Congress. Thrilled to be with you tonight. And with my co-host, Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink. Hania Jodat, who's also involved with Roots Action and many other campaigns. And we have our co-sponsors, Massachusetts Peace Action, Cole Harrison, who will be joining us shortly. He is the director and Brian Garvey, who's an amazing organizer and writer who will be sharing with us tonight, a great article that he wrote on the Roger Waters concert. Tonight, it's we're going from Iran to Afghanistan, and let's make peace, let's return the money so the Afghan people don't starve. We have fantastic guests. We have Trita Parsey, who's the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and Masuda Sultan, who's an Afghan women's rights activist who previously worked in the finance department of the Afghan government. So it should be a fantastic conversation. We'll have a Q&A, we have a couple of actions to say return all the money to Afghanistan and lift those sanctions on Iran. So please stay with us throughout the program so you can engage in those actions and amplify them as well. Before, excuse me, we do that, however, we're going to have a few updates. And we can start with Ukraine. Alright, so a lot of you may know and may be already participating in the peace and Ukraine coalition that was initiated by Code Pink and involves a number of other organizations, including Veterans for Peace, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, MAPA, Messages of Peace Action, and so forth. We had a tremendous week of action last week, and we're going to share some pictures. Basically, our messaging was this ceasefire now. Stop all of this death and destruction. We want negotiation, not escalation. We'll just hold off one second there, but maybe you can go up a little bit, honey. Negotiation, not escalation, and please no more weapons to fuel this war. Few of us may realize but the United States is on a trajectory to spend $40 billion in weapons alone for Ukraine. And here we see, I know these people, Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans and Wright and some other Code Pink activists who are in front of the Capitol. This was last Monday and there's Olivia, she's also an organizer with Code Pink. They're inside the Capitol, she and Jodi, and they were going door to door to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to say, come on, speak up. We want you to advocate for diplomacy and to vote against these weapons. All right, let's take a look at what was going on in Madison, Wisconsin. There we go. We also had street vigils. So the idea was, you know, we had four days of action to reach out to members of Congress, to the White House, the State Department, to the media, and to host street vigils and deliver letters to our districts, to our congressional districts. So let's continue. We see Rachel Brunke there in San Pedro. She was at Congresswoman Annette Berrigan's office. And then we had Massachusetts Peace Action did a lot of organizing in Massachusetts. These were areas near Boston, Mulden, and then Newton, San Francisco, shout out to Cynthia Papermaster and others in Code Pink in San Francisco. Let's stay there for a second. Thank you, honey. You'll see that they were lining up in front of a Senate office. They marched through the financial district from Senator Padilla's office to Senator Feinstein's office saying negotiate, do not escalate, no more weapons. And they flyered on the street. We have a piece in Ukraine.org website where we have flyers and all sorts of resources if you want to do something similar in your congressional district. And here we see activists in Philadelphia. Peace, justice and sustainability. Now they're meeting with staffers for the Senators, the US Senators from Philadelphia to say support a ceasefire. And then Rockville, Maryland, Veterans for Peace has been very active there. Jim Driscoll has organized protests in which veterans and others have gotten arrested and they've gotten some media coverage. Their slogan is stop the war, save the climate. Over in Milwaukee, we see a picture from Marquette University, where they flyered as well as passed out hundreds of flyers with QR codes where people could contact their Congress member right away. And then Santa Cruz, they made the local paper as well. And I think there might be one more. Let's see. Oh, a couple more. This is Santa Barbara. I'm in Santa Barbara, Chumashland. And we stood on the steps of our Congress member Salud Karbalal. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee and gave our letter saying no more weapons to the staffer. We were there at the same time as a member of a local Ukrainian church was asking for the weapons. So there was a very dynamic conversation underway there. And then Baltimore and there you see the banner. So that was what we were up to last week. Again, please do join us. We'll have a call tomorrow, the Peace and Ukraine Coalition call 130 Pacific time 430 Eastern. And just in terms of updates on Ukraine, today, Russia applauded the fact that there's going to be a referendum in the East and the Donbass region to see if these areas in the East want to join the Russian Federation. Ukraine says this is a stunt to distract people from grave battlefield losses. I shouldn't say great, but you know what I'm saying?  So we'll stay tuned for that. Meanwhile, the President of Mexico Manuel Lopez Obrador Amlo, he said he has a peace plan and he wants the United Nations, the UN General, the head of the UN and the Pope to mediate dialogue between Ukraine and Russia to end this war before, you know, it gets even worse. So those are some of the updates on Ukraine. Now we're going to go to Brian. Thanks, Marcy. And just let me say we were thrilled to be able to participate at three different locations during that week of action at the Assistant Speaker of the House's Office in Malden, Massachusetts, at Steven Lynch's office down in Quincy, and at Jake Ockincloss's office out in Newton, and they all went very, very well. It was great to be out there on the streets on the streets advocating. I just wanted to give a quick update on what's going on up here in Massachusetts about Cuba, which was the subject that we were covering the last time. We were all together for the Code Bank Congress. So just since then, we've been organizing and it looks like later this week, one of our one of our biggest cities around here, if you're from the Massachusetts area, people may know Somerville, it's kind of like Boston's Brooklyn. And it looks like by the end of the week, the Somerville City Council will be passing a resolution calling for an end to the embargo. So it looks like well, municipalities all across the US are going to have to drag us out of this horrible, regressive policy, the blockade on Cuba. But I'm hoping to share some very happy news by the end of the week. And that is a resolution that can be that can be replicated. So if there are activists in your city or town that care about ending the blockade on Cuba, think about getting together, think about making it publicly official that your city or or town poses publicly this 60 year blockade on our neighbor just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. And also, we have a new Cuba subcommittee here. We have, we have vowed that every month we're going to be standing out both in Western Massachusetts and here in the Boston area, demanding an end to the blockade, and really engaging, engaging the public. And I hope to do my own report back on October the night. So stay tuned for that. You know, we're putting it into practice, exactly what we were talking about last time and then into the blockade on Cuba. Thank you so much, Brian. And please do put your email in the chat. So if people want a copy of that resolution that you're seeking to pass at the municipal level, they can contact you. Great. And now we're going to go to Cole Harrison for an update on something that we all need to be very vigilant about stopping. And that is the Taiwan Policy Act. And you see a picture here. And Hania will share more of it in a minute as Cole talks about this of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because they made a very terrible decision. Let's just put it that way last week. Tell us about it, Cole. Thank you, Marcy. So we've been hearing that the tension between US and China has been escalating for several years. Taiwan is the flashpoint. We heard a lot when Nancy Pelosi was there in the summer. And what's really going on here is that the entire US elite, both parties are united on the strengthening the US hand against China economically, militarily, on multi-levels. But there is a tactical difference, or I guess there's a difference among the US elite about how to handle this. Do you come out and say it? Do you directly challenge China's claim that Taiwan is part of China? Or do you just send arms to Taiwan and maybe slap some sanctions on China but without being so politically confrontational? So Pelosi's visit represented the politically confrontational view. In a way, the administration is more cautious, although you never know with this administration. But they've been slipping the money, the arms to Taiwan without a lot of publicity and without a lot of political confrontation. So enter the Taiwan Policy Act. Senator Menendez of New Jersey, chair of Senate Foreign Relations, has written this act. It's the most radical change in US policy towards Taiwan since the 1970s. It increases the likelihood of US-China armed conflict. It provides $4.5 billion in military assistance, $2 billion further in loan guarantees, explicit sanctions to defend Taiwan if there were any military action. And it almost says that we're going to treat Taiwan diplomatically, almost as an independent nation. But there is a disagreement about this. Senator Markey, who also went to Taiwan but had a more relatively and more dovish opposition than Pelosi, and four other senators voted in committee against the Taiwan Policy Act. That's Markey, Murphy, Paul, Schatz and Van Hollen. China is very upset about this act that the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement says that if this bill is signed into law, it would greatly shake the political foundation of China-US relations and cause extremely serious consequences to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. So, you know, we know that the US policy towards Taiwan ever since 1979 is based on policy of strategic ambiguity, where the United States would not declare that it would necessarily come to the military defense of Taiwan in the event of war, but it also won't say that it won't. So Biden has been walking back this policy of ambiguity. He's been saying maybe we would defend Taiwan. So everyone's getting tense on all sides, but this policy act is a typical act of like US braggadocio, you know, rhetoric and political posturing trying to inflame the situation. So long story short, we need to oppose this act. They have that, you know, there isn't a battle going on Washington over this. It's not a given that it will pass. It's not a given that Biden will sign it. If it does pass, but it might and he might. And so it's important to stop this act from becoming law and try to move US-China relations towards a more diplomatic and less confrontational direction. Thank you, Cole. That excellent update. Yes, if you're not part of the Code Pink Congress Google Group, please do join us. Let Maha know you'd like to join Maha at CodePink.org. We put out an action alert last night about this Taiwan Policy Act saying, please get on the phone, send an email to both of your US senators and tell them you not only want them to vote against it, but you want them to mobilize others to vote against it and to come out publicly against it. They really need to hear from us. It's very dangerous. It's insane. You know, it's a desperate attempt to maintain priority for the US to be the boss. So with that, let's go now to Medea Benjamin, who has an exciting announcement for us. Well, I'll be quick because I want to hear our speakers. So I have a new book on Ukraine coming out October 1st. I will put it's in the chat right now. You can actually preorder it now. Starting on a speaking tour on October 1st, thanks to our friends at Massachusetts Peace Action, starting in Western Mass in Boston, going to the Midwest, and then I'll be traveling all over the country. Basically, if you're interested in hosting something, or please get in touch with Maha, Maha, maybe you could put your email in the chat or put the link to the page. And one other thing I wanted to say is that I've been listening as much as I can to all the talks at the UN General Assembly and pulling out the interesting pieces that have to do with Ukraine and Russia, and we'll be posting them on the piece in Ukraine as well as the Code Pink site. But it's very interesting to hear what many of the world leaders are saying. And, you know, as you can imagine, most of them are saying, Russian invasion terrible, we need negotiations, we need to end this war. Thank you. Thank you, Medea. And I just want to put in my own personal blog, I read an advanced copy of Medea and Nicholas J.S. Davies book, their co-authors of War in Ukraine making sense of a senseless war. And it is fantastic. I read it, I think, in two sittings, it's gripping. So please, if you can, support Medea, support peace in Ukraine by getting involved with her book tour and bringing her to your city or your town. All right, I know it's it's early or late, depending on what your sleeping hours are for a Masuda. So why don't we go with her first? Medea, you want to do the introduction? Yes, I'm glad we're going to Masuda first, because I think it is about 420 in the morning right now, where you are. When we invited you, we thought you'd be in New York. We would have never made you get up at this hour, but we're delighted to have you. And you look so beautiful, as always. Masuda is an Afghan American women's rights activist. In 2008, she was advisor to the Afghan Ministry of Finance. Her, I've known her for over 20 years, and know that she was intimately involved around the US invasion of Afghanistan, because many of her family members were killed during that time. And she wrote a very gripping memoir that was published in 2006, called My War at Home. And most recently, Masuda and I have been collaborating probably about 10 times the day, working on this unfreeze Afghanistan. And she's been absolutely brilliant and such a delight to work with. So thank you so much for getting up. I don't know if you even went to sleep, but in the middle of the night to be with us. Thank you, Medea. From the bottom of my heart for all the times that you have walked with the Afghan people in all of these difficult years over the last 20 plus years, I know you've been working on these issues for longer than 20 years. And to Code Pink, to Marcy, to Jodi, and to all the brothers and sisters that are supporting this work and that are on this call, it really means a lot. It makes a difference. You know, I could, I don't want to embarrass Medea, but she held my hand through one of the hardest times of my life trying to make sense of what was going on in Afghanistan. And she organized the first group of Americans 9 11 family members to go to Afghanistan to witness what was happening in January of 2002. And, you know, you don't really understand the impact of the work you're doing unless you're on the ground in some of these places and suffering.  You don't know how to tell the world that what they're doing is wrong to tell the powers that be in this case, the United States. And, you know, the proof of Medea's work and Code Pink's work and the work that you all do is in the fact that this 20 year war was lost in large part because of our policies really because of our policies in Afghanistan. You know, the bombings and the civilian casualties, the raids on people's homes, the 85,000 bombs that were dropped, and the way that we handle this and a lack of peace negotiations, you know, one would think logically that if you were at war with a group for even for a little bit, that you would attempt to talk to them, that that would be a part of your, you know, let's say you were, you were not a pacifist, you were just in, you know, you were just logical and practical. You would engage in negotiations with your enemy because you would assumingly not want to not to be attacking them or attacking villages or going into these provinces, which is not good for Americans either. We don't want to send, you know, young Americans into these places to, you know, to what is obviously, you know, almost 3,000 people have died, 20,000 people have been injured in Afghanistan and countless others have psychological and other difficulties and issues and traumas and guilt, moral injury. And you just wonder if a lot of that, if not all of it could have been avoided. And for me, you know, part of the learning was that there is power in people. There is power in what you are doing because what happened with what Medea and the 9-11 families work is that they got Congress to pass a law to assist civilian victims of US casualties caused by the US. And of course, it's not, it wasn't a perfect system. And it didn't get to everyone. But it actually changed the situation for a lot of people. And it was unprecedented at the time. And I'll continue on this story because one of the reasons that the Taliban gained support in a lot of these rural villages, particularly in these areas where the US was very actively trying to route them out, is that people started, you know, revolting against the the practices, both of the US and also of the Afghan army, the abuse of practices, you know, and this is, you know, this is a bit of a of a controversial issue. But you know, people say, well, there was no support amongst the Afghans for the Taliban. You have to wonder if there wasn't any support, how could they have taken the country in 11 days? How could they have, you know, literally walked into Kabul without any resistance? That tells you that there was something very, very wrong with the formula that we were employing. And and so the civilian casualties issue is credited as one of the main reasons why the Taliban ended up taking over in Afghanistan because people were fed up with the war. And the channels for peace negotiations were not open. They were not open from the very beginning. We know the Taliban were not included in the peace negotiations in Bonn.  And I didn't understand a lot of what was happening in terms of, you know, it was democracy, it was, you know, human rights, it was all of the good things that we wanted. But it came also through the power of the gun. And the lesson is that you can never force anyone to accept a system of government, accept a democracy with foreign true presence with force. And in fact, that ultimately, all unraveled so so so quickly, and people had to run for their lives as we saw, the fact that that that war is hardly talked about, that the issues that led to that that suffering are hardly acknowledged or understood is another interesting phenomenon to me, that we have just sort of swept it under the rug, and not really analyzed why weren't there engagements with the Taliban early on? Why what, you know, why even years into the war, you know, we would hear of people coming into Kabul, trying to meet with the Afghan authorities and refusing me, then you would hear these stories of people posing as Taliban that turned out to be shopkeepers that came into Kabul to meet with the government. And it was actually even in the New York Times that this had happened. Some senior level person who was posing as Taliban came in, but turned out to be a shopkeeper. Now I would ask, Well, if the Taliban were the de facto government for, you know, five years before the US went in in 2001, how come no one knows where they are or who they are?  How come a shopkeeper can fool the the leaders in Kabul? Clearly, there was something very, very wrong. We had shut that entire opportunity for engagement and discussion because we thought we were going to win and we were going to build this other society. And as you work on Ukraine and all of these other issues, I wanted to share that very personal experience and those observations to say that it's not assumed that people are talking to each other. It shouldn't be assumed that people have the best interest of the whole at heart that people have individual interests and drive. And sometimes they're not really psychologically ready to do what is necessary or simple as talking. And with that, you know, I don't want to take a lot of time. I'll jump to what the issue is right now, which is with the departure of the of the US and the donors, essentially 80% of Afghanistan's budget walked out the door overnight. And no one had really planned for this. No one had really planned for a lot of what had happened. But we were supportive of the end of the war. Medea and I were in touch. We, we wanted to do this to be over as did the majority of Americans as the majority of Afghans. But the way that it happened, and I'm not just talking about the airport scenes, I'm talking about the departure of the support for the Afghan people when they had been built up in this, in this way, the country was built on aid to take everything away overnight. And then to have to on top of that sees the central bank reserves and the sanctions that were on the Taliban then get imposed on the on the entire country meant that everything went down really, really fast. People had worked for, you know, all of these years, you know, 15 years now of gains are being wiped out because of the what is happening, you know, for all of the years of debate at the end of the war about having to keep troops there for protecting the gains of the Afghan people for protecting the gains of the Afghan women. We suddenly that conversation is gone. No one is talking about well, if we were so intent on keeping the troops there to protect the gains, why have we just walked out the door? Now we don't talk about protecting the gains. We're about to lose 15 years of gains in one year. Nobody talks about that. So it's very, very important that we highlight the need for aid to Afghanistan because that country was again nurtured and built on on aid for these 20 years. And these people don't have a way to supplement that right now that can't be done overnight. So half of the UN's $4.4 billion appeal is funded even after all of this time, this is since January, we're approaching winter again. This winter we expect is going to be worse than last winter. So last winter, we were afraid that the entire it was going to be one of the worst famines in history. We avoided that because the step up in donor aid to the WFP by the US. But with the continued lack of funding with the increase in food prices and fuel prices, and a lack of savings now because now now the Afghan people have had a year of not working in a year of just being on these crutches, and barely getting by we still have famine like conditions with 90% of the population not having enough to eat 50% of the population surviving on one meal a day. Medea and I were together on Afghan women on American women's peace and education delegation this March and April. And we met people who were boiling leaks to survive. This was inside of Kabul, which is the capital, which is where the aid is supposedly flowing very well. People can't bank, you can't send money from New York, you know, to the same people, you know, before a year ago, you could send money freely for any humanitarian cause. Now, even though these exemptions are there, based on treasury qualifications, effectively, you still can't do it. Why can't you do it? Because of this whole sanctions regime that has come up that makes you suddenly flagged for terrorist activity, if you're trying to support a girl in Afghanistan, or support the same program feeding people in Afghanistan. It's absolutely the the worst thing that could be happening right now is making it harder for people to send money to support people. You talk about remittances. You talk about transparency and the banking system. Well, the central bank itself told us, look, our funds have been seized. There are these sanctions. Everything is going underground.  These are the real effects on people. And if you go to Afghanistan, people can love the Taliban, they could hate the Taliban, they could be indifferent to the Taliban. But the one thing they agree on is that these sanctions are harming them, go from top to bottom to poor to to to middle class, what's left of it, they will all tell you that this is a harmful thing in their life. Why doesn't the United States understand this? So as we think about Afghanistan, we ask for number one, increase aid to Afghanistan because they are starving. We are responsible in great part for what happened in that country. We've been there for 20 years for returning their assets and the Afghan fund brings the assets into Switzerland, which in theory, gets it one step closer to Afghanistan, but in practice really needs to be pushed that those assets do make it back into the central bank. Central Bank is conducting currency auctions and doing monetary policy. In fact, they're doing one tomorrow. So let's not let's not ride this fantasy that they're just going to take the money in and run and use it for terrorist purposes. They're actually conducting monetary currency auctions regularly. And they're running a government for better or worse. I'm not saying it's a great government, but I'm saying that we can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater and hold everything back while everyone suffers. And then the third thing is these sanctions, these harmful sanctions, they are they are harming everyone in the country. They're bringing everyone to their knees. And I don't see how this helps any of our national interests or security interests or women. Thank you. Thank you so much. Wow. There's a lot to digest there. And we will be taking action tonight. After our next speaker, you were listening to Mesuda Sultan. She's an Afghan women's rights activist, co founder of All in Peace, a coalition of organizations that were working very hard to end the US occupation of Afghanistan. All right. Can we thank Mesuda and let her go? Given the time it is where you are. Thank you. And before I go, I will say that we are still pushing for girls education and women's rights. I didn't talk that much about it in this session, because I think that that a lot of that policies has to be pushed from the inside of Afghanistan. We're talking here about US policy. We have a few levers, but we should be supporting education as Medea fundraise through Code Pink. Very thankful for the fundraising you did for girls education. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you, Mesuda. A lot of love in the chat. And yes, she was she has been on democracy now several times as we're asking. Thank you so much, Mesuda. That was fantastic talk and get some sleep. Yes. All right, now we're going to go to our co-host, Hania Jodat, who is going to update us on another exciting campaign and then introduce our next speaker. Hania, the floor is yours. Thanks, Marcy. Thank you, Code Pink family. Thank you, Mesuda, for such powerful presentation of the current situation in Afghanistan. And we all hope to get engaged during and after this call. So another very exciting campaign that we're very much looking forward to is the Diffuse Nuclear War Coalition, which is launched by Ruth Saction and its upcoming events in October in the United States are responding to the reality that the dangers of nuclear war have risen sharply this year. In fact, unfortunately, very few members of the House and Senate have risen to the occasion by speaking out or publicly urging measures to de-escalate tensions between nuclear powers and seriously revive negotiations for nuclear weapons treaties and disarmament measures. Our activities range from October 2 all the way through the 16th, spanning the 60th anniversary of the start of the Cuban missile crisis and represent an opportunity for concerned individuals and our audience members and groups visibly convey their concerns, especially now given the circumstances with Ukraine and what's happening, the tensions rising in Taiwan. The Diffuse Nuclear War has about 95 plus organizations that co-sponsor it and we have three events coming up and Code Pink is one of the co-sponsors. We have a live stream October 2 with a diverse number of speakers along with a wide range of information and analysis and the live stream will really emphasize the importance of activism while encouraging creative participation. I'll share the link in the chat for all of you to please sign up and join us that day. The event will be for 90 minutes. The October 14 picket line is will present an opportunity for folks to in every state and congressional district to visibly convey their concerns in front of congressional and Senate offices. And the 16th of October will be about making you clear weapons of focus for communities and activists and elected officials from all policy angles. So we're going to have a number of activities that are being planned right now individually by organizations and we very much look forward to it. Another really important thing I want to discuss before we go to our next speaker is some of the current events that are unfolding in Iran with regards to Masa Amini. Mut is very somber for those of you who are following the current news. Just recently a very young 22 year old Kurdish woman again by the name of Masa Amini was arrested by the morality police for wearing her hijab loosely. There are reports that she was beaten badly in jail. She ended up in a coma and passed away shortly after. Iranian women and men have taken to the streets to protest mandatory hijab laws.  I stand in solidarity with my sisters in Iran with men and women both who have been really crippled under sanctions and these mandatory draconian laws that are really crippling the middle class and poor. And we'll end with a quote from Dr. King where he says injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere. So whether it's an abortion clinic in Texas or a Roe v. Wade situation where a woman cannot choose or it's in the streets of Tehran or Azerbaijan where a woman is mandated to wear the hijab. Women should in any parts of this world have the right to choose for themselves what to do with their body, their hair. But without further ado, I will move over to our next speaker who I'm very pleased and delighted to introduce, Trita Parsi, who is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on the U.S.-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is the author of Parsi treacherous alliance, the secret dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. And he was named by the Washington magazine as one of the 25 most influential voices in foreign policy in Washington D.C. in both 2021 and 2022. Trita, John, please take it away. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of you for participating to Code Pink and Massachusetts Peace Action for all of the amazing work that you all are doing and hopefully we'll continue to do. I want to echo the sentiments just expressed about the situation in Iran, which is, yeah, it's too often we see these images coming from there. I was asked to talk about the JCPOA and what the situation there is and bottom line is that we're in essentially a pause. The last amended proposal from the Iranians was one that both the Europeans and the United States characterized as a step backwards and there was no confidence that anything could be done in the short term. So all sides seem to have preferred that if there can't be a quick deal, it's better to postpone this till after the midterm elections. And although I personally believe, though I personally believe that the United States definitely wanted to see a yes from the Iranians, I do believe the Iranians still want a deal, I would say though that I felt like there was a bit of a sigh of relief in certain quarters in Washington because if the deal had been passed now and it would have gone to Congress for a vote, it was very clear from some of the supporters of the bill of the JCPOA in Congress that they felt that this is a really bad time for them to vote on this right before the midterms. Moreover, I'm sure you all notice that as it looked as if the U.S. and Iran might come to an agreement, Israel's government was losing its mind and there were a series of very high level Israeli politicians coming to Washington to convince Biden not to go along with this deal. To a certain extent, that was driven by domestic Israeli politics because they have their elections on November 1st. And even the faction within the Israeli government that opposes the JCPOA but does not want to have a public fight with Biden about it, they too felt compelled to have to go and pressure Biden very publicly because otherwise they would have a liability in the elections, mindful of the positions and the rhetoric that Netanyahu is using. By postponing the whole thing, it seems to me that a set of aligning for the administration, if one can put it that way, is that they may end up getting a deal after the elections, hopefully in which the Israelis will not be as adamant in their opposition, or at least the volume, and perhaps more importantly, I'm sure the administration was not looking forward to doing something that potentially could help Netanyahu come back to power. Now, whether there will be a deal afterwards or not remains to be seen. One thing that is, in my view, giving me a degree of hope is that if truly this is the end of diplomacy, that is certainly not the signaling that is coming out of Tehran, out of the EU, or out of the US. There's disappointment, but nothing that says that this is the end of it, but instead it's a deep freeze, it's a pause. By definition, a pause comes to an end. So I do think that there will be some new momentum after the elections. There's no guarantee, of course, there will be a deal. But I wanted to raise one issue that I think is perhaps equally important, which is that even if there is a deal, it's essential, in my view, that there is significant efforts made after the deal to use the remaining two years of Biden's first term, which may end up being his last term, to ensure the durability of the deal. Because of what has happened in the last couple of years, because of the fact that the United States has not been able to offer anything resembling guarantees, that it will not once again, without cause, leave the agreement. We're in a situation in which neither side actually believes that the deal will last more than two years. And the question is then, what are they going to use the next two years to do? Will they use the next two years to try to take some measures to strengthen its longevity and give it as great of a chance as possible to survive the next election in the United States? Or will they use it to prepare themselves for the coming confrontation in 2025? The path of least political resistance is to do the latter, to essentially just prepare themselves for the next fight. That means that Iran will try to insulate its economy for future US sanctions. It means that the United States will try to work to make its military option more credible. I think it's essential that if we manage to get it, that there is a lot of pressure on all sides to take as many constructive steps as possible to build on the deal in order to make sure that it can survive the next election. There's no guarantees, but there are things that can be done. I laid out a couple of them in a foreign affairs piece that was published two or three weeks ago. And the combination of those can be sufficient to make sure that even the next Republican American president may be deterred from repeating what Trump did. The reason why I think this is so important is because it will be a miracle if the JCPOA is revived after what Trump did. But the idea that the JCPOA could survive two American exits is essentially an impossibility. So this is our last chance to not only get the deal, but to make sure that the deal lasts. And one of the mistakes that was made after the JCPOA in 2015 is that everyone was just so exhausted after the deal finally was clinched, that there wasn't much investment in it afterwards and efforts to make sure that it would be as strong as possible, that it would be able to withstand all kinds of future political crisis, et cetera. And then, of course, we saw what happened. We have to use the next two years to do everything we can to make sure that this deal and future deals, whether it's on Iran and nuclear stuff, that we don't end up becoming a country that can only sign a deal and hold to it one political cycle. But we have no ability to make commitments that go beyond that, at least no credible commitments. And I hope that your code pink will put some of its focus on these efforts later on as well. I'll stop there when more and have to answer any questions. Yeah. Thank you so much. Shrita Parsey, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. And I see there are questions in the chat and we will get to them in a minute. So stay stick around. First, we're going to go to Brian Garvey of Massages of Peace Action. Brian's going to lead us in an action. Thanks, Marcy. And thanks, Dr. Parsey, for that great presentation. And I'm looking forward to all of the questions from you. So I won't keep you very long. But right now, what I want to ask you to do is to take some action based on based on what you've just heard. So code pink has created a great advocacy page asking Congress and the administration to do everything they can to return to the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal as as quickly as possible. You just heard all of the reasons why it's absolutely crucial that we do this right now. So we're going to put the link in the chat. I can I can put it in myself or someone else can pop it in there for you. It's incredibly easy to take this action, and it's incredibly important because we know that politicians are making these decisions and politicians care about public opinion, whether or not they admit it or not. So we need them to hear from you. We need them to hear from your friends. We need to we need we need them to hear from, you know, your family members, your entire network. So please, not only should you take this action, but you should share it with with everyone that you know and get them to care. Right. Because of the things that Dr. Parsi just said, this is absolutely crucial that we get back in the Iran nuclear deal. This is a deal that was working that united countries across the world. I mean, the United States, Iran, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia. I mean, how often do those countries come together and agree on something? This is why it's absolutely crucial that we return to this deal and also because it, you know, what Trump did getting out of this deal, it does. It absolutely hurts American credibility. Not just on Iran, not just on the Middle East. But on every foreign affair, you know, is the United States going to going to keep its word? We could do a lot to repair that if we got back into the JCPOA. So please, if you haven't taken the action yet, just click code pink dot org slash no around sanctions. It's incredibly easy and we need to flood the inboxes of these politicians and Washington, D.C. They need to hear. Thank you so much, Brian. Trita has limited time left. So we're going to go back to him for a few questions. Trita, can you stick around for a couple? I can sit around for five minutes. I thought it was the first I have to pick up my son. All right, let's go. Somebody posted in the chat. Why should we join the deal? Aren't they better off joining with Russia and China and creating an alternative currency and saying goodbye? No. I mean, if we on the one hand say that these sanctions are hurting Iranian people, then I don't think it makes sense to also say that Iran will be better off without deal. Those sanctions need to be lifted for Iran's civil society to be able to grow and for Iranians to be able to live up to their full potential. One can have significant and I have critiques of some of the things that I wish was in the deal. But that's different than saying that they're better off without it. I think the main critique that is valid against the deal is obviously this will not be a particularly beneficial deal if the United States can willy-nilly go in and out of the deal. Keep in mind, mechanisms were put in place to make sure that Iran could not leave the deal without immediately getting punished. That's what the snapback sanctions at the U.S. Security Council are there for. No such mechanisms currently exist for a potential American. If the U.S. exits the deal again, just like you did on the Trump, everyone else gets punished, but not the United States. And so those are some things that I believe need to be fixed, but they can be fixed once everyone is back into the deal rather than thinking that they need to be fixed before there is a deal, because that means that's a completely new renegotiation. I don't think politically that unfortunately is possible. Thank you, Hania. Yes, Trita, the next question is, has there been any improvement on the Saudi Iran relations and just in general relations between the Arab world and Iran? They're actually this has not been reported, but there actually has been some significant progress in behind the scenes diplomacy between several of the states in the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, UAE and Iran. I mean, there's no law first or anything like that. But what is clear is that all of these states want to make sure that there can be that they can avoid war. And even though they have a lot of problems with each other, they want to deal with those problems within a framework that does not lead to that type of an escalation. And this is to a certain extent driven by the fact that these countries are not convinced that the United States is more or less leaving the region or even if they have the presence, it's not going to fight in the region. And once they don't have the protection of the United States and suddenly the diplomacy becomes much more success more attractive. What is fascinating is that it's gotten to the point that, yes, if there is a JCPOA, those negotiations will probably speed up even further. But even without the JCPOA, it seems like the region has decided that they're going to make sure that they insulate themselves from any future potential conflict and try to help prevent them. And keep in mind also two GCC states, Qatar and Oman, have played a crucial role behind the scene, trying to help make sure that the JCPOA is real. Thank you so much, Trita. I know that you have to go. It's been a great pleasure to host you on Code of Penn Congress, Trita Parsey. Thank you so much for having me. The Quincy Institute. All right. We're not. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. We all unmute and thank Trita. Thank you, Trita. Thanks to all of our speakers, my goodness. Yes. Thank you for all of them tonight. We're going to go back to Brian, who has another action for us. Thanks, Marcy. Let's just highlight. I think we've got to. That doesn't work, Brian.  Let's try that again. I'm not hearing myself twice. Hearing me once is enough. But yes, we let Masuda Sultan go because it was, I believe, about four thirty five in the morning at the time. But we don't want to we don't want to leave off without everyone taking action on Afghanistan. We need to ask our government to change policy. God, just just for the fact that we absolutely destroyed that country for 20 years to add more injury to injury by by keeping those assets and by insulting them and saying instead, we're going to take three point five billion dollars and we're going to give it to the Swiss to dole out. We're not going to trust the people in Afghanistan with their own money. You know, we need to make some noise around this. So I just put it right right in the chat. It's it's incredible easy as well. You can just put your address in there and it will send messages not only to your members of Congress, but also to Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary and also to Tony Blinken, who runs the State Department, letting them know that you oppose the current policy and letting them know that it's not only it's it's not only an immoral policy, it's just a bad one, too. You know, it's it's only likely to to make Afghanistan worse off. And and that's not just bad for the Afghan people. That's bad for the entire region. And ultimately, it's it's bad for the United States as well. So just like I was saying, when when we were asking people to take action on Iran, and if you haven't done that yet, please click on that link. It's very easy to. You know, these are politicians. They do pay attention to public opinion.  And that's that's what we're doing here. We're trying to make some weather. All right. Thank you so much, Brian. You are a great cheerleader for action. And we took two actions tonight. Thank you all for doing that. We're going to wrap up with some announcements. The hour is almost up for me. I just want to invite you again to join us tomorrow. We'll have a meeting for the Peace and Ukraine Coalition. That's at one thirty Pacific Time, four thirty Eastern. And if you need the link for that, you can just write to me at Code Pink and I'll put that right here in the chat. Also, if you want to join our Google group and get our action alerts, let me know. We are asking you to call yours, US senators to vote no and to publicly oppose the Taiwan Policy Act, which would funnel six billion dollars in military aid to Taiwan to prepare for war with China. We don't want this. I also called Chuck Schumer today, his office, Chuck, a friend, right? I called his office and asked them to relate to him that I would appreciate if this never came up for a vote on the floor of the Senate. And if instead the bill went to a landfill. OK. Other announcements, Medea, Brian. Well, I have one more. See, oh, you're there, which is our next Code Pink Congress event will be in two weeks. And that is Medea's book talk on her war in Ukraine book. And as she mentioned at the top of the hour, that book will come out roughly October 1st. So she'll be doing a webinar with us on October 4th. So again, in two weeks for war in Ukraine. Yes. All right. Thank you, Cole. Brian, was there anything else you want to add or honey? Yeah, I just always always say that we need to advocate to end the US role in the war in Yemen, especially at this time. There has been a ceasefire, but that is going to be up at the beginning of October. So we need that ceasefire extended. So please, if you can, reach out to your reps, if they're not already on the Yemen War Powers resolution, get them on that resolution, because that has a great deal to do with the fact that the ceasefire in Yemen is going on right now. We need to continue it. Thank you, honey. I'm looking for John. I do want to end this call on a lighter note with a song from him, but I can't find him. So, John, if you are here, we would love for you to unmute yourself and play your piano for us. But if you're not, then I guess we can just say goodbye. Well, so I do want to thank Shayla Bow and Mahakan, who have been doing the tech for us on this call. We are so appreciative that you make it all happen. So with that, we're going to close out our Zoom and wish you well. Join us, Code Pink Congress, the first and third Tuesdays of the month. Tell a friend, all right. Hi, everyone. Hi. Thank you, everybody. Good night. Hey, great speakers.


So we're going to start out today's lecture. Today's lecture is on the chemistry of life. Today we're going to give you some chemistry skills that since we don't require you to take chemistry yet before you take physio, there's some stuff that you need to make sure that you're comfortable with. This lecture might feel a little bit like, whoa, that was a lot of information, but most of it should hopefully be review. As we all are fully aware, just because you took a class that covered a topic, it doesn't mean that it's actually in there. So it's a good thing to have this nice little chemistry warm-up review because the fact is that physiology is nothing more than applied chemistry. Like, we function because of chemical reactions. Now I have a video here to show you and I've turned down the sound, even though the soundtrack of this video is one of my favorites ever. This video might be my all-time favorite video ever. That's true for all the videos that I make you guys watch. But this video, so Harvard Science Biology Land School said they, whatever, asked ex vivo group to make them some animations of processes of the cell that are scientifically accurate. And so that these ex vivo people were like, sure, we can do that. And they made this one, which is absolutely fantastic. You have to go look it up. It's called the inner life of the cell. Go look it up and watch the whole thing because the music totally makes it. But I'm showing you this because I want you to see that that right there, did you see that? That was a growing microtubule which is a cytoskeletal component inside your cytoplasm of your cell. All familiar, all stuff you've already learned. They actually can put themselves together and take themselves apart just by forming and breaking chemical bonds. Again, no problem, we're cool with that. But the process of forming and breaking these chemical bonds causes things to happen in your cell. Look at this. This is actually an enzyme. It's just a molecule. It's just a protein that because of its shape, it sticks. It forms a chemical bond to whatever that cytoskeletal stick is right here. And then when it does stick to that cytoskeletal piece, that enzyme causes a change of its shape and it actually breaks the bonds in the cytoskeletal chunk right here. And it breaks it into two. It's a protein. It acts as an enzyme. It causes something to change. The shape of the resulting product is different. And you have a new function because you have a new shape. Structure determines function. There's another one that is it's all chemical reactions. And this is where like you have to be joking me. They stick together because of chemical reactions. They build. They can walk cells. Can walk cells. Can move. They've got little feet like, oh, like that. Look at that thing. That is not a cell. This is inside a cell. But this is your cytoskeleton. This guy has a name. I can never remember what their name, what its name is. So if anybody finds it out, tell me what it is because I never want to forget it again. It's a little molecular machine. It's just made out of protein and it has a sticky end for this vesicle. Who knows what's inside there.  This guy changes shape as it forms chemical bonds with the cytoskeleton and literally walks on like these highways in your cell. It's happening inside you right now. What? And that's chemistry. That's not magic. It looks like magic. It's fantastic like magic. It's chemistry. That is why we're going to take the time to do this little chemistry review and we're going to talk about proteins and their structures and how structures change. Really in the land of chemistry if you can be comfortable with the idea that the structure of a molecule can change and when it does it can do something different. It can be sticky in a different spot. It can cause chemical reactions to happen differently than your golden. Then you have the chemistry background that you need. So we're going to start out by looking at molecular structure and function and then get a move on with all this cool stuff. But yeah, seriously, go watch this thing because it'll make you cry. It's so cool.  Oh, I have to push stop. And I'm still here. I hope that I go back to this part out.