement be imminent under which “Iran will...dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure...and other capabilities critical to the production of nuclear weapons.” So... not only do they have to dismantle their entire nuclear power grid, but also "other capabilities critical to the production of nuclear weapons".... sounds kind of vague.... I wonder what Fox News would do with that? I can hear it now... "You know what's critical to the production of nuclear weapons? Banking. The economy. Science. Their military. The auto industry because they need trucks to haul the Scuds on." All these industries could be shut down with vague language like that.
Section 301(a)(4) says if the President does not make the required certifications, then they will reimpose the previously suspended sanctions. So, in a nutshell, not only does this mean the sanctions mandated by this bill, but also to “[a]ny sanctions deferred, waived, or otherwise suspended by the President pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action or any agreement to implement the Joint Plan of Action.” However, as far as I know, that part of the bill may be impossible to enforce, considering some of the sanctions and relief were imposed solely by executive order, it seems to me it would violate the separation of powers under the United States Constitution. But hey, that's just me.
Section 301(b) permits the President to suspend the bill’s sanctions annually after a final agreement is reached with Iran, but only if a resolution of disapproval of the agreement is not enacted pursuant to section 301(c). Basically, what this means is that he has to get Congress into the negotiation process. Yup. The same guys who can't agree on anything. The same guys who can't even agree to pass the debt ceiling to pay for the laws they have already agreed to pass. Yeah. Those guys. Don't you feel reassured? I'm sure the rest of the world would too.
My second favorite section of this bill: Section 301(b)(1) imposes a certification requirement to suspend the bill’s new sanctions after a final agreement with Iran has been reached, even if a resolution of disapproval has been defeated. So, what this means is that President Obama can get around Congress shooting him down. All he has to do is get Iran to agree to this new deal. This certification requirement imposes maximalist demands upon the E3+3 negotiators. Paragraph (A) requires that the final agreement include complete dismantlement of Iran’s “enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities, the heavy water reactor and production plant at Arak, and any nuclear weapon components and technology.” With all the problems dismantling Fukushima, and that is one of the most high-tech countries in the world, there should be no problems with allowing Iran to dismantle something they put together without a lot of oversight and a lot of luck, right? Paragraph (B) requires Iran come “into compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions related to Iran’s nuclear program,” which would require its suspension, at least, of all uranium enrichment. In reality, however, this will be practically impossible to achieve through diplomacy alone. Pretty sure the country is not willing to go without power to meet the United State's demands. If it was achieved, it would only be for a short time before they were allowed to enrich the uranium anyway under international verification. Paragraph (C) requires all the IAEA’s issues regarding past or present Iranian nuclear activities be resolved – this is a goal the U.S. and its allies surely share, but may prove difficult to achieve even if the other objectives are realized. Paragraph (D) requires “continuous, around the clock, on-site inspection...of all suspect facilities in Iran.” Not only does this sound ridiculously expensive and unnecessary, having these continuous inspections would also not be safe.
Before you mistake my stance on this last part, let me preface this with my belief that Israel has the right to be its own state, my best friend is studying to be a rabbi, and if Iran attacked Israel, I believe we should act in defense because we did nothing during World War II, and we have a duty as human beings to help them, and I would be the first one screaming to defend them. That being said, my favorite part of all... "if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence." And then people wonder why everyone was freaking out about this addendum to the bill. What is the definition of "legitimate self-defense"? Is that like the bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq, where they bombed the reactor in "self-defense"? (Although, personally, I agree with Israel on that one, considering they are surrounded by hostile nations, I do not condone roping the US into their battles by decree) Does anyone think that the President can meet all of these conditions before Israel "is compelled to take military action?" I don't. I think it's impossible. Not only is it impossible for him to meet these conditions, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that Iran would agree to half of these conditions. It's just not practical. It's just not realistic. If you're interested in reading the full bill, here's the link: The Menendez Bill. More below the orange cloud.
Read More
