In order to curtail Iran's nuclear activity the resolution "demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating."
McNulty said he understands the group's concerns but that there is a clause in the resolution that states, "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."
The congressman said Resolution 362 is meant purely as a diplomatic measure to deal with Iran.
"It doesn't mention anything about a blockade. I'm supporting the clause that says there will be no military action," McNulty said. "There's a natural skepticism about the Bush Administration, which I share."
McNulty said he is against Iran having nuclear capability.
"Prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear program is a good thing," he said. "This is a nuclear non-proliferation resolution."
Easter said she doesn't buy it and that the resolution would set the stage for a military conflict with Iran.
"I think it's a contradiction of terms, I mean it requires the president to set up this blockade," said Easter. "That clause is in ignorance of international law because this would be seen as an act of war."
Easter and other members of Women Against War met with McNulty's chief of staff in Albany on Thursday, July 31, and is scheduled to meet with McNulty in person on Monday, Aug. 4, to discuss the issue once he returns from Washington D.C.
The group is also arranging a meeting with Gillibrand.