Can Congress Stop Bush on Iran? Does It Want To?
News: A few weeks ago, lawmakers in effect gave the administration carte blanche to attack Iran. Now a few members are trying to take it back—or at least add a P.S.
November 9, 2007
|
|
In the past month, President Bush and his allies in the Congress have set Washington once again buzzing with speculation about the administration's end game for Iran. But as everyone from antiwar activists to military insiders wring their hands over the White House's intentions, a lonely handful of Democratic legislators are working to wedge Congress between the administration and Tehran.
Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney and Virginia Sen. Jim Web have emerged as early leaders. Their efforts have drawn mostly tepid support from their colleagues, in both parties. But Tierney points to hopeful signs of a groundswell—and sources say influential Democratic donors have begun demanding that party leaders match Bush's saber rattling with an equally forceful chorus of caution.
In 1998, during a politically fraught moment in United States history, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Iraq Liberation Act, which made ending Saddam Hussein's regime an official U.S. policy goal. The legislation said: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
Nine years later, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), and Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.), attached an eerily similar amendment to the 2008 defense spending bill, which passed with overwhelming support. "It should be the policy of the United States," the Kyl-Lieberman amendment reads, "to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies." This should be accomplished, according to the language, with the "use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments."
Two, in this case, doesn't make a coincidence. It makes a pattern. But one of the key differences between 1998 and 2007 is that some on Capitol Hill—including senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman, and members who have opposed similar measures in the House—see the writing on the wall. "It was the escalating rhetoric from the Bush administration," Tierney told me on Thursday when I asked what got him to focus on Iran. He worries that "the administration may be more concerned with regime change than with behavioral changes from the Iranian government."
Tierney sits on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairs the National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee, beneath the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Two weeks ago, he initiated a series of subcommittee hearings, inviting experts to teach Congress about Iran—what the Iranian people support, how their government works, how they can be engaged diplomatically, and what the costs of military action against Iran would be. At Thursday's hearing, the second in the series, five former diplomats and national security experts—four of whom sat in staunch opposition to military action—placed the chances of an American strike against Iran at between 20 and 50 percent over the next nine months.
After the hearing, I asked Tierney which of his congressional colleagues were most likely to help prevent an attack—potential members of a anti-escalation caucus. He demurred, perhaps because the total numbers are still too low, particularly in the Senate. And therein lies the problem.
Steve Clemons, who directs the American Strategies program at the non-partisan New America Foundation, argues that, in the wake of Kyl-Lieberman, the political landscape has changed: No longer can it be argued that the administration has no congressional support for military force against Iraq. "Forget about Constitutional questions. Those went out the window with Kyl-Lieberman. What the Senate can do, if it wants to stop an attack or an accidental war, is get Hillary Clinton and more powerful Democrats to get 50 votes for something—even if it's not binding, even if it's 50 signatures on a letter—showing that a majority of the Senate opposes a conflict."
Emily Blout, acting legislative director for the National Iranian American Council, echoes Clemons. "First and foremost, in the short term, we need more activity along the lines of what Tierney and Webb are doing," says Blout. "Ultimately we should move to legislation—to something like Webb's bill." And that's exactly what most activists, and experts, and donors would like to see as well.
According to Capitol Hill sources who asked not to be named, influential Democratic donors are planning, in the coming days, to push senior Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the Senate leadership to invite Admiral William Fallon--the Commander of U.S. Central Command, who has autioned against military action in Iran and criticized the continued drumbeat--to testify. They believe Fallon's views could help gather momentum for Webb's and Tierney's efforts.
Recently, Webb sent a letter to President Bush emphasizing his belief "that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress." It was signed by 29 other members. But 60 votes would be needed for any binding legislation to make it to the Oval Office. And with more dramatic measures, like closing the purse, off of the Democratic leadership's table, the best Dems can do may be to let their views be known—loudly.
Brian Beutler is Washington Correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including Mother Jones.
