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Robert Menendez, who had the idea to team up with chief sanctions pushers Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill), repealed or dead in the water.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.
Okay, now that we've actually examined some of the qualifiers in the bill itself, let's talk about the effects the sanctions have had so far. Are the sanctions working? Yes and no. Yes, the sanctions showed Iran the world was serious about not allowing them to have a nuclear weapon. However, the oligarchy doesn't really feel the effects of the sanctions. They never do. The sanctions brought them to the bargaining table, but they also undercut the power of pro-Western, more moderate Iranians, by diminishing their their economic and political power. The sanctions allowed the existing government to centralize its power and take a more firm grip on the economy and its citizens, thus having the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Look at Iraq. Those were the harshest sanctions in history, but the government stayed in power until we went in with military force. If that's the goal, sanctions won't work. More sanctions won't work. The sanctions already applied have brought Iran to the negotiating table for the first time in forever. Why would you apply more sanctions? It doesn't make sense. Some of the stated goals in the Menendez Bill are to stop Iran from supporting terrorism and to stop supporting Syria. I thought the goal was to stop their nuclear program? You can't have everything you want all of the time. That's not diplomacy.
What about the regular citizens? Are they suffering? Oh yeah. While food and medicine are not covered under the list of restricted items covered by the sanctions, money is. The use of sanctions has dissuaded exporters from shipping to Iran because of difficulties in getting paid and because there are too many hoops to jump through to ship to Iran. The New York Times did a story on cancer patients that are suffering from lack of effective drugs because of the sanctions. Everyone is afraid to do business with Iran because of the sanctions so the people who are suffering are the innocent. You can read that story here: Iran Sanctions Take Toll On Medical Imports.
Once we've determined that the sanctions have had their effect, we have to figure out what is going to happen next. Now that we dragged Iran to the negotiating table, what do we do now? What is our goal? Is our goal to eliminate Iran's chances of getting a nuclear weapon? Is our goal to force Iran to stop supporting terrorism? Is our goal to get Iran to start respecting human rights? Let's address each of these goals, realistically.
If our goal is only to force Iran to stop supporting terrorism, then sanctions will not work. Neither will reducing sanctions. The only thing that will work is military action. That's not a viable action.
If our goal is only to get Iran to start respecting human rights, sanctions won't work either. It will prove to Iran and all the other countries that all we wanted was a regime change. All our claims about their nuclear program and them "wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map" are a farce. Thus, the sanctions would fall apart, as Russia and China, two major violators of human rights, wouldn't bother to uphold the sanctions anymore.
If our goal is to eliminate Iran's chances of getting a nuclear weapon, easing sanctions to get them to ease off their nuclear program would be a good way to do it. Once sanctions are eased, everything else falls like dominoes - slowly but eventually it will fall. Reducing sanctions make sense. After all, it's hard to be upset about things when people are prosperous. Look at Ireland. Once everyone stopped trying to govern them, they were able to govern themselves. Now, everyone is committed to making that a financially successful partnership. It's a key factor in government. Once the government stops having someone to blame for their troubles, people start turning inward. If you want them to stop supporting terrorism, you have to give them a prosperous million-plus-strong-middle class that wants freedom. You don't add more sanctions that add those million-strong to the ranks of the poor. Then, all they are consumed with is survival. Freedom is a luxury gifted only to those who can afford it. Those consumed with survival just want to stay alive. They worry about freedom later. Creating respect for human rights is something that can be done without outside intervention and without violence. Threatening someone on a constant basis is no inspiration for them to change their ways, not even a regime. All they feel is pressure, not incentive to change. You want them to change? Improve relations with them, give them economic incentives, increase exports and imports with their country, etc. Make them financially dependent on supporting the health and welfare of their citizens and they will slowly change. Yes, by all means, condemn them when they violate those human rights, but don't base a nuclear treaty on human rights. Make that a separate issue that you work on at a later date down the road. One issue at a time, guys.
One of the most persuasive arguments I can make to those who say, "But what if the agreement falls through and they keep building up their nuclear enrichment?" Then, we've really lost nothing. It would take them at least two-three months of high enrichment to get the necessary uranium to build a nuclear weapon, while IAEA inspectors are already on the ground, as we speak, inspecting the facilities. I think they'd notice the enrichment, considering they are on the ground already inspecting the facilities. If they violate the agreement, the major holdouts to escalating the situation (Russia and China) have already agreed to doubling down on punishing them for violating the agreement. Plus, we owe it to the world to give peace a chance. We are still in debt from the last two wars the U.S. fought, and we are still deployed in Afghanistan. We need to give the American consciousness a chance to rest. We owe it to our military to explore every other option besides a blunt hammer to smack at people. Speaking as a veteran of our Armed Forces, we get tired of being used as Congress' and the President's personal hammer. Personally, we would appreciate it if diplomacy could be used a little more. I'm also realistic, though. Do I think this will successfully work? I'd say the chances are 50/50. However, that's better than the 0/100 chances we would have if new sanctions were imposed. As the RAND Corporation has said,
"An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence."
Now, we're heading down to Washington, D.C. and we'll speak to members of Congress about the need to not apply new sanctions. I would appreciate it if you all could do something for us and call or e-mail both your Senator and Representative about not voting for the Menendez Bill. Feel free to use any of the points I have brought up or anything you may think up on your own. Some of the best impacts are personal stories from voters in their district, so please mention which district you are in when you message or call them. Here's a link to each member of the Senate:
U.S. Senate. Their phone numbers are listed as well as a contact form for each member that you can fill out. If everyone personalizes it, I think it would have a greater effect. Here's a link to a directory for every member of the House of Representatives:
U.S. House of Representatives. The list can be sorted by state or by last name, whichever is easier. It has their phone number listed as well as their web sites where you can find their email addresses. I would ask that everyone call or e-mail between now and the 4th to put pressure on the politicians to see things from our point of view. Hopefully, we can change their minds and avoid war.