In a matter of days the new moderate President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani will be in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. From sanctions that are hurting thousands of Iranians, to the Syrian crisis, millions of people stand to benefit from President Obama meeting with President Rouhani in an attempt to work out differences diplomatically. The last time Iran had a moderate President, George Bush named Iran as part of an axis of evil. Those comments made it even harder for former President Khatami to pursue diplomacy, as conservatives in Iran were able to argue that reaching out to the US would only be met with hostility. We’ve already started repeating the same mistakes again. Congress recently voted to increase sanctions on Iran before the new president was even sworn in. At the moment conservative lobby groups are pushing for President Obama to further isolate Iran. However President Obama has previously said he would be happy to talk to Iran and Iranians. Unless we show the President that such a move would have public support it’s possible that he’ll cave to conservative lobby groups. We saw what happened with Syria. If people stand up and make our voices heard - it can make a real difference in our foreign policy. President Rouhani isn’t perfect - there’s no denying that. However, pushing another moderate President into a corner in Iran, thus limiting their ability to pursue progressive reforms isn’t good for anyone. With economic sanctions that are hurting everyday Iranians and with an increase in rhetoric about an attack on Iran - there’s a lot to be concerned about. There is no guarantee of success by talking, however not trying to broker solutions using peaceful means given the stakes is unforgivable.

The failure of efforts to secure a Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria creates an unprecedented opportunity to reform U.S. policy in the Middle East. War proponents hoped to establish a precedent for a U.S. military strike on Iran, but the opposite precedent has been established instead: a war with Iran can be stopped by public opinion and Congressional resistance. The Obama Administration should use this moment to engage the government of Iran in efforts to establish a ceasefire in Syria and negotiations to end Syria's civil war.

During a virtual town hall meeting held on Monday, September 9, Rep. Rosa DeLauro said that she was leaning toward voting FOR authorizing military force in Syria. We believe that Rosa's constituents do not want her to vote for more war, especially when there are diplomatic options still available. Let's show her that her district wants her to vote NO. Sign and share this petition, which we'll deliver directly to Rosa's office in New Haven.

Because we need to get the Hell, out of there!

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

Dropping bombs is not the answer to the crisis in Syria. There are other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable, such as the latest international proposal for Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. Bombing Syria could increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."