|
Apr
23
|
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.
The travelling lecture “THE HUMAN COST OF WAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS” focuses On Iran is coming to New York City and to Washington DC in the month of May.
WHEN: Thursday May 1, 2008 7pm
WHERE: All Souls Church; Reidy Friendship Hall
1157 Lexington Ave, @ 79th St. New York, NY USA
212-535-5530
SPEAKERS: Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, founders of the Society for
Chemical Weapons Victims Support www.scwvs.org
On tour in the U.S. from Iran, Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, have
many years experience treating victims of chemical weapons used in the Iran/Iraq war of
the 1980s. Speaking to both medical professionals and to the general public, they address
the short and long term medical consequences of chemical warfare hoping to heighten the
awareness of the devastation of weapons of mass destruction and to remind us that we
must work to abolish these weapons.
Tour Sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) www.psr.org and the
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
www.campaigniran.
The tour sponsors hope this tour will increase efforts for diplomacy to between U.S. and
Iran and bring us closer to peace.
Co-sponsors: Peace Task Force of All Souls Church and Action For Justice of Community
Church NYC Info: russellbranca@
From the National Iranian American Council
There is new momentum on Capitol Hill to pursue a shift in US policy towards Iran. Most recently, Senator Feinstein of California added her powerful voice to this debate, calling for direct, unconditional dialogue between the US and Iran. (Watch video) The support of the Iranian American community in California for her position was an important factor in her decision.
For other Senators to follow her lead, it is crucial that they hear from the Iranian-American community. In order for Senator Feinstein’s efforts to succeed, she needs likeminded Senators to stand by her, so that the new administration—
At NIAC’s April 8 conference she re-iterated her support for an alternative to sanctions and war. The proposal, recently put forth by former senior American officials and nuclear experts, suggests a multinational fuel enrichment facility inside Iran under extensive international supervision.
Please take a moment to send the letter below to your members of the Senate. With your input and involvement, your Senators can play an important role in shaping an effective and constructive policy towards Iran.
| Send letter now! |
|
Apr
16
|
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-
*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.
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
“Political Observations” (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491
Sandra R Mackie
Gettysburg, PA
Sponsor a woman survivor of war @
www.womenforwomen.
Stanley & David in Qom, Iran
Stanley Campbell will show slides and speak about his trip to Iran at the
Lakeview Library Auditorium, Peoria IL
Tuesday, April 15 at 7 pm
Mr. Campbell has served 20 years as executive director of Rockford Urban Ministries, and has been on numerous peace missions including Nicaragua in 1985; Guatemala in 1986; a return trip with Vietnam veterans in 1987; and the occupied territories of Israel in 1988 during the first intifada. Mr. Campbell has also joined a Volunteers In Mission/UMCOR work camp to Sarajevo, Bosnia, in 1996, and a delegation of the National Council of Churches to Cuba in 2004
“We want to get the message out that if we could talk to the Iranians, so should our government,†says Mr. Campbell after his latest trip to Iran.
Contact: Douglas Thompson 309-264-8914; Razia 309-868-4218
Letter to the Editor of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle by Lynda Howland :: Originally Published March 29th, 2008
Having just returned from a trip to Iran with an interfaith peace delegation from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, I am distressed by the increase in U.S. posturing regarding Iran. Our delegation met with numerous political, religious and cultural figures in Iran, including the former president and reformer, Mohammad Khatami. His message to us, voiced by so many others with whom we met, was: “The United States is a great nation. The Constitution is one of the most important documents for justice, democracy and freedom. Why should violence toward and humiliation of others come out of such a great nation? Let us all resist another buildup to another senseless war. Unlike the United States, Iran has never attacked another nation.”
Iran need not be our enemy.
Attached is the newest billboard our Women Against War has put up in Albany, New York. We have rented the sign for two months.
Peace,
Priscilla
November 27th, 2007
Ed Hale encourages fans, friends, and citizens of the world who are sincerely interested in peace in the world to call the United States Congress and urge them to put an end to the White House’s fascist bullying stance currently being taken against the people of Iran. No excuses. The time is now. Goliath is going down.
Please share this as widely as possible!
Dear Friend of United for Peace and Justice,Fazio/Welch letter calling on President Bush to seek a ‘direct, unconditional, and comprehensive’ dialogue with Iran.Call the Capitol switchboard today:
202-224-3121U.S. intelligence agencies have announced their belief that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Many in Congress, including some Republicans, have argued that the new National Intelligence Estimate should be the basis of a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, away from military threats in favor of real diplomacy and engagement. But so far the White House has refused to change course. President Bush has said his aggressive stance toward Iran would not change as a result of the new NIE.Representatives Peter DeFazio and Peter Welch are sending a letter this week to President Bush urging that the U.S. seek a “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive†dialogue with Iran in the wake of the Iran NIE. Current signers include: Representatives Woolsey, Ellison, Kucinich, Doggett, Farr, Olver, Baldwin, Hirono, McGovern, Lee, Blumenauer, McDermott, Moran, and Wu.Help make this a stronger statement by encouraging your representative to sign this letter. Call the Capitol switchboard ASAP at 202-224-3121. The deadline for signing on to the letter is this Wednesday at noon. (If you don’t know who your representative is, click here.)Click here to read the text of the letter. Robert Naiman
Co-Convenor
UFPJ Iran Working Group
