[WCUSP] Fw: Anti-War Movement Stalls Confrontation with Iran

[Libby or Mort Frank]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: <PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:39 PM
Subject: Anti-War Movement Stalls Confrontation with Iran


> Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation 
> With Iran
>
> By Mark Weisbrot
> Alternet
> July 22, 2008.
> http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/92395/anti-war_movement_successfully_pushes_back_against_military_confrontation_with_iran_/
>
> Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United
> States? In the past two months, the anti-war movement
> has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups
> in the United States in an important fight. And so far,
> the anti-war movement is winning.
>
> Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into
> Congress that effectively called for a blockade of
> Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of
> hostility, the bill calls for:
>
> "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined
> petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection
> requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes,
> trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."
>
> This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a
> blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous
> proposition, especially given all the efforts that the
> Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer
> to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and
> the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks
> with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is
> for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to
> initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous
> hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to
> pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green
> light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians
> passively watching their economy strangled for lack of
> gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a
> few missiles at the blockaders. Whereupon all hell
> could break loose.
>
> By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with
> 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200
> Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear
> quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a
> special procedure that allows the House of
> Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation
> by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid
> amendments and other procedural votes, as well as
> normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership
> said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot
> knife through butter."
>
> Groups opposed to military confrontation with Iran
> sprang into action, including Peace Action, United for
> Peace and Justice, the National Iranian-American
> Council, the Friends Committee on National Legislation,
> Code Pink, and Just Foreign Policy. They generated tens
> of thousands of emails, letters, phone calls, and other
> contacts with members of Congress and their staff. The
> first co-sponsor to change his position on the bill was
> Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), an influential
> member of Congress who chairs the powerful House
> Financial Services Committee. He apologized for "not
> having read [the bill] more carefully," and pledged
> that he would not support the bill with the blockade
> language.
>
> Then Robert Wexler, (D-FL), peeled off, also stating
> that he would not continue to support the bill if the
> blockade language were not changed.
>
> Most of the major media ignored the controversy, but
> two newspapers noticed it. The first was Seattle's
> Post-Intelligencer, whose editorial board denounced the
> resolution on June 24 and asked, "are supporters of
> Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious
> to drag us into another illegal war?"
>
> Then on June 27 the editorial board of Newsday
> published an editorial calling for a full debate on the
> bill. Newsday has a large circulation, and perhaps more
> importantly, it publishes in the New York district of
> Congressman Gary Ackerman - the lead author of the H.
> Con. Res. 362.
>
> Then, earlier this month, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-
> CA) wrote:
>
> "[Howard] Berman [Chair of the House Committee on
> Foreign Affairs] has indicated that he has no intention
> of moving the bill through his committee unless the
> language is first altered to ensure that there is no
> possible way it could be construed as authorizing any
> type of military action against Iran.I will withdraw my
> support for the bill if this change is not made."
>
> The result, so far: no Congressional endorsement of a
> blockade against Iran. A dangerous piece of
> legislation, primed to pass through the House without
> debate, stopped in its tracks by an anti-war movement.
> And some Members of Congress are going to be a bit more
> careful about doing things that could move the country
> down the road to another war.
>
> The anti-war movement's victory was all the more
> impressive given that the main lobby group promoting H.
> Con. Res. 362 was AIPAC, the American Israel Public
> Affairs Committee. Although AIPAC does not represent
> the opinion of the majority of American Jews, it is one
> of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. To get a
> flavor of how much influence it has, AIPAC's annual
> policy meeting in Washington in June was attended by
> half of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
> according to the Washington Post. It's tough to think
> of another Washington lobby group that could pull off
> something like that - certainly no other organization
> concerned with foreign policy comes to mind.
>
> Of course, this is just one skirmish in the long battle
> to end this current, senseless war in Iraq - a war that
> has needlessly claimed the lives of more than 4000
> Americans and, according to the best scientific
> estimates, more than a million Iraqis; and to prevent
> our leaders from launching another criminally insane
> war. But it shows that, even in the rather limited form
> of democracy as exists in 21st century America, there
> is an organized anti-war movement and it has real
> power. It doesn't look like the anti-war movement of
> the last century, with street demonstrations,
> nationally known leaders, and regular expressions of
> public outrage. (It's not clear that the major media
> would give much more attention to the movement or its
> views - that is, the views of the majority of the
> country -- even if it did pull huge crowds into the
> streets.) But it is there, it is organized, it is
> intelligent and strategic.  It will continue to grow,
> no matter what happens in November.
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
>
> Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/archive