Today the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote -- under "suspension," requiring a supermajority to pass -- on a provision which would restore as policy the Cooties Doctrine of the early Bush Administration -- U.S. officials can't meet with officials of the adversary du jour, because our officials might get contaminated.
What's remarkable isn't that some people in Washington would want to prohibit U.S. officials from having contact with Iranian officials. After all, some people in Washington want to have a war with Iran as soon as it can be arranged. What's remarkable is the possibility that the majority of Congressional Democrats might vote to approve the "Iran Cooties Provision." Aren't Democrats supposed to be the diplomacy party, not the war party?
The Cooties Provision is Section 601c of H.R. 1905, the so-called "Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011." Here's what the Cooties Provision says:
(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.--No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER.--The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
Would it not be totally preposterous to add this provision to the United States Code?
It's not completely transparent from the provision how it envisions the determination of which Iranian officials "present a threat." I read it as saying the determination would be made by the Secretary of State, because that's how it is defined elsewhere in the bill. It also seems highly doubtful that the provision is constitutional, since it tries to micromanage the executive branch in its conduct of foreign affairs.
But putting the legal issues to the side, isn't the logic of this provision completely counter to the argument that we voted for in November 2008: that it's ok -- indeed, it is wise, prudent, and preferable -- for the U.S. to be able to talk to its adversaries?
Imagine that your best friend, a U.S. citizen, had the misfortune to be detained in Iran. You get on the phone to the State Department, and you ask, what do you know about the detention of my friend? And the State Department says, sorry, we can't talk to the relevant Iranian officials about your friend, because those officials have been deemed a "threat," so we don't know anything about the detention of your friend.
Wouldn't you think that was outrageously stupid? Isn't working to protect U.S. citizens when they travel overseas the most basic function of the State Department?
Note that the extremely narrow waiver provision might not help you much. The president would have to determine that failure to contact Iranian officials on your friend's behalf would "pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States." Doesn't that seem like a high bar?
And, even if the president were willing to make such a determination, you would still have to wait 15 days.
Adding this provision to the United States Code would give neoconservative yahoos another stick to beat U.S. diplomats with for simply doing their jobs: omigod, a U.S. official had contact with an Iranian official. Like the neoconservative yahoos need more sticks to beat our diplomats with?
If you agree that adding the Iran Cooties Provision to the United States Code is an extremely stupid idea, why not write your Representative or call 1-877-429-0678 to let them know?
UPDATE: Debate on the Iran sanctions bill took place Tuesday night, but the vote is going to be later this week. You can watch the debate on C-SPAN here at the 8:05 mark.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
It's against the interest of Israel that the US and Iran become friends but it is in the interest of the US that they normalize relations with Iran.
So, I guess we know who's the "catcher" and who's the "pitcher" in US-Israel relations...oooh yeah
The debate on the bill happened Tuesday night. You can watch the debate here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession5288
The debate begins at the 8:05 mark.
At the 8:15 mark, Rep. Kucinich introduced into the Congressional Record Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton's column noting that the IAEA did not say that Iran is building a nuclear bomb (during the debate, some Members claimed that it did.)
At the 8:37 mark, Rep. Blumenauer noted press reports that new sanctions on Europeans who buy oil from Iran could raise the price of gas in the U.S. by a dollar a gallon.
At 8:50:26, Rep. Berman claimed that "there is nothing in this bill that would prevent Americans from having contact with Iranians," an astonishing claim, given the plain English meaning of Section 601c, cited in the peace groups' letter to the House:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1100
you can watch the House debate here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession5288
(at the 8:05 mark.)
And guess what! Obama is proving to be just as much a hawk as the GOP.
Say someone from Koch Industries, Haliburton, Blackwater, Xe wanted to meet witha an Iranian Leader....
That would be ok, right?
After all, they always have.
So very republican.
we need dialogue and deescalation of tensions, not more chest thumping on behalf of Israeli lobby. The treat premium we are paying for oil is already costing US economy $200 billion per year and not doing any good for Iranian reformists that won`t take on the regime when everyone is worried about US or Israeli bombs falling on their heads.
Also when China Central Bank deals directly with Iran, the US will be faced with a choice of shutting down most US companies (Walmart, for one) or ignoring the situation. because sanctioning the China central bank will cripple US companies and not harm anyone else on earth. If the US tries to stop China, China will just tell the US to go F*** itself. and we will be forced to happily comply.
I wonder when the folks in congress with finally figure out the rest of the world does NOT care one bit about what the US wants and that the US has no power to do anything but help the world laugh at the US.