[Prefatory Note: 2020 hardly began when the news reported the shocking MQ9 Reaper Drone assassination of General Qassim Soleimani on Januarary 3rd shortly after he landed at the Baghdad Airport to begin a discreet diplomatic mission to reduce tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. At the time, I felt this was provocative and self-defeating, as well as unlawful and criminal, as to deed and precedent. After a year those initial reactions seem even more appropriate than they did at the time. If the United States is setting the operative rules of world politics it is doing itself no positive service by such behavior, and with drones proliferating at a rapid rate, encouraging forces of disorder, whether governments or political movements. Published below are two efforts of mine to comprehend the many facets of this most unfortunate and humanly tragic incident, which was reinforced by the apparent Mossad murder by remotely controlled explosives of the senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on November 27th while driving in a suburb of Tehran. The first selection is a short essay entitled ‘Remembering General Soleimani,’ and the second is an interview titled Responses Questions of Tasnim News Agency on the 1st anniversary of General Qassim Soleimani’s Assassination by U.S. drone on 3 Jan 2020.]
Remembering General Qassim Soleimani
This first anniversary of the assassination of General Qassim Soleimani, provides an occasion to remember not only the man but the nature of the act, the precedent set, and degree to which Iran and the region have become the main hunting ground of post-colonial Western imperialism. It is also relevant to take note of Mossad’s apparent responsibility for the targeted killing of Iran’s leading nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, ten months later. Although for the world 2020 will be primarily remembered for the COVID-19 pandemic, but for Iranians, although themselves hard hit by the virus further aggravated by U.S. sanctions maintained despite many international humanitarian pleas, the year will be long primarily associated with these acts of state terror.
Without shame or even the typical ruse of ‘deniability,’ Donald Trump made no secret of his role in ordering, and even claiming credit for the killing of General Soleimani, while this stateman/military commander was arriving in Baghdad at the invitation of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Adil Abdul Mehdi, apparently to engage in discussions with Iraqi and Saudi Arabian officials with the purpose of deescalating regional tensions. Trump claimed without the slightest proof that killing Soleimani staved off an imminent attack on American diplomatic facilities. As the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial and Arbitrary Executions, Agnés Callimard, made clear in an official Human Rights Council report concentrating on this event that the use drone weaponry to assassinate a top leader of a foreign country, without presenting a shred of evidence for the purported U.S. justification that there existed a threat of an attack on American diplomatic facilities, is more serious than a violation of international human rights law. According to her report the assassination amounts to ‘an act of war’ that violated the core norm of the UN Charter, which in Article 2(4) prohibits recourse to aggressive forms of international force. The world is fortunate that Iran did not exercise its defensive rights beyond a gesture of retaliation that caused no fatalities. The fact that the assassination occurred in Iraq, a third country, without the consent of the government was a further aggravating factor. It continues to produce calls for the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from the country, and has bolstered those Iraqi forces demanding an end to the U.S. occupation that began more than 17 years ago.
There are additional lessons to be learned in thinking about the life and death of General Soleimani. An important lesson for Americans is to appreciate the degree to which tying their role in the Middle East to Israeli priorities brings negative consequences for the wider national interests in the region. The most important achievement of General Soleimani was to be the most effective anti-ISIS leader in the struggle against extremist barbarism in the region, which built upon his earlier efforts to weaken the Taliban in Afghanistan. In effect, the only real threat to legitimate American security interests came from ISIS, and earlier Al Qaeda. Seen in this light, to regard Iran as Enemy #1 was to misinterpret U.S. interests, and to perpetuate earlier mistakes in grand strategy, above all the 2003 attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq, in ways that were extremely costly in lives, expenses, and reputation, while producing a political outcome that realized none of the goals of this military (mis)adventure. If U.S interests in the Middle East were appraised free from distortions attributable to the Israeli lobby and the pro-Israeli bureaucracy in Washington, Netanyahu’s leverage in Washington would not exist, and long ago the U.S. Government would have taken the sensible step of normalizing relations with Iran, which would have diminished chaos and tensions thoughout the entire MENA region.
I believe that Obama arrived at the White House with the intention to achieve this reset of U.S./Iran relation. Obama tried skillfully to move out of a policy orbit shaped in Tel Aviv and Riyadh, angering the Israeli leadership to such an extent that the Trump presidency, despite its overall irresponsibility, was enthusiastically embraced by an Israel extremely displeased with the Obama effort despite its limited results. What Obama tried to do was to remove anxieties about Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the removal of sanctions, formalized in the Joint Comprehensive Program of Comprehensive Action (JCPOA) agreement unanimously supported by the P-5 membership of the Security Council plus Germany in 2015. I was surprised at the time that Iran was willing to accept a diplomatic outcome that curtailed its nuclear program without raising objections to Israel’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, for Israel and Saudi Arabia JCPOA was treated as a betrayal, and Trump re-bonded with these two states by repudiating and then withdrawing from this breakthrough agreement in 2018. Without question Trump seemed motivated to undo this major diplomatic achievement by his predecessor as president to dramatize his anachronistic commitment to an ‘America First’ foreign policy that rejected internationalism in all its forms. Trump also withdrew from the Paris Climate Change Agreement for similar anti-Obama, ultra-nationalist reasons.
We are led to wonder, with the advent of the Biden presidency, whether the Obama approach will be restored with respect to Iran, and if so, in what manner and with what effort to balance such an accommodating diplomacy with Iran while trying not to upset Israeli support groups too much, having witnessed at close range Israel’s dirty pushback tactics. The litmus test of Baden’s diplomacy will be revealed by whether Washington insists on more stringent limitations on Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, and even more so, if it links its renewed participation in the JCPOA with a demand that Iran disavow its regional diplomacy in such countries as Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Such one-sided enlargements of the scope of what is agreed beyond its nuclear program is highly unlikely to be acceptable in Iran, and for good reasons, given the interventions of Saudi Arabia and Israel in these conflicts. This anticipated reluctance would also antagonize hardline opinions in Iran, and likely partly express a lingering resentment about the targeted killing of General Soleimani, an individual who was not only beloved and revered by the Iranian people but was considered an extremely promising future president for the country, someone regarded by close Iranian observers as second in importance only to the Supreme Guide, who was beloved by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Q1: As you know, the US assassinated Lieutenant General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi, and their companions by targeting their vehicles outside Baghdad International Airport on January 3. The act of terror was carried out under the direction of Trump, with the Pentagon taking responsibility for the strike. How do you see the role of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and certain Arab states in the region in killing?
R1: I have no inside information on the undisclosed connections between the states mentioned in the question and the assassination of Lieut. General Soleimani, but offer some generalizations based on the public reactions of these governments to the event and their general approach to the confrontation with Iran. Two things are clear. First, Israel and Saudi Arabia officially and explicitly welcomed the killing of Gen. Soleimani for reasons different than those put forward by the United States, while disavowing any connection with the event; secondly, the Arab governments, and even some Israeli strategists, acknowledged being wary of the possible consequences associated with feared Iranian retaliations and a regional escalation of tensions. It seemed that the most respected analysts of Israeli security interests were urging their government to do its utmost to deescalate the confrontational approach that had been previously advocated. Such moderating moves seemed to reflect an awareness of the vulnerabilities of Israel and the Gulf countries to Iranian missile attacks and overall worries about regime security. With these considerations in mind, it makes sense that these governments insisted that the U.S. acted on its own, without prior consultation or encouragement. Some reports in the Arab media alleged that Qatar should be viewed as complicit because the drone that responsible for this act of state terror was apparently launched from the U.S. Udeid air base in their country, but there was no indication of any advanced knowledge, much less participation, by Qatar before the attack was launched. The apparent reconciliation between Qatar and the Saudi-led Gulf coalition at the start of 2021 may also be interpreted as part of this moderating trend, perhaps also a cautionary reaction to the defeat of Trump’s bid for reelection and uncertainties associated with how Biden will approach the region.
Of great concern is the failure of the United Nations, especially the Security Council, to condemn the event. The UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Agnés Callamard, did issue a report on July 6, 2020 that concluded that the targeted killing of such a prominent military leader as General Soleimani was not only a violation of international human rights law, but ‘an act of war’ that violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This important report does highlight the use of drones as creating a class of weaponry that erodes the distinction between war and peace, and creates a threat to all countries and their population. The international tolerance of such state behavior is totally unacceptable, aggravated in this instance by being openly authorized by the head of state of a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. The rapid proliferation of attack drones also adds a destabilizing dimension that makes the Soleimani killing a particularly dangerous precedent.
In short, for Israel the elimination of Iran’s most effective military commander was viewed as reducing the security threat posed by Iran’s regional influence in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, supposedly surrounding Israel with unpredictable political forces. Eliminating the architect of Iran’s regional influence was viewed as a positive development from the perspective of Israeli security that deems itself as virtually ‘at war’ with Iran. Yet even some Israeli strategic commentary at the time of the assassination tended to worry about such a high-profile assassination being treated as an ‘act of war’ by Iran intensifying risks of an unwanted all out conflict urging, contrary to Trump and Netanyahu, offsetting concessions to Iran. Some Israeli security experts urged the unconditional revival of the JCPOA deal relating to Iran’s nuclear program and even the elimination of sanctions.
For Saudi Arabia, in particular, although insisting that it had no role in the assassination viewed it partly through the perspective of finally overcoming Trump’s refusal to respond to the psychologically and material damaging September 2019 drone attack on the state-owned Aramco oil facilities in Abqaiq and Ehurais located in eastern Saudi Arabia. These attacks although emanating from Yemen were attributed to Iran, at least indirectly. In this regard, the assassination was interpreted as responsive to the Saudi (and Israeli) criticisms of the Obama presidency’s moves toward normalization with Iran, as well as of Trump’s allegedly timid responses to prior provocations and some concern that withdrawals of American forces from Iraq, which was viewed with alarm as the beginning of U.S. strategic disengagement from the region.
Q2: General Soleimani is viewed by the world’s freedom-seeking people as the key figure in defeating Daesh/ISIS, the world’s most notorious terrorist group, in the Middle East battles. What are your thoughts on Gen. Soleimani’s character and his role in fighting terrorism?
R2: I am aware of the revered status of Gen. Soleimani for his various roles in defense of the Iranian Revolution and in opposition to the spread of U.S. and Israeli influence in the region. He had that rare quality of being a military commander whose intelligence and political leadership were widely appreciated at all levels of Iranian society, from the Supreme Guide to the Iranian citizenry. Over the course of the last ten years there have been many reports that he was being urged to become a presidential candidate in Iran. It is significant in my view that Gen. Soleimani was killed while on a diplomatic mission mediated by Iraq to reduce tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. There is no reason to believe that the assassination was timed to disrupt such a move, but its occurrence surely had the effect of intensifying regional tensions in a highly provocative, lawless manner that generated widespread calls in Iran and Iraq for revenge and retaliation. Iran has formally issued a warrant for the arrest of Trump on charges of premeditated murder, which according to the Iranian penal code imposes a death sentence. Iran has asked Intepol for assistance in inducing police forces around the world to implement the arrest warrant.
By and large, commentators on the assassination in the West, including critics of Trump’s presidency, viewed the event from a narrow American perspective. This meant highlighting Gen. Soleimani’s role both in Iraqi violent resistance to the American occupation and in giving overall help to the general opposition throughout the region to Washington’s strategic priorities, including Hezbollah and Hamas, the Damascus government, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen. What was not stressed, and rarely acknowledged, was Gen. Soleimani extremely effective role not only in defeating Daesh (or ISIS) in the Syria and Iraq, but also in temporarily neutralizing the Taliban in Afghanistan. As the Mossad official, Yossi Alpher, correctly noted of the fallen military leader: “He was a highly intelligent strategic thinker who understood how to wage asymmetric warfare.” Contrast this assessment with the words of Thomas Friedman, the liberal icon of American journalism, writing in an opinion piece published in the immediate aftermath of the event. Friedman praised Trump for ordering the assassination of “possibly the dumbest man in Iran and the most overrated strategist in the Middle East.” [“Trump Kills Iran’s Most Overrated Warrior,” Jan. 3, 2020.] Why dumb? Because Gen. Soleimani role in expanding Iran’s regional resistance to U.S. regional interventions prompted Washington to take major countermeasures that had an overall disastrous impact on Iran. In effect, the United States’ imperial role was legitimate, and to challenge it, was not only illegitimate but self-defeating as the killing of their leading military commander demonstrates.
Viewing Gen. Soleimani’s role more objectively, a larger geopolitical distortion is revealed. The United States real security concerns over the course of the past twenty years were associated with eliminating threats of transnational extremist violence that culminated in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. It is only through an acceptance of Israel’s and the Gulf monarchies’ regional priorities that made rational either the attack on Iraq in 2003 or the repeated efforts to destabilize Iran. To some extent Obama did somewhat recognize that reaching an accommodation with Iran and continuing to support the national security of Israel were not necessarily contradictory. In contrast, Trump, whether wittingly or not, subordinates U.S. national interests to the Israeli/Gulf sectarian view of Middle East politics. At this point, with the imminent prospect of Biden’s presidency there is reason to be cautiously hopeful about the formulation of a policy for the Middle East that is more coherent, less Israeli driven, less guided by impulse, and more oriented toward achieving stability rather than seeking ‘solutions’ based on coercive diplomacy.
Q3: How do you see the future of the region after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani? Do you think that foreign troops including the US forces will be forced out of the region and Iraq at people’s will?
R3: The turmoil throughout the region, along with interventions by geopolitical actors, makes predictions hazardous. There are some encouraging indications that Biden seeks to revive JCPOA as soon as possible and seeks order and moderation throughout the Middle East. Such post-Trump modifications will not be undertaken without taking Israel’s views into account, but to what extent is at present unknown. Israel will certainly try its best to condition the renewal of American participation in JCPOA on imposing new, more stringently restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Israel is also likely to insist that the U.S. receive assurances from Iran that it will no longer extend material support Islamic political tendencies in the region as exemplified by Hezbollah and Hamas. Upholding such assurances would be correlated with reducing sanctions. It seems unlikely that Iran would be willing to end its support for self-determination and human rights in Israel/Palestine, Yemen, and Lebanon, and more controversially, governmental legitimacy and counterinsurgency in Syria. And if such a political surrender were to be accepted by Iran’s current elected leadership, it would be effectively challenged from within the country.
The Arab acceptance of normalization agreements with Israel are not likely to be challenged by the Biden presidency, although brought about by American inducements, including advanced weaponry and a greater commitment of the U.S. to extend its security protection beyond Israel. In this regard, should a second Arab Spring occur in Gulf countries or Egypt, it is likely that Washington will more overtly side with the established order, no matter how repressive.
Of relevance as well is whether China and Russia will play more active diplomatic roles in the region, either seeking alignment or as offering an alternative to the American imperial presence. Such speculation depends in part on whether the U.S. adopts confrontational approaches to Russia in relation to Ukraine and Crimea and to China with respect to international trade relations and tensions in the South China Seas. Unless the U.S. disengages from its reliance on global militarism as the basis of its foreign policy, which seems highly unlikely, there are almost certain to be troubled waters in many parts of the world, including the Middle East. More than Trump, the Biden presidency is likely to adopt a foreign policy of the sort that resurrects the ‘bipartisan consensus’ that was borne shortly after the World War II, and persisted throughout the long Cold War. The essence of this consensus is the exaggeration of security threats so as to justify political support for high peacetime military budgets.
It is finally possible that energy geopolitics will also exert an influence over how relations with Iran evolve. It seems to serve OPEC’s interest to restrict Iran’s energy export markets, but if European or Asian demands rise, the reintegration of Iran in the world economy is like to receive strong backing that could change the balance in the Middle East, especially if confrontation with China dominates U.S. foreign policy in the years ahead.
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