Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul Iran Book of Ron Paul Iran Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy 27 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 1:2 Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense. Iran State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:26 Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict. Iran State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:29 We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing. Iran America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq 4 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 3:3 And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists. Iran Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:62 People say, well, we have to do it because Hussein has so much of this firepower, he has all of these weapons of mass destruction. It was just recently reported by U.S. intelligence that there are 20 nations now who are working on and producing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran and Syria. So why do we not go in there and check them out too? Iran Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:67 There, submerged barges depart daily for Iran, which sells the oil and, after a hefty rake-off, returns the proceeds to fund Saddam. So there are sales and there might be people that are looking at this mainly as a financial thing dealing with oil. Iran Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:97 I wonder if they are talking about when he invaded Iran with our encouragement and our money and our support. Is that what they are talking about? Or are they talking about the other invasion that we did not like because it was a threat to western oil? I think that might be the case. Iran The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:9 There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used. Iran The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:12 But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy. Iran The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:10 As I stated earlier, we were allies with Hussein when we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran, and yet, at the same time, the taking over of the Kuwait oil fields was something that we could not stand, even though there has not been a full debate over that argument. We have heard only the one side of that, who drew the lines and for what reason the lines were drawn there and whose oil was being drilled. There is a major debate there that should be fully aired before we say that it is the fault of only one. Iran The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:16 So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in. Iran The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:17 Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy. Iran U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. Iran U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:2 Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie? Iran Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:10 ADDTIONALLY This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran. Iran Iraq — Part 1 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:4 For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons. Iran U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:20 Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides. Iran On The United Nations And Embassy Security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 78:8 Iran right now, they have dissidents in the street; but they are blaming America, because there was a time when we put our dictator in charge of Iran as we have done so often around the world. Yet they only can come back by making our embassies vulnerable. It might be wiser for those countries that we cannot protect our embassies to put in a computerized operation because, in this day and age, we do not have to have embassies in the countries that are so dangerous. Iran Free Trade 27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:10 Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries. Iran U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life 17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:4 Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred. Iran WHAT IS FREE TRADE? May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:43 So I think this is important material. I think this is an important subject, a lot more important than just the vote to trade with China. I think we should trade with China. I think we should trade with Cuba. I think we should trade with everybody possible, unless we are at war with them. I do not think we should have sanctions against Iran, Iraq or Libya, and it does not make much sense to me to be struggling and fighting and giving more foreign aid to a country like China, and at the same time we have sanctions on and refuse to trade and talk with Cuba. That does not make a whole lot of sense. Yet those who believe and promote trade with China are the ones who will be strongly objecting to trade with Cuba and these other countries. So I think a little bit more consistency on this might be better for all of us. Iran Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:5 4. Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill, and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today? Iran Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:6 5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ? Iran Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems with this move to extend the Iran/ Libya Sanctions Act. Iran Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:5 The Bush Administration would prefer this legislation to expire and, failing that, they prefer taking a first step by making the extension last for a shorter period. In this I believe the Administration has taken the correct position. For one thing, there have been moves, particularly in Iran, to liberalize. We harm these attempts by maintaining a sanctions regime. Iran Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:6 I also have to point out the inconsistency in our policy. Why would we sanction Iran but not Sudan, and why would we sanction Libya but not Syria? I hear claims related to our national security but surely these are made in jest. We subsidize business with the People’s Republic of China but sanction Europeans from helping to build oil refineries in Iran. Iran Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:7 There has been a real concern in our country regarding the price of gasoline. Since these sanctions are directly aimed at preventing the development of petroleum resources in these countries, this bill will DIRECTLY RESULT IN AMERICANS HAVING TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE AT THE GASOLINE PUMP. These sanctions HURT AMERICANS. British Petroleum and others have refused to provide significant investment for petroleum extraction in Iran because of the uncertainty this legislation helps to produce. The tiny nation of Qatar has as much petroleum related investment as does Iran since this legislation went into effect. Again, this reduces supply and raises prices at the gas pump. Iran Iran/Libya Sanctions Act 24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:9 Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the legislative realities as regards this legislation and the powerful interests that want it extended. However, it is not just myself and the Bush Administration suggesting this policy is flawed. The Atlantic Council is a prestigious group cochaired by Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft that has suggested in a recent study that we ought to end sanctions upon Iran. Iran LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:7 * Still, support for sanctions continues in Congress. The House International Relations committee last week considered legislation that will extend existing economic sanctions against Iran and Libya for another 5 years. While I certainly oppose this legislation, I did agree with the Iran LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:8 * I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein’s rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America’s position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iran Crazy For Kazakhstan 1 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 69:9 Since that time, Central Asia has become an increasingly complex region. Russia is reemerging from its post-Soviet economic crises and is actively looking for both economic opportunities in Central Asia as well as to secure its political influence over the region. China is rapidly expanding its economic power and political influence in the region. Iran, despite recent progress made by moderate elements in the government, is still a state sponsor of terrorism and is actively working to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many of the other former Soviet republics have become havens for religious extremists, terrorists, drug cartels and transit points for smugglers of all kind. Iran Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:15 When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated: “This is the beginning of the war for oil.” Our crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil. Iran Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:5 The problem with nation-building is simple: it does not work. From Bosnia to Kosovo to Somalia and points beyond, have we seen even one successful example of UN nation-building? Foreign nation-building results in repressive, unpopular regimes that are seen by the population as Western creations. As such they are inherently unstable, which itself leads to all the more oppression. Indeed, many of our problems in the Middle East began when the CIA placed the Shah in charge of Iran. It took 25 years before he was overthrown, but when it finally happened the full extent of Iranian resentment toward U.S. nation-building exploded into the headlines with the kidnaping of more than 50 American citizens. It is a lesson we seem to have forgotten. Iran A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS -- October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:22 We already hear of plans to install and guarantee the next government of Afghanistan. Getting bin Laden and his gang is one thing, nation-building is quite another. Some of our trouble in the Middle East started years ago when our CIA put the Shah in charge of Iran. Iran The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:18 Since we don’t know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain — Saddam Hussein — guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner. Iran The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:27 Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move. Iran Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden 4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:7 Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot’s successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979. Iran Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority” December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:4 Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally- taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB’s, that stifle economic growth. Iran Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:5 Take, for instance, one of the whereas’s in this resolution. “Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.” We keep hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with technology. Iran 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:9 The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes. Iran The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:43 CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term serious problems with that nation that persists even today. Could oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks on the United States, and yet little is done about it. Iran The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:45 An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction. Iran Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:59 5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we’ve committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we’ll be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia- countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to U.S. oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well. Iran Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:60 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills. Iran Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:1 The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein. Iran Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:10 Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies. Iran Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:11 While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests. Iran Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:14 Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair’s approval is more important than the approval of the American people! Iran Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:5 Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair’s prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran. Iran The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:19 Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created State of Israel in 1947 and to securing control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel’s needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than half a century. In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequence occurred. This generated the Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists and caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Iran The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:20 Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al- Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals. Iran Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:16 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? Iran Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:25 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? Iran Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:26 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? Iran Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:22 Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush. Iran Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:31 In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights. Iran Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:33 It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds . Iran Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:41 These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States. Iran Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:45 Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States. Iran Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:7 Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited. Iran Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:8 The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey. Iran Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:9 Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises. Iran “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:5 Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. Iran “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:7 This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the “Information Awareness Office” in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the “data-mining” power to snoop on every public and private act of every American. Iran Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:53 Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building. Iran United States Embargo On Cuba 9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 48:6 I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iran Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:19 (19) Yet, supporters of this war are already planning for the next war — possibly against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba . . . or who knows where . . . Iran Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:15 In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked. Iran Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:87 Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed. Iran Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:9 Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.” Iran Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:11 Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts to paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime – not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam’s regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq’s one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the US intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers. Iran A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:18 A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer. Iran Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:6 This resolution dramatizes how we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation. Iran Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:4 This resolution seems to forget that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein. This in itself only demonstrates the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades from the days of the U.S. installing the Shah of Iran to the current world-wide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary intervention abroad shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation. Iran Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:7 That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples: Iran Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:9 Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon. Iran The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:15 Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy. Iran Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998. Iran Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:2 I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate means….” Iran Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:3 Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed. Iran Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:4 It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn? Iran Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:5 I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Iran H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998. Iran H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:2 I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident — even to its most determined advocates — we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .” Note the phrase “use all appropriate means.” Iran H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:3 Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions — just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed. Iran H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:4 It is somewhat ironic that vie are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the U.S. government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn? Iran H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:5 I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Iran The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:3 We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets. Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran has never endeared us to the Iranians. We’re supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed Chalabi turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran. The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian intelligence passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used eagerly to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the nation bought into. And now it looks like the intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but because it fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire Middle East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received enthusiastically. Iran The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:4 Inadvertently we served the interests of both Iran and Osama bin Laden by eliminating the very enemy they despised- Saddam Hussein. To the Iranians delight, it was payback time for our allegiance with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s. Iran The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:5 The serious concern is that valuable and top-secret U.S. intelligence may well have gone in the other direction: to Iran with the help of Chalabi. Iran The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:7 What a mess! But no one should be surprised. Regime change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost always go badly. American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life. We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old wounds in the Middle East continue to fester. Iran Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies June 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 41:3 The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government. Iran Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies June 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 41:5 Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence community relied heavily - perhaps almost exclusively — on Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre-determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and dollars. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs. Iran The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:14 Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong. Iran Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:30 Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the recent election. Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia. Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and occupation. Iran Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:55 Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of pre-emptive war. Yet that’s exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation. Iran Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:57 A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region. Iran America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:51 What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and preemptive war against them? Iran Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:10 Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us. Iran Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:28 We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong. Iran SUICIDE TERRORISM July 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 84:5 Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world’s leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq’s suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:4 The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:17 After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mosadeh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:18 We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s-- aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967-- which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:32 Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to talk about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We’ve already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:33 It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we’re setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:37 So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shiites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has placed Iran in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra. Iran Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:38 This unintended alliance with Iran, plus the benefit to Osama bin Laden’s recruiting efforts, will in the end increase the danger to Israel by rallying the Arab and Muslim people against us. Iran Introduction Of A Bill To Make Amendments To The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000 Related To International Space Station Payments 6 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 101:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments. It is critical that we pass this legislation to preserve NASA’s ability to perform such core functions as transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. Indeed, the International Space Station program may be threatened if the United States is prevented from purchasing from Russia the space hardware and services required to meet U.S. obligations. Iran Introduction Of A Bill To Make Amendments To The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000 Related To International Space Station Payments 6 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 101:2 Currently, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 forbids any such purchase because Russia is said to be assisting Iran in pursuit of its atomic energy program. Mr. Speaker, this situation demonstrates very clearly the negative unintended consequences of our counterproductive policy of restricting trade and placing trade sanctions on other countries. It would be ironic if in our zeal to punish Russia for engaging in trade with Iran we in fact end up punishing scores of Americans who work in the space industry in the United States. Iran Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:7 In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria while aiding Osama bin Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite-- though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit. Many experts believe bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the U.S. intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama bin Laden’s campaign surely would suffer if we left. Iran The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:9 Osama bin Laden specifically expressed outrage at this policy in his writings. Throughout the 1980s, we allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein, a secularist in his fight against Iran and other Shiite fundamentalists. Iran U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:15 Is Iraq not yet a headache for the proponents of the shock and awe policy? Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention? How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy before it is noticed? Is it still plausible that deficits do not matter? Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we have created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill- fated Iraq regime change effort? When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah becomes a governing party, what do we do then? Iran U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:16 If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what? If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options? If we cannot leave now, we will surely not leave then. We will be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just. Iran We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:15 Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we’ve created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime change effort? Iran We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:18 If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options? Iran Ahmadinejad’s Statement No Excuse To Escalate War Of Words 28 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 115:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues here in condemning the statement reportedly made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” I reject this statement and any such statement by any government anywhere because I reject the notion that the use or threat of violence is an appropriate way to solve international disputes. Iran Ahmadinejad’s Statement No Excuse To Escalate War Of Words 28 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 115:2 While rejecting comments by Iran that seem to advocate the use of force, I must also strongly object to using Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement as an excuse to escalate our own rhetoric and strengthen our anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim policies. This condemnable statement is nevertheless being conveniently used to expand our policy of remaking the Middle East in our own image. Iran Ahmadinejad’s Statement No Excuse To Escalate War Of Words 28 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 115:3 I do find it interesting to hear my colleagues condemning Iran’s implied threat of force while in the same breath calling for the use of force against Iran. Ironically, it is small step from repeatedly calling Iran “our enemy” with increasingly militaristic rhetoric to calling for Iran to be “wiped off the map.” We should keep this in mind as we condemn the rhetoric of others while repeating similar rhetoric ourselves. Iran The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:5 The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this country faces. Their deep concern is reflected in the current mood in Congress. The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking for someone to blame for the mess we’re in. It’s a high stakes political game. The fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the war, and accept the same approach toward Iran and Syria, does nothing to tone down the accusatory nature of the current blame game. Iran The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:16 We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq, and possibly in Iran and Syria, because, “It’s better to fight the terrorists over there than here.” Merely repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists. This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and secular Muslim factions; namely, that the U.S. should leave all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists from attacking us, it will do the opposite. Iran The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:22 By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of troops, and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued policy of sanctions, threats, and intimidation of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries. Iran The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:29 Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed; Iran Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:5 The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this country faces. Their deep concern is reflected in the current mood in Congress. The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking for someone to blame for the mess we are in. It is a high-stakes political game. The fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the war and accept the same approach towards Syria and Iran does nothing to tone down the accusatory nature of the current blame game. Iran Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:18 We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq and possibly in Iran and Syria because it is better to fight the terrorists over there than here. Merely repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists. Iran Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:23 We need to think more about how to avoid these military encounters rather than dwelling on the complications that result when we meddle in the affairs of others with no moral or legal authority to do so. We need less blame game and more reflection about the root cause of our aggressive foreign policy. By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of troops and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued policy of sanctions, threats and intimidation of Iraqi neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries. The likelihood of agreeing about who deliberately or innocently misled Congress, the media and the American people is virtually nil. Maybe historians at a later date will sort out the whole mess. The debate over tactics and diplomacy will go on, but that only serves to distract from the important issue of policy. Few today in Congress are interested in changing from our current accepted policy of intervention to one of strategic independence. No nation building, no policing the world, no dangerous alliances. But the result of this latest military incursion into a foreign country should not be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the result so far. Iran Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:24 Since March 2003, we have seen death and destruction, 2,100-plus Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick and wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire. A Shiite theocracy has been planted. A civil war has erupted. Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed. Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed. Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them. Suicide terrorism spurred on by our occupation has significantly increased. Our military-industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids. True national defense and the voluntary Army have been undermined. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:38 Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble, generated by easy money, has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and Federal spending is out of sight, with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It is bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979–1980, which required 21 percent interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:46 It has become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported. Now a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “Axis of Evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what? The oil sales will be priced in euros, not dollars. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:47 Most Americans forgot how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953, the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration’s announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil did not improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:48 Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, does not seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam and this recent history, there is little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us, but that did not stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern-day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she has made plans for pricing oil in euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:49 It is not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s connection to 9/11, were false. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:55 Once again, Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically and militarily if necessary. These arguments are based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:56 Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire, which includes the entire DOD budget of $450 billion, plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the backing of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system, like Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, become targets of our plans for regime change. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:58 But real threats come from our political adversaries who are capable of confronting us militarily yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That is why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran’s posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq War. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:60 The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large number of Americans, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran. Iran The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:62 Once again, there is the urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros. Iran Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:2 this resolution. I see this resolution somewhat like some of the resolutions that we debated and passed prior to our commitment to go into Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the language is very similar. If you substitute the word “Iraq” for “Iran,” you would find out that these concerns are very similar. Iran Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:3 I do not quite have the concern that others have expressed that Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. They have never been found in violation. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of accusation, but technically they have never been found in any violation. Iran Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:5 We went into Afghanistan to look for Osama bin Laden, and we sort of got distracted. We have forgotten about him just about completely. Instead we went into Iraq. Though the Iraq war is not going well, all of a sudden we are looking to take on another burden, another military mission. I find some things in the resolution that are very confrontational because it invokes sanctions. People say, well, sanctions are not that bad. That is no shooting or killing. But sanctions and boycotts and embargoes, these are acts of war. And, of course, many times our administration has expressed the sentiment that if necessary we are going to use force against Iran; we are going to start bombing. And why do we follow this policy? Especially since it literally helps the radicals in Iran. This mobilizes them. There is an undercurrent in Iran that is sympathetic to America, and yet this brings the radicals together by this type of language and threats. There is no doubt that our policy helps the hard-liners. Iran Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:6 There has been no talk, it has been implied, but there has been no serious talk that Iran is a threat to our national security. There is no way. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they are not going to be a threat to our national security. Pakistan, that is not a democratic nation. It happens to be a military dictatorship. They have nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the nuclear weapons serve as a balance of power between two countries. The Soviets, had 30,000 nuclear weapons, and we followed a policy of containment. We did not say we have to go into the Soviet Union and bomb their establishment. No. Finally that problem dissipated. And yet we create unnecessary problems for ourselves. We go looking for trouble, and I see this as very detrimental for what we are doing with this resolution. Iran Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:7 There is one portion of the resolution that concerns me about our urging the Russians and China to take a firm stand, and that has to do with the resolved clause No. 3; it says to the people of Russia and China to “expeditiously consider and take action in response to any report of Iran’s noncompliance” in fulfillment of the mandate of the Security Council to respond and deal with situations . . . Iran Amendment No. 9 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2 16 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 18:4 The major point I make here is by cutting $1 billion from the military portion of the bill it makes the point that we spend way too much on military operations. We spend more on military operations around the world than all the other countries of the world put together. And we do not have a lot to show for it. When you think about what has happened in Afghanistan, the problems there, what is happening in Iraq and the potential problems that are coming in Iran; yet the money is continuing to be spent in this reckless manner. Iran Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:3 We seem to never learn from our mistakes. Today’s neocons are as idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East as the Wilsonian do-gooders. Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq War and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neocons are eager to expand their regime-change policy to Iran by force. Iran Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:12 Our occupation and influence in the holy lands of the Middle East will always be suspect. This includes all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Naively believing otherwise will guarantee continuing hostility in Iraq. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:3 The significant question we must ask ourselves is, what have we learned from these 3 years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder, if the past 3 years were nothing more than a bad dream and our Nation suddenly awakened, how many would for national security reasons urge the same invasion? Or would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the 3- year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and, most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:4 Even with the horrible results of the past 3 years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rise and clamor for democratization in Iran, even though their current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:5 Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies, about which we never complain. Already the coordinated propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:6 It is amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neoconservatives are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It is frightening to see how easily Congress, the media and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:7 Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion and occupied two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are poorer, but certainly not safer, for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ringleader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch- enemy, more than our own. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:9 Saddam Hussein is out of power, and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis who dream of stability long for his authoritarian rule. But, once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who considered Saddam Hussein an arch-enemy. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:10 Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:11 Talk about unintended consequences. This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iran’s best friends. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:12 Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march towards a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran, whether planned or accidental, will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country number three. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:13 All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well-planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:18 I worry that before we can finish the war we are in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “Enough already.” The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It is too bad we cannot learn from our mistakes. This time, there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the U.N. before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that all options remain on the table, and there is little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there is little resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:19 It is astonishing that after 3 years of bad results and tremendous expense there is little indication, we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation-building, policing the world, protecting our oil still constitutes an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. It is already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:20 Iran’s history is being ignored just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those toward Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this President took office. In 1953, our CIA, with the help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic- elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. We placed in power the Shah. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that, we protected him. That is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:21 Evidently, we did not buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979, his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blow-back event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot about our unwise meddling in the internal affairs in Iran in 1953. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:22 During the 1980s, we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States, he immediately preceded to do so. We, in a way, encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course, this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden, our friendly ally, Saddam Hussein, became our arch enemy. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:23 The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forgot. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:24 For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value, yet it seems the propaganda is working since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for U.N. sanctions against her. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:25 There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there is no evidence that she is working on one, only conjecture. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody, which would guarantee her own annihilation are zero, and the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a nonstate terrorist group. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:26 Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular, to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons, but we reward them just as we reward India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran, even though they have no nuclear weapons, but listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld had to say about this: “Obviously we do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I do not know if they are developing them. But if they are not developing them, they are crazy.” Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:27 There has been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting U.N. sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has never reported any evidence of undeclared sources or special nuclear material in Iran or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. ElBaradei states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty required IAEA safeguards agreement. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:28 We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the United States, and we refused to believe U.N. inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us; now we are hysterically wondering if some day she might decide to build a bomb in self-interest. Anti-Iran voices beating the drums of confrontation distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It is the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:30 The demand for U.N. sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282 passed in the International Relations Committee and recently the House passed H. Con. Res. 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt, the neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on Iran, never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in a Civil War. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:32 Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how Americans citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change. How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:33 Even though ElBaradei and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons, refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. Let there be no doubt, though, the words “regime change” are not found in the bill. That is precisely what they are talking about. Neoconservative Michael Ladine, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the Iraq Freedom Support Act stated it plainly. “I know some members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and the context of the Iraq Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that this is, in fact, the essence of the matter. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:34 You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the mulahs.” Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:35 Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again, we are unilaterally declaring a preemptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And do not expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war. For the past 56 years, Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:36 Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward confrontation in Iran’s policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We are 7,000 miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors? We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times invaded any neighboring country. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly and dangerous. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:37 Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shiia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that they might well resort to terrorist attacks on us here at home. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be easily destroyed. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:38 One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure our oil supplies. This backfired badly. Production in Iraq is down 50 percent, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil at $120 a barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon. The obsession the neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who plan these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:39 Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options are on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype to our preemptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:40 Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq War are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:41 The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing preemptive war. In it he claims, “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities, though the IAEA makes no such assumption, nor has the Security Council in at least 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort, if one wants to use that term, is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unprovable negative. The West, led by the U.S., is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:42 The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A desire is purely subjective and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore, all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it does not have a desire to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, North Korea, India and Israel whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:43 Commonsense telling us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:56 Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode, as they did in the 1960s. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:61 Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:62 The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the United States and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting our oil interests in the Middle East for nearly 100 years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving in to this region to consume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military efforts to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real cost of energy once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise significantly. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:63 There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policies of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:64 There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinejad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes, thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran. Iran Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:65 First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and it is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you are looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance, though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it is a very costly and dangerous policy. Iran Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:61 Energy prices are rising for many reasons: inflation, increased demand from China and India, decreased supply resulting from our invasion into Iraq, anticipated disruption of supplies as we push regime change in Iran, regulatory restrictions on gasoline production, government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels, and subsidies to Big Oil, such as free leases and grants for research and development. Iran Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:67 A recent headline in the financial press announced that gold prices surged over concern that confrontation with Iran will further push oil prices higher. This may well reflect the current situation, but higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred. Iran Disadvantages To Intervention 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 26:5 But I have no qualms about the goals of the authors of this legislation. They would like to see freedom in Iran. I would, too. It is just that I believe the use of force backfires on us, and when we use force such as sanctions and subsidizing and giving money to dissidents, what we really do is the opposite of what we want. Those individuals who are trying to promote more freedom in Iran actually are forced to ally themselves with the radicals, so instead of undermining the system, it has made it worse. It is always argued that they will welcome us when we march in as liberators, and Iraq proved that that was not the case. Iran won’t be much better. Iran Disadvantages To Intervention 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 26:9 I see the way we are dealing with Iran as just spreading a problem that we contributed to in the Middle East. Too many innocent lives are lost, innocent American lives, GIs that go over and are killed so needlessly, especially since we don’t achieve the goal of bringing freedom and liberty and democracy to these countries. Iran Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 29:2 I want to quote from Article IV of the NonProliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signator: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 29:3 Our position is that they do not have the right to enrich. Those who deny the right to enrich are more in violation of the NPT Treaty than Iran itself. Iran Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 29:4 What do we do for those who are totally in defiance to international law in the NPT Treaty, like India and Pakistan? We reward them and subsidize them. At the same time, there is no proof that there has been any violation of this treaty by Iran, and yet the rewards go to those who are in total defiance. Iran Bombing Iran 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 30:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, there has been talk in the media and elsewhere about the necessity of bombing Iran, and we are talking today about regime change, which is an act of force, yet some of us believe we are acting too hastily. Others deny that; that something imminently is going to happen. But I want to read a little quote here from John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. He says, “Our assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, we believe that it is still a number of years before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next decade. So I think it is important that this issue be kept in perspective.” This is John Negroponte. And I think those who are so eager to pass this legislation and move toward regime change are moving in the wrong direction too hastily, and there are a lot of analogies to this and to Iraq, so we caution you about that. Iran Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:4 Also, this bill has money in it, and it is open-ended, an authorization of appropriation. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. And what is this section talking about? Subsidies and funding of dissident groups to go in there and undermine the Iranian government. Iran Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:6 Now, one of the major authors of the Iraqi war, a leader of the neoconservative movement, came before the committee when this resolution was debated and when we had hearings on it. I want to read a quote from him because it clarifies this issue. The quote comes from Michael Ledeen, and he wants regime change. This is what he had to say. “There is much that is praiseworthy in the Iran Freedom Support Act. I think it can be improved by more openly embracing a policy of regime change in Iran and allocating an adequate budget to demonstrate our seriousness in this endeavor. I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language, and that is what I have done, and content of the Iran Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that it is, in fact, the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran, that is, we can’t have our way, without bringing down the mullahs.” Iran Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:12 But attacking and intimidating other nations, the way we go at it now, literally backfires on us. What is it doing to the dissidents, those who would love to overthrow the Islamic radicals in Iran right now? It unifies them. Did we become unified in this country when we were attacked on 9/11? Do you think Republicans and Democrats were divided on 9/11 and 9/12? No, it brings them together. So this policy does exactly the opposite of what you pretend that you want to do, and that is encourage those people who don’t like their government. But by doing it this way, you literally are doing the very opposite. Iran Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:13 So I just plead with you to be more cautious. Negroponte says there is no rush. Take some time. They are not about to have a nuclear weapon. And whether or not that is their plan or not probably at this moment is irrelevant. I mean, if we stood down all these nations and all these nuclear weapons in the past, why can’t we practice more diplomacy to resolve our differences. I was talking to somebody the other day and they said, well, maybe in 10 years they might have a nuclear weapon, so we must act now. Get the bombs ready. They are talking about a nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. It is time to step back and look at the policy. The policy of nonintervention and peaceful relations with the world and peaceful trade is the American way to go, and it will lead to peace and prosperity. Iran What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices 2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:5 Second, we must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy, in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even by nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stirs up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and creates even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East. Iran What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices 2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:6 We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impacts. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach to Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 a barrel. Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by recent news that the administration has offered to put an end to our 26-year-old policy of refusing to speak with the Iranians. While this is a positive move, I am still concerned about the preconditions set by the administration before it will agree to begin talks. Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:3 Unfortunately, the main U.S. precondition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss. How can a meaningful dialogue take place when one side demands that the other side abandon its position before the talks begin? Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:4 Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military action while being able to claim that diplomacy was attempted? If the administration wishes to avoid this perception, it would be wiser to abandon preconditions and simply agree to talk to Iran. Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:5 By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the United States is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We must remember that Iran has never been found in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty. U.N. inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director ElBaradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of source or special nuclear material to a military purpose. Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:6 As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has, according to the treaty, the “inalienable right to the development, research and production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:7 Yet, the United States is demanding that Iran give up that right even though, after years of monitoring, Iran has never been found to have diverted nuclear material from peaceful to military use. Iran Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:10 We need to remember that decisionmaking power under Iran’s Government is not entirely concentrated in the President. We are all familiar with the inflammatory rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, but there are others, government bodies in Iran, that are more moderate and eager for dialogue. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in the Middle East. We cannot afford to continue on the path of conflict over dialogue and peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily threatening Iran is not in the interest of the United States and is not in the interest of world peace. Iran Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:31 It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Iran Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:35 We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Almadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list? Iran Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:43 The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending in more troops, and expanding the war into Iran. Iran Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:55 They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran’s radical regime. Iran Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:58 We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the Middle East, and all its oil. Iran Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 61:11 We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:3 But there are others who have indicated that they believe that it was precipitated mainly with the intent of our foreign policy, along with Israel’s foreign policy, as an initial step to go into Iran. We have talked about Iran around the House and around Washington, and there are a lot of people very, very concerned. Our administration talks about it all the time; taking out Iran, taking out the nuclear sites. But to do that, the theory is that these missiles had to be removed and, in a practical military sense, that seems very reasonable. So there could be the deliberateness of Hamas and Hezbollah precipitating the crisis for whatever gain they think, or deliberately precipitated by both the United States and Israel with the intent to follow up with bombing in Iran. And I am frightened about that. I think that may well occur. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:4 I have talked to a lot of military people, a lot of CIA people, who actually believe this is a possibility within months. And this is the reason I have such great concern about what is happening in this area of the country, because if us going into Iraq didn’t go so well, can anybody imagine what is going to happen when the bombs start to fall on Iran? I think it is going to be catastrophic. And there has been talk on television this past weekend, the beginning of World War III. And this war is about to spread, and this is the reason that I oppose this resolution, because, deep down in my heart, I believe that what we do here helps to provoke things and agitate things and bring us closer to a greater conflict. And I am just arguing that there is an alternative other than violence to settle some of these problems. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:5 Now, a lot of bombs have fallen on both sides, and of course, if they are coming from Lebanon, Syria and Iran are blamed, and they may well deserve the blame. But we haven’t talked about who gets the blame for the other side. More people are getting killed on the other side. And as we mentioned before, innocent people are killed, and a lot of nonmilitary targets have been hit, farms and buildings and electrical plants and airports that have nothing to do with the military. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:8 As soon as this crisis built, we heard very similar comments. Let’s go to Iran, you know, to go forward. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:10 And there are some people who sort of like this idea. There are some “neocons” who thrive on chaos, because their theory is they want regime change. They want regime change in Syria, and they want regime change in Iran. They wanted it in Iraq. And we are, by gosh, we are going to have regime change, and they are going to be our friends and they are going to be democrats. We are going to have democratic elections. Iran Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:30 What happens if this happens to be true? I actually pray that I am completely wrong about this. And you can say, well, you are, so don’t sweat it. But what if I am right? It is frightening, because if this leads to bombing in Iran, look for oil at $150 a barrel. Then the American people will wake up. They will say, hey, what’s going on here? Why is gasoline so expensive? It is expensive because we have less production out of Iraq, and it is expensive because the value of the dollar is going down. And it is expensive because they are anticipating that this crisis is not going away, and what we do are antagonizing the world. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:49 Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense, however, unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel’s desires. We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions and are in the process of threatening her for the third time. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:50 In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted for over 25 years and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shiite clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:51 In the 1980s, we provided weapons, including poisonous gas, to Saddam Hussein, as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who, once again, see us looking for another confrontation with them. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:52 We insist that the U.N. ignore the guarantees under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that grants countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the U.N. and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than preventing it. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:53 Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted, instead, in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us. Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran’s political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:54 Both immediately after 9/11 and especially at the time of our invasion in Iraq in 2003, Iran particularly, partially out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its battle against al Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:55 Now, Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally as a result of our overall Middle East policy. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:56 We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on Iran’s eastern borders. On Iran’s western borders, we helped Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shiites in Iraq ally themselves with the Iranians. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:57 The U.S.-Israel plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran’s military has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to route Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:58 Before the U.S.-Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported by 20 percent of the population. Now its revered by 80 percent. A democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interests of the U.S. or Israel; it would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:67 Yet, today, Iraq is infested with al Qaeda, achieving exactly the opposite of what we sought to do. We were told that we needed to secure our oil to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted. Oil production is down. Oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills. We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of Iran. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:72 We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran. The lack of success of conventional warfare, the U.S. in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, should awaken our policymakers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern warfare. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:77 Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our current policy because it is not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq. They want to attack Syria and Iran and escalate the conflict in Lebanon. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:79 Logic would tell us there is no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this time, but logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy and look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neoconservative extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side, a strange assumption since theologically it is the same God. Iran Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:87 We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon some day. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons and our so-called friend Musharraf won’t lift a finger against bin Laden who most likely is hiding in Pakistan. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use and threaten to use weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy. Iran Iran Freedom Support Act 28 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 89:2 In the introduction to the bill, it says that its purpose is to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition of its government; and I would just ask one question: Could it be possible that others around the world and those in Iran see us as participating in “threatening behavior?” We should make an attempt to see things from other people’s view as well. Iran Iran Freedom Support Act 28 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 89:5 The second reason that I will give you for opposing this is that this is clearly seeking regime change in Iran. We are taking it upon ourselves that we do not like the current regime. I don’t like Almadinyad, but do we have the responsibility and the authority to orchestrate regime change? We approach this by doing two things: Sanctions to penalize, at the same time giving aid to those groups that we expect to undermine the government. Do you know if somebody came into this country and paid groups to undermine our government, that is illegal? Yet here we are casually paying money, millions of dollars, unlimited sums of money to undermine that government. This is illegal. Iran Iran Freedom Support Act 28 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 89:6 The third point. This bill rejects the notion of the nonproliferation treaty. The Iranians have never been proven to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty; and this explicitly says that they cannot enrich, uranium even for private and commercial purposes. Iran The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:5 Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better position to take control of southern Iraq. Iran The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:6 Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden, all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come. Iran Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:10 The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric towards Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace, yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress. Iran Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:11 Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the United States, possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is 10 years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep everything on the table when dealing with Iran. Iran Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:12 We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. Iran Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:13 I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident may well occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable, since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I would like to place the following article written by eminent conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. In this fine op-ed, Mr. Buchanan makes reference to the recent efforts by my colleague and good friend, Rep. WALTER JONES, JR, to derail the march to war with Iran. I am very pleased to have been an original co-sponsor of the legislation referenced by Mr. Buchanan, H.J. Res. 14, which puts forth the very simple idea that if we are going to have a war with Iran we must follow the Constitution. The resolution clarifies the fact that the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran. I hope my colleagues will read this article closely and consider what Mr. Buchanan has written — and what Rep. JONES is trying to do. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:8 In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the “territorial integrity” of Iraq, the United States must address “Iran and Syria.” Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:9 “These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:10 The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:11 But does Bush have the authority to take us to war against Iran? Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:12 On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war — right into Iran. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:13 George Stephanopoulos: “So you don’t believe you have the authority to go into Iran?” Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:16 Biden sputters that should Bush attack Iran, a constitutional crisis would ensue. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:17 I don’t believe it. If tomorrow Bush took out Iran’s nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush’s lawyers would make the same case Nixon made for the 1970 “incursion” into Cambodia — and even a Nixon- hating Democratic House did not dare to impeach him for that. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:21 Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran? Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:23 The day after Bush’s threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, “Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran.” Under HJR 14, “Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions, or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran.” Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:24 Jones’ resolution further declares, “No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.” Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:25 If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it. Iran Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:26 If Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats’ wailing about being misled on the Iraq war. Iran Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:6 In reality, support for the status quo and the President’s troop surge in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval buildup in the region and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia demonstrate the administration’s intention to escalate our current war into something larger. Iran Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:7 There is just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serves those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran. Iran Don’t Do It, Mr. President 6 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 21:5 We don’t need it. We don’t want it. So, Mr. President, don’t do it. Don’t bomb Iran. Iran Don’t Do It, Mr. President 6 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 21:6 The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: If you don’t have a nuclear weapon, we will threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuclear weapon, we will leave you alone. In fact, we will probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:2 Our policy toward Iran is hostile and provocative, and thus war seems inevitable? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:3 That we have seized Iranians in Iraq, who claim they are diplomats, and now we have announced that any Iranians found in Iraq may be shot? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:4 Has anybody noticed that large numbers of Iranians go back and forth into Iraq for many reasons, including family, religious and medical reasons, and probably for their own security as well? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:8 That Iraqi officials, from the government we installed, have held conciliatory talks with Iranian officials, something we refuse to do? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:9 That our own CIA acknowledges that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon for at least 10 more years? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:10 That Iran has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet we claim they do not? By denying this right to Iran, we actually are violating the NPT. Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:11 The neoconservative propagandists promote the idea that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks for the Iranian people and her government, even though he lacks real power, in order to stir up hatred and generate popular support for an attack on Iran? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:12 We completely ignore the leaders of Iran’s National Security Council who have made reasonable statements about the United States and are open to direct talks with us? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:13 That our threats and sanctions against Iran compound the problem by unifying the Iranians against us and undermining the moderates who are favorable toward America? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:14 The latest accusations against Iran sound like a replay of the same charges against Iraq 5 years ago? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:15 But not only does Iran not have a nuclear weapon, it has no significant military power; it is a Third World nation that could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the U.S. or by Israel if it ever attempted hostilities toward us? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:16 One thing for sure, the Iranians are not suicidal? Iran Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:30 The careless support for this international war on terrorism has permitted the U.S. to intervene militarily and to bring about regime change in three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Now we are provoking Iran so we can have an excuse to do the same thing there. But who knows, maybe we will have to deal with a regime change in Pakistan first, a regime change that will not be to our liking. Iran Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:2 Mr. Speaker, this grand debate is welcomed, but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran, which is supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle. This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it appears to oppose the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. Iran Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:8 It is important to recall that the left in 2003 offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it, or work to prevent an attack on Iran. Iran Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:3 The chaos that this pre-emptive undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intentioned but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination without victory or resolution in sight. Iran Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:12 After we leave, just maybe the Shiites and the Sunnis will develop an alliance based on nationalism. They already talk of this possibility, and it could include the Badr brigade and the Sadr militias. A coalition like this could serve as an efficient deterrent to al Qaeda and Iran since they all share this goal. Iran Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:13 Al Qaeda and Iran were not influential in Iraq before the invasion and would not be welcomed after we leave. There is cooperation now, motivated by the shared desire of the Sunnis and the Shiites to oppose our occupation. There’s definitely a potential that the Iraqis may do much better in dealing with their own problems than anyone can imagine once we leave. Already there are developing coalitions of Sunni and Shiites in the Iraqi parliament that seek this resolve. Iran Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:15 We’re told we can’t let this happen or we’ll lose control of the oil and gasoline prices will soar — exactly what has happened with our invasion. And if the neo-conservatives have their way there will be an attack on Iran. If that occurs, then watch what happens to the price of oil. Iran Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:2 First, we need to look at the inconsistent and counterproductive way we currently treat other nations. We reward and respect nations with nuclear weapons. Look at how we treat Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Our policies serve as an incentive for rogue nations to achieve a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein was so convinced of this that he pretended he was on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Iran is now doing the same thing, yet our CIA assures us they have quite a ways to go before they have a nuclear capability. Iran Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:3 Without our “remaking” the Middle East, Iran would have less incentive to develop a weapon. And under the NPT, Iran has a right to pursue peaceful use of nuclear power. Iran Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:4 The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding. For all the so- called reasons we threaten Iran, the same logic could apply to Pakistan many fold and, for that matter, even to Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of the 19 hijackers came. Iran Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:5 A changed policy in the region would greatly diffuse the boiling conflict now brewing with Iran. Just an announcement, if they believed us, of a move toward diplomacy and plans to move our troops and Navy out of this region may well lead to a sharp drop in oil prices. Iran Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Iran Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:2 Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing U.N. resolutions as justification, this resolution is like deja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for U.N. resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran. Iran Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:3 Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.” Iran Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:4 I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution. Iran Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:9 In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing U.S. presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded U.S. presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home. Iran Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose any move to initiate further sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are acts of war, and expanding sanctions on Iran serves no purpose other than preparing the American people for an eventual attack on Iran. This is the same pattern we saw in the run up to the war on Iraq: Congress passes legislation calling for regime change, sanctions are imposed, and eventually we are told that only an attack will solve the problem. We should expect the same tragic result if we continue down this path. I urge my colleagues to reconsider. Iran Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:4 We must keep in mind that Iran has still not been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, much of the information regarding Iran’s nuclear program is coming to us via thoroughly discredited sources like the MeK, a fanatical cult that is on our State Department’s terror list. Additionally, the same discredited neo-conservatives who pushed us into the Iraq war are making similarly exaggerated claims against Iran. How often do these “experts” have to be proven wrong before we start to question their credibility? Iran Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:6 I urge my colleagues to reconsider this counterproductive and dangerous move toward further sanctions on Iran. Iran Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this curiously-timed legislation which continues to beat the drums for war against Iran. It is interesting that this legislation was not scheduled for a vote this week, but appeared on the schedule at the last minute after a controversial speech by Iran’s President at Columbia University. Iran Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:2 The House has obviously learned nothing at all from the Iraq debacle. In 2002, Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and instead transfer that authority to the President. Many of my colleagues have expressed regrets over their decision to transfer this authority to the President, yet this legislation is Iraq all over again. Some have plausibly claimed that the move in this legislation to designate the Iranian military as a foreign terrorist organization is an attempt to signal to the President that he already has authority under previous resolutions to initiate force against Iran. We should recall that language specifically requiring the President to return to Congress before initiating any strike on Iran was removed from legislation by House leadership this year. Iran Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:3 In expanding sanctions against Iran and against foreign businesses and countries that do business with Iran, we are hurting the American economy and moving the country closer to war. After all, sanctions are a form of warfare against a nation; and, if anyone has forgotten Cuba, sanctions never achieve the stated goals. Iran Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:4 This legislation authorizes millions more dollars to identify and support young Iranians to come to the United States. Does anyone believe that we are assisting political opposition to the current Iranian regime by singling Iranians out for U.S. support? How would Americans react if the Chinese government were funding U.S. students to come to China to learn how to overthrow the U.S. government? This move is a counterproductive waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Iran Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:5 The march to war with Iraq was preceded with numerous bills similar to H.R. 1400. No one should be fooled: supporters of this legislation are aiming the same outcome for Iran. I strongly urge a “no” vote on this bill. Iran Question Of The Privileges Of The House 6 November 2007    2007 Ron Paul 102:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq. Iran Statement on Gaza Bill March 5, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 10:3 Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country. Iran Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:4 Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq? If (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki is our ally and he has “diplomatic relations” with (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran, just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq not guarantee chaos for years to come? Iran Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:6 Is it not true that our ally Malaki broke the ceasefire declared by al-Sadr by initiating the recent violence? Is it not true that the current ceasefire was brokered by the Iranians, who also condemned the attacks on the “Green Zone.” How can we blame all the violence on the Iranians? Iran Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:8 Does Iran not have a greater justification to be involved in neighboring Iraq than we do, since it is 6,000 from our shores? If China and Russia were occupying Mexico how would we react? Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:1 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification. Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:2 Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the “dead-enders” from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious “Special Groups” that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:4 I suspect these allegations that Iranian-supported “Special Groups” are now the prime enemy are in reality designed to provide an excuse for a planned US attack on Iran or are meant as justification for a permanent US military presence in Iraq. Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:5 It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government may have been approved by the United States, but essentially it was made in Iran. The leading political parties of Iraq, the DAWA and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council have close ties to Iran. Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the US invasion of Iraq. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying, particularly considering that Iran itself regularly holds elections where a wide variety of political parties compete for power. Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:6 It is alleged that the rockets fired into the Green Zone during the recent clashes in Baghdad and Basra were made in 2007 in Iran. Is it not true, however, that if the Iranian government were to actually arm the Iraqi militias, these groups would have more modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks? Is there any hard proof that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq? There are reports that thousands of US weapons have gone missing in Iraq. If some of these turn up in the hands of insurgents, would it make sense to suggest that the US government is intentionally arming them? Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:7 In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Iran is trying to prevent the further destabilization of Iraq, which makes sense considering that Iran is next door and would keenly feel the effects of an Iraq fallen into civil war. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Iranian government has condemned attacks on the “Green Zone” in Iraq. According to other press reports, the government of Iran brokered a ceasefire after recent Iraqi government moves against elements of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra. Iran Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:8 Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by again stating my concern that the real purpose of today’s testimony is to further set the stage for an attack on Iran. Congress should make it very clear that there is no authority under current law for an attack on Iran. It is in our best interest to talk with Iran and to work with Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. It is also in our immediate interest to remove US forces from Iraq as quickly as it is safe to do so. Iran Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.” May 20, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 30:5 This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the other side. Wouldn’t it be better to be involved on neither side and instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict? Iran Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.” May 20, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 30:6 Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:4 And in the last several weeks, if not for months now, we have heard a lot of talk about the potentiality of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace, and it’s being bid up. The energy crisis is being bid up because of this fear. It’s been predicted if bombs start dropping, that you’re going to see energy prices double or triple. It’s just the thought of it right now that helps to push these prices, the price of energy, up. And that is a very real thing going on right now. But to me, it’s almost like de´ja` vu all over again, as has been said. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:5 We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in in the correct manner. We didn’t declare war. We’re there. It’s an endless struggle. We’re in Iraq. We’re endlessly struggling there, and I cannot believe that we may well be on the verge of initiating bombing of Iran. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:6 Leaders on both sides of the aisle and the administration have all said so often that no options can be taken off the table, including a nuclear first strike on Iran. The fear is, they say, maybe some day they’re going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA and our NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, has said they have not been working. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:7 The Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they’re enriching uranium, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that they’re enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the nonproliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and Alberidy last verified in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the uranium nuclear structure, and they have never been found to be in violation. Yet this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war starting bombing for this reason without negotiation, without talks. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:8 Now, the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor, if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension, it will probably be expected to pass easily, and probably will be, and it’s just more war propaganda, more preparation to go to war against Iran. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:9 And this resolution, H.J. Res. 362, is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions and boycotts and embargoes on Iran. It’s very, very severe. Iran DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:10 Let me just read what is involved in this, if this bill passes, what we’re telling the President he must do. This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials. I mean, this is unbelievable. This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the constitutional authority for this? Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:1 Mr. PAUL. A couple of weeks ago, there was a resolution introduced in the Congress, H. Con. Res. 362, that quickly got 220 cosponsors. I want to talk a little bit more about that resolution because there are some Members of Congress now having second thoughts about invoking a blockade on Iran. Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:2 Take, for instance, here’s a quote from Congressman ROBERT WEXLER of Florida. He says, “Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a U.S. blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a vote.” Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:3 The chairman of the Financial Services Committee, BARNEY FRANK, had this to say: “I am all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I am going to call the sponsors and tell them I am changing my vote.” Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:5 There is a new pro-Israeli lobby established called J Street, and they had some comments about this legislation as well. Their comments are this: “We as a group oppose preemptive military action by either the United States or Israel and we support stronger U.S. diplomacy. To us, it is common sense that saber rattling and constant threats are counterproductive. What better way to unite Iran behind its most hawkish leaders than threatening to attack? What better way to empower the Iranian hardliners’ case for nuclear weapons development than to talk of a military attack?” Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:6 Today, I had three young Iranians in my office, and they verified that next year there will be an election and Ahmadinejad, who is in political trouble over there, is being enhanced by our militant conversation we have here, threatening of blockades, and with this plan or possible plan to actually bomb Iran. But the other side argues, well, no it is all the Iranians’ fault. They are testing missiles. Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:7 The testing of missiles came after there were war games by Israel testing whether or not they had the manpower and the airplanes to travel that particular distance. So the saber rattling is not one-sided, and we cannot say that it is all the Iranians’ fault. Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:10 There is nothing wrong with talking to people. We talked to the Soviets in the midst of the Cold War. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now they are talking about, well, maybe the Iranians might get a weapon later on. Iran BLOCKADE OF IRAN 10 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 43:11 Quite frankly, this talk about this violation, the Iranians were asked by IAEA not to resume enrichment. They had voluntarily stopped enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have every right under the Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich for peaceful purposes. In the last year, there have been nine unannounced inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. They have never once been found in violation. Iran Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:1 Madam Speaker, as one who is most consistently opposed to war and violence, I join my colleagues in condemning the brutal and unjustified attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina 14 years ago. I do not support this resolution, however, as it misuses a tragedy 14 years ago in a foreign country to push for US war against Iran today. Iran Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:2 Although this resolution clearly blames Iran and Hezbollah for the bombing, in fact the investigation is ongoing and far from conclusive. In an article titled “ U.S. uses probe to pressure Iran ,” the Wall Street Journal earlier this year suggested that renewed US interest in this 14 year old case is more related to politics than a genuine desire for justice. Reported the Journal , Iran Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:3 “As tensions between the U.S. and Iran persist, Washington and its allies are using an investigation into a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina to maintain pressure on the Iranian regime. “Behind the scenes, Bush administration officials are encouraging the probe, which centers on the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires . One U.S. goal is to cause legal problems for some of Iran ’s political leaders. Administration officials also hope to use the matter to highlight Iran ’s alleged role in financing and supporting terrorism around the world.” Iran Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:4 Those pushing for a US attack on Iran are using this tragic event to foment fear in the United States that Iran and Hezbollah are perpetrating terrorist acts in the Western Hemisphere . This is another in an ongoing series of resolutions we see on the House floor pushing us toward war against Iran . I have no doubt that we will see another similar resolution on the floor next week, and the week after, and so on until we find ourselves making another tragic mistake as we did in 2002 with H J Res 114 giving the president the authority to attack Iraq. Iran Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:5 I urge my colleagues to resist this push to war with Iran before it is too late. Iran Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens July 30, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 54:3 I do find it ironic that this resolution “calls on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to begin earnest negotiations, without preconditions, directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives.” For years US policy has been that no meeting or negotiation could take place with Iran until certain preconditions are met by Iran . Among these is a demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment, which Iran has the right to do under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is little wonder why some claim that resolutions like this are hypocritical. Iran THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:3 Will the Iranian-friendly Shiite majority not be motivated to take advantage of the instability we have created? Iran AMERICA’S TREASURY IS BARE May 14, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 54:5 This process bothers me a whole lot that we come to the floor with the supplementals. We rush them through. We talk about this excessive spending. And lo and behold, when we finally vote, we get a total of 60 people who would say, Enough is enough. And besides, what are we doing? Where are we spending this money? I thought we were supposed to, with this change in administration, that we would be fighting less wars. But no. The war in Iraq continues. We expand the war in Afghanistan. We spread the war into Pakistan. And we always have on the table the potential danger of Iran. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H. Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:2 Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:4 Madam Speaker, I urge you to support H.R. 560, expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law and for other purposes. The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran’s polity, is to assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many and diverse minorities. It is not our position as the United States to determine the outcome of the recent Iranian elections, but as a leader in the international community, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people of Iran have the opportunity to have fair and free elections. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:5 Yet with the results of the recent election, there was no chance for Iranian citizens to participate in democracy. On June 12, 2009 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ostensibly re- elected to his second term as President, as a result of the tenth Presidential elections in Iran, held and calculated on June 13, 2009. Subject to official results released by Iran’s election headquarters, out of a total of 39,165,191 ballots cast in the presidential election, Ahmadinejad allegedly won 24,527,516 votes, which accounts for approximately 62.6 percent of the votes, while his opponent and former Prime Minister of Iran Mir- Hossein Mousavi purportedly secured only 13,216,411 (37.4 percent) of the votes. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced that he envisions Ahmadinejad as president in the next five years, a comment interpreted as indicating support for Ahmadinejad’s reelection. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:6 Just 48 hours after Iranian officials announced incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide 62.6% victory, the situation in Tehran and in regions throughout the country broke out in a wave of violent protests in response to what the people of Iran knew to be a rigged poll. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:7 Yet despite the large-scale civil unrest in response to the rigged elections, the outstretched arm of the Ayatollah extends beyond Tehran. Whereas the size of the crowds protesting reached to more than 1 million people united in outrage at the absence of a fair and free electoral process. Despite the government ban that has been placed on all public gatherings with the purpose of voicing opposition to the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections, the people of Iran have publicly expressed their dissent. Iranians throughout the country have defied Interior Ministry warnings broadcast. Violence has spilled on to the streets of Tehran. To date, 7 Iranians have been killed in violent political unrest. Beyond Tehran, Iranians living in the rural regions are feeling the Ayatollah’s pressures to cease all public expression of their discontent with the outcome of the elections. The Iranian people living in the region of Mashad are currently confined to their homes in order to prevent them protesting in the streets. All foreign journalists have now been quarantined and/or made to leave the country. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:8 Following the results of the June l2th Iranian election, President Obama released a statement in reaction to then elections in Iran, stating “I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television,” Obama said in Washington. “I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.” Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:9 Given the absence of fair and free elections, coupled with the government’s poor record for transparency and accountability, we have deep cause for concern about the opportunity for free choices and democratic participation for the people of Iran. Despite intensified inspections since 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) inability, to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is not designed to develop a nuclear weapon is cause for great concern. While Iran states that the intention of its nuclear program is for electricity generation which it feels is vital to its energy security, U.S. officials challenge this justification by stating that “Iran’s vast gas resources make a nuclear energy program unnecessary.” Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:10 Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepening relationships with the Iranian people will only help foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the United States and would enhance the stability the security of the Persian Gulf region. Furthering President Obama’s approach toward continued engagement will reduce the increased threat of the proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the means through which we resolve this looming crisis. Iran Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran June 19, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 72:11 In conclusion, we must condemn Iran for the absence of fair and free Presidential elections and urge Iran to provide its people with the opportunity to engage in a Democratic election process, by demanding new elections, and ensure that all votes are fairly counted. I look forward to further meaningful discussion and a new foreign policy strategy with regard to Iran when the people of Iran are able to participate in a fair and democratic electoral process. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:1 Mr. PAUL. The chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. That isn’t even as powerful a statement as was made that enticed us into the Iraq war. There was the claim that they already had them. But now, this is a pretense, and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. My main reason for opposing this bill is that I think it’s detrimental to our national security. There’s no other reason. It doesn’t serve our interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:2 In the late 1930s and the early 1940s the American people did not want to go into war, but there were some that were maneuvering us into war, and they used the argument that you needed an event. So, in June of 1941, sanctions were put against Japan, incidentally and ironically, to prohibit oil products from going into Japan. Within 6 months there was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And there is now talk, there’s been talk in the media, and we’ve heard about it, we need to bomb Iran. And that’s what the people hear. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:3 The sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the dissidents. We’d like to encourage them to overthrow their government. But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things happen. We’ve been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it doesn’t serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:8 I want to read number 5 in the bill, that particular item, because it makes my case, rather than making the case for those who want these sanctions. I think this literally makes my case. Number 5 says, on October 7, 2008, then- Senator Obama stated Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it’s an oil producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down. If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis, that starts putting the squeeze on them. The squeeze on whom? On the people. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:9 This will unify the dissent. This will unify the Iranian people against us. If we want to encourage true dissent and overthrow that government, which is more spontaneous and honest, I would say this is doing exactly the opposite. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 2 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 105:3 Anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in Iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their Ayatollah – it’s the Ayatollah that carries the power – that’s not going to happen. It just does exactly the opposite. So this is why I believe this is a much greater threat to our national security. It does not help us. It doesn’t achieve the goals that are set out. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 2 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 105:4 For instance, we now commonly say that the Iranians have no right to enrich. Well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty, and they have not ever been told that they are making a bomb. And what we are saying in this bill is that they can’t enrich anymore. So in a way, you’re violating international law by saying they can’t enrich, period. So that is just looking for trouble. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 2 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 105:6 It is going to push the support of the Iranians in another direction. It’s going to push them towards India, China, and Russia, and these countries have special associations with Iran. So we are going to separate us. We will be isolated from that, and they are going to have a much closer alliance with these countries. That will not serve our interests. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:3 One must understand a little bit about the pressures put on this country to act in a defensive way. They happen to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear bombs. And they don’t have a history, the Iranians. As bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, they’re not expansionists territorially. I mean, how many years has it been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over another country? It is just not in recent history at all. But the countries around them, India – India has nuclear weapons, China has nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Israel, the United States. I mean, they’re all around them, so I’m sure they feel like a cornered rat. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:7 Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few more points as to why I oppose this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for “non-controversial” business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices? Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:8 This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran’s ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:9 Recently, the Financial Times reported that, “[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran’s oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries – adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.” Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:10 Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran’s petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the US economy if it is actually enforced? Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:11 As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. Iran Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:12 This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States . . . to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program.” Article V of the NPT states clearly that, “[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT – has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT. Texas Straight Talk Iran - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 12 ... Cached A popular conservative talk show host has suggested that the solution to the dilemma might be an alliance with Iran, for the purpose of destroying Iraq. This reflects the senselessness of foreign policy in the region. In the early 1980's, when Iraq was using poison gases against Iran, we were Iraq's allies. In essence, we subsidized the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing. Iran Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 5 ... Cached Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all posses weapons of mass destruction, and at least three are hostile to American policies. It makes no sense that a petty dictator without weapons is the target of hostilities while big dictators with massive armaments are the recipients of US aid. Iran US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Iran "Buy American," Unless... 12 February 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached Of course most politicians claim that they support free trade. Intuitively, most Americans understand that access to foreign markets provides significant benefits to US citizens and American-based corporations. However, we continue to pursue a policy of denying or restricting domestic companies from selling to Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, and other countries. This inconsistency is especially evident when we consider "export financing," which really is foreign aid designed to help other countries buy American goods. Most Washington politicians support the practice of export financing, arguing that access to foreign markets benefits American companies, and not just foreign consumers. However, the opposite argument is made with regard to our embargo policies. Suddenly, increased trade with countries some want to label as unworthy only benefits sinister foreign consumers, and not domestic producers. This nonsensical position is maintained by many in government who favor government-managed trade which benefits certain chosen special interests. Iran End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers 25 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached Still, support for sanctions continues in Congress. The House International Relations committee last week considered legislation that will extend existing economic sanctions against Iran and Libya for another 5 years. While I certainly oppose this legislation, I did agree with the President that we should at least limit the time period to 2 years, so that Congress could reassess the policy sooner. I introduced an amendment to this effect, but the majority of committee members voted to continue "punishing" Iran and Libya for 5 years; presumably some members would agree to maintain sanctions indefinitely. Interestingly, the bill focuses on preventing oil exploration and development in the region, even when new sources of oil are sorely needed to reduce prices at the pump for American consumers. Iran End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers 25 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein's rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America's position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iran Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies 30 July 2001    Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, I always oppose trade sanctions against foreign nations. Sanctions are terribly ineffective foreign policy tools that harm the people, rather than the governments, of nations we hold in disfavor. Sanctions also hurt American exporters, including Texas farmers, who are prohibited from selling their products overseas. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed sanctions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in those nations. Given our status as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I recently voted to against continued trade sanctions against Iran and Libya, and I have introduced legislation to end our trade embargo against Cuba. All Americans benefit from both sides of the free trade equation, and Congress should not interfere with exports any more than it should tax imports. Iran U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan 05 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached Even before September 11th, most Americans were well aware of the hostility that many Middle Eastern nations have for the U.S. Our experiences with Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have understandably soured many Americans on the entire region. Indeed, the majority of anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War era originates in the Middle East. What many Americans don't realize, however, is the extent to which their own foreign aid tax dollars are spent funding our current and future enemies in the region. Iran American Foreign Policy and the Middle East Powder Keg 01 April 2002    Texas Straight Talk 01 April 2002 verse 7 ... Cached Just as our money never satisfies Israel, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. Foreign aid or not, the Islamic world sees America as a constant aggressor in the Middle East. Muslims resent our role in bringing the Shah of Iran to power, and they resent our permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. They view our ongoing bombing and sanctions campaign in Iraq as wholly unjustified, believing it harms innocent Iraqis but not Saddam Hussein. They especially resent our tremendous financial support for Israel. In the eyes of many Muslims, to be at war with Israel is to be at war with America. Iran Securing the Homeland? 08 July 2002    Texas Straight Talk 08 July 2002 verse 6 ... Cached As a member of the House International Relations committee (which has jurisdiction over visa rules in the new bill), I will propose immediate changes to our current immigration policies. Specifically, I believe we must stop granting student and diversity visas to individuals from terror-sponsoring states, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of the very countries that openly despise America and refuse to cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism. Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11th attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to live in the U.S. Iran Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 10 ... Cached If we are justified in attacking Iraq, what about the dozens of other countries that pose much more of a threat to us? Why aren’t the war hawks calling for an invasion of Iran or especially Saudi Arabia, which harbored most of the September 11th terrorists? Iran Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil 02 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest popular elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, the people in most countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliche or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. Iran What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are perfect examples of our onetime "allies" who accepted our help yet failed to do our bidding for long. Both gladly welcomed American money, weapons, and military training during the 1980s. With bin Laden we sought to frustrate the Soviet advance into Afghanistan, and many Pentagon hawks undoubtedly felt vindicated when the Russian army retreated. Yet twenty years later, bin Laden is a rabid American-hating madman whose operatives are armed with our own Stinger missiles. Similarly, we supported the relatively moderate Hussein in the hopes of neutralizing a radically fundamentalist Iran. Yet this military strengthening of Iraq led to its invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent military involvement in the gulf. Today the Hussein regime is belligerently anti-American, and any biological or chemical weapons he possesses were supplied by our own government. Iran Superpower or Superdebtor? 07 June 2004    Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 2 ... Cached Since the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, the US government has spent more than 40 million taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi in turn fed the US government lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda in the hope that the US would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and put him in power. To hedge his bets, it appears he made a few deals with the Iranians, delivering US intelligence to that country. How’s that for gratitude? Now we see that the US has raided the house of Ahmed Chalabi and seized his papers and computers to see how much damage he may have caused the US with his Iranian dealings. Iran Superpower or Superdebtor? 07 June 2004    Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 3 ... Cached Round and round we go, and we never seem to learn. Regime change plans, whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war, almost always go badly. American intervention abroad- installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the eighties, and propping up dictators in many Arab countries- has had serious repercussions for American interests including the loss of American life. Iran The 9-11 Intelligence Bill- More of the Same 11 October 2004    Texas Straight Talk 11 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new office-- the National Intelligence Director-- we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Yet ever since the National Security Act of 1947, the agencies created have been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. When considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, or CIA training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean eliminating the CIA altogether and turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong. Iran Sanctions against Iran 17 April 2006    Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 1 ... Cached Sanctions against Iran Iran Sanctions against Iran 17 April 2006    Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 3 ... Cached As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy. Iran Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices 08 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached Even so, many war hawks are seriously agitating for an attack on Iran—another major supplier of worldwide oil. They are not concerned one bit about the impact such an attack would have on the wallets of average Americans; their obsession with regime change in Iran trumps all common sense. But let me be clear: An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 1 ... Cached Avoiding War with Iran Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 3 ... Cached In recent weeks the Bush administration has stated its willingness to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran, which is a welcome change from previous policy. Let’s hope it’s more than just a change in tone. With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $5 billion per week, record levels of federal spending and debt, and oil hovering around $70 per barrel, American taxpayers certainly cannot afford another war. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 4 ... Cached Iran, like Iraq, is a major source of global oil. For all our posturing, the truth is that worldwide crude prices would spike rapidly if we attacked Iran. With summer coming, demand will increase and gas prices at the pump will be over $3 for most of the nation. Airlines are raising ticket prices to compensate for jet fuel prices that have nearly doubled in a year. A strike on Iran in coming months would create serious trouble for an American economy that is already struggling with high energy prices. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 6 ... Cached The US has not used diplomacy with Iran for nearly 26 years, since the hostage crisis of the Carter era. But this “no negotiation” stance hasn’t worked: Iran’s defiant behavior continues, and its uranium enrichment program has not been dismantled. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 7 ... Cached Is Iran a nuclear threat? Not according to our own CIA, which says Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. This is not to say we should sit back as nuclear weapons proliferate in the Middle East. But we shouldn’t allow war hawks to wildly overstate the threat posed by Iran, as they did with Iraq. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan-- much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an arch enemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 9 ... Cached Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 10 ... Cached Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached Government power in Iran is divided, and President Ahmadinejad—the man responsible for hateful comments about Israel- does not control their nuclear policy. We should ignore him as a pariah, and deal instead with Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s National Security Council, who has made several reasonable statements about the US and shows a desire to have direct diplomatic talks. Iran Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 12 ... Cached Discussions with Iran are not appeasement. On the contrary, dialogue is needed to explain clearly that America’s objectives of non-proliferation and peace in the Middle East will not be compromised. 25 years of isolating Iran has moved us farther from, not closer to, achieving those objectives. Iran What Congress Can Do About High Gas Prices 31 July 2006    Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is nowhere near getting one. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel. Iran The Original Foreign Policy 18 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 13 ... Cached It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image. Iran More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 10 ... Cached If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran. Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 3 ... Cached While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East. Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 4 ... Cached The president stated last week that, “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity- and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.” He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran. Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 5 ... Cached As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran-- possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can! Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 6 ... Cached This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran? Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 8 ... Cached The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 9 ... Cached The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states: Iran Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 10 ... Cached "… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results." Iran Inflation and War Finance 29 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 5 ... Cached As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted. Iran Hypocrisy in the Middle East 26 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. Iran More Funding for the War in Iraq 26 March 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2007 verse 10 ... Cached To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen. Iran The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 5 ... Cached All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. Iran Exposing the True Isolationists 23 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 7 ... Cached America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies. Iran Exposing the True Isolationists 23 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal. Iran Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 5 ... Cached The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one. Iran Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 6 ... Cached The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us? Iran The Money Has to Come From Somewhere 23 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card. We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending. Yet the market for US Treasury Bonds is rapidly shrinking as yield declines. Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq , not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost. Iran Entangling Alliances 11 November 2007    Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances. Iran Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 2 ... Cached The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed. Iran Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage. Iran Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason. Iran Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 5 ... Cached Are we to think that Iran hasn't noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn't they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program. Iran On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 9 ... Cached The sooner we withdraw the better. The invasion and continued US occupation has strengthened both Iran and Al-Qaeda in the region. Continuing down the road of a failed policy will only cost more money we do not have and more lives that should not be sacrificed. Interventionism has produced one disaster after another. It is time we return to a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasizes peaceful trade and travel and no entangling alliances. We can begin by withdrawing from Iraq immediately. Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.