Antiwar? Read this and let's continue to grow it!

[lonestarnot]

Sorry if you've seen already. CODEPINK is mentioned as one of the
groups working on the issue. NK


Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military
Confrontation With Iran

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet

Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the
past two months, the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most
powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight.
And so far, the anti-war movement is winning.

Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that
effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among
other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for: "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 ... " This sounded an
awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war.
A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the
Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military
confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal
to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing
we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to
initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the
Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could
take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the
Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of
gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles
at the blockaders.

Whereupon all hell could break loose.

By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169
co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives.
Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension
Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows the House of
Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a
super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other
procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic
leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife
through butter."

Groups opposed to military confrontation with Iran sprang into action,
including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, the National
Iranian-American Council, the Friends Committee on National
Legislation, Code Pink, and Just Foreign Policy. They generated tens
of thousands of emails, letters, phone calls, and other contacts with
members of Congress and their staff. The first co-sponsor to change
his position on the bill was Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), an
influential member of Congress who chairs the powerful House Financial
Services Committee. He apologized for "not having read more
carefully," and pledged that he would not support the bill with the
blockade language.

Then Robert Wexler, (D-FL), peeled off, also stating that he would not
continue to support the bill if the blockade language were not
changed.

Most of the major media ignored the controversy, but two newspapers
noticed it. The first was Seattle's Post-Intelligencer, whose
editorial board denounced the resolution on June 24 and asked, "are
supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious
to drag us into another illegal war?"

Then on June 27 the editorial board of Newsday published an editorial
calling for a full debate on the bill. Newsday has a large
circulation, and perhaps more importantly, it publishes in the New
York district of Congressman Gary Ackerman -- the lead author of the
H. Con. Res. 362.

Then, earlier this month, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) wrote:
" Berman has
indicated that he has no intention of moving the bill through his
committee unless the language is first altered to ensure that there is
no possible way it could be construed as authorizing any type of
military action against Iran ... I will withdraw my support for the
bill if this change is not made."

The result, so far: no Congressional endorsement of a blockade against
Iran. A dangerous piece of legislation, primed to pass through the
House without debate, stopped in its tracks by an anti-war movement.
And some Members of Congress are going to be a bit more careful about
doing things that could move the country down the road to another war.

The anti-war movement's victory was all the more impressive given that
the main lobby group promoting H. Con. Res. 362 was AIPAC, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Although AIPAC does not
represent the opinion of the majority of American Jews, it is one of
the most powerful lobbies in Washington. To get a flavor of how much
influence it has, AIPAC's annual policy meeting in Washington in June
was attended by half of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
according to the Washington Post. It's tough to think of another
Washington lobby group that could pull off something like that --
certainly no other organization concerned with foreign policy comes to
mind.

Of course, this is just one skirmish in the long battle to end this
current, senseless war in Iraq -- a war that has needlessly claimed
the lives of more than 4000 Americans and, according to the best
scientific estimates, more than a million Iraqis; and to prevent our
leaders from launching another criminally insane war. But it shows
that, even in the rather limited form of democracy as exists in 21st
century America, there is an organized anti-war movement and it has
real power. It doesn't look like the anti-war movement of the last
century, with street demonstrations, nationally known leaders, and
regular expressions of public outrage. (It's not clear that the major
media would give much more attention to the movement or its views --
that is, the views of the majority of the country -- even if it did
pull huge crowds into the streets.)

But it is there, it is organized, it is intelligent and strategic. It
will continue to grow, no matter what happens in November.

*****

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the
University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social
Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and
has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also
president of Just Foreign Policy.