By Joe Volk, Executive Secretary of FCNL
As we at FCNL walk the halls of Congress lobbying against the escalation of the war in Iraq, we are hearing also new concerns from members of Congress about President Bush’s escalating confrontation with Iran and President Ahmadinejad’s escalating confrontation with the U.S. The president accuses Iran of sponsoring armed, violent groups inside Iraq and said in a January 29 interview that the U.S. will “respond firmly” to any Iranian interference in Iraq. But the president also cautioned in the same interview with NPR radio that he has “no intention” of invading Iran.
In the past, a statement from the president of the United States that he is not planning to invade a country would have a calming impact on an impending conflict. But we at FCNL view the escalating conflict with Iran with concern because the U.S. does not have any direct diplomatic contacts with the government in Tehran and, therefore, the normal channels for resolving misunderstandings or de-escalating conflicts do not exist.
Both the U.S. and Iran share responsibility for this escalating conflict. But, as citizens of the United States, we at FCNL want to do everything we can to ensure the U.S. does not start down a path that leads to a new war. Yet the signals are unmistakable. The recent U.S. decision to raid an Iranian diplomatic office in Erbil, Iraq has caused tensions not only with Iran but also with the government of Iraq, which condemned the raids. Adding fuel to this conflict was the White House decision last week to tell reporters that President Bush has authorized U.S. soldiers in Iraq to kill or capture Iranians in Iraq that the U.S. administration believes to be aiding Shite milita groups.
A few days after that announcement, Vice President Cheney declared that the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the region sends a “strong signal” of U.S. commitment to confronting Iranian influence in the region. (Since the U.S. military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran’s influence in the region has increased, according to reports in the Washington Post, January 30, and U.S. influence has diminished. That wasn’t supposed to happen.)
These statements come against a backdrop of an escalating international conflict with Iran on nuclear issues. The United Nation Security Council voted in December to demand Iran immediately halt all uranium enrichment activities and agree to international inspections of all of its nuclear facilities to resolve lingering doubts that Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. The United Nations has set a late February deadline by which Iran must halt enrichment. But the Iranian government has so far refused to abide by this request, arguing that their nuclear research is directed toward increasing Iran’s ability to generate electricity for civilian purposes. The Iranian government is expected to announce in early February that its ability to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power reactors has been expanded dramatically.
The U.S. position on Iran is eerily similar to the attitude toward Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The United States has repeatedly refused to engage in any diplomatic talks with Tehran, has characterized the government as part of an “axis of evil”, has asserted that, if no evidence of a nuclear weapons program is found then that is evidence of a hidden nuclear weapons program, and has intensified threats of a military confrontation. The Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added its own fuel to this fire by failing to comply with its commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), defying the will of the international community to undertake full international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
President Ahamdinejad also sponsored a conference that questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust – A move calculated to provoke Israel and the U.S. (Inside Iran, opposition and establishment forces consider President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial conferences a “red herring”, designed to take the heat off his failure to make good on economic promises that got him elected. Outside Iran, his action inflames anger, because he tramples on an important truth and narrative that shapes our culture and society today.) But war and threats of war will do nothing to stop this conflict or to solve the underlying problems. War is not the answer.
The Bush administration’s threats breed resentment and damage the possibility of future diplomatic engagement with the Iranian government. Perhaps worse, belligerent messages from the administration put democracy movements and leaders in Iran at more risk and help Ahmadinejad to narrow the space in which they move inside Iran. U.S. military aggression could potentially silence moderate voices within Iran who urge a less combative approach to the United States and greater cooperation with the international community. Speaking at a panel discussion on nuclear non-proliferation at the World Economic Forum, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei warned that a military strike against Iran would serve only to "strengthen the hand of those who say, 'Let us develop a weapon.'"
Peace is possible, if we work for it. Fortunately, we may have help. Some Members of Congress from both major political parties have begun to speak out against the Bush administration’s new march to war. At last count, FCNL has located four pieces of legislation introduced in the last few weeks that would require the president to obtain congressional approval before using force against Iran. (We hope but cannot assume that Congress would not vote for the use of force against Iran.) Passage of such a measure would be an important step toward preventing an expansion of the war. A second important step would be for the president to authorize direct diplomatic contacts between the U.S. and Iran and name a special envoy capable of the task.
As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report noted, Iran could play an important role in the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq. But U.S. threats go in the opposite direction and may exacerbate an already dangerous situation and could provoke a war. A military conflict with Iran would have disastrous consequences for the Middle East, damaging U.S. diplomatic relations throughout the Middle East and the world, and further intensifying the cycle of violence in the region. Intensive diplomacy and smart politics, not threats of war and war, are the tools to repair the damaged relations between Iran and the U.S. Peaceful prevention of a war with Iran could advance U.S. national interests and global security.
