on this postI received the following response from my congressman, Michael Arcuri, clarifying his co-sponsorship of House Concurrent Resolution 362. I had joined many constituents who were alarmed the he would sign a resolution that “demands that the President initiate an international effort … prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran”. That is a blockade, which is an act of war. I don’t see any other way of reading this resolution. Arcuri, however, maintains that “such efforts to conduct inspections would require the concurrence of the international community and the nation of Iran”. But why on earth would Iran concur with a ban on its importation of refined petroleum products? Clearly, the Congressman was reading context into this resolution that just isn’t there. Especially given the recent history of the Bush Administration, why would Congress take any chance with language that could in any way give Bush any justification what-so-ever? Please read the congressman’s response and make up your own mind and let him hear from you, and please do post your comments on the forum. See Rep. Arcuri supports blockade of Iran —Take Action Now! for text and information on the resolution. As of today, no action has been taken on this resolution since it was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (the Senate concurrent resolution is sitting in the Committee on Foreign Relations). May this resolution die in committee. If enough constituents respond, perhaps Michael Arcuri will withdraw his co-sponsorship. His letter follows. –Cris
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. I appreciate that you took the time to share your views with me.
It is without question that we must ensure Iran does not attain nuclear capabilities. I believe that a responsible and effective U.S. policy towards Iran must employ diplomacy first with a serious effort to avoid any potential military engagement at a time when our military and national budget are already stretched thin. Our nation has been involved in conflict in the Middle East for the last five years, risking the lives of our brave servicemen and women for far too long. This Congress has a responsibility to listen to the will of the American people by preventing future hostile escalations and seeking non-military means to resolve disputes.
As you know, I am a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 362, which expresses the sense of Congress that Iranian nuclear development poses a threat to U.S. national security. It cites Iran’s refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that the nation cease uranium enrichment, and references Iran’s overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others. This resolution declares that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability is vital to U.S. security interests and urges the President to lead a sustained effort at regional diplomacy to support other Middle Eastern nations against Iranian efforts to destabilize them and threaten their sovereignty.
Additionally, H.Con.Res.362 urges the President to use economic, political, and diplomatic means to halt Iran’s nuclear development by prohibiting the export all refined petroleum products to Iran and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all cargo entering or exiting the nation - not a blockade. Such efforts to conduct inspections would require the concurrence of the international community and the nation of Iran.
Finally, and most importantly, the resolution reflects our nation’s objective to achieve a secure environment without sacrificing lives in combat, and in no way authorizes the current Administration to declare a U.S. military commitment in Iran.
You may be pleased to know that I joined with some of my colleagues in signing a letter to President Bush last December urging him to establish “direct” diplomatic discussions with Iran immediately. As cited in the letter to the President, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker indicated that open dialogue with Iranian representatives has significantly contributed to a decrease of arms transport from Iran into Iraq over the past few months. I am enclosing a copy of that letter to the President for your records.
It may also please you to know that during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, I strongly supported two amendments that would prohibit U.S. military force in Iran. The first amendment offered would have prevented funds allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used for a contingency operation in Iran, while the second amendment reiterated that no previously enacted law authorizes military action against Iran. Additionally, this amendment specified that action against Iran requires specific authorization from Congress barring an attack on the United States or its armed forces by Iran. These amendments, unfortunately, failed by recorded vote.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me, and for respecting my opinions as I respect yours. I am confident that we share the common goal of ending conflict in the Middle East and bringing about peace and security.
To receive updates on my work in New York and Washington, visit my website at http://arcuri. house.gov to sign up for my regular e-newsletter. Please don’t hesitate to contact me again if I can be of help on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Arcuri
Member of Congress
Attachment rec’d: iran-diplomacy
