Skip to main content

Today the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote -under "suspension," requiring a supermajority to pass - on a provision which would  restore as policy the Cooties Doctrine of the early Bush Administration - U.S. officials can't meet with officials of the adversary du jour, because our officials might get contaminated.

What's remarkable isn't that some people in Washington would want to prohibit U.S. officials from having contact with Iranian officials. After all, some people in Washington want to have a war with Iran as soon as it can be arranged. What's remarkable is the possibility that the majority of Congressional Democrats might vote to approve the "Iran Cooties Provision." Aren't Democrats supposed to be the diplomacy party, not the war party?

The Cooties Provision is Section 601c of H.R. 1905, the so-called "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011." Here's what the Cooties Provision says:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.--No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER.--The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

Would it not be totally preposterous to add this provision to the United States Code?

It's not completely transparent from the provision how it envisions the determination of which Iranian officials "present a threat." I read it as saying the determination would be made by the Secretary of State, because that's how it is defined elsewhere in the bill. It also seems highly doubtful that the provision is constitutional, since it tries to micromanage the executive branch in its conduct of foreign affairs.

But putting the legal issues to the side, isn't the logic of this provision completely counter to the argument that we voted for in November 2008: that it's ok - indeed, it is wise, prudent, and preferable - for the U.S. to be able to talk to its adversaries?

Imagine that your best friend, a U.S. citizen, had the misfortune to be detained in Iran. You get on the phone to the State Department, and you ask, what do you know about the detention of my friend? And the State Department says, sorry, we can't talk to the relevant Iranian officials about your friend, because those officials have been deemed a "threat," so we don't know anything about the detention of your friend.

Wouldn't you think that was outrageously stupid? Isn't working to protect U.S. citizens when they travel overseas the most basic function of the State Department?

Note that the extremely narrow waiver provision might not help you much. The President would have to determine that failure to contact Iranian officials on your friend's behalf would "pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States." Doesn't that seem like a high bar?

And, even if the President were willing to make such a determination, you would still have to wait 15 days.

Adding this provision to the United States Code would give neoconservative yahoos another stick to beat U.S. diplomats with for simply doing their jobs: omigod, a U.S. official had contact with an Iranian official. Like the neoconservative yahoos need more sticks to beat our diplomats with?

If you agree that adding the Iran Cooties Provision to the United States Code is an extremely stupid idea, why not write your Representative or call 1-877-429-0678 to let them know?

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy.

Poll

I would like my Rep. to oppose restoration of the Bush Cooties Doctrine.

75%9 votes
25%3 votes

| 12 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site