9/17/2019
Dear Senator Grassley,
I am disturbed at the President and Vice President affirming on TV that we are “locked and loaded” for war with Iran. Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but I do not recall the US Congress declaring war on Iran. Last I looked, it is Congress who has power to declare war, not the president.
I think many Americans would be against war since we have not been attacked, like Pearl Harbor. If we went to war, I daresay not many allies would blindly follow the piper to war, like France when we were forced to called food Freedom Fries just because they refused to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. I remember once on TV you refused to write a blank check for President Bush to run his war in Iraq and I was proud to call you my Senator. I call it Bush’s Iraq war since he lied to Congress to overthrow Saddam Hussein resulting in a civil war splitting the country in three parts (Sunni, Shite, and Kurds).
Also, we have a $22 Trillion national deficit so I fail to see how this country can afford to spend beyond the debt ceiling for a war the president initiated. American people will not appreciate their taxes increasing to pay for this war. If the president cannot win the trade war with China he also initiated, how is he going to conquer Iran into submission?
I have friends and family in the armed forces and reluctant to risk their lives, so the president gets a trophy for his ego. War is ugly, violent, traumatic, and kills innocent civilians in the crossfire: What Is So Glorious About It? Are you ready to read the casualty lists in the newspapers for the next year, ten years, or even twenty years because wars are easy to start and difficult to end? General George Custer once said he was accustomed to hearing cannons going off at West Point, but it is another sound when the cannon is coming toward you.
I will end my letter to you by quoting The Last of the Mohicans. “Death and honor are often thought to be same thing. Today, I have learned that sometimes they are not.”
I will pray our leaders on both sides of the aisle come together to deescalate the tension with Iran, and North Korea too. After all, General George Washington gave a speech at a meeting of the soldiers planning to overthrow the Article of Confederation government and crown Washington as King of America. He asserted that his soldiers did not fight and die to overthrow a king to replace him with another, there will be no King of America and the military coup d'etat was crushed in one speech. Words hold power. I thank you for reading my letter.
Sincerely,
Jordan Harvey
Senator Grassley's response and he gives me reasons to keep voting for him:
October 21, 2019
Dear Ms.(Name):
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy with respect to Iran and North Korea. As your senator, it is important to me that I hear from you.
First, I appreciate hearing your concerns regarding U.S. foreign in the Persian Gulf. In recent months, Iranian provocations and the measured U.S. response to those provocations have led some commentators to suspect the U.S. is poised for military conflict with that nation. At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not want to go war with Iran. Additionally, I do not believe that the Trump administration is actively looking for military conflict with that country. That being said, the United States must be prepared to protect our interests and those of our allies in the face of Iranian aggression. Iran poses significant challenges to the United States and those of our allies, and I would like to take this opportunity to address them with you.
Since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has been a perennial concern of successive presidential administrations and congresses. Iran’s actions stem largely from its revolutionary ideology and unique theocratic governmental structure that dominates virtually all aspects of the country’s governance. The country’s supreme leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls the foreign policies of the Iranian government. It is through the supreme leader that the country’s main security apparatuses engage in malign activities throughout the Middle East to promote Iranian influence with an intent to dominate the region.
Iran actively funds, equips, and trains a host of Shia militias throughout the region. Terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, various Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen all receive significant support from Iran. Iran has repeatedly been named the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has maintained its capability to threaten U.S. interests and allies through the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). A unit of the IRGC, the Quds Force, implements Iranian foreign policy goals in the Middle East by providing cover for intelligence operations and creating instability throughout the region. The Trump administration has increased pressure on the Iranian regime to cease its destabilizing activities by tightening U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical exports, and designating the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization.
In recent weeks, Iranian aggression has elevated to new heights. Evidence suggests that the Iranian regime has sabotaged oil infrastructure in the gulf through selective attacks on a pipeline and oil tankers in the region. On June 18, 2019, Iran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone conducting reconnaissance in international airspace. President Trump announced that the United States had planned to initiate limited retaliatory strikes but declined to execute them for lack of adequate proportionality.
On September 14, 2019, Iranian forces struck two key oil-processing centers in Khurais and Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia. This remarkably bold act of aggression led to a spike in global oil prices and greatly heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf. In response, the Trump administration has increased the number of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia by roughly 3000 and deployed additional U.S. military assets to the country. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper characterized the deployment as a defensive measure to bolster Saudi Arabia’s deterrence capabilities against an increasingly hostile Iran.
I understand the concerns that have been raised by the American public about U.S.-Saudi relations. The murder of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi has led to the sanctioning of numerous Saudi government officials and remains a sore spot in our relations with that country. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia remains a strategic partner in the Persian Gulf as a counterbalance to more hostile nations and U.S.-Saudi relations have advanced not only U.S. foreign policy aims, but also those of our allies.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020, the Senate considered an amendment from Senator Udall that would have prohibited all DoD funds from being used for any military response against Iran. I voted against this amendment, not because I am looking for a conflict with Iran, but because it is too broad in its scope and could potentially endanger service members and U.S. personnel. If U.S. citizens, diplomatic facilities in the region, or other important national interests are threatened or attacked, the United States must be able to respond promptly and in appropriate fashion. The Udall amendment would have hampered President Trump’s Article II authority as commander in chief to respond if necessary. The president has made it clear that he is not looking to go to war with Iran and lacks the authority to engage in full scale hostilities. But, by sending a message that the U.S. will not respond to further military escalation by Iran, it would undermine deterrence and make a bad situation worse.
The Trump administration is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran through the increased use of sanctions on the Iranian economy. It is the administration’s goal to modify Iranian behavior to ensure they are a responsible member of the international community. As your senator, you can rest assured that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind when considering legislation in the Senate.
I also appareciate your sharing your concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy with North Korea. Throughout the 1990s into the early 2000s, past U.S. administrations and foreign governments have engaged in numerous bilateral and multilateral efforts to curb what was then a burgeoning nuclear weapons development program in North Korea. Under these efforts, the 1994-2002 Agreed Framework and the 2005-2009 Six-Party Talks, North Korea committed to an eventual denuclearization in exchange for specific diplomatic and economic gains. North Korea withdrew or reneged from both of these potential agreements and continued to pursue its proliferation efforts.
Since Kim Jong-un came to power in 2012, North Korea has conducted over 80 ballistic missile test launches and four nuclear weapons tests. In April 2017, the Trump administration announced that it had raised the North Korean threat to a top-level foreign policy priority due to its development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile launches. In July of 2017, North Korea successfully tested a missile that, according to United States’ intelligence agencies, has intercontinental range.
Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act. This legislation strengthens the use of sanctions on those facilitating North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. Additionally, the United Nations Security Council has imposed multilateral international sanctions to prohibit material support for the North Korean regime.
Throughout early 2018, relations between North and South Korea improved with increased diplomatic liaison. On March 8, 2018, White House announced tentative plans for a meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Following a meeting between North Korean officials and South Korean National Security Advisor, Chung Eui-Young, Kim Jong-un provided a message to President Trump through South Korean emissaries conveying his apparent desire for a negotiated settlement. According to the South Korean national security advisor, in his meeting with Kim Jong-un, the North Koreans committed to a cessation of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons tests, and to not publically object to upcoming U.S.-South Korean military drills. The Trump administration agreed to the meeting provided North Korea uphold its pledge.
The meeting in Singapore between President Trump and Kim Jong-un was met with both praise and skepticism. The summit ended with the issuance of a joint statement that stated the United States and North Korea will work towards normalizing relations, addressing issues diplomatically, and working towards the full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Throughout the remainder of 2018, the United States and North Korea continued to communicate in an effort to reach a comprehensive agreement regarding North Korean denuclearization. This effort culminated with a second summit that was conducted between President Trump and Kim Jong-un on February 28, 2019.
The second summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un was intended to provide an opportunity for a comprehensive agreement leading to the verified denuclearization of North Korea. Despite numerous meetings between the U.S. and North Korean delegations and between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, no such agreement emerged. The North Korean delegation continued to press for what it had throughout 2018, which is the rapid relief of U.S. and international sanctions. President Trump stated that neither side could agree on the specific actions North Korea would be obliged to accomplish in order to achieve that goal. The Trump administration has made it clear that absent the complete and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea, the U.S. will continue its policy of sanctioning North Korea.
Following President Trump's attendance at the G20 Summit in Japan this June, the president attended a brief meeting with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ. During this meeting, President Trump was invited to cross into North Korea and discussed the prospect of peace and a political settlement with the country. I understand your concerns regarding President Trump's language during this meeting, however I am in no position to control the words of the president.
I believe that President Trump was correct to accept no deal in his second summit rather than agreeing to a bad deal given the history of past denuclearization deals. The United States must continue to negotiate from a position of strength with North Korea. That being said, neither President Trump nor Kim Jong-un have shut the door on continued dialogue and the possibility to an agreement regarding denuclearization. As your senator, you can rest assured that I am carefully monitoring the U.S.-North Korean relationship and that I will keep your thoughts in mind going forward.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
United States Senate