Hearings on the Chicago Iran Resolution

The proceedings begin with a press conference at City Hall, to be followed by the actual hearings. Here's a first-draft account of what happened at the press conference.

Press Conference

10:41 Alderman Joe Moore, sponsor of the resolution opposed to a US military attack on Iran and urging the US to engage in diplomacy.

5 years ago the council made history passing a resolution against war in Iraq.

Sadly our leaders did not take heed. Now most observers agree the war was a horrible mistake.

Now more than 4000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, more than a million Iraqis killed or wounded.

History is repeating itself. The Administration is beating the drum of war, despite the Iran NIE.

As in the runup to war in Iraq, basing the threat on unsubstantiated information.

Some would argue that this is not Chicago's business. But it is definitely Chicago's business. It's Chicago's neighborhoods which will suffer.

Chicago will once again lead the nation as a city for peace.

10:45 Scott Ritter

It makes me angry when I hear that it's not the business of local representatives. It's absolutely the business of local representatives. We must stand up against the rush to war, not based on appeasement, but based on reality. I thank Alderman Moore for leading this initiative.

10:51 Mearshimer: Attacking Iran is not going to prevent from getting nuclear weapons. If you continue to threaten Iran, certainly if you attack Iran, then they are definitely going to get nuclear weapons to prevent themselves from being attacked again.

Second: Iran will retaliate. Iran will go to great lengths to make our life even more difficult in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be relatively easy for them to do so. It is certain that more Americans will die, and those will become lost causes for certain. So if you want to save American lives, make sure that the US does not attack Iran.

10:59 Professor Norma Moruzzi
I travel regularly to Iran, most recently last year. This morning I received an email from Iran about the Chicago City Council hearings. This underlines the importance of this effort. People in Iran are watching.

Every time the US ramps up tensions, it hurts those on the ground who are working for human rights, reducing the space for them to operate. No one I know in Iran favors any kind of US military attack. Nothing helps the current government more than threats from the United States. If Iran is attacked, Iranians will rally around the flag. We need to change this policy both in the interests of Americans and the interests of Iranians.

11:04 Stephen Kinzer:
One: this has become a real possibility.

Two: This would be a disaster.

Three: There is an alternative. Direct, unconditional, bilateral, comprehensive negotiations. Which has never been tried. It would be the height of immorality not to pursue this. Iran and the US have common interests, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. Break out of the prison of illusions. Of course there are no guarantee this will work. But on the brink of crisis, it is folly not to at least a try

11:09 Michael Lynn: Why did we take this to the council? Because Washington isn't listening.

11:11 Question: Are we still on the brink of war?

Ald Moore: After the NIE came out, dispelling a lot of the bad information. I thought perhaps this resolution might not be necessary. But now again we see the same drumbeat of war, the same drumbeat of war as before Iraq.

Question: What's the evidence that an attack still on the table?

Ritter: Listen to the Bush Administration. They're saying over and over that it's still on the table. This is not a war of national security. This is a war of choice, at a time and place of the President's choosing. So the President has to build the case of war. Of course they have to move forces into the region at the same time as they build the case for war. Fortunately they've had problems with their case for war. Note they're not talking about Iran nuclear anymore. That dog won't hunt. But now it's about Iraq, blaming Iran for the problems in Iraq. Ask the Pentagon to deny the war plans they're preparing. Ask the Reps and the Senators why they're not holding these hearings.

Question: Why are you confident that the Chicago City Council will pass this resolution?

Answer: We passed a resolution against the Iraq war. And we were totally vindicated by events. I have talked to many of my colleagues, and overwhelmingly they have told me they intend to vote for the resolution.

Comments

[tompoe]

No one has ever calculated how many Vietnam veterans, or Korean veterans, or WWII veterans died as a result of complications from PTSD. Today, we are told PTSD leads to suicide, and we've been losing some 12,000 veterans due to suicide since this invasion/occupation started. So, Robert Naiman, why do you continue to perpetuate the government's myth that we've lost but a mere 4,000? Isn't it time you stopped your enabling of the war criminals occupying our white house?

[altohone]

Nobody should ignore the real possibility an attack will be used for political purposes.

A McCain/Clinton contest wouldn't have threatened the status quo on Iran policy since both share Bush's view.

Now that Hillary is basically out, Bush may use an attack in an attempt to change our electoral politics since McCain has an uphill battle.
We shouldn't forget how the neocons used the Iraq war as a political bludgeon in 2002... effectively.

I hope the Chicago resolution becomes contagious.
I hope wiser heads in the military won't allow themselves to be used again.