I dont remember my exact words to the congressman when I wrote him, and I cant retrieve my email to him because it was thru his website in a form. He replied to me today with a real thorough answer to the fear/talk of Bush declaring war on Iran...and maybe utilizing Martial Law.
The reply goes like this (please give your feedback on his answer):
Dear Ms. F*****,
Thank you for your comments on Iran . I appreciate very much learning the views of my constituents.
The nuclear energy program of Iran must be examined from the standpoint that this is a country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns that Iran 's real aim is the development of nuclear weapons. Germany , France , and Great Britain have sought unsuccessfully to negotiate safeguards with the Iranian regime. Russia has offered to monitor nuclear processing for the peaceful generation of power. The issue of Iran is one that has raised broad international concerns. Tensions have been further heightened by Iran 's test of a missile with a range capable of reaching Europe . At the same time, the President of Iran has threatened "to wipe Israel off the map." This issue must therefore be understood not only as a potential threat to the United States but in its larger global context.
It must also be noted that the United States has announced that it will participate in multi-party negotiations with Iran concerning stability in Iraq . In this regard, it is clear that Iran 's nuclear program has not contributed to stability in the region. The role of Iran in supplying the insurgents with explosive devices used to kill Americans, and its funding and support for Hezbollah are also evidence of its intention to play a destabilizing role in the Middle East.
At the same time, Iran has significant internal problems. As hearings by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee revealed, the Iranian economy is imploding and due to the deterioration of its refining capacity, Iran is now importing 40 percent of the refined petroleum products consumed by its citizens. There is widespread discontent with the Iranian regime and its violation of the human rights of its own citizens. This is further compounded by the fact that nearly 50 percent of the Iranian population is under the age of 15. The strict monolithic authoritarianism of the mullahs is becoming increasingly unpopular. It is therefore not out of the question that changes within Iran itself may play a critical role in the unfolding of events within the country. United States policy must support democratic elements within Iran . It should not be forgotten that immediately after 9-11, unlike the capitols of several nations in the Middle East, there were over one hundred thousand demonstrators in the streets of Teheran who marched in sympathy with the people of the United States .
Thus, the suggestion that the military option is somehow the central focus of U.S. policy is a misapprehension. We have engaged in a multi-lateral approach to the threat posed by Iran . While there has been a focus in the media on the potential military option that is not an accurate reflection of our policy. The fact that the Administration has not taken it "off the table" is primarily a prudential decision that we must not give the Iranian regime any impression that their conduct and millenarian rhetoric has been successful. A miscalculation by their regime is also a potential threat to peace.
In regard to Congressional action to adopt legislation which would tie the President's hands with respect to a future Iranian crisis, I would raise a word of caution. Such action would communicate precisely the wrong message to the fanatical leadership of Iran . It is imperative that we maintain constant pressure on the regime in order to avoid a crisis. There are also serious Constitutional questions raised by any effort by the Congress which would have the effect of limiting the power of the Commander in Chief to protect the American people. However, we do have a system of "checks and balances" and the Congress does have the power to declare war as well as control over the "power of the purse." The Congress has declared war only four times in regard to the two-hundred military conflicts in which the United States has been engaged. Nevertheless, it is my view that prudence should dictate that a President should follow past practices by coming before the Congress when our nation becomes involved in military hostilities. This best serves the relationship between two coordinate branches of government and would be most likely to affirm the legitimacy of any such action in the estimation of the American people.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.