[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2816-H2817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LEGISLATION RELATING TO IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. This week, Congress is considering two pieces of 
legislation relating to Iran. The first undermines a diplomatic 
solution with Iran and lowers the bar for war. The second authorizes a 
war of choice against Iran and begins military preparations for it.
  With respect to H. Res. 568, which eliminates the most viable 
alternative to war, the House is expected to vote on this. I would urge 
Members to read the resolution because section 6 rejects any U.S. 
policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons capable 
Iran. Section 7 urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of 
an Iran with a nuclear weapons capability, and opposition to any policy 
that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian 
enrichment.

[[Page H2817]]

  This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and 
would guarantee that talks with Iran currently scheduled for May 23 
would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear 
weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the red line for military action at 
Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability--capability--a nebulous and 
undefined term that would include a civilian nuclear program.
  Indeed, it's likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed 
Iran and to prevent war would provide for uranium enrichment for 
peaceful purposes under the framework of the nonproliferation of 
nuclear weapons treaty, with strict safeguards and inspections. This 
language in this bill makes such a negotiated settlement impossible. At 
the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. 
Countries with nuclear weapons capability could include many other 
countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.
  An associate of former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:

       This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got 
     us into the Iraq war.

  Now, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, authorizes 
war against Iran and preparing the military for it. I want to point out 
how this happens. While H. Res. 568 undermines our diplomatic efforts 
and lowers the bar for war, H.R. 4310, the NDAA, begins military 
preparations for war. Members ought to read this. Section 1221 makes 
military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Section 1222 directs our 
Armed Forces to prepare for war. Now if you read these sections, you'll 
see that what I'm saying is true.
  Now, under subsection A, it says that Iran may soon attain a nuclear 
weapons capability, a development that would threaten the United States 
interests, destabilize the region, encourage nuclear proliferation, and 
further empower and embolden Iran, and on and on. But the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the U.S. and Israeli intelligence, 
have all agreed that Iran does not currently have a nuclear bomb, is 
not building a nuclear weapon, and does not have any plans to do so. 
Both U.S. and Israeli officials also agree that a strike on Iran would 
only delay their nuclear program and actually encourage them to pursue 
nuclear weapons.
  Sustained diplomatic engagement with Iran is the only way to ensure 
transparency and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Rejecting or 
thwarting any inspections-based deal we are currently seeking with 
Iran, even when analysts are expressing guarded optimism that a near-
term deal is achievable, makes preemptive military action against Iran 
more likely.
  Now I just want to cite some provisions right from the bill.
  In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which 
they're not doing, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, 
must utilize all elements of national power, including diplomacy, 
robust economic sanctions, and credible--get this--``visible 
preparations for a military option.''
  Under section 1222 where they talk about U.S. military preparedness, 
it talks of pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, 
fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions. Under 
subsection B it talks about maintaining sufficient Naval assets in the 
region--get this--to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a 
range of Iranian nuclear and military targets.
  Now come on, we're getting ready for war against Iran. Why? I mean, 
we ought to have a broad debate about this other than just burying this 
section of a bill in the National Defense Authorization Act. We have 
plenty of evidence there is no reason to go to war against Iran. We 
made the mistake in Iraq. Let's not make another one with Iran and set 
off World War III.

                          ____________________