[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 53 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E733]]



   U.N. SANCTIONS AFTER OIL-FOR-FOOD: STILL A VIABLE DIPLOMATIC TOOL?

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 4, 2006

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I, the Ranking Minority Member on the 
House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations, delivered the following statement to the 
Subcommittee's hearing on ``UN Sanctions After Oil-For-Food: Still A 
Viable Diplomatic Tool?
  I'd like to thank Chairman Shays for holding this hearing and 
providing Ambassador Bolton the opportunity to testify before this 
Subcommittee. We are in a critical moment for U.S. policy at the UN, 
especially regarding Iran. Just last Friday marked the Security 
Council's deadline for Iran to freeze all nuclear fuel enrichment, and 
the beginning of the inevitable struggle at the Security Council over 
what to do to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
  We've seen this kind of struggle at the Security Council before. The 
U.S. spent much time in 2002 pressuring the Security Council to take 
action against Iraq to contain its supposed WMDs. Finally, on November 
8, 2002, the Council approved resolution 1441, which imposed tough new 
arms inspections in Iraq, and promised ``serious consequences,'' to be 
determined by the Security Council, if Iraq violated the resolution.
  Even though Iraq did submit a weapons declaration, and began 
destroying its Al Samoud missiles as instructed to by UN inspector Hans 
Blix, serious consequences were imposed on the country anyway. It was 
the United States, however, and not the Security Council that 
determined those consequences for Iraq, when President Bush went to war 
against Iraq on March 20, 2003.
  Experience in Iraq has proven that this administration will act 
unilaterally, outside the mandate of the Security Council, thereby 
rendering the work of the Council almost irrelevant. At the same time, 
however, experience has indicated that this administration will use the 
UN to make its case for war to the world community.
  In the coming weeks and months, I think it's fairly predictable that 
we will see the United States' case for war against Iran unfold at the 
U.N.
  I think it's highly probably that the administration has already made 
the decision to go to war against Iran. There are already U.S. combat 
troops inside Iran (REPEAT for emphasis). On April 14th, retired Col. 
Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, 
Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured 
dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in 
Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker 
that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the 
Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran. On April 10, the Guardian 
reported that Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism 
chief, said that covert military action, in the form of special forces 
troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups is already under 
way and that it had been authorized.
  We also know from reports that the U.S. is supporting military 
activity in Iran by Iranian anti-government insurgent groups, some of 
whom are operating from U.S.-occupied Iraq, such as the terrorist group 
Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK). An article published by Newsweek magazine on 
February 14, 2005 confirms cooperation between U.S. government 
officials and the MEK. The article describes how ``the Administration 
is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use against 
Tehran.'' Furthermore, an article by Jim Lobe published on Antiwar.com 
on February 11, 2005 claims that according to Philip Giraldi, a former 
CIA official and a source in an article about this subject in the 
American Conservative magazine, U.S. Special Forces have been directing 
members of the MEK in carrying out reconnaissance and intelligence 
collection in Iran since the summer of 2004.
  Even a statement attributed to Ambassador Bolton, and which I would 
like elaboration on today, seems to confirm that U.S. policy for Iran 
is war. According to an article published April 10, 2006 in the 
Guardian, Ambassador Bolton told British parliamentarians that he 
believes military action could halt or at least set back the Iranian 
nuclear program by striking it at its weakest point.
  U.S. policy for Iran advocates regime change, not behavior change. We 
should expect that even if Iran decides to negotiate with the U.S. or 
other Security Council members over its nuclear program, U.S. policy 
promoting war in Iran will remain steadfast. When Iraq destroyed its 
missiles and submitted its weapons declaration, abiding by Security 
Council Resolution 1441, the Administration decided to unilaterally 
attack Iraq anyway.
  This Administration is reckless and hungry for war. It is imperative 
that Congress exercise oversight on the Administration's plans for war 
with Iran before our country is immersed in another quagmire, with more 
U.S. casualties, diminished national security, and greater a financial 
burden. I thereby feel very privileged to have Ambassador Bolton with 
us here today. I have several questions for him regarding the 
Administration's plans for Iran, and I look forward to his candid 
answers. Again, thank you, Ambassador for being with us today, and 
thank you, Chairman Shays for holding this hearing.

                          ____________________