SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
council for a livable world
Expert Letter on Deescalating with Iran
There remains a narrow path for the U.S. and Iran to avoid military conflict and resolve ongoing disputes through negotiations.
Jul 31, 2019
Editor's note: The National Iranian-American Council has released a letter, signed by 30 foreign policy practitioners, calling on the U.S., Europe, and Iran to take steps to reduce tensions in the Persian Gulf.
July 30, 2019
As foreign-policy practitioners with decades of collective experience in national security and diplomacy, we write to warn that U.S.-Iran tensions have entered a dangerous new phase that has put us on the brink of a disastrous and avoidable war. The administration's decision to violate the Iran nuclear agreement in pursuit of a so-called maximum pressure strategy is damaging the accord and U.S. interests in ways that could be difficult to reverse. There remains a narrow path for the U.S. and Iran to avoid military conflict and resolve ongoing disputes through negotiations. Doing so, however, will require bold action and constructive steps from all sides, as outlined below.
The U.S. Should Suspend Recent Sanctions to Provide Space for Diplomacy
- The U.S. should suspend sanctions imposed after its withdrawal from the nuclear accord with Iran in May 2018 to provide space for de-escalation and assurance that it is serious about pursuing and adhering to a negotiated solution.
Iran Should Return to Full Compliance with the Nuclear Accord
- Iran's recent decision to cease adherence with aspects of the July 2015 nuclear deal in response to U.S. sanctions feeds into a counterproductive escalatory cycle and could lead to an irreversible collapse of the agreement. Iran should welcome the suspension of U.S. sanctions by returning to full compliance with the nuclear deal.
The U.S. and Iran Should Pursue a Prisoner Swap
- Iran has unjustly imprisoned at least five American citizens and dual nationals. According to publicized reports, at least a dozen Iranians are in custody in the U.S. on sanctions violation charges. Iran has publicly and privately offered to arrange a swap of American and Iranian prisoners held in each country's jails. The Trump administration should pursue this overture and view it as the low-hanging fruit for negotiations that can build confidence for broader diplomacy.
Europe Must Take More Serious Steps to Address Challenges in Meeting Its Sanctions Relief Obligations
- Due to U.S. extraterritorial sanctions, Europe has not been able to satisfy its obligations under the nuclear deal to ensure legitimate trade with Iran. To its credit, Europe's development of a special financial mechanism to facilitate legitimate trade with Iran, known as INSTEX, is a constructive first step forward. Europe must now urgently take all necessary actions to ensure INSTEX is utilized to enable the trade and economic benefits promised under the nuclear deal.
The U.S. and Iran Must Reestablish Communication Channels
- The U.S. and Iran should reestablish a permanent and direct communication channel to de-escalate crises, such as the downing of the U.S. drone and the oil tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a dedicated channel for deconfliction and deescalation, as existed under the previous administration, the chances of disaster remain far too high.
The U.S. Should Appoint a Credible and Empowered Iran Envoy
- To signal U.S. seriousness about negotiations and to facilitate the process, a new Iran envoy with the ear of the President and experience in diplomatically engaging Iran is needed. As long as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are viewed as leading the administration's Iran policy, concerns that the U.S. seeks regime change and military action - and is not serious about a negotiated solution - will undermine any hopes for talks.
Pursue an Agreement to Avoid Confrontations in the Persian Gulf
- The U.S. and Iran came dangerously close to war following several incidents in the Persian Gulf and unverified accusations leveled by both sides. To avoid similar confrontations in the future, the two sides should negotiate an "incidents at sea" agreement to avoid collisions between their naval and air forces operating in close proximity.
U.S. Congress Should Pass Legislation to Prevent War
- Congress was not consulted when President Trump came just a few minutes away from attacking Iran, which could have dragged the U.S. into a major regional conflict far more damaging than the Iraq war. Congress must assert its war-powers authority and uphold its constitutional duty as a coequal branch of government by passing legislation to ensure the administration cannot start an illegal and disastrous war with Iran.
Signatories:
Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian Amerian Council
Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor in Global Thought and Comparative Philosophies at SOAS, University of London and Fellow of Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)
Andrew Bacevich, Co-founder, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Michael C. Desch, Packey J. Dee Professor of International Relations, University of Notre Dame
Dina Esfandiary, Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and Security Studies, Harvard University; Fellow, The Century Foundation
John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion & International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University
Farideh Farhi, Affiliate Graduate Faculty of Political Science, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Nancy W. Gallagher, Director, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and Research Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland
Mark Gasiorowski, Professor, Department of Political Science, Tulane University
Kevan Harris, Assistant Professor of Sociology studying development and social change in the global South, UCLA
Rula Jebreal, Professor, American University of Rome
Peter Jenkins, Former UK Ambassador to the IAEA
Bijan Khajehpour, Managing partner at Vienna-based Eurasian Nexus Partners, a strategy consulting firm focused on the Eurasian region
Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, former Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-1985)
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University
Joshua Landis, Sandra Mackey Professor of Middle East Studies and Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma
Daniel Larison, Senior Editor, The American Conservative
John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
Francois Nicoullaud, Former French Ambassador to Iran
Rouzbeh Parsi, Visiting Research Scholar, Sharmin and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies, Princeton University; Head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs-Stockholm; Senior Lecturer, Human Rights Studies, Lund University
Trita Parsi, Co-founder, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Adjunct Associate Professor, Georgetown University
Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Russia, India, the United Nations and Israel
Paul Pillar, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution
Edward Price, Director of Policy and Communications, National Security Action; former National Security Council Spokesperson; Former Special Assistant to President Obama for National Security Affairs
Barbara Slavin
John F. Tierney, former Member of Congress and Executive Director of Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and of Council for a Livable World
Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Lawrence Wilkerson, Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Peace Movement and Electoral Politics
With the 2018 Congressional elections occurring in less than a year, the peace movement has the opportunity to enhance its leverage over U.S. public policy.
Dec 04, 2017
Although the U.S. peace movement has been on the wane for about a decade, it remains a viable force in American life. Organizations like Peace Action, the American Friends Service Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Jewish Voice for Peace, and numerous others have significant memberships, seasoned staff, and enough financial resources to sustain their agitation in communities around the country. If they currently lack the power to mobilize the mass demonstrations that characterized some of their past struggles, they continue to educate Americans about the dangers of militarism and influence a portion of Congress.
Even as the movement declined during the Obama presidential years, it managed to eke out some occasional victories, most notably a treaty (New START) reducing the number of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons, modest cutbacks in the U.S. military budget, the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba.
But the total takeover of the U.S. government by the Republican Party, occasioned by the GOP sweep in the 2016 elections, has produced a disaster for the peace movement--and for anyone concerned about building a peaceful world. In less than a year in office, the Trump administration has escalated U.S. military intervention across the globe, secured a massive increase in U.S. military spending, issued reckless threats of war (including nuclear war) against North Korea, and forged close partnerships with some of the world's most repressive regimes. Nor is the peace movement growing significantly in response to this disaster--probably because progressive activists, the peace movement's major constituency, are so overwhelmed by the government's sweeping rightwing assault that they are preoccupied with desperately defending social and economic justice, civil liberties, and environmental sustainability.
As long as this situation continues, it seems unlikely that the peace movement is going to win many victories. With hawkish, rightwing Republicans controlling the federal government, the peace movement's educational campaigns, small-scale demonstrations, and Congressional lobbying will probably have little effect on U.S. public policy.
But there is a promising way to change the federal government. A likely outcome of the November 2018 Congressional elections is that the Republicans will retain control of the U.S. Senate, thanks to the large number of Democratic incumbents running for the 33 contested seats. Even so, the Democrats have a good chance to retake control of the House of Representatives, where every seat is up for grabs. For over 6 months, generic ballot polls about the House elections have shown Democrats with a lead ranging between 8 and 12 points over their Republican opponents. Many analysts believe that this significant a lead will produce a "wave election"--one that will sweep the Democrats into power. And with one branch of Congress in the hands of the Democrats, U.S. foreign and military policy could shift substantially.
Would it, though? After all, despite significant differences with the GOP on domestic policy, aren't Congressional Democrats just as hawkish as the Republicans on foreign and military policy?
There are numerous indications that they are not. Although, in some cases during the Trump era, Congressional Democrats have joined their Republican counterparts in voting for hawkish legislation, representatives from the two parties have diverged dramatically on key foreign and military policy issues. In July 2017, the House took up a bill reducing U.S. government spending on nuclear nonproliferation programs but increasing spending on nuclear weapons programs by 10.7 percent. The bill passed by a vote of 235 to 192, with only 5 Democrats voting for it and only 5 Republicans voting against it. Similarly, in October 2017, when the House voted on the People's Budget--a measure drawn up by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that boosted social spending and cut military spending--Democratic members of the House supported it by a vote of 108 to 79. By contrast, the Republican vote on it was 0 in favor and 235 opposed.
Sharp party divisions on foreign and military policy have also occurred in the U.S. Senate, with the most dramatic of them focused on a proposal to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force--a loose measure, passed in 2001, that has been used subsequently by U.S. Presidents to justify 37 U.S. military operations in 14 countries. Coming to a vote in September 2017, the proposal to repeal the Authorization was defeated, 61 to 36. Only 3 Republicans (out of 52) voted for repeal. But repeal was supported by 31 Democrats (out of 46) and 2 Independents.
With the 2018 Congressional elections occurring in less than a year, the peace movement has the opportunity to enhance its leverage over U.S. public policy by helping to flip the House to Democratic control. In addition, playing a role in the election campaign would strengthen the movement's ties with progressive organizations, which, horrified by the rightwing onslaught, will be working zealously toward that same goal. At the least, peace and progressive activists should be able to unite behind the provisions of the People's Budget--cutting military programs and increasing spending on public education, health, and welfare.
But how can the peace movement become an effective player in the 2018 Congressional election campaign, supporting peace-oriented Democrats against their hawkish Republican (and sometimes hawkish Democratic) opponents? Some groups, like the Council for a Livable World, Peace Action, and Progressive Democrats of America, already raise money for peace candidates in Democratic primaries and general elections. Others could do so as well. Also, to make their support more visible to politicians, peace groups could play a more prominent role in election campaigns--volunteering to distribute flyers on specific dates, staff phone banks for specific periods, and engage in door-to-door canvassing at specific times.
Of course, the peace movement need not drop all its other activities. But the 2018 elections do offer it a particularly useful opportunity to help steer the U.S. government away from militarism and war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Americans Want to End the Country's Longest War. Why Won't Congress Listen?
In 2001, I cast Congress’s sole vote against the authorization for military force. Today, it’s time to bring our troops back home
Oct 21, 2015
America's longest war continues to drag on with no end in sight. More than 14 years since the invasion of Afghanistan, our highly capable men and women in uniform have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have done enough; it's past time to bring them home.
On 15 October, we saw the ramifications of Congress's blank check for endless war when President Obama announced that thousands of US troops would remain in Afghanistan through the end of his term and into 2017.
This war has already cost our nation so much: 2,350 of our brave servicemen and women have made the ultimate sacrifice, more than 20,000 have been wounded, and thousands more bear invisible scars. This war has also taken the lives of thousands of Afghans and soldiers from our coalition partners and Nato allies.
Continuing this war has not made us any safer. Our protracted engagement in Afghanistan undermines our national security by sparking global resentment against the US and spurring unsustainable Pentagon spending. The war's price tag totals more than $716bn, which continues to prevent much-needed investments in critical domestic priorities.
It's time to bring our armed forces home to their families and keep our nation's sacred promise to care for them. The American people agree: a December Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a 56% majority of Americans believe this war has not been worth fighting, a trend that dates back to 2010. Yet despite the strong objections of the American people, this war continues with no end in sight.
In the dark days following the attacks on September 11, I cast Congress's sole vote against the authorization for military force (AUMF) that started the war in Afghanistan. I voted against the AUMF because it was so broadly written that it empowered any president to wage endless war in any place at any time without congressional oversight.
In addition to starting the longest war in US history, the 2001 AUMF has emboldened presidential administrations to intervene around the world without a debate in Congress. According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, the 2001 AUMF has been used more than 30 times to justify military action, troop deployments, drone strikes, and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay. And that count only includes unclassified uses - meaning there could be many other instances where Congress has been left in the dark.
Since that lonely vote in 2001, many members of Congress have realized that the blanket war authorization opened a Pandora's box. My bill, HR 1303, would repeal the limitless AUMF, end this war on a reasonable timeline, and restore Congress's constitutional responsibility to debate future wars; it has supporters on both sides of the aisle.
As members of Congress, we take an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution. Yet, for too long, Congress has abdicated its vital role to authorize and supervise our nation's military actions. The American people deserve a vote, through their congressional representatives, on matters of war and peace.
While Afghanistan and the region still face significant challenges, history has shown that there is no effective military solution. As John Isaacs, a senior fellow at Council for a Livable World, wrote: "More troops, more time, more money, more casualties will simply not bring the war to a close."
Only an inclusive political solution can bring peace, stability, and prosperity to Afghanistan and the region. The future of Afghanistan must be in the hands of the Afghan people. It's time to bring America's longest war to a close.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular