The Bush Administration has talked seriously about the possibility of military strikes against Iran, which could dramatically escalate the level of violence in the region, already high. These threats have undermined real negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. As the Washington Post reported Friday, "The package presented to the [UN Security Council] Thursday provides no explicit assurances Tehran has sought to bar U.S. military strikes on its territory…President Bush…has resisted European appeals to provide Iran with such security assurances, insisting that the military option not be taken off the table." These threats also increase the likelihood of a wider war, a likelihood that seems to increase each day.
Maintaining the threat of a military attack against Iran not only undermines negotiations but also undermines the international regime of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear inspections, which is based on multilateral cooperation, not unilateral force. Iran is at least 5 to 10 years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, were it to attempt to do so. There is no crisis justifying the threat of military force against Iran.
Congress should pressure the Bush Administration to take the "military option" of attacking Iran off the table.
Members of Congress can pressure the Bush Administration to take the "military option" off the table, but they need to hear from their constituents that threats to bomb Iran are not acceptable. Let's show Congress that we care - *please sign and send this letter to your representatives today:*
The link above takes you to a draft letter that you can edit. Here are some key things you might want to point out to your representatives of Congress, to friends, neighbors, family members, and co-workers, and to your local newspaper in the form of a letter to the editor:
· Threatening to attack Iran undermines diplomatic efforts by the United States, European governments, and the United Nations to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict over Iran's nuclear program.
· Threatening to attack Iran undermines the international regime of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear inspections, which is based on multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral military action.
· Iran is at least 5 to 10 years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, even if it were to attempt to do so. There is no crisis justifying a military attack, nor threats to attack militarily.
· Creating a "crisis" over Iran's nuclear program during our election season is bad domestic politics and bad foreign policy. For Americans, since there is no immediate urgency regarding Iran's nuclear policy, the issue distracts from much more important problems at home, as well as the Iraqwar. It is bad foreign policy because, as happened in 2002, members of Congress can be tempted to go along with unnecessary military threats in an election year simply to avoid being attacked on "security" issues.
· Bombing Iran would likely cause thousands of Iranian civilian casualties.
· Bombing Iran would dramatically increase anger and resentment in Iran and throughout the Arab and Muslim world, already high.
· Violent retaliation would be likely, from the Iranian government, groups under the influence of the Iranian government, or other groups in the region outraged by such an attack. Likely targets would include U.S. troops in Iraq and the Gulf countries; American tourists, businesspeople and other American citizens, as well as U.S. diplomatic missions in Europe and the Middle East; and oil shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Can you tell your representative that theatening to bomb Iranian civilians – that's who would be killed by airstrikes on Iran – is wrong and counterproductive, and should not be U.S. policy? Click this link to do so:
Thanks for all you do for justice,
Robert Naiman
P.S. To learn more about the Bush Administration's efforts to create conflict with the Iranian government, see: www.justforeignpolicy.org/iran.
P.P.S. I just wanted to take a moment to introduce our organization. Just Foreign Policy is a mass membership organization dedicated to reforming U.S.foreign policy, so that it serves the interests and reflects the values of the broad majority of Americans, rather than those of special interests both inside and outside of government. You can learn more about us and the issues we are following at our website: www.justforeignpolicy.org.
I really hope you'll join us.
*Support our organization:* small contributions, combined with others, go a long way. If you'd like to support our work financially, you can give now at:
Please forward this message where appropriate.
-- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060718/02801c83/attachment.htm>