Talking Points for Meeting with Congressional Representatives Regarding Iran

Prepared by the VFP Iran Working Group.

Iran has not historically been an aggressive state in modern times, having invaded and occupied no other state for over 250 years.

Numerous retired U.S. military general staff have publicly stated that Iran poses no threat to the United States.
 
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), allows regular inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, has formally renounced nuclear weapons, and agreed in March 2012 to six-party talks and permission for IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site.
 
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful energy production.
 
According to the principle of self-determination established by Article 55 of the UN Charter, no nation has the right to engage in covert or overt aggression, or interference with the internal affairs of other nations, including Iran, whose policies and conduct are in compliance with international law.
 
The government of Israel — a state with an undeclared and formidable nuclear arsenal that has refused to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspections despite a formal IAEA request in September 2009 — has no right to dictate nuclear conditions to any other state.
 
As American citizens who have seen U.S.-supported police states abroad in violation of Article 55(c) of the UN Charter, we regrets and apologize for the suffering caused to the Iranian people by covert U.S. operations in 1953 that deposed Iran’s democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeq, and subsequently installed Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi who subjected the Iranian people to 25 years under a brutal police state.
 
As American citizens who have witnessed interference by the U.S. government in other states in violation of UN Charter Articles 1(2) and 2(4) that establish “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” we are strongly opposed to the unjust, illegal and unnecessary trade and banking sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States. These sanctions have already caused a great amount of suffering for the Iranian people.

Article VI of the United States Constitution defines our treaty obligations, which include the United Nations Charter, as “the Supreme Law of the Land,” thereby establishing the above-cited UN Charter violations as Constitutional violations as well.
 
As American veterans who have seen the horrors of military violence inflicted by our country and its allies in violation of UN Charter Articles 2(3) and 2(4), which require member states “to settle international disputes by peaceful means” and “refrain from the threat or use of force,” we are alarmed at U.S. and Israeli efforts to intimidate the Iranian people with threats of military attack.
 
From these positions grounded in the UN Charter and United States Constitution, we oppose the U.S. government economic sanctions against Iran, U.S. government threats of military attack upon Iran, and any U.S. government support of Israel in preparing or launching such an attack.

We are urging you, as a member of U.S. Congress, to actively oppose the sanctions and threat of war by against Iran by U.S. and Israeli governments.

Action: Contact Congress via FCNL.

Comments

Dave Gapp
Reply

Perfect Talking Points to use with any of your pro-war friends. These TP’s refute everything that the AIPAC lobbyists are using to persuade our elected politicians to support Israel’s intimidation of Iran, and we also need to remind these leaders that a strong majority of Americans feel we need to work diplomatic channels and continue with sanctions.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 7-10, 2012. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

“Based on what you’ve heard or read, do you think Iran is or is not trying to develop nuclear weapons?”
Is trying Is not Unsure
% % %
84 9 8

10/15-18/09
87 8 4

.

“To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose . . . ?”

.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

.

“Direct diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran to try to resolve the situation”

3/7-10/12
81 16 2

10/15-18/09
82 18 1

.

“Increasing international economic sanctions against Iran” 2009: “Imposing international economic sanctions against Iran”

3/7-10/12
74 21 5

10/15-18/09
78 18 4

.

“The United States bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites”

3/7-10/12
41 53 6

10/15-18/09
42 54 4

.

“Would you support or oppose Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites?”

.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

3/7-10/12
42 51 7

.

“If Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear development sites, do you think it would or would not risk starting a larger war in the Middle East?”

.
Would risk
larger war Would not Unsure
% % %

3/7-10/12
88 9 4

.

“Do you think it’s a better idea to attack Iran soon, before its nuclear program progresses any further, even if that means not waiting to see if economic sanctions work; or a better idea to see first if economic sanctions against Iran work, even if that allows more time for its nuclear program to progress?” Options rotated

.
Attack soon See if
sanctions work Neither (vol.) Unsure
% % % %

3/7-10/12
26 64 4 6

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website