By Ed Hale

Part I of III

As United States 2008 presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama bickered over how they would “handle the Iran threat” in their first debate on Friday night, citing erroneous facts and competing with one another on who would hold out the longest from engaging in diplomatic talks with Iran, a small group of one-hundred and fifty American citizens representing fifty of the country’s most prominent peace and human rights groups were busy talking to the world’s media about the two-hour private meeting they held with the Iranian President two days prior.

The meeting – which was not revealed to the media until the next day to assure the safety and security for those in attendance – took place on Wednesday September 24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City during the 63rd annual United Nations General Assembly Meeting. The goal of the meeting was “to introduce President Ahmadinejad to the peace community in the United States and to illustrate how this sector of civil society works to oppose war and the use of violence to resolve differences,” said the meeting’s facilitator, Mark Johnson, Executive Director of the global Fellowship of Reconciliation, the world’s oldest peace organization.

In an exhilarating live experiment in civilian diplomacy in action, the ballroom of the Grand Hyatt Hotel was transformed into a veritable who’s who of some of the most outspoken and prominent members of America’s peace, anti-war, and human rights organizations, including Medea Benjamin of A Global Exchange, Jodie Evans of Code Pink and Women for Peace, Brian Becker of the ANSWER Coalition, yours truly representing PeaceWithIran.com, and Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice. There were also representatives from Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Mennonites, the Lutheran Peace Fellowship, American Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, among many others. American citizens flew in from almost all fifty states to hold the private meeting with President Ahmadinejad in an effort to begin the process of what many consider long overdue open dialogues with Iran regarding how our two nations can work peaceably together to secure more peaceful relations with one another.

The issues raised during the two-hour plus talk, many considered vital for the future security of both the United States and Iranian citizenry, revolved around how the countries can begin putting aside their mutual distrust of one another in order to move forward in peaceful negotiations; both the US and the Iranian government’s recent crackdown on human rights, freedom of assembly, and dissidents; the current US occupation of Iraq; Iran’s controversially viewed policy toward Israel; their treatment of women and other minorities; the difficulty on both sides of obtaining visas to visit either country. Of course the big issue of the moment, will Iran accept a compromise on its nuclear fuel enrichment program, was also addressed.

Read the rest of this entry »

By JOSHUA BARTON

June 14, 2008 | 6:12 p.m. CST

COLUMBIA — Lily Tinker-Fortel clenched the passenger door armrest as her Iranian taxi weaved in and out through the congestion of cars, motorbikes and pedestrians on Valiasr Street, the longest street in the Middle East and the busiest 12 miles for Tehran’s 13 million residents.

“Imagine a busy street lined on both sides with beautiful, towering sycamores. Miles of sycamores,” Tinker-Fortel wrote in her blog on June 9, 2008, recounting her first afternoon in Tehran.

It was day one of a 12-day, 21-person civilian diplomacy trip that took the 24-year-old peace activist from Columbia to numerous Iranian historical and cultural centers of the villages Qom, Esfahan, and Abyaneh, and the city of Shiraz. Tinker-Fortel, community outreach coordinator for Mid-Missouri Peaceworks, was part of an interfaith delegation that went to Iran in May on a mission of fellowship.

The Fellowship of Reconciliation, the oldest and largest interfaith organization in the United States, organized the delegation and began their Iranian program in December 2005. According to Leila Zand, director of the organization’s Iran program, the delegation sends civilian diplomats into Iran to meet Iranian civilians, government officials and religious leaders from Iran’s Muslim majority and those in the minority Armenian-Christian, Iranian-Jewish and Zoroastrain communities.

Read the rest of this entry »

We did it! We talked to Iran and our hotlines had no preconditions!

Tuesday, June 10—Call-in to Congress for Diplomacy with Iran

This is a national action organized by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (www.newiranpolicy.org). Communicating with our representatives is an essential component of our representative democracy! Remember: of the people, by the people, for the people!

*When you call, ask for the aide who handles international affairs or foreign policy. Tell them you’re calling to encourage the Senator or Representative to: (1) Work for direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks between the U.S. and Iran; (2) Remind them that the U.S. and Iran share common interests in a stable Iraq, Middle East and Afghanistan. (3) And emphasize that just as the U.S. pursued negotiations with North Korea and Libya it’s now time to talk with Iran.

Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 (Also, this toll free number is mentioned in publicity for the event: 800- 788-9372).

Article originally published in the LA Times here

The possibility of a United States or Israeli war to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been an obsession among foreign policy wonks, diplomats and journalists for some time.

Many Iran experts believe such a war would be a disaster that would fail to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Michael Axworthy (pictured) is one of them.

During the 1970s, the British author and former diplomat traveled to Iran many times while his parents lived and worked there. He joined the British foreign service in 1986, serving as a head of the Iran desk from 1998 to 2000.

Over the last eight years he’s been writing books and teaching about Iran in the United Kingdom. His latest book, “A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind,” was released last month. It traces the country’s history from its earliest days,
emphasizing its religious, intellectual and cultural traditions.

Axworthy graciously agreed to an e-mail interview about Iran and its current confrontation with the West. “The crisis is a result of the hostility that has persisted between the U.S. and Iran since the revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis.

“But it has its roots in the U.S.-Iran relationship earlier than that, notably in U.S. support for the regime of the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s, and the coup attempted by the British and the CIA against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953. The prime reason the clerical regime in Iran might want a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent to the U.S. regime-change policy.”

Read the rest of this entry »

So in less than 24 hours after seemingly - though not officially - winning the democratic nomination for president of the United States of America, Barack Obama stands in front of the largest pro-Israel lobby (read “bribery, extortion, and blackmail experts” for the Cliff Notes definition of “lobby” — at least as it is practiced in the US) in the world today, AIPAC, and tells the crowd that he will impose tougher and even more stringent sanctions against Iran if they continue to enrich uranium as a means to create nuclear energy to fuel their fast-growing country. Says the New York Times, “Mr. Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where, tacking to the right, he described a far tougher series of sanctions he would be willing to impose on Iran than he had outlined heretofore.”

Already starting to change colors right before our eyes? Well one isn’t quite sure yet. But how utterly and typically “political” this most recent stunt has made Obama appear. He failed to have either the knowledge or the courage – right now we aren’t sure which - to remind the crowd that Iran is legally entitled under international law to be working on researching nuclear energy under the Nuclear Proliferation Act – they currently have approximately one-hundred and twenty-thousand citizens employed and working at various plants around their country in this program – nor did he mention that they were given authorization from and originally purchased their nuclear energy knowledge and many materials to do so from the United States as far back as the Eisenhower administration.

How on earth can this man be talking about more sanctions against Iran and trying to stop them from enriching uranium when it is absolutely none of his business is the question that is begged to be answered here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Guest Essay in the Brighton-Pittsford Post by Lynda Howland :: Originally printed in the BRIGHTON-PITTSFORD POST

Lynda Howland of Pittsford traveled to Iran recently as part of the Fellowship of Reconciliation delegation along with singer/songwriter Ed Hale of the rock group Transcendence, Larry Beinhart of the Wag the Dog movie and Fog Facts book, and foreign affairs journalist Robert Dreyfuss.

The roots of distrust between the US and Iran were sown by several twentieth-century events. In 1953, the US overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, putting an end to their fledgling democracy. The US installed the Shah, supporting his brutal regime for 25 more years. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah, and students took hostages in the US Embassy. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and the US sold chemical materials to Iraq, which were used to kill tens of thousands of Iranians. In 1998, the US shot down an Iran Air commercial flight, killing 290. Deep resentments and suspicions remain on both sides.

In 2003, Iran presented an offer (through the Swiss Embassy) to President Bush for comprehensive negotiations on all issues, including recognition of Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s nuclear program. Bush did not give Iran the courtesy of a reply, and reprimanded the Swiss for delivering the offer. Bush continues to rebuff other Iranian offers for negotiations. Even after acknowledging the significance of Iran’s help in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush made his Axis of Evil speech.

We negotiated with Libya and North Korea. Why not Iran? Because Iran is the last stumbling block to US control of the Middle East. As US economic power wanes and its “moral” leadership is severely compromised, it is relying on military power to “protect American interests” around the world. Control of Middle East resources is essential to this goal. What means are we willing to use to achieve this goal? As we “conveniently” blame Iran for Iraqi resistance to US occupation a US fleet is stationed in the Persian Gulf, prepared to unleash the terror of nuclear weapons on Iran, a non-nuclear nation that has no history of invading other countries. US special-operations teams are waging a covert war within Iran to destabilize it. Would we tolerate such actions against us?

I recently traveled to Iran with a Fellowship of Reconciliation peace delegation. We met with religious and governmental leaders, including ex-president Khatami. Their messages were similar: “If there are to be constructive negotiations, the “demonizing” on both sides must end, and the US must treat Iran as an equal partner and respect its sovereignty. Sanctions, threats of attack and regime change, and intimidation are the tools the US has used in its dealings with Iran. These do not constitute “negotiations.” They are condescending, and meant to humiliate and bring Iran to its knees.”

The hostile rhetoric of the US has a very negative impact on the reform movement within Iran, alienating even Iranians who oppose their government, and hardening the position of conservatives. The arrogance shown by the US administration can only incite more violence and extremism throughout the Middle East. Iran views nuclear power as a symbol of independence and progress. Their present peaceful nuclear program is legal, and neither the National Intelligence Estimate nor the United Nation’s IAEA has found evidence that Iran intends to begin a nuclear weapons program. Still, the world is justified in being concerned about Iran and other nations developing nuclear weapons. Likewise, we should be concerned about the existing nuclear weapons of nine other countries, including Israel and the US (the only country to use nuclear weapons). Five additional countries are enriching uranium. As we passed the Natanz nuclear power plant, guarded by a few anti-aircraft guns, I thought about the carpet maker, the geology teacher, the seven insightful young Iranian professionals with whom we shared a vibrant conversation, the smiling school children who surrounded us wherever we went in nearby Esfahan. If the US bombs Natanz, they could all die.

Their lives depend on Americans opposing an attack on Iran and supporting a peaceful negotiated solution to our differences. Iran is no match for a nation that spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. As our government attempts to increase our fear of Iran with misleading rhetoric, and make it into our next enemy, we must protest the buildup to the destruction of yet another country.

US and Iran holding ’secret’ talks on nuclear programme

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Monday, 14 April 2008

Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret “back channel” discussions for the past five years on Iran’s nuclear programme and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal.

One of the participants, former senior US diplomat Thomas Pickering, explained that a group of former American diplomats and experts had been meeting with Iranian academics and policy advisers “in a lot of different places, although not in the US or Iran”.

“Some of the Iranians were connected to official institutions inside Iran,” he said in a telephone interview from Washington. The group was organised by the UN Association of the USA, a pro-UN organisation. Its work was facilitated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a government-funded think-tank chaired by the former chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq, Rolf Ekeus.

While the nuclear issue was “prominent”, Mr Pickering said, “we discussed what’s going on domestically in both countries and wide-ranging issues” affecting the US-Iran relationship. Although none of the group members was from the US or Iranian governments, he said that “each side kept their officials informed”. The Bush administration “did not discourage us,” he added.

Mr Pickering declined to go into greater detail for fear of jeopardising future meetings of the group of about a dozen Americans and Iranians, although the number of participants varies. Back- channel talks have often provided crucial impetus in solving the world’s most intractable disputes. They usually only become public in case of agreement, as seen with Northern Ireland and the Oslo accords on the Middle East, or failure, as in the case of an Israeli-Syrian informal channel.

The revelation about the existence of an Iran-US back channel coincides with the recent publication by three of its American members, including Mr Pickering, of proposals aimed at overcoming the deadlock between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The initiative addresses the crunch issue of Iran’s right to enrich uranium on its own soil while providing guarantees that the nuclear fuel will not be diverted for military purposes.

Mr Pickering spoke of a “rather positive” reaction to the plan, which provides for an international consortium to jointly manage and run uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.

However, the Bush administration has not responded, and remains wedded to its current policy of sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment in line with UN demands, while offering the opportunity to enrich uranium outside the country through a Russian consortium. A Foreign Office spokesman said Britain was “aware” of the proposals but did not have an official response. The Iranian government, according to Mr Pickering, has let it be known that “they would not respond unless it was offered officially”.

In arms-control circles the plan has gained traction “because he’s so respected,” said George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Mr Pickering, who is a former US undersecretary of state. The initiative, co-signed by the UNA-USA president William Luers, a former diplomat, and Jim Walsh, a nuclear expert from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was first aired at the end of February in The New York Review of Books where it has generated further discussion.

Mr Pickering says that he and his colleagues decided to act now because US policy was “stuck”, in the light of Iran’s refusal to bow to the UN demand to halt uranium enrichment, despite the imposition of economic sanctions. Prospects for face-to-face US-Iran talks are therefore blocked, he says, arguing that the case is urgent because Iran is continuing to install centrifuges at its main enrichment plant in Natanz.

But other experts point out that with the 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz spinning at only 20 percent of capacity because of technical problems, there is time for the West to play a waiting game.

James Acton, a nuclear specialist at King’s College London Department of War Studies, said the challenge would be to prevent Iran obtaining a clandestine route to a nuclear weapon thanks to the technical know-how that would be obtained from foreign partners.

Mr Pickering said: “It can be feasible if governments wish to make it so, technically and financially. But it will take a lot of negotiation.”

Some analysts pointed out that a breakthrough was unlikely so long as George Bush was in the White House and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the presidency of Iran, where elections are scheduled for next year. “Why would Iran go for it now? They feel like they’ve won, there are not enough sanctions, and there is no threat of war,” said Mr Perkovich.

Calling Iran’s bluff?

The Luers-Pickering-Walsh initiative gives Iran the opportunity to prove that its nuclear intentions are peaceful by yielding to the Iranians’ key demand for a uranium enrichment programme on Iranian soil. The enrichment activities would take place under the supervision of a jointly managed international consortium. The plan is the most detailed of its kind since 2005. Conditions to be negotiated with Iran would include:

*a UN Security Council resolution authorising the arrangement and specifying that if Iran breaks the agreement, member states would be authorised to take punitive action;

*Iran would be barred from producing highly enriched uranium, which is weapons grade fuel, or reprocessed plutonium, which can be an alternative route to producing a bomb;

*Iran would implement the stringent inspection measures in the Additional Protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

*Iran would commit itself to building only “safe” light-water reactors.

Read original article from The Independent here