Tue., June 10: Tell Congress You Want Dialogue, Not War with Iran

An action alert from the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran.

The same people who called for attacking Iraq now are raising the drumbeat for military action against Iran. Despite the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration is bolstering its case for war by labeling Iran one of the greatest threats to American security.

Call your Congressional Representatives on Tuesday, June 10th: 1-800-788-9372

·Tell them to work for direct and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the U.S. and Iran.
·The U.S. and Iran share common interests in a stable Iraq, Middle East and Afghanistan.
·The U.S. pursued negotiations with North Korea and Libya – it’s time to talk with Iran.

Tell your Congressional leaders that you want dialogue, not war!

The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) is organizing an innovative “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference on Capitol Hill. With the U.S. Capitol as a backdrop, Members of Congress, celebrities, former officials, and other citizens will use a row of 60’s-era red “hotline” telephones to talk directly to ordinary Iranian citizens. Concurrently on June 10, the Campaign is organizing a nationwide Call-in to Congress for Diplomacy with Iran so those outside of DC can participate and make their voice heard. The event on Capitol Hill will be held Tuesday, June 10, 2008, from 10:00 am–1:00 pm EDT; Terrace on the West Side of Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.

The Campaign for New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) represents a transpartisan coalition of diverse groups which share the objective of promoting responsible and effective U.S. diplomacy and leadership in resolving long-standing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Campaign supporters share the basic core beliefs outlined in the mission statement and urge direct, sustained, unconditional and comprehensive talks between the governments of the United States and Iran as a realistic way to resolve all outstanding issues.

Antiwar.com is a partner in the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran.

  • Eric

    Your headline for this item on the home page says “Tuesday June 12”. Of course, as it says here, the day is Tuesday is June *10th*.

  • margaret

    Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, ALL OF THEM and their cohorts should be tried for high crimes against humanity. No joke, no kidding, they should be prosecuted just like anyone else would be if they did the same. They lied to us, they cheated us, and now they’re driving us to the poorhouse. PROSECUTE THEM ALL!!!!
    No dialogue is needed unless we are going to apologize!

    • Mash Mammad

      Add Blair to your list. Thank you

    • Max

      i agree with your view but add that these “contact your congressperson” have been and will be a waste of everybodies time to do so.
      If Iran is attacked by this administration it is because of the public inability to recognize both Bush and Cheney are , in fact, evil.

      But i have learned the hardway don’t EVER underestimate the american majority to be dangerously mediocre to just plain dangerous.

      Remember it was NOT McGovern’s fault he was ANNIHILATED in the 1972 presidential election, it was not his shame, it was the shame of the american public.

      When will america wakeup and recognize since the mid-50s its’ history has been obscene? i think never.
      America is as dangerous a country in the world since Nazi Germany and much of the reason the same, americans in the main are obedient herd people.

      America?? What is it?? Not much but greed power and big business and keep the crowd distracted with NFL football where at halftime they oft bring in the militrary for good all propaganda, it is a low grade Nazi rally really.Max

      • andy

        That’s true. Its shameful the way the military is allowed to co-opt a sporting event. Why do military jets have to go roaring over a baseball stadium? Why do such public events have to be militarized. Its just a big brainwash. No wonder misguided naive 19 year olds go to get killed in Iraq. Sad.

    • “I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
      -Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).

  • Matthew Moriarty

    By treaty arrangement Iran is entitled to enrich its own uranium for use in electricity generating nuclear reactors. There is no need to dialogue here. Iran is correct to insist on its right to enrichment technology. Israel and the United States need to get over their objections and honor the terms of the NPT treaty. But since Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, Israel has no legal or moral standing. Iran would be in its rights to ignore Israel, though obviously this would not be advisable since Israel is determined to be the only power in the middle east with nuclear knowhow. The United States is legally obligated to honor the terms of the NPT treaty and obligated, because it is itself a signee, to PROTECT Iran’s right to enrichment technology. But the United States is controlled by the Zionist’s Lobby so international law and treaty do not matter. We will soon see if Bush/Olmert will insist that only might makes right.

    • Eric

      Thank-you for bringing up the fact that the NPT guarantees signatories the right to enrich uranium, and requires that nuclear-capable signatories aid non-nuclear signatories in acquiring this technology for peaceful use.

      The fact that Iran has an “inalienable right”, in the NPT’s language, to do this goes unmentioned even on the most “liberal” TV news discussions. I listened to a Bill Moyers discussion today with 3 journalists, all properly deploring the march to war with Iraq in 2003, and now the march to war against Iran. These 3 guys mostly said the right things (the by now conventional, easy, right things to say) against Bush and the war and the lapdog press. However, at one point, one of the 3 guys, Jonathan Landay, said something like, “To be fair, Iran is different, because right now, as we speak, Iran is enriching uranium in defiance of the security council.” He repeated this word, “defiance”, as though to say, “How outrageous and scary!”

      And nobody, including Bill, thought to remind him and the viewers, “Yes, but the NPT says Iran has an ‘inalienable right’ to do that, and the US and Israel have made it clear that they are violently determined to prevent Iran from EVER resuming enrichment, which is something contrary to Iran’s ‘inalienable rights’.” I just really feel that this should be brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME somebody rants about how awful it is that Iran is enriching uranium.

      • Anti-neocon

        Thank you Eric. Moyers, who once attended Bilbergers, is a gatekeeper, or otherwise he would have so corrected Landay. Sadly, even Mrs. Plame has proclaimed that Iran’s suchproper endeavors have ‘sinister’ purposes.

        • Eric

          It’s really scary how much control Israel has over our information. Moyers has been attacked as an “anti-Semite” in the past when he got too close to the electricv fence, so he pulls back. It’s just incredible how scared everybody is of the career-destroying power of the “anti-Semite” label, which has because synonymous with “goy who is critical of Israel”.

        • Kenneth

          It’s not merely the foolish goy who are subject to this manner of discursive discipline. It includes various Jewish anti-Zionists as well. The “self-hating Jew” is an appellation created with this contingency in mind.

        • Eric

          Of course I know that, but I still think the threshold for a non-Jew is lower, and the “self-hating Jew” label is less socially damaging.

          That is, a given level of criticism of Israel will get a non-Jew labeled “anti-Semite”, where as that same level of criticism coming from a Jew is less likely to get him or her labeled “self-hating Jew”.

          And anyway, the “anti-Semite” smear carries a much heavier stigma.

        • Kenneth

          True enough, I suppose. One cannot miss the irony in the fact that discussion of these issues in Israel is freer than it is in America, if only because the former cannot afford the latter’s ideological blinkers. Additionally, “self-hating Jew” looks much more absurd on its face than does “anti-semite”.

  • anti-neocon

    Definitely will be calling mine Tuesday. Now, back to the young dissenters, withy their bullhorns at Bilderberger Conference, found at prisonplanet.com.

  • JustAsking

    Make sure and call Representative Howard Berman’s (D-Israel) office too!

    Berman is chairman of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, so even if you don’t live in his district you can use the toll-free number provided to call the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Berman, an uber-Zionist, just addressed Aipac (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or as it should be known, Zionist Central)

    Also call Representative Brad Sherman’s (another D-Israel uber-Zionist) office because he was a co-sponsor of the Iran sanctions bill. So even if we don’t bomb Iran, we’re still causing grave harm to the people of Iran with sanctions, just like we did to the people of Iraq under Billy-Bob Clinton’s regime.

    Then call Nancy Sleazosi and Reid, who pledge allegiance to the flag of the theocracy of Israel on a daily basis, and are willing to kill our children and destroy our economy for that apartheid, rogue nation.

    Call Obama too, while you’re at it. He just pledged allegiance to Israel at the Aipac conference.

    800-788-9372

    Tell them that we’re voting their traitorous asses out (and will try them for war crimes) if they don’t IMMEDIATELY stop supporting Israel’s current & future wars of aggression using our kids and our tax dollars. The pro-Israel lobby was behind the use of force in Iraq as the executive director of Aipac admitted to the New York Sun in 2003.

    We’re down to the wire here folks — it’s up to Americans to stop this madness or the world will end.

    • Anti-neocon

      Yes, sir.

  • lester

    I don’t remember who said it but why have dialogue? what do we need to discuss? just leave them alone

    • Eric

      One person who said this was Matthew Moriarty above. I can’t say it better: “There is no need to dialogue here. Iran is correct to insist on its right to enrichment technology. Israel and the United States need to get over their objections and honor the terms of the NPT treaty.”

  • Impossible. AIPAC owns The US Congress.

    BD

    • Give Peas A Chance

      Aipac does own the U.S. Congress, but all those traitors in Congress need to know that the game is up — that Americans are increasingly learning about the Israel lobby and its effect on the very basics of our lives, like our gas prices.

      My congressman’s chief-of-staff had the chutzpah to tell me that my “liberal” congressman would support a U.S. attack on Iran for Israel, NO MATTER WHAT EFFECT THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN HIS DISTRICT.

      I mentioned to the chief-of-staff that gas prices were close to $5 /gallon in parts of the congressman’s district, and if the war on Iraq was for oil, why has oil gone from $25/ barrel in 2002 to… what is it today?

      And the news was saying that by July 4th gas could be $7/ gallon here.

      But some lefties, including the anti-war movement, are complicit in this grand charade. All their “No blood for oil” signs should be “No blood for Israel.

      Walt & Mearsheimer, and many others knowledgable about Israel’s dire affect on U.S. foreign policy had it right:

      THE INVASION OF IRAQ WAS FOR ISRAEL.

      Now, we can say in all truth, that the collapse of the U.S. economy IS BECAUSE OF ISRAEL.

      So call Congress tomorrow and SCREAM!

      Make sure you call all the leaders too, especially that slime Steny Hoyer (D-Israel), House Majority Leader. He leads Congressional delegations to Israel frequently, and is key to blocking any legislation that will stop the Iraq war and the coming attack on Iran.

      Make sure you call sleazebags Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, both D-Israel. They blocked anti-war candidates in the mid-term elections because stopping the Iraq war wouldn’t be good for their Vaterland, Israel.

      Call Liebowitz too — the schmuck. Tell him that the growing number of people in the U.S. who realized that we were duped into the Iraq disaster NOT by the oil companies, but by the Israel lobby, want him and all his fellow Israel-firsters TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES AND TREASON.

    • Give Peas A Chance

      Sorry, I meant call the schmuck Joe Lieberman — my brain is really not doing well today. Late night/ early morning at work.

      Call GOP leaders too!!!

      We cannot afford these high gas prices and the Dow dropping every time that spoilt, little, terrorist nation, Israel, threatens to attack Iran, which it will never do — it will get us to do it.

      Israel will manufacture the false flag justification as well. So all you Megaphoners out there, what “terrorist” attack does Israel have planned for the U.S., to be blamed on Iran in order to rally the U.S. public around an attack on Iran?

      What’ll it be this time, Israel? This false-flag better be really gory, because Americans have become very suspicious about the last one you pulled.

      Congress needs to be put on notice that we want our country back, so get all your friends to call too. It is the lives of our children that are at stake!

      • Eric

        I really hope you’re right that people are widely awakening about this.

        [“Oh please, God, I promise to start believing in you again if you will just let this happen!…]

  • Anti-neocon

    I hope my financial advisor is wrong about his assertion to me that if you are a candidate for office who is out and out against the type of wars we are now in, most of the white men in the USA will call you a traitor, and you will never be elected.

  • Eric

    Hey, wasn’t this the thread with all the ridiculous ravings of “Iran citizen”? He was funny.

  • Paul

    We Americans should wake up and smell the crap that is going on in Washington’s bush and cheney’s ADMINISTRATION. When will we wake up to the fact that our young men and women are dying for the suvival of just one country in the Middle East. We all should go and read what is going on at, (aipac.org) All the money being spent to kill and maim people, and the billions given to many couties AS FOREIGN AID should be spent here to repair all the failing bridges, damns and many other infrastructures. THEY ARE ALL AGEING AND IN NEED OF REPAIRS. Money needed to help those affected by katrina and many other desasters going around in the US. There are over 40 million people without health insurance. many are loosing their homes.
    I am tired of all the lies coming from DC. enaugh, enaugh, enaugh. And now IRAN! give me a break.

    • andy

      Any country spending what the U.S. is spending on “defense” is going to have its bridges falling down. A mere fraction of the troops and resources deployed in Iraq would have saved New Orleans from the worst of the horrors of Katrina.

  • darryl

    are you nuts it is congress that wants war with iran

  • darryl

    it is congress that wants war with iran

  • Lear K

    ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o

  • John Lowell

    I’d be pleased to call concerning “dialogue” or “talks” if I were to feel certain that the kind of “dialogue” or “talks” I’d be calling about were something unlike that which Obama intends to have with Iran. The Obama kind of talks are likely to resemble those held by Hitler with Hacha of Czechoslovakia and I think we’d do better without that kind of diplomacy, actually. Frankly, McCain’s fascism is a good deal more palatable than Obama’s in this respect. It comes with a dose of honesty and straightforwardness. Anyone struggling with the choice to be made between the two system candidates – if that happens to be your poison – might want to consider this difference: Do you want war started in an unadorned fashion or a war started with the trappings of peace? Something to think about.

    • Kenneth

      Taking the longer view, does one a war that may be limited in scope and duration, or one whose scale will likely prove to be undoing of the American Empire? Obama has displayed at least some willingness to advocate withdrawal when circumstances look dire; McCain, on the other hand, will likely persist to the bitter end. The Evil Empire, it seems, will end as it began: in blood and fire.

  • Eugene Costa

    Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush, June 9, 2008:

    http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

    So far only one media outlet has bothered to report it.

  • Lear K

    The US will always resort to war even with dialogue ,treaties, negotiation ,or powwow .The US needs to stop the provocations.

  • Tim R.

    Iran’s government is headed by a fanatical mad man. And he reports to and takes his orders from even more fanatical zealots. No want wants war with Iran, and the United States along with Europe and the UN, should work to resvolve this diplomatically. However, so far Iran’s position has been intractable, despite several UN resolutions and sanctions. If diplomatic and economic measures don’t work, then as a last resort, the military option must be considered. In no way do I advocate an invasion of Iran or “regime change” but a pinpoint, surgical strike on its nuclear facilities is a reasonable option that should be considered.

    Again, this is not about Israel. I truly feel that nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic radicals presents a severe and unacceptable threat to the national security of the United States. I do not fear the former Soviet Union and the thousands of nuclear weapsons she has as much as I do even one nuclear weapon in the hands of an Islamic fanatic. The threat of Islamic terrorists using nuclear weapons is much greater than the threat we faced in the cold war. “Mutually Assured Destruction” or “MAD” as they say does not apply to Islamic zealots. An Islamic fanatic has no fear of death and so he would most happily and readily give up his life in order to use a nuclear bomb against “infidels.” It is bad enough that a relatively unstable government in Pakistan now has nuclear weapson, do we want to make the problem even worse.

    Unfortunlty, people generally only close the stable door after the horse is out of the barn. Unless, heaven forbid, we turn on CNN and see a mushroom cloud over what used to be a major American or European city, people will not wake up to the severity of the threat.

    • Kenneth

      There is nothing that could be mistaken as evidence for the notion that Iran is seeking or possesses nuclear weapons. It has neither the means nor the motive to threaten the west. Iran’s supreme leader, as I attempted to bring to your attention on a prior thread, has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. America’s own National Intelligence Estimate discounts the phantasmagoric “nuclear threat”. In the highly unlikely event of a nuclear strike on America, it is free to retaliate. But there is nothing to suggest that this is even remotely probable.

      • Tim R.

        Kenneth,

        You make a cogent arguement for your position. I concede the point that there is certainly doubt as to whether or not Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. Perhaps for the moment they are not, but should we allow them the means to quickly do so, should they decide to? Also,I think we have to act on the assumption that they are. Clearly if they were developing nuclear weapons they would not tell us, they would deny it.

        And it makes logical sense that the would in fact want nuclear weapons. Why wouldn’t they? Israel, Pakistan, and India already have nuclear weapons so it makes sense to me that Iran would want them too. As for the fatwa you mentioned. Do you have more details on that? In any event I would not take that too seriously because Islamic radicals believe that it is perfectly permissible to lie to non-Muslims so they may have just done that to get our guard down.

        • Kenneth

          Perhaps for the moment they are not, but should we allow them the means to quickly do so, should they decide to?

          Why not? Assuming for a moment it did, an Iranian nuclear arsenal would have the effect of restoring a long-absent balance of power in the region. Its leadership exhibit a market absence of suicidal propensities- in the main because suicide bombing is an expression of a particular set of political circumstances, not an Islamic idiom, and can be found in terrorist groups both secular and religious. To associate the two is both fallacious and ahistorical in the extreme. You might as well argue that the Soviet Union or the PRC would be more than willing to commit the nuclear equivalent of a suicide attack because of analogous actions by the Marxist Tamil Tigers.

          Also, I think we have to act on the assumption that they are. Clearly if they were developing nuclear weapons they would not tell us, they would deny it.

          So would any country developing nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, but “guilty until proven innocent” is not a valid precept in the realm of law and is arbitrarily applied here- unless, of course, you would have the great powers make the same assumption of every hitherto non-nuclear state in existence. So this isn’t an argument for anything. It is sheer question-begging.

          And it makes logical sense that the would in fact want nuclear weapons. Why wouldn’t they? Israel, Pakistan, and India already have nuclear weapons so it makes sense to me that Iran would want them too.

          Cui Bono is also not definitive proof.

          As for the fatwa you mentioned. Do you have more details on that?

          http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050412130710.kizyij2s.html

          In any event I would not take that too seriously because Islamic radicals believe that it is perfectly permissible to lie to non-Muslims so they may have just done that to get our guard down.

          A fatwa is much more than a declaration of intent. It is a religious opinion by a scholar of Islam that possesses great importance. To violate this fatwa would destroy the Ayatollah’s credibility as a religious scholar. See the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa

        • Kenneth

          One further point, I believe, deserves examination. Iran has every reason to want nuclear energy. Its rapidly growing population is shrinking the gap between oil exports and domestic consumption. In as little as a decade it will become a net oil importer if it continues on its current course: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/1/377. Whilst Iran might conceivably have strong motives for wanting nukes (and aren’t these the fault of the US for failing to rein in Pakistan and Israel?), it has far stronger reasons for obtaining nuclear energy. Additionally, the US torpedoed a watchdog resolution by the UN against regional nuclear proliferation some months that was supported by Iran, mostly because it would have seen the nuclear disarmament of Israel. So the idea that the hypothetical weapons program in Iran is the consequence of Islamic “fanaticism” is greatly weakened by both the arguments you present and the past actions of other regional players.

        • Lear K

          How about the non-“islamic radicals” Christians,Jewish , democaratic fantics,and change the world tfantics!??They too see no problem in killing the ones that stand in their way!

  • Lear K

    The US acting on behalf of Israel will not allow any country in the region to achieve a parity in any kind of weapons not even conventional ones.The notion that only western leadrs are rational,and non-western are not is absolutly absurd.The war on Iraq illustrate this point very clearly.

  • Lear K

    parity with Israel.