Our best chance of stopping the Bush administration from using military attacks against Iran is through grassroots pressure on Congress. Some members of Congress have already taken a stand on this issue. See what they’re saying here.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Foreign Relations Committee

“The United States should hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program
and go slow on pressing for sanctions”
    
“Key Senator Back Bush, Urges U.S. Iran Talks” Reuters April 16, 2006


Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), Foreign Relations Committee

“It would be a big mistake for the U.S. to launch a military strike against Iran, especially since…Iran is 5-10 years away from being able to launch nuclear missiles of their own.”

        Interview on “Imus in the Morning” April 20, 2006

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Foreign Relations Committee

“I do not expect any kind of military solution on the Iran issue…I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option…Iran is a complicated issue. I think that a responsible approach to these challenges is to work closely with our friends and allies, in this case Pakistan, with the United Nations, with the IAEA…I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement.”

“Senator doubts military options to be used on Iran”  Reuters April 13, 2006

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Foreign Relations Committee

 “For the United States of America, at a time when we’re already trying to wrestle with Iran and the, the proliferation of nuclear weapons—and North Korea, that is not paying attention to the six-party talks, partly because of what’s happening in Iraq, and they don’t need to—for us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any nonproliferation efforts, and the military assessment is it won’t work. That even this bombing strategy itself would not work. Once again, the administration is not engaged in the real kind of diplomacy…we, we’ve got to have leadership that stops proceeding so unilaterally, and in, in such a, a, you know, sort of overtly militaristic way, and start putting people together to resolve this.

I don’t think using tactical nuclear weapons still makes sense. But you leave the military option on the table. But it’s a terrible option fundamentally, and they know it and everybody else knows it. What you really need here is China and Russia to join with the United States and others in serious sanctions, ultimately if that were necessary.”

Meet the Press – Sunday, April 9, 2006


Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Armed Services Committee

Lieberman said that he would back a U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomatic options fail, becoming the first Democrat to announce his support for such a move.

"I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it,”

            Interview with Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2006
           

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Appropriations Committee

“The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.
We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.
At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.”

            “Confronting Iran” LA Times April 15, 2006.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Foreign Relations Committee

"I happen to believe you need direct talks.  It doesn't mean you agree with them. It doesn't mean you support them. It doesn't mean you have formal diplomatic relations. But there's an option."

        “Senators Urge Direct Diplomacy with Iran” AP April 16, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senate Armed Services Committee
 
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. ... This administration takes this kind of hands off approach to North Korea, to Iran. All I know is that five years ago North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. We now believe it does. And five years ago Iran may have been toying with it or thinking about it. Now it looks as though it's on the road to it. We have to be much more diplomatically engage and not have this hands off approach to it"

          “Money and Politics” April 10, 2006

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Democratic Leader

Reid said he wants to find a diplomatic solution to the problem in Iran rather than stoking the "powder keg" in the Middle East.

"In just a few months this Iraq war will have lasted as long as World War II. We can't be throwing ourselves around militarily in Iran or anyplace else. We've learned in Iraq it doesn't pay."

Interview KRNV Reno, NV April 20, 2006


Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Appropriations Committee

"I don't see the viable military options when you're looking at Iran"

speech at American Enterprise Institute, Feb. 2, 2006

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) House Int’l Relations Committee

“Persuasion will not work with Iran. We can only hope to inflict such severe economic pain on Tehran that it would starve the leadership of the resources they need to fund a costly nuclear program.”

        “U.S. Shifts Policy on Iran” Arms Control Today April 2004

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Int’l Relations Committee

“Now, we are not going to go to war with — with Iran. So, that military option is probably off the table. Diplomacy, you have seen what has been taking place. We have been at this diplomatic maneuver for many, many months and many, many years, all to no avail. They have even built up their nuclear infrastructure. So, that leads us to the third tool in our toolbox, which is sanctions.”

            Fox News, March 15, 2006

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Armed Services Committee

Hunter said a move to have direct talks is the president's call, noting that Iran has not publicly shown much willingness to back off.

"This should not be a United States go-it-alone operation if we have to take military action, and that's the real challenge…But the point is that the Iranians, to engage in talks that are meaningful, you need to have a receptive audience."

        “Senators Urge Direct Talks with Iran” AP April 16, 2006.
      
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), Armed Services Committee

“There’s no way [President Bush is] going to take military action in Iran. Iran is, is three times as big geographically, there’s 58 million people vs. 26 million people in, in Iraq, and, and there’s no way. A fanatical government — I mean, the, the president of the United States does not have a military option. He can say he has a military option; he does not have a military option.”

            Meet the Press, March 19, 2006
          

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Int’l Relations Committee

“It is time for the Bush administration to exercise some real diplomatic leadership on this issue and convince other countries to stop doing business as usual with Iran until it abandons its program to enrich uranium.”

“It is time for President Bush to stand up to corporate power.  Not only should we stop doing business with Iran through foreign subsidiaries, we should make it clear to China that their continued access to U.S. markets is dependent on cooperation on the issue.”

        -Press release on Rep. Sherman’s website, April 12, 2006
       
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Intelligence Committee

"I remain skeptical - lots of unanswered questions.  If I were Iran, and I wanted to put out disinformation, it might look a lot like what our government is claiming is information. I can't tell that's true, but I can't tell you it's not true."

        Speech at Council on Foreign Relations, April 2006