Final round of voting! Please Vote to freeze the Pentagon budget!
In the midst of a struggle to provide health care for millions of Americans and create more jobs, President Obama said he would freeze non-security domestic spending at $447 billion per year. That’s for everything except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Guess what won’t be frozen? The $708 billion we will spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and many obsolete Cold War weapons systems.
What would you rather see America investing in? Our friends at Change.org launched “Ideas for Change in America 2010″, and we made it into the final round of voting. So please click here to vote! Even if you voted in the first round we need your vote again. Thanks!
Refusing a rape victim her day in court. Callously shooting a defenseless nine-year-old boy. Diverting hundreds of AK-47s intended for Afghan police to someone posing as a character from “South Park.” Using tax dollars to pay for prostitutes.
If only that were the end of the list. The sins of private military contractors like Blackwater – essentially hired guns — are seemingly endless, and I know you are as angry as I am that our tax dollars are funding this outrageous behavior.
Write your representative and senators today and urge them to cosponsor the Stop Outsourcing Security Act so our hard-earned money can stop lining the pockets of these callous, reckless corporations.
The percentage of contractors used in the war in Afghanistan is the highest ever in history. The surge of 30,000 troops approved by President Obama will be dwarfed by the accompanying 56,000 contractors expected to flood into the region. If we can’t fight wars with our own military, maybe it’s a sign we shouldn’t be in the wars in the first place.
How much worse do things have to get before our government draws the line? Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have had enough. They’ve introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which would prohibit the use of private contractors for military and security functions. Tell your representative and senators to cosponsor today.
Mohammed Kinani, whose nine-year-old son was killed by Blackwater employees in the Nisour Square shooting in Iraq, told The Nation “I wish the US Congress would ask [the head of Blackwater] why they killed my innocent son…. Do you think that this child was a threat to your company? This giant company that has the biggest weapons, the heaviest weapons, the planes, and this boy was a threat to them? I want Americans to know that this was a child that died for nothing.”
Let’s make sure Congress listens and puts an end to this taxpayer-funded madness. Our government can’t excuse this behavior, and they can’t ignore a public outcry if it’s loud enough. Take action.
Those of you in the Bay Area should check out one of the following talks on nuclear weapons being given by Tad Daley, author and Writing Fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the 1985 Nobel Peace Laureate organization. He will serve as “Scholar/Activist in Residence” at the UC Berkeley International House March 9-16. Here are the events accompanying his visit:
Thursday, March 11, 2010, 7:30pm
University of California, Berkeley, International House
2299 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94720-2320
Tad Daley, author of APOCALYPSE NEVER: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World (Rutgers, Spring 2010, www.apocalypsenever.org), will be speaking at the University of California at Berkeley International House regarding how we might actually bring about nuclear weapons abolition. Free and open to the public. For more information, contact lkoziol@berkeley.edu.
Friday, March 12, 2010, 12:00pm
The Commonwealth Club
595 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105
Tad Daley will argue that the nuclear double standard is both morally indefensible and politically unsustainable, and examine not only why we must abolish nuclear weapons, but also how we can, and what the world will look like after we do.
Cost: MEMBERS FREE, $15 non-members, $7 students (with valid ID)
https://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/open.asp?show=1617
Sunday, March 14, 2010, 12:00pm
Democratic World Federalist Luncheon Lecture
2299 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94720-2320
Tad Daley will address the Democratic World Federalists Good Government Luncheon Lecture and Annual Meeting on the global governance architecture of a nuclear weapon-free world. Event takes place at the UC Berkeley International House.
- Luncheon and Program — $40
- Luncheon and Program for Youth Under 30 and Students — $15
- Dessert and Program — $10
For more information, visit http://www.dwfed.org/
Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:30pm
University of California, Berkeley, International House
2299 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94720-2320
Free showing of the 1964 film FAIL-SAFE. Tad Daley will make a few introductory remarks, read a few paragraphs from the chapter in his forthcoming book on “Accidental Atomic Apocalypse,” and then we will view the gripping 1964 film FAIL-SAFE, starring Walter Matthau, Larry Hagman, and Henry Fonda, on global thermonuclear war coming about through nothing more than minor technical mishaps. It might have happened yesterday. It still could happen tomorrow. Free and open to the public. For more information, contact lkoziol@berkeley.edu.
A prominent narrative relating to the offensive in Marja has been the military’s emphasis on reducing civilian casualties. For example, the Brookings Institution notes that unlike past operations, the recent US offensive into Marja was announced in advance to Afghanis in order to reduce civilian casualties:
This battle is fascinating for the fact that it was announced repeatedly in advance by NATO commanders. The unusual tactic deprived us of tactical surprise, but General Stanley McChrystal and others clearly felt it even more important to minimize civilian casualties by trying to convince resistance fighters to vacate the area in advance. Even if those insurgents who flee remain free to fight another day, our key premise is that they will not be successful in galvanizing widespread support in Helmand province or elsewhere if we can establish positive momentum first—on the battlefield, and then in improving the lives of Afghan citizens.
The strategy adopted by General McChrysal also serves a broader PR purpose, bolstering US efforts to “win hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and, indeed, the US. But this approach can only work if it is actually effective in reducing the humanitarian cost of the battle. In reality, civilians always pay dearly for war. That is, as we’ve argued, one of the most fundamental strategic failings of war. As an interview with Radio Free Europe reveals, many civilians remain in the city because they did not escape in time.
“The civilians are trapped because although they had planned to leave after the fighting started in cars or anything they could find, all the roads are mined now and they cannot leave their homes,” said Rahman. “Their food supplies are running out and they face thirst and hunger. People are slaughtering and eating up their cattle. All the shops are closed even as most people stayed behind. Less than 10 percent of the residents left. We have information that civilians have also suffered deaths and injuries and they cannot bury their dead or help their wounded.”
Moreover, as we covered earlier, some 20 civilians have already been killed in the battle. Worse, more are dying because the battle has greatly restricted their access to hospitals:
Most of the wounded civilians recuperating at the whitewashed Italian-run hospital said their injuries were caused by “the foreign soldiers” — a claim that does not bode well for international and Afghan forces who are trying to get residents to renounce the Taliban and embrace the Afghan government.
Bernard Metraux, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Helmand province, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that as many as 40,000 people trapped by fighting in and around Marjah have little to no access to medical care.
The emphasis on the direct casualties of the battle masks a humanitarian crisis of equal magnitude occurring outside of city limits – the plight of the internally displaced. The LATimes reported last Tuesday that since the beginning of the offensive, some 4,000 families have escaped the town. While most currently have access to proper food and shelter, their inability to return home has begun to jeopardize their livelihoods, and there is no guarantee their resources will last:
For agricultural families, the great majority of the town’s residents, each passing day is a countdown to ruin. Worry beads click late into the night as farmers envision their crops dying, livestock scattered or starving, irrigation ditches choked with debris.
Still, many believe their decision to flee may have saved their lives. NATO says 16 civilians have been killed in the offensive, but the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission on Wednesday put the civilian death toll at 28, of whom 13 were children. At least 70 others have been hurt, the group said.
Although most of the displaced have access to food and at least rudimentary shelter, the privations are beginning to grate. Kinship dictates that a family must take in fleeing relatives without question. But many people in rural Helmand already live at the subsistence level, so host families and their guests alike face growing hardship.
The problems began in the planning stages of the Marja operation. For all the attention paid to making civilians aware of the impending battle, the advance efforts fell short of ensuring that fleeing civilians had places to stay with secure access to necessary resources.
NATO and Afghan leaders said they hatched the assault in close co-operation so the military phase can be immediately followed by the establishment of civil administration and services.
But Norine MacDonald, the president of the International Council for Security and Development, which has an office in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, said planners had paid little regard to civilian well-being.
”The forward planning we heard so much about did not include ensuring that the local population would be able to leave and live elsewhere in decent conditions, with access to food and medical care,” she said.
More than 2800 families – averaging about five members each – had been displaced before and during the fighting, said Abdul Rahman Hutaki, the head of the Human Rights and Environment Organisation, an independent Afghan group.
NATO commanders say it could be another three weeks before the area is under control as fighting between militants and the 15,000-strong force of US marines, NATO and Afghan troops is proving ”difficult”.
The US and NATO decision to reach out to the civilian population prior to the offensive in Marja is commendable, but efforts like this will likely continue to fall short in the face of a messy war. In Marja as in so many other places in Afghanistan, a military solution has only made existing problems worse.
Despite the increasingly dire news coming out of Afghanistan, Congress has been slow to forcefully question whether we are heading down the wrong path. The military is attempting to demonstrate a shift in momentum with its aggressive offensive in Marjah, but news of civilian casualties and displacements are already undermining their “winning hearts and minds” narrative. It’s difficult to imagine that the confidence of villagers in Afghanistan will grow once the “government in a box” is in place.
Meanwhile, in the midst of an economic crisis, Congress will vote in the coming months on $33 billion to send additional troops to Afghanistan, presumably for more counterproductive operations like Operation Moshtarak. Then they will take up a 2011 budget that asks for another $130 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) aims to bring attention to this misuse of resources with a resolution to end the war in Afghanistan. In a message to supporters, Kucinich said:
The Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006 with a promise to end the War in Iraq and it’s not enough for this Administration to slow-walk the end of the war, which could continue for years to come. And it’s not enough for a Democratic Administration to escalate a war in Afghanistan at a time when there’s no clear objective and no end in sight of the contribution of blood and treasure, to a region which has never been conquered by any foreign country.
It’s time that we take a stand as citizens. And it’s also time to force Congress to take it’s Constitutional responsibility seriously. Article 1, Section 8 requires that Congress has the war-making power. It is absolutely imperative that Congress be required to assert its responsibility on behalf of the American people. Congress is directly elected by the people. And Congress has to respond and step up to it’s responsibility to decide if we’re going to stay at war in Afghanistan. And so, soon, I will bring to the Floor of the House a Privileged Resolution which will force a vote as to whether or not we stay in Afghanistan.
We need as many opportunities as possible to raise opposition to the current strategy and highlight alternative strategies. The vote on this resolution will happen next week. Click here to urge your representative to vote in favor of the Kucinich resolution and speak on the floor in favor of a better nonmilitary approach.
While we have made significant progress in getting Congress to raise concerns, it is unlikely that this resolution calling for a withdrawal by the end of 2010 will pass. However, it offers an important opportunity to highlight the problems with the military-dominated approach and highlight the alternatives that are neglected in the very narrow congressional and public debate. This is yet another stepping stone in our work to build public and congressional support for a less costly and more effective strategy.
As Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and other experts have pointed out, we can have a better impact on our security and stability and quality of life for Afghans through development, diplomacy, and civilian counterterrorism. Our representatives in Congress have a responsibility to spend our tax dollars on a smarter and less counterproductive strategy and free up resources to invest in human needs here in the US. Write to your representative today.
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), already postponed until today, has been delayed again as the Obama administration works to come to a final position on key issues. Now expected at the end of March or later, the NPR will be a critical document outlining US nuclear weapons policy for the next 5-10 years, and could put us on a path toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons or serve to stifle progress and maintain an unsustainable status quo.
An excellent New York Times editorial lays out the major decisions being made:
THEIR PURPOSE: Current doctrine gives nuclear weapons a “critical role” in defending the United States and its allies. And it suggests they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces — not just nuclear arms. Mr. Obama’s aides have proposed changing that to say that the “primary” purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. This still invites questions about whether Washington values — and might use — nuclear forces against non-nuclear targets.
A different article in the New York Times points out the different sides of the debate on this issue:
Some leading Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have asked Mr. Obama to declare that the “sole purpose” of the country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attack. “We’re under considerable pressure on this one within our own party,” one of Mr. Obama’s national security advisers said recently.
But inside the Pentagon and among many officials in the White House, Mr. Obama has been urged to retain more ambiguous wording — declaring that deterring nuclear attack is the primary purpose of the American arsenal, not the only one.
Sen. Feinstein’s leadership on this issue is important. Nuclear weapons in today’s world are a liability and continuing to maintain a huge arsenal puts us all at risk of accidental launches or weapons falling into the wrong hands. Without pushing to restrict the purpose or role of nuclear weapons, proposals to make additional, significant reductions to our nuclear weapons stockpile will quickly come up against obstacles. The more roles nuclear weapons fill, the easier it is for nuclear hawks to justify maintaining a huge arsenal far into the future.
The editorial also highlights
ALERT LEVELS: The United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 weapons ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Mr. Obama has rightly described this as a dangerous cold war relic. The review should commit to taking as many of those forces off hair-trigger alert as possible — and encourage Russia to do the same.
Check out the editorial to read more about what the upcoming NPR will cover.
The Washington Post has a very moving series of photos today highlighting the human suffering in Kazakhstan as a result of the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons tests there from 1949 to 1989. With the Cold War long over, nuclear weapons can sometimes seem like a distant problem; I urge people to take a look at the photos to be reminded of just how dangerous these weapons are to human life and why banning nuclear testing makes sense.
Here are two of the captions for the photos:
The widespread contamination of soil and water prevents the land from being farmed, and most residents face unemployment because of the lack of opportunity….
National statistics show that the eastern Kazakhstan region has one of the highest mortality rates in the country. Many Kazakhs suffer deformities or have died from the radioactive fallout.
Russia ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to ban all nuclear test explosions in 2000 with Kazakhstan following in 2002. Meanwhile, the US has signed but not ratified the treaty, leaving the door open in the future to break our moratorium and return to testing. While the Obama administration has pledged to work with the US Senate for ratification, getting enough support in the Senate for the CTBT will be challenging. The Cable reports that there will probably be,
a delay until next year for a push to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well. That agreement has even less chance than the START follow-on of garnering Republican support.
One of the major underlying concerns with US strategy in Afghanistan that is not examined nearly enough is whether it is realistic. Since General McChrystal took over as commander in Afghanistan, he has received high praise for his approach, but many aspects of it haven’t been held up to serious scrutiny. How many people did a double take when reading this in his assessment that was leaked out as President Obama decided whether to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan?
ISAF – military and civilian personnel alike – must acquire a far better understanding of Afghanistan and its people. ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army.
This assessment comes after a presidential election mired in fraud, and in the midst of a steadily rising civilian casualty rate. How is the US military, connected intimately with the Karzai government and working with many warlords who rival the Taliban in brutality, supposed to be seen as a guest, especially given this shocking revelation:
Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.
After an eight-year military presence, the military doesn’t understand Afghan politics and culture and expects to navigate this metaphorical (and literal) minefield and be seen as a benevolent guest?
I’m sorry to say General McChrystal’s strategy has not become more grounded in reality in recent weeks. His recognition that civilian casualties are detrimental to stability and US security is commendable, but his good intentions can’t survive the muddled, chaotic environment on the battlefield. More evidence of this problem has emerged in the wake of Operation Moshtarak, designed to reverse the Taliban’s momentum while winning hearts and minds. So far, there have been at least 20 civilian casualties reported in the operation, including a rocket attack on a home where children were amongst the dead. On top of this, a US air strike unrelated to the offensive just killed 27 civilians—women and children, government workers and tribal elders, including one who was reportedly involved in a failed attempt to capture Osama bin Laden:
Now at least 27 of them are dead and more than a dozen hurt, some severely, and the government of President Hamid Karzai is outraged — all at a particularly delicate and potentially decisive moment in a battle for Afghan hearts and minds.
The incident, the worst single episode of civilian casualties in six months, threatened to overshadow what coalition forces had billed as an important milestone in Marja: the first visit to the town by the newly appointed civilian chief, who will preside over a municipal government created essentially from scratch.
It’s fairly obvious that killing community leaders, including ones who have tried to assist the US in the past, fuels resentment and makes being viewed as “guest” seem nearly impossible. The United Nations is reporting that 346 children were killed in Afghanistan last year, more than half of them by NATO forces. UNICEF declared Afghanistan the worst place in the world for a child to be born. We need to ask serious questions about whether we are delivering on promises to improve the quality of life for Afghans, and increase US security by building trust and stability, especially if this is the result of more than eight years in the country.
Clearly, recent efforts at sensitivity to civilian concerns in Marjah have fallen short:
“People still complain about how the house searches are being conducted. The joint forces should not view every person here with suspicion of being a Taliban or a relative of one,” said Abdur Rahman Saber, head of a local council set up before the Marjah offensive to monitor the plight of civilians.
“When the government and its foreign allies want the people on their side, they should respect every resident here. People should not feel any sense of insecurity from Afghan or foreign troops.”
The UN recognizes that this kind of attempt to win hearts and minds is counterproductive, and has refused to participate in the reconstruction phase of Operation Moshtarak:
“If that aid is being delivered as part of a military strategy, the counterstrategy is to destroy that aid,” Mr. Haj-Ibrahim said.
“Allowing the military to do it is not the best use of resources.” Instead, he said, the military should confine itself to clearing an area of security threats and providing security for humanitarian organizations to deliver services.
“The distribution of aid by the military gives a very difficult impression to the communities and puts the lives of humanitarian workers at risk,” Mr. Watkins said.
Last month, eight leading humanitarian organizations working in Afghanistan, including Oxfam and ActionAid, issued a joint report that was highly critical of the International Security Assistance Force, as the American-led NATO force is known, because of “the international militaries’ use of aid as a ‘nonlethal’ weapon of war.”
General McChrystal has apologized for the loss of innocent life after each incident. But no matter how heartfelt those apologies might be, can this pattern of death and apology really repair any damage? General McChrystal was reportedly “apoplectic” in response to the most recent air strike, and this points to the underlying problem—he can’t control everything that happens in Afghanistan, and these mistakes will occur again. As it becomes a morbid routine repeated too many times, it loses meaning, and I can only imagine how it sounds to an Afghan who has lost a loved one.
After all this turmoil and unnecessary civilian death, the US military thinks they are going to helicopter in a “government in a box” and people will accept this new system and forgive and forget. I believe General McChrystal when he says the ISAF doesn’t understand Afghanistan, and I’m not optimistic that will change. It’s time to push for more realistic, less costly alternatives for Afghanistan.
Vice President Biden gave a major policy speech today on nuclear weapons (full text here), discussing the administration’s nuclear weapons agenda, their funding request for nuclear weapons, and key steps towards a nuclear weapons free world, like ratification of the New START agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Much of the speech reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to steps toward a nuclear weapons free world. Biden noted the bipartisan support for this nuclear security agenda:
Our goal of a world without nuclear weapons has been endorsed by leading voices in both parties. These include two former Secretaries of State from Republican administrations, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz; President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Bill Perry; and my former colleague Sam Nunn, for years the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Together, these four statesmen called eliminating nuclear weapons “a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage.”
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, both the President and Senator McCain supported the same objective.
He also highlighted the importance of two key treaties: New START and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The New START agreement between the US and Russia to reduce both of our nuclear arsenals is expected to be announced within several weeks. Biden made the case for why the US Senate should ratify the CTBT and ban all nuclear test explosions:
During the Cold War, we tested nuclear weapons in our atmosphere, underwater and underground, to confirm that they worked before deploying them, and to evaluate more advanced concepts. But explosive testing damaged our health, disrupted our environment and set back our non-proliferation goals.
Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the nuclear testing moratorium enacted by Congress, which remains in place to this day.
Under the moratorium, our laboratories have maintained our arsenal through the Stockpile Stewardship Program without underground nuclear testing, using techniques that are as successful as they are cutting edge.
With the Vice President speaking out, this is an opportunity for us to mobilize and take action. Send your senators an email or give them a call and let them know you support these treaties. You can look up your senators’ contact information on Peace Action West’s website under “Your Congress.”
At the same time, Biden sought to defend the $7 billion the administration has requested in funding for the nuclear weapons complex next year. While some spending to specific programs that safely maintain our nuclear weapons as we work to reduce them makes sense, a large chunk of that funding goes to unnecessary new facilities that do not contribute to that goal. Instead, funding for a new plutonium pit facility (the bomb core of a nuclear weapon) would enable more production of new pits. Should the US decide to produce new nuclear weapons in the future, the infrastructure to do so would be in place. At the same time, funding these facilities sends the wrong message to the international community about our priorities. Biden acknowledged the large, proposed spending increase is controversial:
Some friends in both parties may question aspects of our approach. Some in my own party may have trouble reconciling investments in our nuclear complex with a commitment to arms reduction. Some in the other party may worry we’re relinquishing capabilities that keep our country safe.
While there is broad bipartisan support for reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile alongside Russia, the push to ratify the CTBT is expected to be challenging. David Shorr’s blog post “Test Ban Treaty — Golden Opportunity for Republican Bipartisanship” takes stock of the current political climate:
Yet, modern bipartisanship, unfortunately, is a game with moving goalposts. It’s like the domestic political equivalent of the neoconservative approach to international negotiations — instead of give and take, conservatives want all take and no give. As a result, the center of gravity for compromise has moved steadily rightward. When it comes to arms control, Ronald Reagan’s policies look so moderate on the contemporary political spectrum that they would certainly come under scathing criticism from today’s right wing.
This post is part of Unite 4 Human Rights in Iran day of blogging.
People around the world were inspired by the massive protests that broke out after Iran’s disputed presidential election, and appalled by the violent crackdown by the Iranian government. It was hard to imagine that the beautiful, welcoming Iran I had visited just a couple of weeks before had turned into such a chaotic mix of spirit and brutality. Many members of Congress took to the floor and the media to voice support for the Iranians who had taken to the streets, some calling for the US to offer explicit support for the protesters. While many of these politicians were surely moved by the scenes from Iran, some of them (John “Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain most noticeably) seemed oblivious to the incongruity of their championing of human rights in Iran and their earlier advocacy of bombing Iran into oblivion.
The US approach toward Iran is far too often based on misguided politics rather than sound policy. Since last June, many of us in the United States have reached out for ways to show solidarity with brave Iranians—from changing the location on our Twitter accounts to attending marches around the country. As American voters, one of the most powerful things we can do is hold our government to implementing policies that will help democracy flourish in Iran. And they need to hear from us—much of the US approach is stuck in discredited policies of the past that threaten to backfire and strengthen the regime, while making both Americans and Iranians less safe.
Decades of tension with Iran, and constant Iranian accusations of western meddling, have made US positioning toward the opposition in Iran a delicate matter. Since the 2008 campaign, President Obama has demonstrated a far more sophisticated understanding of the US’s relationship with Iran than his predecessor. He started off with some important changes in tone—from his recorded Nowruz message to his acknowledgement of the 1953 coup in his Cairo speech. His administration has participated in negotiations to resolve tensions around Iran’s nuclear program. While ideally the US would engage in bilateral negotiations that would cover a broader range of issues, including human rights, the group talks with the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are a step in the right direction. The success of the talks, however, is threatened now, and one of the most important things we can do is demand that the Obama administration stay at the negotiating table. The alternatives, such as crippling sanctions and military actions, could strengthen the regime and deal a devastating blow to pro-democracy efforts in Iran.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s grasp on the diplomatic strategy seems to be slipping. To their credit, they have avoided calls for broad, unilateral sanctions that would directly impact the population and are more focused on targeting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the entrenched group intimately involved in the crackdown on protestors and Iran’s nuclear program. However, their understanding of diplomacy, as evidenced by their attempts to come to an agreement about shipping some of Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country, is lacking. Their attitude has been, “this is the deal—take it or leave it.” Diplomacy involves give and take, obligations and incentives.
Sitting at the table but refusing to budge is not a big enough step away from failed Bush administration policy. Many Iranians I met were frustrated with the US’s attitude toward Iran, the talking down and the double standards surrounding its nuclear program. A Mousavi government may have been easier to deal with, but it would not have abandoned Iran’s nuclear program at the behest of the west. While the bluster and posturing of the Ahmadinejad regime makes things difficult, the US must maintain perspective about statements like Iran’s intent to build 10 nuclear plants and enrich uranium to 20%–nobody credible thinks Iran can build 10 nuclear plants, and 20% enriched uranium, if they even could make it, is still many steps away from a bomb. Foolish moves like building up a military presence in the Gulf only provoke the regime and provides it more excuses to crack down on dissidents.
If the Obama administration has strayed slightly from the right path, Congress is on another planet. Late last year, the House passed a sweeping sanctions bill meant to cut off refined petroleum and bring Iran’s economy to its knees, and the Senate followed suit in January. I met with dozens of congressional staff about this bill, and not one of them made a cogent argument for how these sanctions would change the Iranian regime’s behavior. There is ample evidence that not only would they fail, they would likely backfire and hurt the broad population. Opposition leaders like Nobel Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi and former presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi made it abundantly clear that they oppose broad sanctions and their passage would hurt their efforts to bring greater democracy to Iran. But Congress didn’t let facts get in the way of their desire to be “tough on Iran.” Passage of this bill, by a whopping 412-12 in the House and a unanimous voice vote in the Senate, demonstrated political posturing at its worst. It is shameful that members of Congress who demanded greater US support for the opposition movement completely ignored their wishes in passing this dangerous bill.
While the US must be careful in its support of the opposition movement to avoid the appearance of interference, there are positive things the US can do to have an immediate impact. The US government can lift sanctions that impede Iranians’ ability to communicate via the internet, which has been critical to their organizing efforts. They can also look at other sanctions that affect the broad population, like the prohibition on civilian airplane parts (there have been several accidents in recent years, and I can attest to the fact that the Iranian airplanes feel pretty rickety). Members of Congress like Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) are promoting legislation that would lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance and ensure that any sanctions would be targeted at human rights abusers and not the general population. And in the long term, the US must negotiate directly with the Iranian government to resolve tensions and create a safer and more open relationship. We as citizens have a role to play in pushing our government to hear the real voices of activists in Iran, and act in their interest and in ours.
Below is an alert we sent to some of our supporters on the nuclear pork in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. Click on the following committee links to check if your representative is a member of a key committee that decides how much funding nuclear weapons will actually get. If your representative is on either the House Armed Services Committee or the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, please take action and email your representative.
Next year’s budget has just been released and while it has a spending freeze for most domestic programs, there’s plenty of nuclear weapons pork. The nukes budget comes in at roughly $7 billion, getting a ten percent increase.
It’s outrageous, unnecessary, and expensive.
Worst of all, the budget has hundreds of millions in nuclear pork for several new facilities that would enable the U.S. to increase its capacity to create new nuclear weapons in the future. A new plutonium pit facility in New Mexico would allow for a huge increase in the production of plutonium pits – the bomb cores of nuclear weapons. These facilities could cost taxpayers $3 billion each in the long run. Meanwhile, funds to dismantle nuclear weapons we no longer need have been slashed.
The budget has millions for new nuclear weapons facilities we don’t need. Ask your representative to cut nuclear pork today!
The international community is coming together in May to evaluate progress on the cornerstone treaty of nuclear disarmament. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates nuclear weapons states – like the U.S. – to work toward nuclear disarmament in exchange for non-nuclear weapons states not acquiring them. Other countries are looking to the U.S. for signs that we are serious about living up to our nuclear disarmament obligations, and this budget undermines our credibility.
Last year, your emails and calls created the grassroots pressure that successfully eliminated pork for the nuclear weapons complex from the economic stimulus. Please email now and ask your representative to cut funding for these new facilities.
Jon Rainwater, Executive Director. For over 25 years, Jon has been active in campaigns on issues of peace, nuclear disarmament, social justice and environmental sustainability. 
Rebecca Griffin, Political Director. Rebecca is spearheading campaigns to get Afghanistan right, and promote a diplomatic solution with Iran. 
Cara Bautista, Deputy Political Director. Cara is head coordinator for 