Letter to Congress on Iraq and Iran
Senator Mel Martinez
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Saturday, January 7th, 2006
Dear Senator Martinez,
I am writing once again to convey the sense of outrage that I and many of your constituents feel over your continuing support for the illegal war of aggression against the people of Iraq that is killing thousands of them every month. As I have consistently told your colleagues for the past three years, there is no rational basis for believing that continued U.S. military operations in Iraq will improve the security or stability of that country any more than they have up to now, and a genuine restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and legitimacy and the withdrawal of U.S. forces is long overdue.
I am also deeply concerned about U.S. policy towards Iran. Numerous European sources have described approaches to their governments by U.S. officials seeking support for illegal military action against Iran. Intelligence information supplied by U.S. agencies has little credibility and is deeply politicized. European intelligence officials are therefore very concerned that we are in the early stages of a campaign against Iran that is similar to the campaign of misinformation that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Let me be very clear that the consequences of a U.S. attack against Iran would be devastating to our country’s interests. The geopolitical consequences would include some or all of the following: the final failure to win Shiite support for U.S. interests in Iraq; the loss of Turkey as a U.S. ally; the end of NATO; the termination of basing agreements for U.S. forces by foreign governments; a Russian embargo on energy supplies to remaining U.S. allies in Europe; a nuclear-armed Islamist government in Pakistan; the accelerated loss of U.S. influence worldwide; devaluation of the dollar from divestiture by China and others (28% of China’s oil imports are from Iran); an anti-U.S. alliance based around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China and India) to contain U.S. expansion in Asia; the beginning of a long-term U.S. economic crisis.
Essentially, this could be the end of the “wait-and-see” attitude that the international community has adopted towards U.S. militarism in the post-Cold war era. It could be the moment when Bush’s “for us or against us” policy finally comes home to roost and we find that we are completely and utterly isolated.
I’m also enclosing a copy of my essay “From Nuremberg to Fallujah” from the current edition of Peace Review. Ben Ferencz, who was a Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunal, called this essay “a clear, intelligent and accurate description of how we are involved in aggression in Iraq”.
Yours sincerely
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Saturday, January 7th, 2006
Dear Senator Martinez,
I am writing once again to convey the sense of outrage that I and many of your constituents feel over your continuing support for the illegal war of aggression against the people of Iraq that is killing thousands of them every month. As I have consistently told your colleagues for the past three years, there is no rational basis for believing that continued U.S. military operations in Iraq will improve the security or stability of that country any more than they have up to now, and a genuine restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and legitimacy and the withdrawal of U.S. forces is long overdue.
I am also deeply concerned about U.S. policy towards Iran. Numerous European sources have described approaches to their governments by U.S. officials seeking support for illegal military action against Iran. Intelligence information supplied by U.S. agencies has little credibility and is deeply politicized. European intelligence officials are therefore very concerned that we are in the early stages of a campaign against Iran that is similar to the campaign of misinformation that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Let me be very clear that the consequences of a U.S. attack against Iran would be devastating to our country’s interests. The geopolitical consequences would include some or all of the following: the final failure to win Shiite support for U.S. interests in Iraq; the loss of Turkey as a U.S. ally; the end of NATO; the termination of basing agreements for U.S. forces by foreign governments; a Russian embargo on energy supplies to remaining U.S. allies in Europe; a nuclear-armed Islamist government in Pakistan; the accelerated loss of U.S. influence worldwide; devaluation of the dollar from divestiture by China and others (28% of China’s oil imports are from Iran); an anti-U.S. alliance based around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China and India) to contain U.S. expansion in Asia; the beginning of a long-term U.S. economic crisis.
Essentially, this could be the end of the “wait-and-see” attitude that the international community has adopted towards U.S. militarism in the post-Cold war era. It could be the moment when Bush’s “for us or against us” policy finally comes home to roost and we find that we are completely and utterly isolated.
I’m also enclosing a copy of my essay “From Nuremberg to Fallujah” from the current edition of Peace Review. Ben Ferencz, who was a Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunal, called this essay “a clear, intelligent and accurate description of how we are involved in aggression in Iraq”.
Yours sincerely
posted by Nicolas Davies | 1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home