All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton and our first guest on the show today is Kate Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
That's the Quaker Lobby for Peace.
She's got a new piece called The End of Brown Rice Diplomacy with Iran.
Welcome back to the show, Kate.
How are you doing?
Hey, Scott, thanks so much for having me.
Doing well.
And yeah, thanks again.
This is very important that people know about this bill right now.
So I'm glad you presented this opportunity.
Right.
OK, so I want to know what Brown Rice Diplomacy means.
But first of all, well, go ahead.
Let's start with that.
What's that?
Well, Brown Rice Diplomacy is exactly the kind of diplomacy and the only kind of diplomacy we've had with Iran.
I got the idea when I saw that Barbara Slavin, who spoke at the Israel Policy Forum last week, she talked about how the U.S. and Iran have actually only had one public official meeting with, you know, between a high level U.S. official and a high level Iranian official.
That was with then Undersecretary Bill Burns and Saeed Jalili from Iran, the Iranian nuclear negotiator.
And they spoke in 2009.
They spoke for exactly 45 minutes about Iran's nuclear program, presumably.
And of course, the content of the conversation wasn't public.
But that's what we've had with Iran.
That's the kind of diplomacy that the Obama administration has tried with Iran.
And, you know, I was trying to think of, OK, so, you know, they've had the U.S. has tried to talk to Iran about its nuclear program for, you know, 45 minutes.
That's the same amount of time that it takes to cook brown rice.
I was, you know, trying to think of other examples.
But I thought, OK, well, lasagna, that takes longer.
You know, I mean, cooking many meals take longer than that.
But that's the kind of diplomacy we've had so far.
And now the House wants to cut off even that.
Right.
Well, and, you know, it's funny, too, isn't it, how the Obama administration really they came out?
I don't know.
I guess maybe this was before the 45 minute clock kicked in or whatever.
But they made this proposal that implicitly recognized Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes as long as they stayed within their safeguards agreement.
They didn't really drop the demand that they freeze enrichment, but they sort of implicitly dropped it.
As long as you guys will trade your uranium out and let the Russians enrich it up to 20 percent uranium 235, let the French turn it into fuel rods for you.
And that way you keep all of your enrichment at only the three point six percent electricity level, not 20 percent, which is a little bit closer to the 90 plus percent purity needed to make, you know, for fissile bomb material.
And then the Iranians more or less accepted the deal.
All they said was, let's just swap the uranium at the same time.
They could have had this worked out.
Right.
Instead, they did.
They like it seems like they went through all this effort just to pretend to offer something that they didn't really want to deal on.
Yes, yes.
Right, exactly.
And, you know, I would point out, I mean, while the Obama administration, while the deal about recognizing Iran's right to enrich uranium wasn't in that agreement, that Secretary Clinton did testify in Congress saying that under certain safeguards, you know, rather under under strict safeguards and and monitoring from the international community, that it would be likely that at some point Iran would be able to enrich uranium, you know, which is important to say now that with all with Congress, of course, the many members of Congress talking about how Iran doesn't have the right to, you know, to ever enrich uranium and how we could never stand for that.
And, you know, so it is important to point out the kinds of, you know, not towards diplomacy that the administration has pursued.
I mean, that they have had you know, there has been this back and forth with Iran and around the especially around the nuclear research reactor.
But it's unfortunate that many of those proposals have just been in the press and so they've been back and forth.
And, you know, there hasn't been some kind of established channel of communication so that they don't, so that, you know, instead we just we read about this from the papers.
And I mean, probably, you know, we're reading about the same time that some Iranian officials or even U.S. officials are hearing about it.
So rather than this discussion is being worked out that way, rather than some kind of direct channel of communication, direct meetings, direct, you know, one on one talks between U.S. and Iranian officials.
Right.
And, you know, that's the thing, too.
I mean, when you get to the fuel swap deal there and the Iranian counteroffer and all that, even if that was unacceptable, still, it was perfectly acceptable for a position for both sides to have at the beginning of their next negotiation sitting across a table from one another.
It was still perfectly within reason.
And then the Brazilians and the Turks tried to intervene and said, well, we'll help and we'll be the neutral ground where the swap takes place and whatever.
And Obama just rebuked them.
Right.
For trying to work it out.
Right, right.
All right.
Yeah.
And I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Exactly.
Well, I was just going to say, I mean, exactly is that that and, you know, of course, diplomacy isn't about just a proposal and a counter proposal.
I mean, it's it's it takes actually sitting down and talking, you know, dialogue.
I mean, we really have to go back to the basics here to to, I think, emphasize that, yes, that just those kinds of responses in the media ever so often.
I mean, talking about how a proposal might might somehow work out, but not actually going forward and talking to the Iranians about it.
I mean, that's not likely to to resolve this issue.
And it's it's very unfortunate that the Obama administration hasn't gone further.
All right.
So now we have two very controversial things going through the Congress.
We have one, the sanctions against their central bank, which this is a whole new level of economic warfare, as I understand it.
Maybe you can talk a little bit about that.
And then there's also the anti-diplomacy provision that you referred to before that would forbid any more talks, even though they're not even trying to have any.
Anyway, it definitely seems like another push down the path to war.
So, first of all, technically speaking, these are both amendments to the the defense appropriations bill, the same one with the military detention in it and all that.
Actually, no, it's confusing.
So that was with the Senate.
The Senate had an amendment, the same one with the military detention issue that that was an amendment to the Senate defense authorization bill.
So and as was the Kirkman and those amendments for central bank sanctions in the Senate, they passed 100 to zero.
Not one senator was outspoken about it.
Not one senator talked about the kind of dire consequences this would have for the U.S. and global economy, not to mention, you know, humanitarian suffering in Iran.
And then on the House side, we have another sanctions bill.
It's the Iran so-called Iran Threat Reduction Act.
And this bill is slated to be passed next week on Tuesday.
And it has a couple of I mean, it's all in all it's, you know, it's very alarming and would be a setback, you know, for a diplomatic resolution with Iran.
But the particularly concerning provisions are one, the anti-diplomacy provision that you mentioned and another one on central bank sanctions.
So a different legislative vehicle.
But the idea would be that this really is the House's response to the Senate bill.
And now Representative Berman, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has said that he actually wants to go further than the Kirk Menendez amendment that passed in the Senate, that their Senate central bank sanctions.
And he wants to make this he wants to to remove some of the presidential flexibility, the administration's flexibility in how they can implement these sanctions.
So so basically they want to make it worse.
The House wants to make it worse.
And that's one part of this Iran sanctions bill.
And another part is the anti-diplomacy provision, which, you know, Ambassador Pickering and Lohr's top former Middle East analyst Paul Pilar has spoken out about.
Lots of people have have written and blasted this kind of provision that would prohibit contact between any U.S. government employee and any Iranian official who presents a threat to the United States.
All right.
We'll have to pick this up on the other side of the break.
It's Kate Gould.
She's legislative associate for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
They're doing something about it.
You can help them.
It's FCNL.org.
We'll be right back after this.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio, I'm Scott Horton, I'm talking with Kate Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
FCNL.org, she is the legislative associate for foreign policy for the Friends Committee.
And we're talking about the House and the Senate and their sanctions against Iran's central bank and their provision trying to prohibit any future diplomacy between any American official, any American government employee and any Iranian one.
Well, and Scott, I just want to clarify, it's not actually prohibiting any conduct between U.S. government employees and Iranian officials.
It's prohibiting contact with Iranian officials who present a threat to the United States.
So whatever that means.
And obviously, that's not clear yet exactly which Iranian officials would present a threat to the United States.
So is that wiggle room built in for the president, then?
It seems like that's exactly what it is.
But it's still, you know, and and so and some would argue, oh, well, then because of that provision, that caveat that the administration could just decide not to put any Iranian diplomat or anyone they would want to talk to on that, you know, on that list or to designate them as a threat.
However, clearly, you know, I mean, with the way that things are going, I mean, you know, many most administration officials would say that that all of the high level Iranian officials are in some way a threat to the United States and that this could certainly have a chilling impact on any diplomacy with Iran.
Well, and now, so what all do you know about this, the sanctions on the Central Bank?
Because, of course, we've been passing sanctions against Iran since 1979.
What is the big deal about this set of sanctions?
This set of sanctions is definitely the most extreme.
The U.S. doesn't do business with Iran's Central Bank, but this set of sanctions is about sanctioning any foreign financial institution, any company or country outside the U.S. because the U.S. already doesn't do business, but outside the U.S. from doing any kind of business with Iran's Central Bank, which is, you know, roughly equivalent to our Federal Reserve and except they, you know, they have an even more centralized economy.
And so any financial transactions for oil, I mean, it goes from the private companies or for other things.
I mean, any kind of financial transaction in reals in Iranian currency would at some point have some kind of connection with Iran's Central Bank.
So the idea is to really to pull China and, you know, so many other countries around the world to do business with with Iran to stop that and and prevent Iran from being able to to export its oil.
I mean, wait a minute.
So this wouldn't just really, you know, be crippling sanctions against the Iranian people like the war party is always calling for.
This could really be picking a fight with China, putting sanctions on any Chinese company that does business with Iran.
Yes.
And well, not just that.
I mean, it could be picking a fight with Europe already.
There's a lot of news about this.
I mean, and that seems to be a major impetus for the administration's vocal opposition to this kind of these kinds of sanctions.
I mean, the administration has been very outspoken about this.
They've said that this and particularly tying it to the kind of European financial crisis and saying that they're really concerned and that they see, you know, there's been news reports about how the Obama administration is seeing their future prospects of being elected again tied to, well, you know, of course, the global financial situation and and Europe's teetering economy has a lot to do with that.
And so, yeah, there's a lot of concern in Europe and all over.
I mean, there's many press reports about this, that this could have dire consequences on the European economy.
And certainly, I mean, the idea with China is likely that they wouldn't, that China would probably not go for this.
But but even some of our, you know, the U.S.'s closest allies have grave concerns about these kinds of sanctions.
All right, now tell us a little bit about the Friends Committee's activism on this and how people can take part.
Yes.
OK, well, at this kind of dark moment, we're reminded of a time in 2008 when SPNL, we worked with many organizations across the country, including in a campaign to defeat another anti-Iran diplomacy bill.
And we were successful.
And Antiwar.com was part of that effort.
Many of the listeners for your show were part of that effort.
We generated thousands of phone calls and letters when there was a bill that called for a blockade against Iran.
And this was on the suspension calendar, meaning it was supposed to be non-controversial and it was supposed to pass like a hot knife through butter, according to one aide in the leadership.
And then it was defeated.
It was taken off the suspension calendar.
And because of that, it never came up for a vote.
If it came up for a vote, we probably wouldn't have won.
But it was never, best of all, it never came up for a vote.
And so that's the kind of action we're trying to see right now.
We also got five people to withdraw their co-sponsorships, even though it had 280 co-sponsors.
You got how many to withdraw?
Well, I mean, the whole campaign, everybody working on this, got five people, five members of Congress to withdraw, which according to many people that I've talked to who, you know, lobbied in D.C. for decades, that that's the most they've ever seen.
Yeah, that's very rare that members of Congress withdraw their co-sponsorship.
This time, it's not even the members of Congress have to withdraw their co-sponsorship, but they need to make a fuss.
And, you know, we all, and in many of these offices, I should say, you know, they co-sponsored the bill before the anti-diplomacy provision was added, before the central bank sanctions were added.
So there is, you know, a way out for them to say, OK, I don't support, you know, I signed on to this bill before it became what it is now.
And it's supposed to be voted on a Tuesday.
So it's really important that people call now.
You can use our toll free number 1-877-429-0678 and just ask, remember, ask that they oppose the H.R.
1905 because it would, it would undermine prospects for diplomacy with Iran and tighten the risk of war.
Mm hmm.
And again, that's 1-877-429-0678.
That'll take them straight to the Capitol?
Switchboard, exactly.
And we're doing this toll free number because then we can track how many calls are coming in from what state and city.
And then we can follow up with others.
I've talked to a lot of offices that have told me that, you know, they never knew, their boss didn't know about this provision, this anti-diplomacy provision, and, you know, that they are concerned about it.
So.
Well, that's undoubtedly true.
I mean, most of these congresspeople don't know anything except their appointments for the next hour and a half, you know.
Well, they're certainly busy.
And again, this was this really was snuck into the bill.
I mean, this was put into markup, like, you know, about 24 hours before a committee markup on it.
And so people outside of the committee really just, you know, would have no idea.
I mean, even if you look it up in Thomas, if your listeners look it up in Thomas right now, you won't see the anti-diplomacy provision.
They haven't added it yet.
But if you go to our website and you can get a lot more information about all this.
We just had a call and alert about it on our website, FCNL.org.
And you can get more information or, of course, contact me at Kate at FCNL.org.
And it's the time to act is now before Tuesday.
Yep, absolutely.
And again, if you go to FCNL, you can find a vote nears on dangerous Iran bill.
Call your rep today.
And this piece, Brown Rice, end of Brown Rice diplomacy with Iran.
Forty five minutes is all we ever got.
Now, here's the thing, too.
I know you guys do a lot of walking up and down the halls of Capitol Hill, and I wonder whether you guys or anyone else are passing out copies of the Christian Science Monitor piece or Seymour Hersh's piece or Gareth Porter's work or any of the major debunking of the recent IAEA report and the bogus accusations contained therein, especially that Christian Science Monitor article.
Well, actually, the Hersch article to have all these quotes from this guy, Robert Kelly, who was a high level U.N. inspector for years and years and years, talking about how unimpressed he was with this report.
And I would be willing to bet that in Congress, all they know is the headline they saw on TV.
Oh, no, Iran's scary nuclear report thing.
But this thing has been pretty roundly criticized from people who actually know what it you know, what it says compared to what the claims are, you know?
Yeah, that's a very good point.
And I have brought copies of Seymour Hersh's articles.
But but the Christian Science Monitor piece, you're right.
I should be bringing that to offices as well.
And of course, I mean, worse, you know, the kinds of misinterpretations of the IAEA report are the worst kinds of, you know, assertions out there that we that we we are working on debunking.
But yeah, definitely.
You know, those are the kinds of things that underlie decisions like I better support this thing right now, you know, exactly what they're doing.
Again, everybody call Capitol Hill 877-429-0678.
Find out more at FCNL.org, the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Thank you so much, Kate.
I appreciate it.
Kate Gould, everybody.
OK, thank you, Scott.
Take care.
