Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005 Introduced in Senate

[Tex]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.333.IS:

Looks like the groundwork is being layed for a strike/invasion of Iran. This really shouldn't be news to anyone. I find it disturbing and irrational, given the state of affairs in Iraq. Freedom on the march, I guess.

[stevo]

did you even read this before you posted it? I says nothing about a war, in fact, here are the objectives, as layed out in the document:

SEC. 302. DECLARATION OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAN.

Congress declares that it should be the policy of the United States--

(1) to support efforts by the people of Iran to exercise self-determination over the form of government of their country; and

(2) to actively support a national referendum in Iran with oversight by international observers and monitors to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum.

SEC. 303. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN IRAN.

(a) Authorization- The President is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran. Such assistance may include the award of grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into Iran.

(b) Sense of Congress on Eligibility for Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that financial and political assistance under this section be provided to an individual, organization, or entity that--

(1) opposes the use of terrorism;

(2) advocates the adherence by Iran to nonproliferation regimes for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materiel;

(3) is dedicated to democratic values and supports the adoption of a democratic form of government in Iran;

(4) is dedicated to respect for human rights, including the fundamental equality of women;

(5) works to establish equality of opportunity for people; and

(6) supports freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.

(c) Funding- The President may provide assistance under this section using amounts made available pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under subsection (g).

(d) Notification- Not later than 15 days before each obligation of assistance under this section, and in accordance with the procedures under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-l), the President shall notify the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(e) Sense of Congress Regarding Coordination of Policy and Appointment- It is the sense of Congress that in order to ensure maximum coordination among Federal agencies, if the President provides the assistance under this section, the President should appoint an individual who shall--

(1) serve as special assistant to the President on matters relating to Iran; and

(2) coordinate among the appropriate directors of the National Security Council on issues regarding such matters.

(f) Sense of Congress Regarding Diplomatic Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) support for a transition to democracy in Iran should be expressed by United States representatives and officials in all appropriate international fora;

(2) representatives of the Government of Iran should be denied access to all United States Government buildings;

(3) efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program of Iran, including steps to end the supply of nuclear components or fuel to Iran, should be intensified, with particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding such program--

(A) between the Government of Iran and the Government of the Russian Federation; and

(B) between the Government of Iran and individuals from China, Malaysia, and Pakistan, including the network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer (A. Q.) Khan; and

(4) officials and representatives of the United States should--

(A) strongly and unequivocally support indigenous efforts in Iran calling for free, transparent, and democratic elections; and

(B) draw international attention to violations by the Government of Iran of human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.

(g) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State $10,000,000 to carry out activities under this section.

The whole thing is about diplomacy. Isn't that what the libs cry for? This bill is requesting $10,000,000 to the Department of State....not Defense.

*sigh

[Lebell]

After clicking the link, I see why you didn't include text.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Tex

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.333.IS:

Looks like the groundwork is being layed for a strike/invasion of Iran. This really shouldn't be news to anyone. I find it disturbing and irrational, given the state of affairs in Iraq. Freedom on the march, I guess.

War? Exactly what part of the document indicates that? No offense, but did you even read it?

And besides, it won't be us that strikes Iran. It will be Israel. We'll got some Syrian fish to fry

[Manx]

This looks exactly like the document the U.S. created for Iraq, around 1998 or so. Which has since been used as an argument for supporting the war on the grounds of removing Saddam from power.

I wonder if they'll stick to the same time frame or accelerate the pace to war.

[C4 Diesel]

While this document does nothing to convince me that war with Iran is imminent, it's less than comforting to know that an attack on Iran

Originally Posted by Condoleeza Rice

is not on the agenda at this point

If that's the best that can be said, I wouldn't take our relations to be in the best position.

America's tough rhetoric on Iran

Originally Posted by BBC News

American rhetoric about Iran has been stepped up because it wants to pressure the Iranian government to give up any ambition to build a nuclear bomb.

Talks are currently going on between Iran and three European countries - France, Germany and the UK - about Iran's nuclear programme.

The United States wants it to be known that there will be consequences in the event of failure.

These talks are likely to reach a conclusion one way or another in the summer. So there is still a window open for diplomacy.

Which is why the new US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in London that a US attack on Iran was "not on the agenda at this point."

That means, however, that it might get onto the agenda at a later point.


"Iran is the main threat to Israel in the long run"
Lt Gen Shaul Mofaz
Israeli Defence Minister

When political leaders do not rule something out, it is sensible to keep a look out.

Secretary Rice's comments follow the strong words used about Iran by President Bush in his State of the Union address when he declared: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

The United States has not declared hostilities against Iran. But it has declared hostility.

There's more to the article. I suggest reading it if you're interested.

Related news:
Iran to aid Syria against threats
US 'using spying drones on Iran'

[flstf]

At this time and with this president it would be wise for Iranians and/or Syrians in positions of authority to choose their actions very carefully. I'm not sure what the criteria would be for the U.S. to take military action against them but it is probably much less than before.

[trickyy]

israel would be stupid to attack iran. when they bombed iraq, they knew they were taking out the single nuclear facility. the number and scope of iran's facilities are largely unknown. israel can take out a few targets but will be setting themselves up for retaliatory pain and international outrage.

also, if we want to piss off the shiites (aka "cooperative iraqis"), we can attack iran (or stand by while israel does). iran has a large shiite population. attacking them would make the region will more chaotic. and i'm not sure the fragile situation in iraq would be able to endure the full military aggression of iran.

but i guess it's better for us if the iranians think that we have the option of using force, even if doing so would not yield a pleasant result.

people who start wars rarely achieve what was intended.

[pan6467]

Syria and Iran Say Will Build 'Common Front'

1 hour, 15 minutes ago Top Stories - Reuters


By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran and Syria, both locked in rows with the United States, said on Wednesday they would form a common front to face challenges and threats.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said in Tehran after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari.

Otari told reporters: "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front."

Syria's ambassador to the United States, asked by CNN what the common front with Iran entailed, stressed that it was not an anti-American alliance and said Syria was trying to improve its relations with Washington.

"Today we do not want to form a front against anybody, particularly not against the United States," Imad Moustapha said.

"Syria is trying to engage constructively with the United States ... We are not the enemies of the United States, and we do not want to be drawn into such an enmity," he added.

In a reaction to Iran and Syria's possible formation of a unified front to face threats, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called on the both countries to abide by the international commitments.

"It is a fundamental misreading of the issue because their problem is not with the United States, it's with the international community," McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to New Hampshire.

"Both Syria and Iran have international obligations and they need to abide by the commitments they have made to the international community."

Washington recalled its ambassador to Syria for urgent consultations on Tuesday to show its deep displeasure with Damascus after Monday's killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

U.S. officials said they were considering imposing new sanctions on Syria because of its refusal to withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon and the U.S. belief that Syria lets Palestinian militants and Iraqi insurgents operate on its soil.

While acknowledging they do not know who was to blame for Hariri's car bomb assassination, U.S. officials argued Syria's military presence and its political power-broking role were generally responsible for Lebanon's instability.

Syria rejects accusations it supports terrorism.

Moustapha told CNN Damascus regarded its military presence in Lebanon as a "stabilising factor" and said "we would be happy to withdraw the troops" if the Lebanese government asked Syria to do so.

Washington has branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" along with pre-war Iraq and North Korea and accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is solely for electricity generation.

Bush has dubbed Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" and has warned the United States could use military action to prevent it acquiring a nuclear bomb.

==============================
LINK : http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ran_syria_dc_9
==============================

Sounds like our "bluff" has gotten to the point where if we don't strike they will...... Hope to God Bush is ready for to accept the responsibility of spilling blood that may not have had to been spilt.

And I pray for our men and women over there to fight with the best honor and dignity.... and that Bush makes sure they get what they need and stops paying Haliburton for materials that never show.

But most of all I pray that before the war starts the war ends in peace.

[OFKU0]

This is in today's Ottawa Sun.

I find it interesting that presumably the White House is ignoring data much like they did for Iraq. It's ironic that of all the avenues I've heard regarding Iran willing to co-operate with the U.S and other international agencies, that perhaps the U.S will forgo diplomacy, usually a staple for democracy and invade Iran anyway.

I guess Bush is just waiting for a call from Sharon and his crack team of intel specialists, that being Mossad to give 100% proof of WMD like they did for Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disastrous deja vu in the Middle East

By MICHAEL HARRIS -- For the Ottawa Sun


It has been more than a year since the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee was told that the United States was "almost all wrong" about its reasons for invading Iraq -- alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and a re-started nuclear weapons program.

That testimony from David Kay, the first leader of the Iraq Survey Group, laid bare the same thing that was exposed by 9/11 itself; a catastrophic failure of U.S. intelligence agencies. During his appearance before the committee, Kay said that the government had to create an independent commission to analyse the intelligence failures of the current system. Only then, after studying the facts, should reform begin in institutions like the National Security Agency, the CIA and the FBI.

The Bush administration took half the advice. It created the independent commission, but didn't wait for its report. Ignoring what Kay calls the "foundational" erosion of the base of U.S. intelligence, the president opted yesterday for a major shuffle at the very top, creating a new national intelligence czar. If confirmed, John Negroponte will preside over the same intelligence establishment that gave us 9/11 and the Iraq war -- bright and shiny at the top, still creaky at the bottom.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is reading from the same script that led to the Iraq War. Despite epic blunders in his assessments of pre and post-war Iraq, U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney is promoting a sense of clear and present danger over Iran's nuclear program, which he says, the U.S., (and the Sharon government), will not "tolerate." The question is, what evidence does the Bush administration have for the vice-president's bellicose musings about Iran? The answer is none.

In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) has now inspected Iran's nuclear program and found absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. After 18 years of not cooperating with the IAEA, Iran is now complying with international inspections. Like Hans Blix before him, Mohamed El-Baredei is now the object of ridicule by hawkish figures in the Bush administration. Ignoring facts learned from hard inspections on the ground in Iran, Washington is once again quoting disgruntled exiles to back up its fears about Tehran.

David Kay sees this as dangerous deja vu. These exiles may or may not have valuable information to share. But after the fiasco of the Iraqi exiles, who grossly misled U.S. intelligence, their stories must be confirmed by better sources than other Iranian exiles who clearly have their own agenda for regime change back home. Having gone once to the UN Security Council to "prove" that Iraq had WMD only to be totally discredited by the work of the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. won't find much of a coalition of the willing to thunder into Iran without evidence that can stand the test of international scrutiny.

Nevertheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's foot is already tapping over what the U.S. sees as protracted diplomatic discussions between the European Union and Iran, openly talking about the need for there to be "an end to this." Colin Powell exhibited the same impatience with the Security Council members, many of them from "Old Europe" and most especially with UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Once again, the U.S. is looking beyond the diplomatic effort while people like French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier have served notice that the EU is committed to letting diplomacy run its course. Despite warm and fuzzy rhetoric from Washington, the U.S. and Europe continue to operate from different play books.

This time the Europeans have a greater chance of setting the agenda, largely because as an item of foreign policy, the Iraq war has been a disaster.

According to top national security officials in the United States, the war in Iraq has actually helped to grow al-Qaida. Testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director Porter Goss confirmed that extremists have used the Iraq war and U.S. occupation as a successful means of gaining new recruits.

Vice-Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby told the senators that rather than shrinking, the Iraqi insurgency has grown "in size and complexity" since the end of the war. According to reports from Iraqi intelligence, the ragged band of so-called dead-enders, (Baathist supporters of Saddam) has grown into a battle-hardened core of 40,000 jihadists backed up by 200,000 part-time fighters. Last year, they averaged 25 attacks a day, according to the admiral: This year, the number is 60.

Nor was there much comfort for the U.S. in the wake of Iraq's election, whose results were finally ratified last Sunday. Majority victory went to the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, a party with close ties to the theocracy in Iran, and led by senior Shia cleric Abdelaziz Hakim, an ardent critic of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Is it any wonder that David Kay doesn't want history to repeat itself in Iran?

http://www.ottawasun.com/

[Stompy]

A literal interpretation of the document doesn't state that there will be war, no, but it should be fairly obvious that "supporting democracy" means "forcing democracy" upon them, similar to Iraq.

I hope some of you are at least a bit intelligent to take notice of that

Guess time will tell, but I promise ya, I'll refer back to this thread once it happens, k?

[roachboy]

i had a friend once who had a crack problem. i would ask him whether he had, say, been smoking at this particular time. which would, for him, imply that the question also included specifications about place. so he would use the implication of place to deny the time and action. even though he had in fact been smoking and so. just not in the place he imagined i had in mind.

by the time things reached this impasse, that he had been doing it was evident every time because the longer pattern of smoking and phases of being wasted were obvious.

so here: the pattern of actions and statements by the administration on iran has been obvious to anyone. it requires the same kind of crackhead narrowing of focus to make anything like a plausible argument that this legislation is not part of the administrations move toward a space in which it would make sense (with all the qualifications that have to accompny the idea of things making sense in bushworld) to move into military action. the fact that the legislation does not use phrases directly tied to military action does not mean it is not of the same pattern.

i have said before in another thread about possible american military action against iran that it would make iraq look like a weekend spent under mudpacks in an expensive health spa. and so it will.

the idea that the israelis are going to do anything militarily against iran is delusional.

this is not a good scenario that cowboy george is setting up here.
it is hard not to accept the notion that this administration requires constant war or the threat of constant war to legitimate itself
think cheney's stump speeches during the campaign: if you vote kerry, you will die.
which presumably meant that if you vote bush, you never will.

but maybe conservatives like wars---no matter how absurd they might be---so long as a republican starts them and someone else, or someone else's kids, are sent to die in them.

[Janey]

Action/ reaction. isn't there enough on the plate... so to speak without getting involved with yet more armed fronts??? Holy smokes. I get the feeling that the only reason Iran/ syria et als act in the way they do, is as a reaction to us sentiments.