House Passes Anti-Iran Resolution

On November 5, after only five minutes of debate and not a single member of Congress questioning or speaking in opposition, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted by voice vote H. RES. 435, “Expressing concern relating to the threatening behavior of the Iranian regime and its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the activities of terrorist organizations sponsored by that regime in Latin America.” The resolution was introduced by Rep. Rob Klein (R-FL) and had 43 co-sponsors when it came up for a vote under the suspension of the rules.

H.RES. 435 expresses concern for collaboration between Iran and Venezuela, and for Iran's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Among other things, the resolution alleges:
“Whereas Iran and Hizbollah were involved in the two deadliest terrorist attacks in Argentina: the March 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 29 people and the July 1994 attack against the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA), which killed 85 people;

“Whereas the Government of Argentina is currently seeking legal action against the perpetrators of the 1994 AMIA terrorist attack;

However, in an article entitled “Argentina’s Iranian Nuke Connection” published last year, Gareth Porter writes that he did not find any evidence to support the indictments or any charge of Iranian responsibility or Hezbollah involvement:

“Less than three weeks after that Iranian bid for negotiations, on March 17, 2002, a bomb blast destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 26 people. Argentina, the US and Israel have long maintained that Iran was responsible for both that blast and the bombing of the AMIA headquarters in July 1994. ”But it seems unlikely that Iranian leaders would have ordered or knowingly supported any terror bombing in Buenos Aires just when they were concerned with nailing down an agreement to protect their important interests in relations with Argentina.”

He also notes: “The investigation of the 1994 bombing by the Argentine judiciary, which has no political independence from the executive branch, has had little credibility with the public, because of a bribe by the lead judge to a key witness and a pattern of deceptive accounts based on false testimony.”

Gareth is also working on a new critical analysis of this issue regarding the role of the Argentine case against the Iranians and the history of the US role in the case. I will post when it is available.

Durbin's Iran Bill Gaining Steam

On October 25, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced S. Res. 356. It now has ten additional co-sponsors, more than any other Senate resolution on preventing war with Iran. The additional co-spnosors are: Akaka, Bingaman, Brown, Byrd, Clinton, Dodd, Murray, Sanders, Stabenow and Whitehouse. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, but the Senators will look for other opportunities to introduce it. Senator Durbin’s legislation provides the next opportunity for Senators to go on record as a follow-on to the Webb letter. His goal is to attract a large group of co-sponsors in order to make it clear that many Senators are wary of a military conflict with Iran, at least not without prior Congressional approval.

Obama Introduces Iran Resolution; Calls for Engagement Without Preconditions

Senator Obama has just introduced S.J.Res. 23, a resolution to clarify that the use of force against Iran is "not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law. " In a New York Times article today, Senator Obama also articulated that he would "engage in 'aggressive personal diplomacy' with Iran if elected president andwould offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek 'regime change' if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues."

Below is the full text of S.J.Res. 23.

Joint Resolution

Clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

Whereas the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243) authorized the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to — (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq";

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate agreed to a provision, Senate Amendment 3017 to Senate Amendment 2011 to H.R. 1585, stating the sense of the Senate that, "the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region";

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate also stated the sense of the Senate "that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq";

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of State designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction under Executive Order 13382 in relation to concerns about their role in proliferation activities;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated 9 IRGC-affiliated entities and 5 IRGC-affiliated individuals, as derivatives of the IRGC, as well as Iran's state-owned Bank Melli and Bank Mellat and 3 individuals affiliated with Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO), as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or supporters of terrorism under Executive Order 13382;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) as a supporter of terrorism for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, and designated Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier, under Executive Order 13224; and

Whereas any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress: Now therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243), any act that serves as the statutory authority for Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law including the terms of Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224 shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of Armed Forces of the United States against Iran.

Another Letter to the President on Iran

Today, Steve Clemons obtained and posted a letter on his Washington Note blog sent by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on October 17 to President Bush. In the letter, Senator Hagel calls on the President to "offer direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran." Steve notes on his blog that he "learned that the letter somehow made its way to US Central Command Commander William Fallon, perhaps through Defense Secretary Gates or other avenues, and Fallon allegedly communicated with the Senator that serious articulations of American interests and consideration of the options Hagel recommends are much needed in this current political and policy environment." He also writes "that while I am in complete agreement with the content of Senator Hagel's letter and had the privilege of moderating a dinner discussion with him yesterday evening, the content of this letter came via other sources to me -- and I trust the Senator and his staff will respect the fact that I felt it important to bring this letter to public attention and have not violated any trust with any person in his office." Below is the full the text of the letter.

October 17, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:

I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.

In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.

I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior.

Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

Thank you for considering my views.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H.

Chuck Hagel
United States Senator

cc: Condoleezza Rice
Robert M. Gates
Stephen J. Hadley

Senate Letter to President Bush on Iran

Last Friday, October 26, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) began circulating a sign-on letter to prevent an "offensive" military confrontation with Iran for signatures by other Senators that will be delivered President Bush. The Council for a Livable World has led the NGO efforts to help get 29 other Senators to sign the letter. The effort is an interim measure short of passing legislation which allowed Senators to go on record stating that they do not believe the President has the authority for unilateral military action against Iran. Below is the actual letter to President Bush.

"We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran, including the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

"We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution. At the same time, we wish to emphasize that no offensive military action would be justified against Iran without the express consent of Congress."

Signed,
1. Webb
2. Akaka
3. Baucus
4. Boxer
5. Brown
6. Byrd
7. Cantwell
8. Carper
9. Casey
10. Clinton
11. Dodd
12. Dorgan
13. Durbin
14. Feinstein
15. Harkin
16. Johnson
17. Kerry
18. Klobuchar
19. Kohl
20. Leahy
21. McCaskill
22. Mikulski
23. Murray
24. Reed
25. Rockefeller
26. Sanders
27. Stabenow
28. Tester
29. Whitehouse
30. Wyden

New Bi-Partisan Resolution on Congressional War-Making Powers

On October 25, 2007 Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Reps Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) held a press conference last week to announce H. J. Res. 53 introduced on September 25, 2007 to restore the constitutional checks and balances over declaring war.

Although the bill does not specifically mention Iran, it is clearly meant to reassert the Congressional war-making power to prevent such a conflict.

Rep. Jones said, “The framers of our Constitution sought to decentralize the war powers of the United States and construct a balance between the political branches. Throughout American history, this balance too often has been ignored. Since U.S. involvement in Korea, presidents of both parties have used military force abroad without the consent of Congress. Our Constitution states that – while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars – only Congress has the power to declare war. Too many times this Congress has not met its constitutional duty of oversight & has abdicated its constitutional authorities to the executive branch. It is for this reason that I have introduced H. J. Res. 53 – the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. As threats to international peace and security continue to evolve, the Constitutional War Powers Resolution rededicates Congress to its primary constitutional role of deciding when to use force abroad.”

According to the resolution’s sponsors, H. J. Res 53 would:

>Prohibit presidential entry into hostilities without Congressional action except: to repel and retaliate for an attack on the United States, to repel an attack on U.S. troops or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens;
>Provide a more robust presidential reporting requirement so that Congress may be more informed and able to exercise improved oversight;
>Provide for judicial review to enforce compliance by giving automatic standing to members of Congress; and
>Only permit the use of federal funds for military actions taken pursuant to the resolution.

H.J.Res. 53 is also co-sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-PA).

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also reasserted the role of Congress under the War Powers Act during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program on October 14, "We don't believe that any authorities that the president has would give him the ability to go in without an act of Congress. Any president, if we are attacked, if our country is attacked has -- even under the War Powers Act -- very strong powers to go after that country. But short of that, he must come to the Congress."

Durbin Introduces Iran Resolution

Yesterday, I posted about Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) making a speech during the debate on the AMTRAK bill about his concern with the administration's assertions on Iran. In the end, Senator Durbin did not offer his new resolution as an amendment, but he, along with Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), did introduce it as a stand alone bill, S. Res. 356. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, but the Senators will look for other opportunities to introduce it.

From the October 25, 2007 Congressional Record:
SENATE RESOLUTION 356--AFFIRMING THAT ANY OFFENSIVE MILITARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST IRAN MUST BE EXPLICITLY APPROVED BY CONGRESS BEFORE SUCH ACTION MAY BE INITIATED

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. SANDERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. RES. 356

Whereas Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power to declare war: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.