And its impact on our efforts to help prevent an attack on Iran
By Phil Wilayto, Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality; Organizer, 2007 People's Peace Delegation to Iran

Responding to a call by a newly-formed group called the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation (1), some 300 anti-war organizers from a broad array of organizations gathered in Cleveland, Ohio, June 28 and 29. The conference organizers had announced that their goal was to set a date for a massive protest that could bring out the largest number of people under the single demand of immediately withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq.

Despite the fact that some 70 percent of the people of the United States now say they want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, there has been no national anti-war mobilization in the U.S. this year. This is in part because the energies of many activists have unfortunately been diverted by the November presidential elections, and also because the anti-war movement is deeply divided, with competing national coalitions vying for influence.

In this context, it was significant not only that the Cleveland conference took place at all, but that it included among its speakers leaders of most of the major anti-war coalitions: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (2), Troops Out Now Coalition (3), United for Peace and Justice (4) and U.S. Labor Against the War (5). Several state- and citywide coalitions and networks were also represented, as well as local organizations and individuals. (Still, it should be noted that the conference attracted relatively few youth or people of color.)

Besides the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, other issues were also to be addressed, either at one of 17 scheduled workshops or by speakers at the gathering's general sessions.

However, up until just a few days before the start of the conference, none of these many speakers or workshops were scheduled to address what many observers believe to be the very real threat of an imminent military attack on Iran, either by the U.S. or by Israel acting on its behalf.

Moreover, the action proposal being presented by the conference organizers included this paragraph:

“In the event of a U.S. government attack on Iran or another major international crisis triggered by U.S. military action, the Assembly will urge an emergency convening of all the major antiwar forces to plan the most massive, united, protest action possible.”

This statement was alarming for two reasons: there was no call for any protest to help prevent such an attack, and there was no mention of opposing an attack by Israel.

As a result, the Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (6), meeting June 21 in Washington, D.C., decided to send two representatives to the Cleveland conference to raise the issue of Iran. The representatives were Rostam Pourzal, president of the U.S. chapter of CASMII, and Phil Wilayto, organizer of the 2007 People's Peace Delegation to Iran (7) and a member of the Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality in Richmond, Virginia (8). Both CASMII and the Defenders are affiliated with the Virginia Anti-War Network (9), an alliance of two dozen peace, community and labor groups. After consultation with VAWN's steering committee, it was agreed that Rostam and Phil would also represent VAWN at the Cleveland conference.

Rostam and Phil submitted a proposal to the conference organizers for a workshop titled “Is the Bush administration planning to attack Iran before the November elections?”

They also drew up a resolution asking the conference participants to declare their unequivocal opposition to:

(1)any military attack on Iran, by the U.S., Israel, or any other country acting at the behest of the U.S.;
(2)the imposition or continuation of sanctions, whether economic or military, against Iran; and
(3)any attempt by the U.S. government or any of its agencies to interfere with or otherwise attempt to influence the internal political process in Iran.

The workshop proposal was accepted. However, that meant there were now 18 workshops scheduled for the same time on Saturday afternoon, all vying for the attention of the 300 conference participants. Divided equally, that would have meant about 16 participants in each workshop. Further, our proposal was never posted on the conference Web site, nor was it listed in the printed material distributed to each attendee at the conference. We were told that all workshops would be listed in a later version of the printed material, but that did not happen. We did post signs about the workshop around the conference area and also leafleted the conference attendees with copies of the resolution. Several friends attending the conference helped us spread the word about the workshop. And we obtained a commitment from the workshops coordinator that our workshop would be announced from the podium, which it was.

In the end, the Iran workshop drew more than 30 people, an indication of the level of concern of among participants. Rostam made a presentation answering the major U.S. charges against Iran – that it is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, that it is a military threat to the United States and Israel, that it sponsors terrorism and that it is a source of instability in Iraq. Phil raised suggestions about how activists can more forcefully raise the issue of an attack on Iran in their ongoing work. The resolution on Iran was discussed and workshop participants were urged to support it when it came up for a vote. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

Also scheduled for Saturday was the presentation of the action proposals, which addressed a variety of issues. According to the ground rules of the conference, only one proposal would be adopted, but that proposal could then be amended by a vote of the participants.

The proposal selected by the participants was the one presented by the conference organizers – to support all the many anti-war activities being called for this summer, fall and winter, but to view them as building up to massive protests on both the East and West coasts in March of 2009 that would have the single demand of immediately ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Amendments were considered on Sunday morning, and this is where the major discussions and arguments took place. It was agreed that three amendments – the ones the chair called the “most controversial” – would be considered first.

The first amendment called for expanding the focus of the Assembly to include the U.S-led war and occupation of Afghanistan. This passed, and the new name became the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations.”

The second amendment called for including the struggle of the Palestinian people as a central issue to be addressed by the National Assembly. This also passed, but only after all references to the pro-Israeli lobby were removed, by a very close vote.

Then came the Iran amendment. At this point the conference chair referred to an amendment on Iran proposed by the conference coordinating committee itself. This was the first we had heard of another resolution on Iran. That amendment called for no war or sanctions on Iran, by the U.S., Israel or any other country.

At this point one of the conference participants pointed out that there was another resolution on Iran (ours), which she described as more comprehensive, and asked that it be considered for a vote. Rostam took the microphone and presented our resolution. Phil also spoke, emphasizing the urgency of the issue in the light of the very real possibility of an attack taking place this summer.

In addition to the demands of no war, sanctions or internal interference, our resolution stated that “The individuals and organizations attending this National Assembly agree to incorporate these demands into any future protests – local, regional or national – calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.” At the request of one of the conference organizers, this was changed to state that the Assembly “encourages” the inclusion of the three demands in any future ant-war protests, on the grounds that the conference did not in fact have the authority to impose this demand on its participants. Rostam and Phil agreed to the change. The amended resolution then passed by an overwhelming show of hands.

The resolution also called for copies of the resolution on Iran to be included with any press release about the results of the conference.

Significance of the resolution

Our main motivation in attending the Cleveland conference was our concern that the absence of any substantive mention of Iran could be interpreted by the Bush administration that the issue is of little importance to the U.S. anti-war movement. This mistaken impression could then become a factor in the administration's evaluation of the political consequences of ordering an attack on Iran.

Further, there is the urgency of the situation.

The Middle East holds two-thirds of the world's known oil, a source not only of incredible wealth but also the resource necessary for the functioning of modern industrial societies. Whichever country or block of countries effectively controls this oil – whether or not they own it outright – can control the world. (Freely and equitably trading oil for money or other needed commodities seems beyond the thinking potential of the U.S. ruling establishment.)

The openly stated policy of the U.S. government is to prevent the emergence of any potential rival anywhere in the world. Now that the U.S. has eliminated Iraq as a potential rival, the only significant “threat” in the region is Iran.

Ever since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the U.S. has been intensifying its demonization of Iran, preparing world opinion for a confrontation. That confrontation has been delayed because of the unexpectedly strong Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation, by Israel's failure to subdue Hezbollah in its 2006 invasion of Lebanon, and by the inability of the U.S. and Israel to destroy Hamas as a viable political force in Palestine.

The Bush administration now has less than seven months left in office. The window of opportunity for an attack is rapidly closing. And so the signs pointing to an attack have been increasing. “All options are on the table,” we are told by the government that controls half the world's nuclear weapons. Bush has been touring the Middle East and Europe, lining up support for increased pressure on Iran. Israel, which recently bombed what the U.S. news media described as a suspected nuclear site in Syria, is now threatening to attack Iran, even as it carries out provocative military maneuvers in the region. Further, according to a current article in the New Yorker magazine by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, Congress agreed has agreed to fund a Bush request for a “major escalation of covert operations against Iran ... designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

In short, we seem to be watching a rerun of the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Some in the anti-war movement may feel that the threat of a new war is remote, given the popular opposition to the war in Iraq and the fact that a new president will be elected in November. However, the month of August has in the past presented an attractive time frame for the U.S. government to carry out unpopular moves, both domestic and foreign. Congress is not in session. High school, college and university students are on vacation, as are many working people. The anti-war movement itself is in a less-organized mode, with many of its own activists taking time off for needed rest. For all these reasons, we believe that the possibility of an attack on Iran is credible, serious and possibly imminent.

It should be emphasized here that there was no lack of concern among the Cleveland conference participants or organizers about the issue of an attack on Iran. Everyone attending the conference was strongly opposed to any such attack. Many have already been raising the issue through public meetings, protests and in educational materials. TONC is calling for local protests on Aug. 2. UFPJ is discussing issuing a similar (though competing) call.

However, the fact that none of these organizations or coalitions suggested a workshop, offered a speaker or submitted a proposal on the issue was disturbing. Since the Cleveland conference not only included representatives of coalitions that seldom work together, but also is the only major anti-war conference taking place in 2008 – a presidential election year – neglecting the issue of Iran could have had serious consequences. It might have sent a signal – an incorrect one, but a signal nonetheless – to the Bush administration or its successor that a possible attack on Iran was of no great concern to the U.S. anti-war movement. That signal then becomes a factor in the administration's calculation about the political cost of such an attack.

By attending and successfully intervening in this conference, CASMII, the Defenders and VAWN have helped to avoid that mistaken impression.

Our task now is to implement the resolution and raise as forcefully as possible the demand of “No War, No Sanctions, No Internal Interference in Iran!”

(We would like to thank Jonathan Hutto, GI activist, author and member of the National Assembly coordinating committee, for encouraging VAWN to participate in this conference.)

(1)National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation - www.natassembly.org
(2)Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) - www.internationalanswer.org
(3)Troops Out Now Coalition (TONC) - www.troopsoutnow.org
(4)United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) - www.unitedforpeace.org
(5)U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) - www.uslaboragainstwar.org
(6)Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - www.campaigniran.org
(7)2007 People's Peace Delegation to Iran - www.vawn.org
(8)Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality - WWW.DefendersFJE.org
(9)Virginia Anti-War Network (9) - www.vawn.org

Submitted to CASMII, the Defenders and VAWN by:

Phil Wilayto
Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality; Organizer, 2007 People's Peace Delegation to Iran
E-mail: philwilayto@earthlink.net

7/3/08



(Source Link)