Back to Iran Campaigns
Thanks to FCNL for the Content of this page.

An August Recess Dialogue with Representatives
Cosponsoring H.Con.Res. 362, the "Iran Blockade Resolution"

Peace Action is urging our network to meet with their representatives who have cosponsored H.Con.Res. 362 over the August recess and to ask them to withdraw their co sponsorship, as three members of the House have already done. Here's a list of those we should target - they are mostly members of the Progressive Caucus.

Below is a sample of how the conversation might go.
________________________________

Constituent: I am deeply concerned about your co sponsorship of H.Con.Res. 362. By any common sense reading, the resolution urges the president to initiate a blockade of Iran that would be an act of war, and to subject Iran to a diplomatic quarantine that would render negotiations over Iran's nuclear program all but impossible.

I ask you to withdraw your co sponsorship from H.Con.Res. 362, as Representatives Tim Cohen (TN), Tom Allen (ME) and Wm. Lacy Clay (MO) have done.

Congress should not do anything to encourage the administration to take belligerent action against Iran. With economic sanctions already in place, Congress should insist that the administration engage diplomatically with Iran, as five former U.S. secretaries of state and many other foreign policy experts have urged.

Recent reports say that the Congressional leadership has quietly acquiesced to allow the administration to reprogram $400 million to carry out covert operations in Iran. There is a danger of open war with Iran before the current administration leaves office. Support for H.Con.Res. 362 increases the danger.

Member/Staffer: I am not encouraging the administration to take belligerent action against Iran. But I do support economic sanctions against Iran, and all H.Con.Res. 362 does is to call for tighter sanctions against Iran.

Constituent: H.Con.Res. 362 goes far beyond calling for tighter economic sanctions against Iran. It '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.'

A ban on the export of gasoline to Iran might be achieved solely with the agreement of the exporting states. But it is hard to understand the imposition of what the resolution terms stringent inspection requirements on all persons and goods entering or leaving Iran as anything other than a blockade.

The resolution also demands that the President take action 'prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.' By 'officials' the resolution must intend to include diplomats, since diplomats are the kind of officials that would negotiate a suspension of Iranian nuclear activities.

This sounds like a diplomatic quarantine that, if implemented, would cut off all normal diplomatic contact between Iran and the rest of the world. This is the kind of action that states take when they go to war. Without the multiple channels of communication afforded by normal diplomatic contact there will be virtually no chance of a negotiated outcome to the nuclear impasse with Iran. Severing or drastically reducing diplomatic contact, as the resolution demands, will, like the blockade, lead us to war with Iran.

Member/Staffer: You're exaggerating the importance of this resolution. It's just a non-binding 'sense of Congress' resolution that even if voted on and passed will never have the force of law.

Constituent: It will never have the force of law but it could persuade the president that there is enough Congressional support to take military action against Iran. Even if it is not voted on, a large number of cosponsors on the resolution could have the same effect of inciting the administration to use force. If the president imposes a blockade you will be on record as supporting it; if he takes other belligerent action you will be seen as encouraging it. That is why it is important that you withdraw your co sponsorship of H.Con.Res. 362.

Member/Staffer: I do not support military action against Iran at this time, and H.Con. Res. 362 makes clear that it doesn't either. One of it's 'whereas' clauses says, 'Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.'

Constituent: Of course, this is true. Everyone knows that a non-binding, sense of Congress, resolution never 'authorizes' anything. This is a red herring. The resolution doesn't legally authorize the use of force, but it 'demands' that the president take action that will require the use of force (implying, by the way, that the president doesn't need Congressional authorization to use force against Iran). This 'whereas' clause does not reduce the danger that the resolution will be read as Congressional support for a blockade that would be an act of war.

Member/Staffer: But the resolution's lead sponsors have said that the resolution does not call for a blockade. They've implied that it only calls for inspection requirements implemented voluntarily by cooperating states within their own borders. For example, a ship from Iran could be inspected when it arrives at a foreign port, and a ship bound for Iran could be inspected before it leaves the foreign port.

Constituent: I hope that the sponsors do not intend to call for a blockade, but what you're suggesting, even if it was feasible, doesn't square with the language of H.Con.Res. 362. The resolution calls for inspecting all persons and goods 'entering or leaving Iran,' not 'persons and goods destined for or originating in Iran.' It speaks of 'imposing' the requirements, not of voluntary action by cooperating states. It specifies 'all' persons and goods, not only those coming from or going to cooperating states. The lead sponsors could easily have removed or reworded the blockade language, but they haven?t, so we are left with a big contradiction between what the resolution says and what its sponsors say it means.

Member/Staffer: I don't support a blockade. However, I believe that Iran's nuclear program and Iran's support of terrorism against Israel poses a great threat. Congress needs to do something to confront this issue.

Constituent: I share your grave concerns over Iran?s nuclear development and its contribution to violence in the region. The most effective way to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and its regional influence is for the US to begin direct talks with Iran without preconditions for the first time in almost 30 years. Congress should join the five former secretaries of state (Albright, Baker, Christopher, Kissinger, and Powell) and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group in urging this administration and the next to engage in sustained talks with Iran.

Member/Staffer: I'm glad you brought this to my attention, because I realize that I didn?t know what I was signing onto. I am going to withdraw my name. I will also sign on as a cosponsor to H.Con.Res. 321, which calls for a comprehensive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East that includes Iran.

Constituent: Thank you. I'm relieved that you will join Representatives Tim Cohen (TN), Tom Allen (ME) and Wm. Lacy Clay (MO) who have already withdrawn their co sponsorship of the bill. I hope you will encourage your colleagues to do the same. If enough members withdraw, the danger that the administration could view the resolution as a sign of Congressional support for war with Iran will fade. And thank you for cosponsoring H.Con.Res. 321. We will not avoid a war with Iran if we do not talk to Iran. Negotiations offer the best hope of resolving our differences and building a regional security framework in the Middle East that will serve everyone's interest.