[Prefatory Note: Iran is in the process of celebrating the 42nd Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran’s dynastic rule and its replacement by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has defied the odds by resisting successfully a variety of attempts to restore the old established order either by an Iraqi encouraged war in the 1980s, destabilization efforts all along pushed by the U.S. and Israel, and an undisguised goal of regime change. It should also be remembered that the U.S. helped restore the Shah to his imperial crown in 1953 by helping to engineer a coup against the democratically elected Mohamad Mosaddeq. Months after the Shah abdicated and revolutionary supporters took over the Iranian government, Iranian students seized control of the American Embassy in Tehran and held the staff, including diplomats, hostage for more than a year. Such an event escalated the confrontation between Iran and the United States, which has risen to war-threatening heights at times, and veered toward normalization at other times. With a new American president in the White House who seems eager to promote a more moderate atmosphere in the Middle East there were widespread hopes for accommodation, but so far there are as many signs of continuity with the Trump years as indications of seeking accommodation based on equality and respect.
I am aware that it is ‘politically correct’ in the West to comment favorably on this anniversary occasion, but I continue to view Iran as practicing the politics of post-colonial self-determination that has made it a target for hostile forces in the Middle East and elsewhere, and that hopes for a peaceful regional future rest on the further dewesternization of liberal secular criteria of governmental and behavioral legitimacy. I would not minimize Iran’s bad record when it comes to human rights, but its emphasis in the Western media is more a matter of geopolitics than empathy for victims, especially if compared with the silence about much worse infractions by regional allies of the Wesst, and taking account of the tendencies of even the purist of democracies to become paranoid and repressive when threatened by intervention and a counterrevolutionary crusade. Surely, maintaining comprehensive sanctions on Iran by the United States despite humanitarian appeals for their suspension during the COVID pandemic because of the massive harm done to the Iranian people should also be taken into account.]
Q. 1: The anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran is coming up. Many argue that the Iranian revolution, besides having internal effects, has affected the region and the international community. If you are positive with this viewpoint, what are its major international effects?
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect in international relations as there are many factors interacting at that same time. It seemed clear that the Islamic Revolution posed a challenge to Western vital strategic and economic interests that were tied closely to the Shah’s regime. It should be remembered that Henry Kissinger reminded the world that the Shah was “that rarest of things, an unconditional ally.” More broadly, the Islamic Revolution created the perception that the U.S. had a new adversary in the Middle East additional to, and perhaps more threatening, than the Soviet Union and the ideology of Marxism/Leninism. Its regional policies had previously emphasized, other than the containment of Soviet influence, access to oil at affordable prices and the security of Israel. This belief in Iran as a strategic threat was interpreted in the West as an ideological threat, as well, giving rise to Islamophobia that reached its peak in the United States after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, primary symbols of American economic and military power.
Imam Khomeini reinforced Western and regional anxieties by his insistence that the transformation of Iran was an ‘Islamic Revolution,’ nor a ‘Iranian Revolution’ or a ‘Sunni Revolution,’ implying strong concerns beyond the borders of Iran. Such a sentiment had an electrifying and mobilizing effect on Islamic thought and action throughout the Arab world, and recreated the idea that territorial states within enclosed borders were a European conception of community imposed on the Middle East after World War I, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Nationalist thinking and organization inauthentically displaced the primary existential community of shared adherence to Islamic beliefs, the umma. Such an interpretation of community undermined the legitimacy of many governments in the Arab/Islamic context that relied on nationalist and secular sources of legitimacy while actually serving the interests of the West.
The Western views of the Khomeini impact were highlighted by such phrases as regarding Islamic countries as the new ‘arc of crisis,’ or more memorably as ‘the clash of civilizations,’ the sequel to the Cold War, and the basis for a new phase of ideological and geopolitical confrontation.
The Israeli dimension of the effects of the Islamic Revolution in Iran should not be overlooked. Israel was regarded as an alien force in the region, anti-Islamic, secular, and a lingering remnant of the colonial era. For the West it was an outpost of enlightenment, modernity, and shared goals, and after the fall of the Shah the became the leading strategic ally of the United States, a relationship that continues to haunt the region with intervention and political violence, as well as the denial of basic rights to the Palestinian people in their own homeland.
Q. 2: Imam Khomeini, as the founder of the Islamic Revolution, unified the Muslim community towards certain causes, while before the Iranian revolution, there was not a dynamic wave of the Muslim community. What reasons caused that situation before the revolution?
Before the Iranian developments in 1978-79, the Middle East in particular was governed by authoritarian regimes that were on one side or the other of the Cold War rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Many regional leaders in the Islamic world were fearful of the Islamic orientation of their own people, portraying Islam as anti-modern and an enemy of progress, and potentially threatening to the economic elites bonded with international capitalism. The Shah’s Iran typified this orientation and exhibited an acute form of civilizational alienation.
Imam Khomeini arrived on the political scene with a different vision of a political community animated by the resurgence of Islam as tradition and the foundation of ethically grounded governance. Because Iran faced counterrevolutionary threats from within and without, the governing challenges in Iran gave priority to protecting the revolution from its enemies, with a harshness often relied upon by the West to contend that the Islamic Revolution was a regressive development, a view encouraged by many of the Iranians who fled the country for various reasons. It is notable that these harsh tactics allowed the Islamic Revolution to survive and evolve, and contrasts with the experience of other efforts to achieve transformation, even reform, in Islamic countries, for instance, Egypt. The achievement of the Islamic Revolution is to persist in such a hostile environment suggests the skills of its leaders and the support of the great majority of its people.
Q. 3: Experts on the Palestinian issue argue that the Islamic Revolution changed the direction of fights against Israel. What is your opinion about this matter?
In a few words, whereas before the Islamic Revolution support for the Palestinian struggle was pragmatic and opportunistic, while afterwards identification with Palestine became a matter of fundamental principle and a source of authentic identity. The Islamic Republic of Iran, no matter what pressures it was subjected to during the last four decades, has never wavered in support for the rights of the Palestinian people.
Such speculation is difficult to be sure about as many forces were at work, but certainly the Islamic Revolution was one factor that altered the character of the struggle over the future of Palestine. From an Israeli perspective, Iran posed an increasing threat not only to its internal security and nationalist claims of legitimacy, but also to its regional and expansionist ambitions. At the same time, Iranian hostility to Israel reinforced Western hostility to the Islamic Republic. It also had the effect of leading the Gulf countries, with the exception of Qatar, to believe that their own legitimacy and stability was more threatened by the Islamic Republic than by Israel. These regimes, led by Saudi Arabia, also emphasized sectarian identities, insisting that only Sunni Islam was the true faith and that Shi’ia Islam was a deviation. At the same time, these Arab elites became persuaded that their rivalry throughout the Middle East with Iran was their primary concern, shared with Israel (and the United States), and that tensions and opposition to Israel no longer served governmental interests despite the persisting identification of their citizens with the Palestinian struggle. The climax of this revision of priorities became evident when the anti-Iran diplomacy was recently signaled to the world by the normalization agreements reached with several Arab countries, encouraged by others, and celebrated as a triumph of Trump’s pro-Israel foreign policy.
The Palestinian movement for self-determination was always viewed as problematic, and potentially dangerous, by the top-down governing processes in Iran and throughout the Arab world. Any bottom-up popular democratizing movement, epitomized by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and later by the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was opposed by these repressive government scared of their own people. The Palestinian movement was deemed threatening in two of its dimensions—as putting forth political demands from below (a polar opposite from dynastic claims to rule from above, and so condition the role of Islam) and as challenging the links to the West to sustain internal security through weaponry and counterinsurgent tactics.
Q. 4: Was Imam Khomeini, as a spiritual leader, effective in changing the status of the Palestinian issue?
I think Imam Khomeini did give the Palestinian struggle a higher status than it had earlier possessed, particularly within the region, it became a matter of ethics, not just politics. His emphasis on Palestinian self-determination, the illegitimacy of the Zionist Project, was treated as a fundamental commitment of the Islamic Republic from its inception, and Israel was viewed as a distinctly Western challenge to the prevalence of his sense of the Islamic community of peoples. In the course of my meeting with Imam Khomeini he made very clear that in his view of the illegitimacy of a Jewish state based on claims of ethnic superiority coincided with his great respect for Judaism as an authentic religion. He expressed his hope at that time in 1979, that the Jewish minority in Iran would disentangle itself from identification with and support for Israel and the Zionist Project, and if this happened, he declared his view that it would be a tragedy for Iran if Jews did not remain in the country after the revolution.
This distinction between Israel and Judaism is crucial, and is the opposite of what the Israeli leadership and its more militant followers want the world to believe, which is that Israel, Jewishness, and Zionism are one, and that any criticism of Israel necessarily exhibits a form of anti-Semitism. Recently, the world respected Israeli human rights NGO issued a report that confirmed the view that Israel was an apartheid stated, premised on the efforts to make Israel ‘a Jewish supremacy state.’ As apartheid in any form is an international crime, listed as a Crime Against Humanity, in Article 7(j) of the Rome Statute governing the framework of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the views of Imam Khomeini accord with basic principles of law and justice on this crucial matter of distinguishing between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Q. 5: It is widely believed that Iran’s resistance against international pressures has shifted the international order and has created a new resistance force against world powers. Can we connect this process to the current undermined position of the United States?
I believe it is correct that the failure of the United States to overcome Iranian resistance to its destabilization and counterrevolutionary efforts is viewed as one dimension of American imperial decline. Military intervention and even coercive diplomacy by way of sanctions and threats is far less effective than in the colonial era, and is unable to control the political outcomes of many internal struggles for the control of States. It has contributed to what is generally viewed as a much more multipolar world. New patterns of alignment are emerging globally and regionally. The Biden presidency will try to restore the Cold War Euro-centric pattern of alliances, with China as the new principal rival, with Russia also on the outside looking in. There are many uncertainties in all domains of international life that will reshape world order in coming years. Of especial importance will be the management of climate change, health hazards, and global economic policy. There are several lines of uncertainty, including whether a new form of ideological tension arises and inhibits global cooperative problem-solving. There is a need for stronger institutional mechanisms at all levels of political interaction to safeguard and promote the global public good. The United Nations could be reformed to play a more central role in moderating diversities of interests and values, while protecting the sovereign rights of States and extending a greater effort to impose UN Charter Principles on the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. The UN would benefit for greater funding independence and less tolerance for geopolitical impunity.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Congress
8 Jan[Prefatory Note: Below is a Letter to Members of Congress with an initial group of signatories; there are many more that have been gathered but not listed here. If you wish to add your signature, please send your name and affiliation to Vida Samiian, vidasamiian@gmail.com who helped compose the original text, and now with the logistics of the initiative. If you agree with the argument, please do join us by adding your name.
The Letter was composed prior to the Iranian missile attacks on two American military bases in Iraq and before Trump made his formal statement the following day, January 8th. Although his statement can is being read in many ways, including the suggestion that Trump’s intention was to step back from the brink of a devastating war. I listened to Trump from my own perspective and with an attempt to hear his words as if I were an Iranian living in Iran. I found the statement belligerent, and formulated in an imperialist/hegemonic language, avoiding a diplomatic sequel, and instead resuming the ‘maximum pressure’ approach involving threats and further intensified sanctions and other coercive moves that will bring additional suffering to the Iranian people. Perhaps, the only hopeful element was the suggestion that Trump would seek greater NATO involvement coupled with the assertion of American energy independence. This may possibly have been a geopolitical prelude to partial disengagement in the region by the United States, but more likely was telling European countries that they should bear a greater part of the economic burden of upholding Western interests In the region since they remain dependent on Middle Eastern energy to meet their needs, while the United States no longer does. In any event, the Trump moves would undoubtedly be viewed as provocative, unacceptable, and aggressive by Iranians.
Among the most distasteful aspects of Trump’s speech was his castigation of Barack Obama’s laudable attempt to negotiate a tension-reducing agreement with Iran on its nuclear program that had the support of France, UK, as well as China, Russia, and Germany. To deride such a major breakthrough for a better future for the region, while perpetuating a war-mongering approach underscores why it continues to be so urgent for Congress to act.
This is the latest update with additional signatories.]
OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS[1]
January 7, 2020
To Members of the United States Congress:
The unlawful and provocative assassination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, has already given rise to an escalating spiral of lethal events. The greatest risks are to stumble escalating into a devastating war in the Middle East with grave consequences for the peoples of Iran and Iraq and likely across the region. Such a war would have disastrous effects for this country, for the region and the world. It is certain to do further harm to the reputation of the United States, which already is perceived in much of the world as an irresponsible and criminal political actor in the region, using military force in ways that have made already difficult situations catastrophic by taking various dangerous military, economic and quasi-diplomatic initiatives misleadingly presented as “maximum pressure.”
It is imperative for the well-being of our country, and indeed the world, that the Congress of the United States fulfill its most solemn constitutional responsibility, and impose effective restraints on the war-making actions of this impeached president. This is a moment when partisan politics should be put aside, not only for the sake of national interests but for the benefit of humanity – -we should realize that these unilateral actions by the United States have put the entire world at risk. It is also a moment when Republicans as well as Democrats must stand up for a sane foreign policy, and for diplomacy and peace instead of aggression and war, and fulfill their duties as Members of Congress.
The Iranian people have endured decades of economic warfare waged by the US and its allies. Since the revolution of 1979 in Iran and the end of a mutually beneficial relationship between the US and Iran’s autocratic leader, the Shah, the US has imposed numerous sanctions on Iran under various guises, threatened it with war and inflicted pain and suffering on its people. What is desperately needed with respect to Iran is not any further recourse to coercive diplomacy based on escalating threats, crippling sanctions, and tit-for-tat military actions. What is urgently needed is an immediate shift to restorative diplomacy based on mutual respect for international and domestic law, with the objective of peace, stability, and cooperation.
From all what we now know, General Soleimani had come to Iraq without stealth on a commercial plane. He came to Iraq on a diplomatic peacemaking mission at the invitation of the Baghdad Government, and with a meeting scheduled on the following day with the Prime Minister that was part of an ongoing effort to seek a lessening of tensions between Iran and
Saudi Arabia. In reaction to major violations of its sovereignty, the Iraqi Parliament has voted to expel U.S. troops from their country. In place of what seemed a promising regional initiative the assassination of General Soleimani has resulted in an intensification of conflict, further massive suffering, and the likelihood of dangerous escalation.
We call on Congress to act with urgency to stem this slide toward war and regional chaos.
We urge you to consider imposing ironclad restraints on the authority of the President to make any further use of international force without a clear and definite authorization by the U.S. Congress, which itself should respect the relevant prohibitions of international law and the provisions and procedures of the UN Charter.
Richard Falk
Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law
Princeton University
Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies
Noam Chomsky
Laureate Professor of Linguistics, Agnese Nelms Haury Chair University of Arizona
Daniel Ellsberg
Former Official of State & Defense Department
Whistleblower, Pentagon Papers
Judith Butler
Maxine Elliot Professor of Comparative Literature
University of California, Berkeley
Medea Benjamin
Founder, Code Pink Author
Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies and Jewish Voice for Peace
Professor Hilal Elver
Research Fellow, University of California, Santa Barbara
Vida Samiian
Visiting Researcher, University of California, Los Angeles
Professor of Linguistics and Dean Emerita
California State University, Fresno
Antonio C. S. Rosa, M.A. Editor, TRANSCEND Media Service
Ira Helfand, M.D.
Co-President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1985 Nobel Peace Prize recipient
Past President of Physicians for Social Responsibility
Celso Amorim
Author and retired Diplomat
Brazil
Christine Ahn
Executive Director
Women Cross DMZ
Rick Wayman
President & CEO
Nuclear Age peace Foundation
Frank Bognar, D.P.A.
Vice Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Douglas Roche, O.C.
Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament
David Krieger, President Emeritus Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History
Director, Institute of Nuclear Studies American University
Biljana Vankovska, Professor
University of Skopje, Macedonia
Bogdan Bogdanov, Professor
University of Skopje, Macedonia
Ahmad Abbas, Mathematician
Research Director at CNRS, France
Maria Stern, Professor
School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg
Gothenburg, Sweden
Joel Beinin
Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus
Stanford University
Stephan Andersson
Independent Bertrand Russell scholar, Lund, Sweden John Scales Avery, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Emeritus
University of Copenhagen
Chairman, Danish National Group
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Rev. Kil Sang Yoon
Executive Advisor
Korean American national Coordinating Council, Inc.
Jeremy R. Hammond
Independent journalist Editor of Foreign Policy Journal Author of Obstacle to Peace:
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Maxine Fookson, RN
Board member of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Western Executive Committee of American Friends Service Committee
Frederik S. Heffermehl
Oslo Lawyer/author
Nobel Peace Prize Watch
Vincent Stanley Author, Poet
David Hillstrom, Author
Rabbi Linda Holtzman
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College
Thomas G. Weiss
Distinguished Fellow, Global Governance. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Presidential Professor of Political Science
The CUNY Graduate Center
Ervand Abrahamian
Professor Emeritus
City University of New York
Professor Rabab Abdulhadi
Director and Senior Scholar
Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diaspora Studies
San Francisco State University
Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl
Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
Olga Abella
Emeritus Professor of English
Eastern Illinois University
Suzanne Adely
National Lawyers Guild
International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Stephan Andersson
Independent Bertrand Russell scholar
Lund, Sweden
Walid Afifi
Professor of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
Kevin B. Anderson
University of California, Santa Barbara
Richard Appelbaum, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus and
Former MacArthur Chair in Sociology and Global & International Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
Mohammad Azadpur
Professor of Philosophy San Francisco State University
Bahar Bastani, M.D.
Professor of Medicine
School of Medicine, Saint Louis University
Dr. Hatem Bazian
UC Berkeley and Zaytuna College
Eileen Boris
Hull Professor and Distinguished Professor
Department of Feminist Studies
Professor of History, Black Studies and Global Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
Dr. Jaap C. Bos
Professor of Psychology Utrecht University
Marian and Leslie Bravery
Palestinian Human Rights Campaign
Aotearoa, New Zealand
Carole H. Browner
Distinguished Research Professor
Departments of Anthropology and Gender Studies
Center for Culture and Health
Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior
University of California, Los Angeles
Edmund Burke III
Professor Emeritus of History
University of California, Santa Cruz
Karen Brodkin
Professor Emerita of Anthropology
University of California, Los Angeles
Sara Cvetkovska
ERCOMER, Utrecht University
Valentina Capurri
Instructor, Ryerson University Toronto, Canada
Swati Chattopadhyay
University of California, Santa Barbara
Maivan Clech Lam
Professor Emerita
City University of New York Graduate Center
Margery Cohen
Professor Emerita
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Carla Coco
University of California, Santa Barbara
Dr. Ali Dabiri
Founder and President of Dr. Modjtahedi Foundation Retired Professor of Sharif University of Technology of Iran
Diana G. Darab, Ph.D.
Health Research for Action
University of California, Berkeley
Natalie Z. Davis
Professor Emeritus
Princeton University
James Deutsch MD, PhD, FRCPC
Faculty of Medicine
University of Toronto
Judith Deutsch, President
Science for Peace
Julie Diamond
Center for Worker Education, CCNY New York
Gordon Doctorow, Ed.D. Toronto, Canada
Dr. Vincent Duindam, Ph.D.
Psychologist, Utrecht University
Omnia El Shakry
Professor of History
University of California, Davis
Sasan Fayazmanesh
Professor Emeritus of Economics
California State University, Fresno
Faramarz Farbod
Writer and editor at Left Turn
Adjunct faculty of Political Science
Moravian College
Nina Farnia
Past President
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Gary Fields, Professor of Communication University of California, San Diego
Shepard Forman, Founding Director
Center for International Cooperation New York University
Manzar Foroohar, Professor Emerita
History and Latin American Studies
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Margaret Ferguson
Distinguished Professor of English, Emerita
University of California, Davis
Aranye Fradenburg Joy
Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature
University of California, Santa Barbara
Nancy Gallagher
Professor Emerita of History
University of California, Santa Barbara
Jolien Geerlings
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Jila Ghomeshi, Professor and Department Head
Department of Linguistics University of Manitoba
Professor Penny Green
Head of Department of Law
Professor of Law and Globalisation
Director, International State Crime Initiative
Queen Mary University of London
Magda Gilewicz
Professor of English
California State University, Fresno
Avery F. Gordon
Professor of Sociology
University of California, Santa Barbara
Visiting Professor, School of Law
Birkbeck University of London
William Hastings
Assoc Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Fordham University
Maryam Shayegan Hastings
Emerita Professor of Mathematics
Fordham University
Ivan Huber
Professor Emeritus of Biology Fairleigh Dickinson University
Professor George Hunsinger
Princeton Theological Seminary
Suad Joseph
University of California, Davis
Prya Kapoor
Portland State University
David Kinsella
Portland State University
David Klein
Professor of Mathematics
California State University, Northridge
Dennis Kortheuer
Department of History, Emeritus
California State University, Long Beach
Richard K. Larson
Professor of Linguistics
Stony Brook University
Professor Anna Leander
The Graduate Institute
Dept. of International Relations and Political Science
Chenin Eugene Rigot 2, Geneva
Mark Levine
University of California, Irvine
David Lloyd
Distinguished Professor of English
University of California, Riverside
Dr. Brooke Lober
Scholar-in-Residence, Gender and Women’s Studies
University of California, Berkeley
Paul M Lubeck
Johns Hopkins University, SAIS
Afshin Matin-Asgari
Professor of Middle East History
California State University, Los Angeles
Blanca Misse
Department of Modern Languages and Literatures
San Francisco State University
Akbar Montaser
Professor Emeritus
The George Washington University
Kathleen Moore
Professor of Religious Studies
UC Santa Barbara
Patricia Morton
University of California, Riverside
Radmila Nakarada
Professor of Peace Studies University of Belgrade
Jamal R. Nassar
Professor of Political Science and Dean Emeritus
California State University, San Bernardino
Srkja Pavlovic
Department of History and Classics
University of Alberta
Ismail Poonawala
Professor Emeritus of Arabic and Islamic Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Elisabeth Prugl
Professor of International Relations
Graduate Institute, Geneva
David N. Rahni
Professor of Chemistry
Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal
Law and Urban Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Craig Reinarman
Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Legal Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz
Rush Rehm
Professor of Theatre and Performance Studies and Classics
Artistic Director, Stanford Repertory Theater
Stanford University
Stephen Roddy
Professor of Chinese Studies
San Francisco State University
Lisa Rofel
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology
Co-Director, Center for Emerging Worlds
University of California Santa Cruz
Co-Director, California Scholars for Academic Freedom
Cesar “che” Rodriguez, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Studies
San Francisco State University
Muhammad Sahimi
Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Southern California
Professor William Spence, QMUL
Carole Saltz
Director (retired)
Teachers College Press
Leyli Shayegan
Retired Assistant Director
Teachers College Press
Carole Snee,
Retired Director of ESL
California State University, Fresno
Baki Tezcan
University of California, Davis
Azadeh Saljooghi, Ph.D., MFA
Retired faculty of Communications and Film Studies
Mark Lewis Taylor
Maxwell M. Professor of Theology and Culture
Princeton Theological Seminary
Devra Weber
Emerita Professor of History
University of California, Riverside
Ryan J. Fisher
University of California, Santa Barbara
Eve Hershcopf
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace- Bay Area
Penny Rosenwasser
Author, Instructor, Interdisciplinary Studies
City College of San Francisco
Marlena Santoyo
Greater Philadelphia Branch
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Outreach Coordinator
Kelly Patrick Gerling, Seattle
Judy Neunuebel
Jewish Voice for Peace
George Marx
Chicago, IL
Beth Harris
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace National Board
Janet Kobren
Human Rights Activist
Susan Shawl
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area chapter
David L. Mandel, Sacramento
Human rights attorney
Chapter leader, Jewish Voice for Peace
Elected member, California Democratic Party Central Committee
Sophie Moradi
An opponent of never-ending wars
Henry Norr
Activist and retired Journalist
Mario Galvan
Board member, Sacramento Area Peace Action
Pathma Venasithamby
Jewish Voice for Peace
Carol Sanders
Retired Attorney
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace
Elizabeth Block
Member of Independent Jewish Voice
Molly Hogan
Jewish Voice for Peace
Martha Roth
Independent Jewish Voices
Pam Rogers
Alliance for Water Justice in Palestine
Jewish Voice for Peace
Linval R. DePass
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace
Angela Price
Fresno Center for Nonviolence
Masoud Chamasemani
Actor and TV Producer
Pauline M. Coffman Oak Park, IL
Eve Darian-Smith
Layla Darwish
Palestine Freedom Project
Shahla Dashtaki Fulton, MO
Natalie Z. Davis
Marcela Jurado
Priscilla Read
Chicago
Gertrude Reagan
Palo Alto Friends Meeting
Bob Aldridge
World War II Veteran
Newland F. Smith, 3rd
Episcopal Peace Fellowship
Ned Rosch
Human Rights Activist who lived and worked in Iran
Parizad Torgoli
Rev. Don Wagner
Friends of Sabeel-North America
Parisa Afshar
American-Iranian who opposes any kind of war with Iran
Richard Lew Independent Contractor Reza Sheybani, M.D.
Eugene Schulman
Independent dissident
Susan Stout
Activist, Vancouver
Mark Winterrowd
John Whitbeck
International Law Expert
Cindy Shamban
Member of Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area
Nancy Murray
Alliance for Water Justice in Palestine
Marge Sussman
Member, Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area
[1] Although members of the U.S. Congress formally represent citizens of the United States, the global role and activities of the United States are such that the peoples of the world are often directly impacted. As a result nonAmericans have a vital stake in the adherence of American foreign policy to international law and the Charter of The United Nations, and were invited to sign our Open Letter and join in this appeal to Congress.
Tags: Assassinaton, Coercive Diplomacy, internationa law, punitive sanctions, Soleimani