This appears to be another dodgy MoveOn petition in support of the administration's murderous Mideast policies.
Those policies are in the interest of the American 1% (and no one else), who wish to continue their control of the world economy by dominating Mideast energy flows.
It is simply false to say that the US is trying "to provide assurance to the international community that Iran will never try to build a nuclear weapon." That is the made-up reason for US attempts to exert control over the Iranian economy, particularly its production and distribution of gas and oil.
Since Iran rejected US control in 1979, every US administration up to and including the current one has sought to reassert it.
"In 2010, Iran accepted a proposal by Turkey and Brazil to ship its enriched uranium to Turkey for storage. In return, the West would provide isotopes for Iran's medical research reactors. President Obama furiously denounced Brazil and Turkey for breaking ranks, and quickly imposed harsher sanctions. Irritated, Brazil released a letter from Obama in which he had proposed this arrangement, presumably assuming that Iran would reject it. The incident quickly disappeared from view.
"Also in 2010, the NPT members called for an international conference to carry forward a long-standing Arab initiative to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, to be held in Helsinki in December 2012. Israel refused to attend. Iran agreed to do so, unconditionally.
"The U.S. then announced that the conference was canceled, reiterating Israel's objections. The Arab states, the European Parliament and Russia called for a rapid reconvening of the conference, while the U.N. General Assembly voted 174-6 to call on Israel to join the NPT and open its facilities to inspection. Voting "no" were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau" - apparently the "international community" to whom you say "U.S. negotiators [wish] to provide assurance..."
Obama, in his usual mendacity, has been quite consistent in his hostility to Iran, even though his threats violate the UN Charter: during his campaign for a Senate seat a decade ago, Obama supported the possibility of a pre-emptive attack on Iran. On 25 September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "…the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said … ‘having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than] us launching some missile strikes into Iran…’ he said."
Instead of this dishonest MoveOn petition, we should demand Obama lift the sanctions on Iran, stop the bombing and the continuing threats (he's now bombed eight predominately Muslim countries - two more than George Bush), and remove US troops from the Middle East. That alone will "de-escalate tensions in the Middle East, helping us prevent war in the future.”
Regards, CGE
On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Robert Naiman <noreply at list.moveon.org> wrote:
> Dear C. G. Estabrook,
>
> U.S. negotiators are facing a November 24 deadline to try to conclude a comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its nuclear program to provide assurance to the international community that Iran will never try to build a nuclear weapon. The New York Times recently reported [1] that the White House has decided to try to avoid in the near future a Congressional vote on any agreement reached with Iran, using the President’s power – granted by Congress – to suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran, rather than seeking legislation to repeal them. The U.S. Treasury Department has concluded that President Obama has the legal authority to suspend the vast majority of U.S. sanctions on Iran without seeking a vote by Congress. It is widely accepted by experts that suspending U.S. sanctions on Iran will be a necessary ingredient of a diplomatic agreement that constrains Iran's nuclear program sufficiently to provide assurance that Iran will never build a nuclear weapon.
>
> But some Members of Congress, like Republican Senator Mark Kirk and Republican Senator John Cornyn, want to derail President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s efforts to achieve a diplomatic agreement. [2]
>
> If key Democratic leaders don’t support President Obama’s diplomacy, an agreement with Iran will be much less likely. Urge key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran by signing our petition at MoveOn:
>
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy
>
> Here’s the text of our petition:
> “Democratic leaders Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should strongly back President Obama's efforts to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its nuclear program by the November 24 deadline, thereby ensuring that Iran will not build a nuclear weapon and de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, helping us prevent war in the future.”
>
> President Obama will have a brief window of opportunity after the U.S. election in November to negotiate an agreement – a window of opportunity that may not come again. [3] When President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry negotiated the interim nuclear deal with Iran, Senator Warren [4] and Senator Sanders [5] were early supporters. Former Secretary of State Clinton attacked the deal through surrogates [6], only finally embracing the deal [7] when opponents of the deal were about to concede. [8]
>
> Support from key Democratic leaders will help thwart efforts by Republicans to sabotage President Obama’s diplomatic efforts. Urge key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran by signing and sharing our petition:
>
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy
>
> Thanks for all you do to support diplomacy and help prevent war,
>
> Robert Naiman
> Just Foreign Policy
>
> References:
> 1. “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress,” David Sanger, New York Times, 10/19/14, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/politics/obama-sees-an-iran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html
> 2. “Report: White House to bypass Congress on Iran nuclear deal,” Peter Sullivan, The Hill, 10/20/14, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/221231-report-white-house-to-bypass-congress-on-iran-deal
> 3. “A Nuclear Deal, Now or Never,” Vali Nasr, New York Times, 10/21/14, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/vali-nasr-a-nuclear-deal-now-or-never.html
> 4. “Senator Elizabeth Warren Endorses Interim Iran Nuclear Deal,” Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, 12/13/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/senator-elizabeth-warren-_b_4437313.html
> 5. “Leahy opposes new sanctions on Iran; Sanders: Increased sanctions might help hardliners,” Nicole Gaudiano, Burlington Free Press, 1/6/14, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20140106/NEWS03/301060029/Leahy-opposes-new-sanctions-on-Iran
> 6. “Does Hillary's Silence on Iran Deal Show Neocon Influence on Her Presidential Run?” Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, 12/2/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/does-hillarys-silence-on-_b_4372394.html
> 7. “Hillary Clinton backs Obama on Iran sanctions,” Maggie Haberman, Politico, 2/2/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/hillary-clinton-iran-102997.html
> 8. “Bill Clinton, AIPAC urge delay on Iran sanctions,” Manu Raju and Burgess Everett, Politico, 2/6/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/bill-clinton-iran-sanctions-103219.html
>
>
>
>
> This message was sent to C. G. Estabrook by Robert Naiman through MoveOn's public petition website. MoveOn Political Action licensed and paid for this service, but does not endorse contents of this message. To unsubscribe or report this email as inappropriate, click here: http://petitions.moveon.org/unsub.html?i=25894-2656067-SOI5mn
>
> Want to make a donation? MoveOn is entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
>
>