Senator John Kerry on Iran

Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) responded to a constituent letter outlining concerns with the U.S. approach toward Iran. Below is the Senator Kerry's response, which details his position on how the U.S. should move forward.

Dear XXX:

Thank you for writing me with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on a foreign policy issue which demands nothing less than our full efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

As our nation's intelligence agencies made clear in December 2007, now is the time for a sustained and assertive diplomacy to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Sustained diplomacy does not mean that the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons has gone away. In fact, we know that Iran once had a secret nuclear weapons program and that it continues to produce fissile material that can serve as fuel for a nuclear weapon. The question is how best to address this challenge, and the best way forward is through careful diplomacy.

I believe we must deliver a strong message to the Iranians as part of a comprehensive approach that imposes effective, multilateral sanctions should they continue to defy the will of the world. As part of our multilateral diplomatic efforts, the U.S. and our allies must offer real incentives for verifiable nuclear cooperation.

The recent incident in the Persian Gulf makes clear that we cannot afford to let our guard
down - and it also highlights the importance of dialogue so that miscommunication or misinterpretation of the motives on either side doesn't lead to heightened tensions. The U.S. Navy's firm but measured response to Iran's recent provocations deserves our admiration and I'd like to express my appreciation for their continued vigilance.

To ensure that America's policy remains steadfast and smart, and that counterproductive saber-rattling doesn't trump common sense, it's important for Congress to be very clear with the Bush
Administration. Because I do not want to see the President lead the American people into a wrongheaded war with Iran, I have cosponsored legislation with Senators Webb, Clinton, and Whitehouse to prohibit the use of funds for military action against Iran unless approved by Congress. As the elected representatives of the people, Congress-not the President-has the constitutional authority to decide matters of war and peace, and to use the power of the purse to enforce our will. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and it's essential that we act that way.

Please rest assured that I am continuing to press for an effective diplomatic solution in regards to Iran. Thank you again for your letter. Do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other matter of importance to you.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

Senator Specter Calls for Dialogue Without Preconditions Twice in the Same Month

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has twice called for the U.S. to drop preconditions and negotiate with Iran this month.

Sen. Specter blasted U.S. policy on Iran and called for more dialogue in the hearing today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.

During the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that was held on April 9, Senator Specter told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration should drop its demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a condition for talks with the United States. Senator Specter said, “Frankly, I think it's insulting to go to another person, or another country, and say ‘we’re not going to talk to you unless you agree to something in advance.’ What we want them to do is to stop enriching uranium. That’s the object of the talks. How can we insist on their agreeing to the object that we want as a precondition for having the talks?”

Secretary Rice responded that halting enrichment is not just a U.S. condition but also a demand of other major powers trying to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran. Secretary Rice also said that Iran cannot be allowed to use negotiations as a “cover” while it continues perfecting techniques that might be used for nuclear weapons.

However, Secretary Rice failed to mention that it has been the Bush administration that has insisted the international community place the Iranian nuclear issue on the front burner. Yet the U.S. itself has not directly engaged Iran in negotiations, preferring to farm out direct contacts to European allies. It is unlikely that Iran would evoke so much international concern minus U.S. pressure.

Senator McCaskill Expresses Concern About Backdoor Military Action

Today, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) expressed concern over the Bush Administration’s provocative rhetoric against Iran. In a letter to supporters, she writes:

"My father, a World War II veteran, instilled in me an appreciation of our armed forces, and the young men and women who have done so much to protect the freedoms we cherish. He taught me to appreciate the gravity of warfare, and that war should be pursued only when there are simply no alternatives available.

"The Iraq conflict represents the unfortunate result when these principles are ignored, and I will continue to do everything in my power to force the President to change course. But Congress must be equally vigilant to ensure that new flashpoints in the Middle East do not follow the same failed course as our Iraq policy.

"In particular, I have been concerned with the Bush Administration's provocative rhetoric on Iran, and I am using my seat in the United States Senate to remind the President that military action requires the express consent of Congress. I have resisted efforts to provide what I would call "backdoor" approval for military action in that country. Last month, the Senate considered an amendment that would categorize Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "foreign terrorist organization". To me, adoption of this amendment could essentially provide approval of military action against Iran, especially by this Administration. I am also concerned that this amendment was debated without the benefit of a single hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member.

"I voted against the amendment, and this month joined Senator Jim Webb and other Senate Democrats in a letter to President Bush stating, "We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran."

"If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that we must be aggressive and vigilant in stopping President Bush and Vice President Cheney from dragging us into new military quagmires. I will continue to do everything in my power to prevent this from happening."

Sincerely,
Senator Claire McCaskill

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

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.

Senator Durbin Introduces Iran Amendment to AMTRAK bill

What do Iran and AMTRAK have in common? Well, nothing until today. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) went to floor during the debate of the AMTRAK bill and said he was upset about the administration's assertions regarding Iran. He said he wanted to be clear that Congress has not in any way authorized the use of military force against Iran. Durbin then offered a nonbinding Resolution "Affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated." He assumed it wouldn't be allowed to be voted on the AMTRAK bill, so his intention is to offer as a seperate resolution. I'll post more information when it is available in the Congressional Record tomorrow.

Update: A colleague just emailed me a very clever response to this. He said: "Quite appropriate as Iran is a train wreck waiting to happen, just like AMTRAK." I couldn't agree more.

Senator Clinton Signs Onto Webb Bill

On October 1, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) signed on to Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) bill, S. 759, barring funding for military action against Iran without approval from Congress. The gesture is seen in large part as a response for her vote to endorse the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill. Senator Clinton was the only Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Kyl-Lieberman amendment and she was pressed on her vote during last week's debate in New Hampshire.

"I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims," Clinton said in a statement. "I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime."

Senator Clinton still does not seem to understand that sanctions only undermine diplomacy with Iran and designating the Islamic Revolutionarly Guard Corps a terrorist organization will only undermine US security interests.

Possible Vote on Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Tomorrow

Today the Senators Lieberman and Kyl presented arguments in favor of Amendment No. 3017 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill. According to John Isaacs, the Senate is expected to continue consideration of the Defense Authorization bill this week, but it will also break for other bills, including a Continuing Resolution to keep the government going after October 1 because no appropriations bill have passed. Senators Lieberman and Kyl predicted that their amendment could come up for a vote tomorrow, perhaps following a vote on the Biden amendment supporting federalism in Iraq tomorrow morning. However, it remains unclear when the vote will actually occur as the Defense Authorization bill is going to be on and off the floor likely into next week.

Senator Kyl also said they would possibly change some of the language in the amendment to say that the resolution is not an authorization for use of force against Iran.

Senator Lieberman focused his remarks on the usual unsubstantiated claims regarding Iranians training and arming militias in Iraq. Meanwhile, Senator Kyl made the case that the full Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be named a terrorist organization and argued against only naming the Quds force as a terrorist entity. He said it would be like not holding the Mafia responsible for their actions, only their hit men.

Sen. Lamar Alexander asked for unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor to the bill.

Senators Up "Democracy Promotion" Funding in Foreign Ops Bill

On September 6, 2007, Senator Lieberman’s Amendment No. 2691 to the Senate Foreign Operations bill was adopted by unanimous consent. The amendment restores funding for “democracy assistance,” which was cut in the Appropriations Subcommittee, to the Bush administration's request. The amendment provides “that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available for the Economic Support Fund, $75,000,000 shall be made available for programs of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State to support democracy, the rule of law, and governance in Iran.” It was cosponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mel Martinez (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA).

The House version of the Foreign Ops bill appropriates $25,000,000 for democracy assistance and directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to initiate a comprehensive assessment of the capacity of the U.S. Government to effectively administer democracy programs worldwide.

The Lieberman-Brownback amendment reads:

"On page 410, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND GOVERNANCE IN IRAN

Sec. 699B. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title III for other bilateral economic assistance under the heading “Economic Support Fund”, $75,000,000 shall be made available for programs of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State to support democracy, the rule of law, and governance in Iran."

Here is Senator Lieberman’s floor statement in defense of the amendment:

"Dissidents and democrats in Iran today are under attack by their own Government. The question before this Congress is whether we are going to stand with them in solidarity or whether we will turn away our heads. This amendment would provide $75 million in funds, the amount requested by the administration; in fact, announced by Secretary of State Rice. That announcement, I know from sources I have, was broadly heard and appreciated within the Iranian civil society dissident movement. The committee has recommended one-third of that amount of money. This $75 million would go to labor activists, women's groups, journalists, human rights advocates, and other members of Iranian civil society. It provides Congress an opportunity to demonstrate that even as we condemn the behavior of the Iranian regime, we stand with the Iranian people, a people with a proud history who truly are, in my opinion, yearning to be free. That freedom is suppressed by the fanatical regime that dominates their lives today.

The alternative path before Congress, if we don't adopt this amendment, would be to cut the administration's request by two-thirds. At that level of funding, existing programs will not only be unable to expand, they will actually be cut back. In other words, at just the moment when the Iranian Government is engaged in an unprecedented rollback of the human rights and political freedoms of the Iranian people, the American Government will be rolling back its own programs to help defend those rights and freedoms. Why would we do this?

The report language of the Appropriations subcommittee, I say respectfully, says that ``the Committee supports the goals of promoting democracy in Iran,'' but ``it is particularly concerned that grantees suspected of receiving U.S. assistance have been harassed and arrested by the Government of Iran for their pro-democracy activities.''

In other words, the argument against this amendment seems to be that we should give less to help dissidents in Iran because our help, in turn, may lead to their harassment by the totalitarian government in Tehran. I respectfully disagree with this logic. I know that we do not give less to democracy advocates in Myanmar or Zimbabwe or Belarus when they are being harassed by the regime, nor do we give less to freedom fighters behind the Iron Curtain in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. On the contrary, it is precisely when dissidents are under attack that they need more help from the United States, not less. I am sure my colleagues would agree that if we give less money to these civil society human rights activists in Iran, the Iranian regime will not repress them any less. The repression probably, in fact, will be greater. As to the argument that those who accept this money--and I can say, speaking generally, that the money is given through third parties, international organizations, to the civil society human rights advocates in Iran--that somehow they will be harassed for receiving this money, I believe the just and right thing to do is leave that decision to those who are fighting for freedom in Iran, for us to be willing to help them if they want that help. The record is clear there.

Since the State Department began making these grants 8 months ago, 90 percent of the fiscal year 2006 funds have been obligated, with the remaining funds expected to be obligated by mid-September. Perhaps there are some Iranian groups that do not want our funding, but it is clear that many others do. The need is great. It is beyond the $75 million this amendment would provide. That choice should be theirs. Our moral responsibility is to make the money available to these courageous fighters for freedom in Iran, those who want not only more freedom but a better future for themselves and their children.

I want to close by saying that we know from history that dissidents can change history, because history is made not by abstract, inexorable forces but by individual human beings such as Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa or Andrei Sakharov or Natan Sharansky. It was the bravery of these people that kindled our moral imagination to see the suffering of millions behind the Iron Curtain, and it was their leadership that inspired millions more to cast off their shackles and overthrow a cruel and dictatorial system of Communist government that many thought would endure forever. Like the Communist terrorists of eastern Europe, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran repress their people because they are frightened of them. They know how powerful the dissidents and the democrats in their midst can become. These are the people to whom this money would go. That is the reason my colleagues and I have offered this amendment."

Senator Specter on Engaging Iran and Parliamentary Exchanges

On August 1, 2007, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) delivered a lengthy statement on the Senate floor regarding US policy in Iraq, including his view that the US should engage both Iran and Syria. His remarks included discussion of his support for two amendments to HR 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (debate on the bill was suspended in the Senate in July). The two amendments in question are S.Amdt. 2208, introduced by Senators Warner (R-VA) and Lugar (R-IN), and S.Amdt. 2063, introduced by Senators Salazar (D-CO) and Alexander (R-TN).

Senator Specter stated:

“…Both the Warner-Lugar and Salazar-Alexander proposals address the issue of diplomacy in the region. I have consistently urged the administration to work with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in order to develop cooperative stabilization efforts. To that end, I have met with President Bashar Assad of Syria. I have met with Iran's Ambassadors to the United Nations, Seyed Muhammed Hadi Nejad Hosseinian and Muhammad Javad Zarif, on four occasions in New York and Washington, DC. Additionally, I was the only Member of Congress to attend the September 2006 address by former President Khatami at the National Cathedral. [Ed. Note: This is an untrue statement. I personally spoke with Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) at the National Cathedral event.]

“During my meetings with Iranian officials, I developed a proposal for an exchange of visits by Members of Congress to Iran and Iranian parliamentarians to the United States to try to open dialogue between our two countries. In January 2004, my efforts to foster such a dialogue were successful. There was a tentative agreement for U.S. Members of Congress to meet with Iranian parliamentarians in Geneva. Regrettably, this parliamentary exchange never came to fruition.

“In an effort to jumpstart this exchange, on May 3, 2007, I sent a letter, with support from Senators Biden, Hagel and Dodd and Representatives Lantos, English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks, to the Speaker of Iran's Parliament suggesting we convene a meeting of U.S. and Iranian parliamentarians.

“I have amplified my strong belief that dialogue with nations such as Iran and Syria is necessary in an extensive Senate speech on June 16, 2006 and most recently in an essay 'Dialogue With Adversaries' published in the winter edition of The Washington Quarterly. While we can't be sure that dialogue will succeed, we can be sure that without dialogue there will be failure.

“I am not alone in calling for enhanced dialogue with U.S. adversaries. Of the many suggestions gleaned from the Baker-Hamilton commission, one passage crystallizes their conclusion: ‘Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.’

“However, the President's plan places a disproportionate emphasis on military force while neglecting the needed diplomacy and political efforts.

“Having served in the Senate for 26 years, holding the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee and senior positions on the Appropriations subcommittees on Defense and Foreign Operations, I am aware of what challenges nations like Iran and Syria pose to the United States. A world in which Iran seeks nuclear weapons and supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah is not a safe world. A world in which Syria provides refuge for Hamas and Hezbollah and permits its territory to be used as a conduit for terrorism is counterproductive to peace and stability. I expressed my views on the danger the connectivity between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah poses to peace and security in an August 2, 2006, floor statement.

“Today, however, Americans are not dying from nuclear weapons or from direct attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. Many are dying policing a civil conflict.

“President Assad, during our December 2006 meeting in Damascus, suggested that a conference with regional players and the United States would be beneficial to addressing the issues confronting Iraq. On January 22, 2007, I conveyed this proposal and my support for it to Secretary Rice in a meeting in her office at the State Department. One month later, on February 27, 2007, during her testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary Rice announced such a proposal…

“Very little has happened to effectuate that ‘new diplomatic initiative.’ The Iraq Study Group clearly states: ‘Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.’

“It would have been my hope that these types of meetings would have occurred frequently in the intervening months. However, I am pleased that the President has recently indicated a commitment to ramp up diplomatic efforts in the region.”

Senate Passes Amendment on Iranian Missile Threat

For a bill that was going to focus on the Iraq issue, a fair amount of debate has focused on Iran and Iran bashing.

On July 12, the Senate voted 90 to 5 to pass a modified version of Sen. Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 2024 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Act. The amendment states that it should be the policy of the United States to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective defense against “the threat from Iran,” and that any U.S. missile defense system in Europe should be complementary to any missile defense system fielded by NATO.

Click here to view the modified version of the amendment.

Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Tester and Mr. Webb were the only Senators to vote “no” on the amendment.

Mr. Biden, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Obama and Mr. Vitter didn't vote.

Senate Passes Lieberman's Iran Amendment

This afternoon, the Senate voted 97 to 0 to pass Senator Lieberman’s amendment on Iran (Amendment 2073) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 1585).
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) called for unanimous consent on the amendment and became a co-sponsor himself, after Mr. Lieberman agreed to modifications that supposedly will include language to ensure that the amendment will not have appearances to authorize military force against Iran.

You can find the original amendment here. When the modified amendment is available, I will post it. You can also find the Bush administration’s Statement of Policy on Iran in the Defense Authorization bill here.

Mr. Lieberman's amendment essentially calls for regular reporting on the Iranian role in Iraq, but it includes of a lot rhetoric without evidence that has been rigorously substantiated. The issue of Iran's role in Iraq is very muddied.

The reality is that if the US wants to leave Iraq successfully, it is going to need a lot of help from the Iranians. Rather than tit-for-tat escalation, a wiser approach would be for the US to directly engage Iran in dialogue and solutions for a stable Iraq.

Lieberman Offers Iran Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

Senator Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill to "require a report on support provided by the government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq."

Click here to download and view the amendment in its entirety.

US Escalates Pressure on Iran

Yesterday, the US escalated allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq claiming that its Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (also known as Revolutionary Guards or IRGC) and its covert unit the Qods force played a role in an attack that killed five Americans and was using Lebanese militants to train Iraqi insurgents. Previous allegations have been off the record. Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner conducted the public briefing.

In response, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) reiterated the need to keep open the possibility of using military force against Iran, but stopped short of advocating an immediate military strike.

UPDATE:
For criticism of the New York Times reporting of the press conference with Gen. Bergner, read Greg Mitchell's article in Editor and Publisher entitled "Consider the Source: NYT Reporter Targets Iran."

Iraq-Iran Situation Analogous to China-Vietnam

In a floor speech on 6 February 2007, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an analogy between Iraq-Iran today to Vietnam-China. In Vietnam US forces killed 1.4 million enemy combatants but finally had to abandon a military-only policy. In his speech, Sen. Webb re-defines “supporting the troops” by broadening the context to include non-military action.

"...I would cite an important historical referent. In 1971, China , like Iran today, was considered a rogue nation. China in those days was already a nuclear power. It had an American war on its borders, in Vietnam , a war that it was actively assisting. We, the United States , took the initiative, aggressively opening China through diplomatic energy, and over time helped to bring China into the international community. We should not be afraid of taking similar actions with Iran , and also with Syria.

The bottom line of all of this is that this Administration and its supporters must understand the realities that are causing us, as a Congress, to finally say enough is enough. That the time has come for a new approach. That the answer in Iraq , and to our fight against international terrorism, and to our diminished posture around the world, is for us to show not only our prowess on the battlefield but also our leadership in the diplomatic arena. That indeed we have an obligation to the men and women who have served so selflessly on our behalf, to match their proficiency and their loyalties with the kind of thoughtful leadership that will bring this effort to a proper conclusion. "