After being asked to remove his sponsorship of a congressional resolution on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, the candidates looking to replace outgoing Congressman Michael McNulty in the 21st District all have differing opinions on the issue.
McNulty is one of many co-sponsors of Concurrent Resolution 362, a controversial measure in the U.S. Congress that makes several proposals aimed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand from the neighboring 20th District is also a co-sponsor of the bill.
The controversy stems from clause three of the resolution, which in essence calls for a blockade of Iran if the country does not comply. Groups such as Women Against War say that such a measure would be seen internationally as an act of war.
After meeting with representatives from Women Against War on Monday, Aug. 4, McNulty said he is seeking to have the wording of the resolution changed.
There are seven candidates running in the 21st District, five Democrats and two Republicans. Although all agree that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapon capability, most agreement ends there, as each of the candidates have a different take on why they do or do not support the resolution.
Democrats Tracey Brooks, Darius Shahinfar, and Phil Steck, along with Republican Steven Vasquez, all said they do not support Resolution 362 and would not have sponsored it.
Democrats Paul Tonko and Joseph Sullivan and Republican James Buhrmaster said they support the measure.
McNulty and Gillibrand said they would not remove their names from the resolution, citing a need to diplomatically deal with the Iranian nuclear problem and a very specific clause that states nothing in Resolution 362 shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.
Critics of the resolution say that a blockade and similar strong measures against Iran would constitute an act of war and escalate already high tensions into a military conflict despite the resolution’s clause against the use of force.
Brooks said she was against the resolution because the Bush administration can not be trusted.
`I strongly oppose the ongoing war in Iraq and support efforts to prevent President Bush from launching a military attack on Iran. While we must ensure the safety and security of Israel, we should first use all of our economic, political and diplomatic tools to achieve our objectives of dissembling Iran’s nuclear program and building peace and security in the region and around the world,` Brooks said. `Even though there are many aspects to [Res. 362] that do outline a path of putting diplomacy first, I would not vote for this resolution because this President cannot be trusted with the additional authority granted by Congress.`
Shahinfar, who is of Iranian descent, described the resolution as `saber rattling` and that it would only elevate tensions between the two nations.
`It’s not a coincidence that gas prices have significantly dropped ever since this administration followed the Democratic lead and began talks with Iran about its nuclear program,` Shahinfar said. `This congressional resolution, even though it is largely a restatement of U.S. policy, will needlessly raise tensions and may raise our gas prices even higher.`
Shahinfar said it was a step in the wrong direction to bring about change in Iran.
Steck said he was opposed to two distinct aspects of Resolution 362 ` a possible blockade and the detainment of diplomatic officials in Iran.
`It calls for what is in essence a blockade, which is considered an act of war. We haven’t exhausted all of our diplomatic means before using such an extreme measure,` Steck said. `We haven’t reached that point with Iran and I don’t think you can tell a sovereign nation that they can’t send diplomatic officials out around the world.`
Steck added that Iran’s nuclear program needs to be stopped and that he has been consistently against the war in Iraq and doesn’t want to see a similar situation arise.
Vasquez also spoke strongly against the resolution, saying that the United States is picking and choosing which countries it wants to enforce nuclear compliance with.
`Essentially there’s wording inside of it telling the President, for all intents and purposes, to enact a blockade, which is an act of war,` Vasquez said.
`There is no true provocation here. Why aren’t we targeting North Korea or Pakistan? Not that I want to, but it think it’s hypocritical.`
Vasquez said the language used in the resolution was `reasonable if it sought to start a war,` adding, `What if China were to put up a blockade against the U.S. for its weapons of mass destruction?`
The three men who supported the resolution ` Tonko, Buhrmaster, and Sullivan ` all said the resolution fundamentally deals with the important issue of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Although Buhrmaster and Sullivan fully support the resolution, Tonko said he supports it but would like to see some of its wording changed.
`I agree with the resolution that Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, but I’m concerned with some of the language used in this resolution,` Tonko said. `I think all efforts should be made for economic and diplomatic negotiations.`
Tonko said any type of strong action should be a `last-ditch effort` and that `negotiations should be the tone and spirit` of talks with Iran.
In contrast, Sullivan took a hard line stance against Iran and its nuclear program, saying, `there is no doubt in my mind` that a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would occur if it did not comply.
`I support Congressman’s McNulty’s co-sponsorship of the resolution. As congressman, I would do the same, and more. Iran is providing arms and training that is resulting in U.S. troop deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan,? Sullivan said. `Iran is a threat to the stability of the Middle East, and a nuclear Iran is a threat to world peace. U.S. military and naval forces must remain on station in the Middle East. Withdrawal from Iraq is not an option so long as Iran poses the threat it does.`
Buhrmaster doesn’t believe nuclear talks with Iran will break down into armed conflict, but said that Iran needs to be dealt with and that the country’s own unwillingness to cooperate with international demands on its nuclear enrichment program has brought this on itself.
`I don’t think anyone wants a war with Iran,` said Josh Hill, a spokesman for Buhrmaster’s campaign. `It’s their [Iran’s] actions that threaten international peace.`
Hills said that Buhrmaster supports Resolution 362 because it reiterates Congress’ opposition to a nuclear Iran and lays out a plan on how to deal with it.
The resolution is not expected to be voted on until Congress reconvenes in January, most likely by McNulty’s successor. The seven candidates vying for McNulty’s seat will face off in a primary election for their respective parties on Tuesday, Sept. 9.
“