Last year Jackie Speier was planning to run against long-time incumbent Tom Lantos in part because of his unpopular strong initial support for the war in Iraq made him very vulnerable to a progressive challenge. Now in Congress after the untimely death of Lantos, she seems to be channeling his ghost. Speier is now the only San Francisco Bay Area Congressperson to cosponsor H Con Res 362, an AIPAC-supported resolution calling for a naval blockade of Iran, an act of war.
Speier just recently grabbed headlines by suggesting the US lower national speed limits in urban areas as a way to conserve energy supplies, which may be a good idea. But there is nothing that will drive up Oil prices like Congress giving a green light to Bush to form a naval blockade on Iran. You'd think instead she would do all she could to create speedbumps for Bush in his pursuit of war, instead with this resolution she seems to be waving the green flag.
Excerpt from H Con Resolution 362 supported by the pro-war advocacy group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and Congresswoman Speier:
...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...
As Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, says, "I do not see how this could be done without a blockade given its comprehensive and unequivocal language." Yet this resolution already has over 220 cosponsors, including more than 100 Democrats.
The purpose of this resolution, though it officially denies it authorizes military action, seems to be in sending a message to Iran, namely that actual peaceful resolution of this non-existent "crisis" is gone, prepare for war. In so doing, the backers of this resolution seek not to end Iran's enrichment of uranium (which is legal under the NPT) but to encourage Iran to abandon the Nuclear non-Proliferation treaty or some similar action, so as to provide some pretext for a military attack. This has been the purpose of Bush administration sanctions from the beginning.
From John Bolton's (remember him? Bush's ambassador to the UN... even the Republican Senate could not bring itself to confirm him) conversation with AIPAC groupies in January of 2007 speaking of the disappointing response to sanctions thus far from Iran:
I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect, although they’ve passed a resolution in parliament to re-evaluate their relation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have not rejected the sanctions resolution, they have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do – that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us.
In other words, the goal of the resolution is not to get Bush to act (does he need some motivation from Congress to be more aggressive toward Iran), it is to get Iran to act. As Sy Hersh wrote
But a lesson was learned in the incident [in January when tiny Iranian boats sailed near US battleships]: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. "The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington," he said.
War with Iran is the clear goal of this resolution and the whole campaign of provocations implemented by the Bush regime. The goal is not nuclear disarmament. Military action for the purpose of disarmament is an act of madness.
So what can be done of Congresswoman Speier's support for this nonsense? It is believed that Jackie Speier only motivation in cosponsoring this resolution (that her staff doubts will pass congress, and is only a "sense of Congress" resolution, meaning it does not have the force of law) is in appeasing AIPAC. This is a dangerous game to play, for "advisory" or not, it sends a real message to Iran and makes real diplomacy more difficult.
This Monday, Call Jackie Speier's office in San Mateo (if you live in her district). Let her staff know what you think of yet another congressional action lending any support for war.
Speier's office:
San Mateo: (650) 342-0300
Washington DC: (202) 225-3531
For the rest of you who live outside her district, Call your own congressional representative. Here's a current list of Cosponsors If your congressperson is not on the list, ask that they speak out against the resolution. If they are on this shameful list... organize!
More info on the resolution and how we are defeating this insane piece of legislation can be found here.