Peace activists across the nation and the Internet are criticizing a resolution that recommends strong action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment program.
Locally, the Women Against War group has called upon two area Democrats to remove their sponsorship of Resolution 362. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Hudson, in the 20th Congressional District and outgoing Congressman Michael McNulty D-Green Island, in the 21st, both told Spotlight Newspapers that they do not intend to remove their support, though McNulty is now calling for the removal of language that some say would necessitate a blockade of Iran.
The resolution calls for the president to impose various economic sanctions on Iran and to support legitimate governments in the region, through `sustained, serious and forceful` diplomacy. It has been introduced as Resolution 580 in the Senate.
The resolution also `demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, 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; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.`
McNulty has said the above paragraph should be removed.
The language is worrisome to Priscilla Fairbank, a member of Women Against War. `It is very threatening, and would essentially create a blockade and be an act of war,` she said. `I don’t think that most of the congressional representatives understood this when they signed it.`
Fairbank has traveled to Iran as part of a Fellowship of Reconciliation peace delegation. She said she learned that Iranians face the same problems Americans do. `They don’t want war or conflict,` she said. `They want to live their lives.`
Congresswoman Gillibrand’s office said she will continue to support the resolution and pointed to language stating `nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of force against Iran.`
`Kirsten supports this non-binding resolution because she views Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program as a threat to international peace, and believes we must utilize political, diplomatic and economic means to prevent Iran from developing such weapons,` said Gillibrand spokeswoman Rachel McEneny in a written statement.
She also said that the `resolution voices support for working with the world community to prevent military engagement through diplomatic and economic pressure. There are some who view this resolution as an authorization for war with Iran, but this is not the case`
McEneny said that Gillibrand will meet with the Women at War group `if her schedule permits.`
Alexander `Sandy` Treadwell, who is vying to be Gillibrand’s Republican challenger in the November election, said he would vote for the resolution if given the chance.
`The threat from Iran is real,` said Treadwell. `I think our country has to take a very strong stance, in conjunction with the international community, to prevent Iranian nuclear capability.`
The resolution states that a November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran could have enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009.
Michael Rocque, a former Army officer and, until recently, candidate for the Republican nomination in the 20th district, said that it will take more than tough talk to curb an Iranian threat.
`I am confident it does not go far enough to do what is needed to curb Iran,` said Rocque. `This is much bigger than saber rattling.`
Rocque suggested a multilateral dialogue involving non-totalitarian countries in the area in conjunction with `information operations` to disseminate a pro-democracy message to Iranians.
He also said that the use of force should never be off the table.
John Wallace, who also has recently been disqualified as a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 20th, questions the legality of the resolution.
`What right do we have to close down a country and where do we get the legal or moral authority to do so?` said Wallace. `It has been these types of resolutions and authorizations that have eventually gotten us into war in the past.`
A Monday, Aug. 4 decision by the State Board of Elections invalidated enough signatures on the petitions of Wallace and Rocque to effectively remove them from the race.
The resolution has not yet been voted on in the House or Senate, but has gained 261 and 49 cosponsors, respectively. The House just adjourned for their summer recess, meaning a vote will not be held there until at least after Labor Day.“