- Sign Up
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 7 March 2013 - 1:32pm
Call your Senators today to express your opposition to S. Res. 65, the AIPAC/Lindsey Graham bill that tries to "pre-approve" US participation in an Israeli attack on Iran and tries to move the "red line" for war from "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" to "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability"—whatever that means.
Here's what you do:
- Check whether your Senator is a co-sponsor. Below is a list of current co-signers and the date that they co-signed:
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] - 2/28/2013
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 3/6/2013
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 3/5/2013
Sen Begich, Mark [AK] - 2/28/2013
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 3/5/2013
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 2/28/2013
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 2/28/2013
Sen Boozman, John [AR] - 3/5/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 2/28/2013
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 2/28/2013
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/5/2013
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 3/18/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 2/28/2013
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 2/28/2013
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] - 3/18/2013
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 3/12/2013
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 3/18/2013
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 2/28/2013
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 3/6/2013
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 2/28/2013
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 2/28/2013
Sen Cruz, Ted [TX] - 3/5/2013
Sen Donnelly, Joe [IN] - 3/5/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/13/2013
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 3/12/2013
Sen Fischer, Deb [NE] - 3/5/2013
Sen Flake, Jeff [AZ] - 3/11/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 2/28/2013
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/14/2013
Sen Heitkamp, Heidi [ND] - 3/11/2013
Sen Heller, Dean [NV] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hirono, Mazie K. [HI] - 3/5/2013
Sen Hoeven, John [ND] - 2/28/2013
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/6/2013
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/5/2013
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 28 February 2013 - 9:27pm
On Tuesday, after overcoming months of smears, hysterical rhetoric, and procedural obstruction, Chuck Hagel was confirmed as our next Secretary of Defense. We hope Secretary Hagel will help speed the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, help avoid war with Iran, and help cut the Pentagon budget, as groups who supported his nomination expect.
But one thing is in the bag: we showed that in Congress we could beat the Likud Lobby—the group of people in Washington that drove the opposition to Hagel's nomination.  This faction says that "unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel," as Barack Obama characterized their claims in 2008. 
Now the Likud Lobby is pressing the Senate to endorse an Israeli military attack on Iran. If the U.S. were to support such an attack, it would likely draw us into war.
If we could beat the Likud Lobby on Hagel, we can beat them on this.
Urge your Senators to oppose the AIPAC "backdoor to war" bill and to take steps towards peace with Iran and Palestine.
AIPAC is holding its annual policy conference next week, during which hundreds of pro-Likud activists will descend on Congress to push your representatives to support war with Iran and a continuation of the status-quo between Israel and Palestine. Here are three things you can ask your reps to do to promote peace instead:
- Urge your Senators to oppose the Graham bill endorsing an Israeli attack on Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham is introducing a bill that says that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. should support Israel militarily and diplomatically.  JTA reports that winning Congressional support for this bill will be a focus of AIPAC's policy conference next week.  Urge your Senators to oppose this bill and to insist that the language endorsing an Israeli attack on Iran be removed.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 28 February 2013 - 1:34pm
Senator Lindsey Graham is introducing a bill that would endorse an Israeli military attack on Iran.
JTA reports that winning Congressional support for this bill will be a focus of AIPAC's upcoming policy conference.
The JTA article is here.
The Lindsey Graham bill is here.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 20 December 2012 - 1:05pm
The Obama-hating Neocon Right is trying to "Swift Boat" the expected nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense by making up a fantasy scare story that Hagel—a former U.S. Senator from Nebraska, long-respected moderate and thoughtful voice on foreign policy, and decorated Vietnam combat veteran—is "anti-Israel."
The real reason the neocons hate Hagel is that he's a war-skeptic and a diplomacy advocate. As a Senator, he voted for the Iraq war. But then he became an early and harsh critic of the war and called for it to end. Hagel was an early advocate of diplomatic engagement with Iran, has criticized discussion of a military strike by either the U.S. or Israel against Iran, and has also backed efforts to bring Iran to the table for talks on future peace in Afghanistan. Hagel has described the Pentagon as "bloated" and has said "the Pentagon needs to be pared down."
We deserve a war-skeptic and diplomacy advocate as Defense Secretary. Americans voted against the foreign policy of the neocons in 2008 and 2012. But the neocons are still using their insider influence and slander tactics to try to dominate policy.
We cannot stand idly by as the neocons stage a coup of our foreign policy. All of us opposed to these tactics, including the President's support base of liberal Democrats, must make our voices heard. That's why we've set up a petition on MoveOn's community petition site, SignOn, against the Swift Boat campaign on Chuck Hagel. Will you help us move this petition forward, so more MoveOn members will see it? You can sign and share the petition here:
Just Foreign Policy's Policy Director Robert Naiman explained what's at stake in this fight in his blog on Huffington Post. You can read and share that here:
J Street Pushes Back on Neocon Bid to "Swift Boat" Chuck Hagel Nomination as Defense Secretary
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 9 November 2012 - 1:21pm
Yesterday, US media began reporting that Iranian fighter jets had shot at—but did not hit— an unarmed US drone off the coast of Iran last week. Pentagon Press Secretary George Little claimed that the unmanned military plane was over international waters 16 nautical miles off the coast of Iran, and that the drone had never been in Iranian airspace. In response, the US protested the shooting and warned Iran that it has "a wide range of options, from diplomatic to military," available to protect its assets. According to a CNN report, the incident has "raised fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes."
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 24 September 2012 - 11:46pm
Hey, remember a few weeks ago when our old friend Bibi Netanyahu came to town and made a hullabaloo over Iran and "red lines"? Admittedly, much of what the Bibster said to the US media was bluster, but the gist of the "red line" issue was that the "red line" President Obama has set for Iran—meaning, the point at which the military option would become a real option, which Obama set at developing a nuclear weapon—isn't motivation enough for Iran's leaders to bring about a resolution to the conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Nevermind the fact that Netanyahu's analysis of the issue is incredibly flawed—why believe that "red lines" have any bearing on Iran's actions, or that they are what is preventing a diplomatic accord from being struck, when the West has yet to take diplomacy seriously? What the Israeli prime minister wants our president to do is shift his "red line" a bit further down in the timeline, to when Iran is nuclear capable, a term which the PM left conveniently vague. No matter the precise definition, though, under Bibi's "red line", Iran could be bombed even if it has no intention of actually building a nuclear weapon. And that's just plain stupid.
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 21 September 2012 - 3:42pm
If the Obama administration is at all serious about a diplomatic solution to the strife with Iran, it's really good at acting like it's not. The Washington Post is reporting that the State Department is about to remove the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the its list of designated terrorist organizations. The move to delist the MEK will most certainly not help advance the trust necessary to reach a diplomatic accord.
The MEK was formed in the 1960's as a Marxist-Islamist student organization to counter the US-backed Shah's ruling regime. The organization assassinated three US citizens and three US Army officers in the 1970's and supported a number of other anti-US operations, including the 1979 embassy seizure. After a confrontation with the Khomeini regime int he early '80's, the Islamic Republic became the MEK's primary target. The group claims to have renounced terrorist in 2001, and according to the Washington Post piece, the administration's decision to delist the MEK came about because the organization "should be rewarded for renouncing violence and providing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program." But a 2009 report from RAND suggested that the MEK did not give up violence. Furthermore, reports in NBC News in February and the New Yorker in April suggest that the MEK has been involved in the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 17 September 2012 - 3:18pm
When I sat down to take in the headlines yesterday on the New York Times website, I was not altogether pleased with the paper of record. Admittedly, I am in an almost constant state of perturbance when it comes to the Times; however, their particularly heinous reporting on the Bibi "red line" hullabaloo Friday got my blood up, propelling me to dash off a long letter to the new Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, from whom I have yet to receive a response. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting posted an excellent write-up of the affair, so I won't bother doing so here. Suffice it to say that my exasperation level was unusually high.
So imagine my mirth when I came upon the following excerpt in the piece "Israeli leader makes case against Iran on US TV":
Mr. Netanyahu, who also appeared on the CNN program "State of the Union" on Sunday, sought to link the violence [at US embassies in the Middle East] with Iran's nuclear ambitions, arguing that Iran's leaders were driven by the same fanaticism that enraged the protesters. Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, though it has never publicly acknowledged it.
WHAT? Did the New York Times just mention the fact that Israel has nukes!? Oh SNAP! Day-um, hear that, Bibi? Bet that BURNS!
But what could have possibly gotten into the Times to allow such a tawdry fact into their Iran reporting? It's not like a mention was called for by the information preceding it. I think that my reaction to its inclusion was so marked precisely because there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for the Times to mention the Israeli arsenal at this particular point in the piece.
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 19 July 2012 - 9:22pm
There are two major items of concern in the July 19, 2012 New York Times story "Hezbollah Is Blamed in Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria."
First, the article states
The bombing comes at a time of heightened tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes but Israel and the West say is a cover for developing weapons.
But it is not true that Israel and the West say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A number of top US and Israeli military and intelligence officials have publicly stated that they do not believe that Iranian leadership has decided to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, neither the most recent intelligence reports out of the US and Israel, nor recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, say that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Second, the author's use of "confirmed" in the first sentence of the article is, I believe, misleading:
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 18 June 2012 - 5:43pm
Talks in Moscow between the P5+1 and Iran have apparently hit the same wall that ended last month's Baghdad meeting. The West wants Iran to halt its 20% enrichment, ship its 20% stockpile out of the country, and close down Fordo. And what is it willing to give in return? Safety upgrades for an Iranian civil nuclear reactor and some airplane parts. The West's negotiating position does not address either of Iran's desiderata: sanctions relief and acknowledgement of Iran's right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
The one redeeming feature of this offer is that it could be construed as an implicit acceptance of a civilian nuclear program in Iran, but … seriously? The West is expecting Iran to give up some of its best bargaining chips for airplane parts?