|
Silence the War Drums
Before the US House of Representatives, February 16, 2006
By Ron Paul
02/20/06 "ICH"
-- -- Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to
understand that this legislation is leading us toward war
against Iran.
Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of
déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran"
in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war
with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much
the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq.
As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform
the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that
Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.
There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about
Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in
violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation
obligations.
Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years
ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of
its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear
weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the
International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any
indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source
or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a
military purpose.
But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from
stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year,
"U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N.
Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions –
have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to
convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy
program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus
on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as
Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is
planning, according to two officials."
This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of
Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass
destruction could not be found.
The resolution's second resolved clause is a real
misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension
of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the
EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of
enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is
"not a legal obligation."
This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily
observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced
inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending
voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a
violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war
with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse
voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the
legally-binding Treaty itself.
Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most
inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It
lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause
anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the
Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential
of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and
China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's
noncompliance. That is right: any report.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran.
Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its
conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a
moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the
Middle East.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
