[Peace-discuss] Iran flier / second point, first rough draft

[Karen Medina]

For a flier about Iran, below is a first draft of a second point ... 

The United States Administration Has a History of Ignoring Reports
The U.S. Has Ignored Offers From Iran to Stop Uranium Enrichment

We must remember the manner in which the U.S. Administration gained support 
for invading Iraq:  the Administration ignored the IAEA's repeated reports which 
clearly stated there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The 
Administration downplayed intelligence reports. We should be wary of the 
Admnistration's filtering of information. 

The same filtering of information is occurring with regard to Iran.

A former official of the (IAEA) International Atomic Energy Agency has said that 
"there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. 
American diplomacy does not allow for it."

In the Spring of 2003, Iran sent a proposal United States offering to accept 
peace with Israel and offering a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the 
issues separating the two countries. The Iranian proposal also offered to accept 
much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 
exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full 
cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments 
(93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)". 

Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an 
agreement. This information comes from Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in 
Bush's National Security Council.

In 2004, the European Union and Iran struck a bargain: Iran would temporarily 
suspend uranium enrichment. In return Europe would provide assurances that 
the United States and Israel would not attack Iran. Under US pressure, Europe 
backed off, and Iran renewed its enrichment processes. 

In 2003, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency proposed that all 
production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international 
control, with "assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their 
supplies". That should be the first step, he proposed, toward fully implementing 
the 1993 UN resolution for a fissile material cutoff treaty (or Fissban). Iran 
accepted the proposal. 

The Bush administration rejects a verifiable Fissban. In the United Nations, the 
US stands nearly alone in rejecting a verifiable Fissban. In November 2004 the 
UN committee on disarmament voted in favour of a verifiable Fissban. The vote 
was 147 to one (United States), with two abstentions: Israel and Britain. Last year 
a vote in the full general assembly was 179 to 2, Israel and Britain again 
abstaining. The United States was joined by Palau.

Intelligence estimates say Iran is ten years away from even the capability to 
build a nuclear weapon, and repeatedly the U.S. has ignored Iran's offers to stop 
uranium enrichment. 

Congress is Making Similar Mistakes
Many members of Congress now regret the actions they supported concerning 
the invasion of Iraq. There is strong evidence that Congress could be taken in 
again by the Administration's filtering of reports.

For instance, there is extremely strong support in Congress for a blockade on 
Iran. Blockades can easily be viewed as an act of war.

Over the last four weeks 102 House Democrats and 117 Republicans have 
agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President 
Bush "initiate an international effort" to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on 
Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or 
leaving Iran.

Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution 
does not call for) could be widely construed as an act of war.  Some 
congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution, H.Con.Res. 
362, very soon.

Resources Used:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/iran_peace_proposal.html
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/chomsky.html