New Bill to Prevent Funding for Overthrow of Iranian Government

This week, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) will introduce the “Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008,” which prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense from providing covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran. The resolution is based on amendments Rep. Lee has previously submitted to legislation for consideration, including Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act. Below is the full text of the new bill.

A Bill
To prohibit the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) The security of the United States is not enhanced when the United States acts in a manner that leads other nations to distrust its public pronouncements, question its motives, and view its actions with suspicion.

(2) Engaging in covert or clandestine activities intended to undermine or overthrow the Government of Iran is antithetical to democratic values and respect for the rule of law.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO COVERTLY OR CLANDESTINELY SUPPORT THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), no funds appropriated to the Federal Government may be obligated or expended by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

(b) EXCEPTION FOR DECLARATION OF WAR.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if a declaration of war by Congress with respect to Iran is in effect.

New House Resolution on Human Rights in Iran

On June 26, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) introduced H.Res. 1310, which expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Iran's lack of protection for internationally recognized human rights creates poor conditions for religious freedom in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The resolution is co-sponsored by Representatives Bob Filmore (D-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). It was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

H.Res. 1310 resolves:

"That the House of Representatives--

(1) calls for the release of all religious prisoners in Iran and for United States officials, at the highest levels, to vigorously speak out publicly about the deteriorating conditions for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief in Iran, including drawing attention to the need for the international community to hold authorities accountable in specific cases where severe violations have occurred;

(2) calls on the United Nations Human Rights Council to monitor carefully and demand compliance with the recommendations of the representatives of those special mechanisms that have already visited Iran, particularly those of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion on Expression;

(3) encourages the United Nations Human Rights Council to continue to use its procedures to maintain oversight conditions for freedom of religion or belief in Iran, including, as Iran has issued a standing invitation, continued visits and reporting by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and other relevant special rapporteurs and working groups;

(4) supports--

(A) the continued designation of Iran as a `country of particular concern' under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for its systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom;

(B) funding budgeted to promote democracy and human rights in Iran that includes support for effective initiatives to advance freedom of religion or belief, as well as ways to promote rule of law programs that specifically seek to protect religious minorities;

(C) adequate funding for United States public diplomacy entities, such as Voice of America and Radio Farda, and the expansion and development of new programming solely focused on human rights, including the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, in Iran;

(D) supports the commission of an independent review of Voice of America Persian and Radio Farda to ensure that the programming reflects the basic tenants of freedom of information, equality, transparency, and journalistic integrity that America espouses;

(E) a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning severe violations of human rights, including freedom of religion of belief, in Iran, and calling for officials responsible for such violations to be held accountable; and

(F) the establishment of a diplomatic envoy to the nation immediately to establish dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepen relationships with the Iranian people; and

(5) calls on the Government of Iran to--

(A) immediately release all prisoners who have been detained on account of their religion or belief;

(B) immediately release all prisoners of conscience who have been detained on account of their political dissidence;

(C) modify the draft penal code in order to respect the obligations under the international human rights conventions to which the Government of Iran is a party;

(D) uphold its international commitments by respecting and protecting the human rights of all its citizens; and

(E) ratify and fully comply with international human rights instruments and cooperated with United Nations human rights mechanisms."

H.Con.Res. 362 Could Be Marked up in Committee

Sources indicated that H.Con.Res. 362 may now be marked up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to which it was referred on May 22, 2008, before it is placed on the Suspension calendar for a vote. The legislation is not (yet) on the Suspension calendar for this week, but sources do continue to indicate that a vote is imminent.

A Congressional insider also examined the bill closely and told me that the language is ambiguous and could be construed in either a provocative or a benign way. The source asked, “What does it mean if it doesn’t mean a blockade? There are innocuous ways to interpret it, but why not just make clear what they mean?” The source also said the language depends on how you define a blockade and referred to President John F. Kennedy declaring a "quarantine" during the Cuban Missile Crisis because he was told by lawyers that to declare a "blockade" was clearly an act of war. The source also said the term “departing” in clause 3 is of particular concern.

If the bill will be marked up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee first, it presents an opportunity for Members of Congress to change the provocative language and also go on record regarding their intentions with this legislation.

Response from International Lawyer on Blockade Issue

As promised, I will post responses today I have received from lawyers who are experts in international law regarding H.Con.Res. 362 and whether it could be construed as calling on the President to pursue a blockade against Iran.

Here is one response I received:

"Here the concurrent resolution is asking the President to do something which cannot possibly be done effectivly without the use of force while disclaiming that it authorizes the use of force. Nice try, but no cigar.

"If the US were to do unilaterally what clause 3 of H.Con. Res. 362 demands, it would clearly be a violation of international law on any number of grounds, the main one being the principle of freedome of the seas. But it doesn't do that; it only asks the President 'to initiate an international effort.' If that effort were successful and the Security Council passed a resolution calling on all UN members to implement clause 3 as a threat to the peace under Ch. VII of the UN Charter, that could conceivably be legal, since the International Court of Justice has ruled in the Libyan case that anything the Security Council does is legal. But I don't see that happening.

"The same thing goes for the sanctions called for in Clause 2, i.e. they would constitute violations of international law if applied unilaterally by the US. That, however, is something the US could do unilaterally, since it wouldn't require a Security Council resolution and the US doesn't give a damn about international law. It would merely require an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act.

"To return to your original question, does the Ackermann/Pence resolution call for a blockade? Not necessarily. Whether a given behavior by one or more states constitutes a blockade is a question of fact. In other words, it would depend on how the intent of clause 3 was implemented.

"It is difficult to see how ships 'entering' Iran could be subjected to 'stringent inspection' without the use of force. On the other hand, communications destined for or arriving from Iran could be intercepted in any number of ways, most of them illegal, but many of them undoubtedly already in force.

"I don't know if that helps, but it's such a stupidly worded resolution that it's almost impossible to get a handle on it."

Sanctions Resolution Raises Controversy

H.Con.Res. 362, new resolution introduced on May 22, 2008 by Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), is raising controversy in Washington and across the country. There is particular clause that some many fear is tantamount to declaring that the President should pursue a naval blockade against Iran, which would be an act of war. An office of one of the co-sponsors of the bill claims this is not the intention of the legislation and points to a “Whereas” clause in the bill that states “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran” as evidence that the resolution does not call for a blockade. Here is the specific language under the “Resolved” section in the resolution that has many concerned:

(3) 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 the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;

The bill was introduced just prior to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Annual Policy Meeting and urging co-sponsorship is one of AIPAC’s central legislative asks. They are currently circulating a letter in support of H.Con.Res. 362 and the Senate companion, S.Res. 580.

According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to “pass like a hot knife through butter” before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is noncontroversial. As of June 18, the bill already has 169 co-sponsors. If and when the bill is voted on suspension, there will be a roll call vote and AIPAC will use how member’s voted on the resolution in the lead up to the elections.

It is unclear if all of the bill’s co-sponsors really know what they’ve signed onto. Before the legislation is steamrolled to a vote, the language is controversial enough that it should certainly be closely examined, particularly given the heightened state of tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

The language has been circulated to several experts and lawyers and I will post any opinions received.

Iran Cited in House Resolution to Impeach George W. Bush

On June 10, 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced H. Res. 1258, “Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.” The resolution’s articles of impeachment include Article XXI, entitled “Misleading Congress and the American people about threats from Iran, and supporting terrorist organizations within Iran, with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian Government.” On June 11, 2008, the House of Representatives voted 251-166 to refer the measure to the Judiciary committee. The full text of Article XXI is below. Special thanks to Lara Friedman for sending Article XXI.

“In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates misled the Congress and the citizens of the United States about a threat of nuclear attack from the nation of Iran.

“The National Intelligence Estimate released to Congress and the public on December 4, 2007, which confirmed that the government of the nation of Iran had ceased any efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was completed in 2006. Yet, the president and his aides continued to suggest during 2007 that such a nuclear threat was developing and might already exist. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated at the time the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran was released that the president had been briefed on its findings 'in the last few months.' Hadley's statement establishes a timeline that shows the president knowingly sought to deceive Congress and the American people about a nuclear threat that did not exist.

“Hadley has stated that the president 'was basically told: stand down' and, yet, the president and his aides continued to make false claims about the prospect that Iran was trying to 'build a nuclear weapon' that could lead to 'World War III.'

“This evidence establishes that the president actively engaged in and had full knowledge of a campaign by his administration to make a false 'case' for an attack on Iran, thus warping the national security debate at a critical juncture and creating the prospect of an illegal and unnecessary attack on a sovereign nation.

“Even after the National Intelligence Estimate was released to Congress and the American people, the president stated that he did not believe anything had changed and suggested that he and members of his administration would continue to argue that Iran should be seen as posing a threat to the United States. He did this despite the fact that United States intelligence agencies had clearly and officially stated that this was not the case.

“Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration's attempts to portray Iran as a threat are part of a broader U.S. policy toward Iran. On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then- Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's book, 'War and Decision.'

“General Wesley Clark, reports in his book 'Winning Modern Wars' being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of governments that Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz planned to overthrow included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Clark writes that the list also included Lebanon.

“Journalist Gareth Porter reported in May 2008 asking Feith at a public event which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, to which Feith replied 'All of them.'

Rumsfeld's aides also drafted a second version of the paper, as instructions to all military commanders in the development of 'campaign plans against terrorism'. The paper called for military commanders to assist other government agencies 'as directed' to 'encourage populations dominated by terrorist organizations or their supporters to overthrow that domination.'

“In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine that the Bush Administration had been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since the summer of 2004.

“In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported that United States security forces had been sending members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) into Iranian territory. The MEK has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter reported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had used the MEK to carry out remote bombings in Iran.
“In April 2006, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine that U.S. combat troops had entered and were operating in Iran, where they were working with minority groups including the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds.

“Also in April 2006, Larisa Alexandrovna reported on Raw Story that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was working with and training the MEK, or former members of the MEK, sending them to commit acts of violence in southern Iran in areas where recent attacks had left many dead. Raw Story reported that the Pentagon had adopted the policy of supporting MEK shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in response to the influence of Vice President Richard B. Cheney's office. Raw Story subsequently reported that no Presidential finding, and no Congressional oversight, existed on MEK operations.

“In March 2007, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine that the Bush administration was attempting to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni organizations, without any Congressional authorization or oversight. Hersh said funds had been given to 'three Sunni jihadist groups ..... connected to al Qaeda' that 'want to take on Hezbollah.'

“In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders were understood by the Iranian government as a proxy war with the United States and were leading Iran to support its allies against the United States' occupation force in Iraq. Among the groups the U.S. DOD is supporting, according to this report, is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. The United States has provided 'foodstuffs, economic assistance, medical supplies and Russian military equipment, some of it funneled through nonprofit groups.'

“In May 2008, Andrew Cockburn reported on Counter Punch that President Bush, six weeks earlier had signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime. President Bush's secret directive covers actions across an area stretching from Lebanon to Afghanistan, and purports to sanction actions up to and including the funding of organizations like the MEK and the assassination of public officials.

“All of these actions by the President and his agents and subordinates exhibit a disregard for the truth and a recklessness with regard to national security, nuclear proliferation and the global role of the United States military that is not merely unacceptable but dangerous in a commander-in- chief.

“In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.”

House Resolution on Persecution of Bahai's

On February 28, 2008, Representatives Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Frank Wolf (R-VA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Michael McNulty (D-NY) introduced H.Res. 1008, a resolution condemning the persecution of Bahai’s in Iran. The bill, which currently has 51 co-sponsors, was scheduled to be marked up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on June 17, but has been postponed and will be rescheduled for a later date.

The resolution “condemns the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is, calls on the Government of Iran to immediately cease activities aimed at the repression of the Iranian Baha'i community, and continues to hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding all the rights of its nationals, including members of the Baha'i community.” It also “condemns the Government of Iran's continued imprisonment of individuals without due process and a fair trial” and “calls on the Government of Iran to immediately release 3 Baha'is: Ms. Raha Sabet, Mr. Sasan Taqva, and Ms. Haleh Roohi.” The resolution also calls on the “Government of Iran and the Iranian Parliament to reject a draft Islamic penal code, which violates Iran's commitments under the International Covenants on Human Rights.”

New Sanctions Bill Introduced: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

On June 4, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Thadeus McCotter (R-MI) and Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced H.R. 6178, new legislation “to strengthen existing legislation sanctioning persons aiding and facilitating nonproliferation activities by the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and for other purposes.” It is also called the STOP Act of 2008. The bill has been referred to the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Financial Services.

Title III, Section 202 of H.R. 6178 would amend Section 7 of the “Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act” (Public Law 106-178; 50 U.S.C. 1701) to prohibit the U.S. to enter into any agreement for nuclear cooperation with “the government of any country that is assisting the nuclear program of Iran, North Korea, or Syria or transferring advanced conventional weapons or missiles to Iran, North Korea, or Syria may be submitted to the President or to Congress pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153).” It would also amend Section 8 of the “Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act” to direct the Secretary of State to deny a visa to, and require the Secretary of Homeland Security to exclude from the United States any foreign person who has been determined to have aided proliferation in those countries, including any corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a controlling interest in an entity, parent or subsidiary company of foreign persons determined to have aided proliferation.

Title III, Section 302 of the bill would amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) to deny taxpayers engaged in business activity with Iran tax benefits. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, in the case of a taxpayer which is a member of an expanded affiliated group any member of which, on any day during the taxable year, engaged in business activity with Iran which is prohibited by United States law, no credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or accrued (or deemed paid under section 902 or 960) to any country if such taxes are with respect to income attributable to a period any part of which occurs during such taxable year.”

Section 304 of the bill would also establish a “Compensation for Former United States Hostages in Iran Fund” to “to pay claims to the United States citizens held hostage in Iran, and to members of the families of such United States citizens, who are identified as plaintiffs or class members in Case Number 1:00CV03110 (EGS) or Case Number 1:00CV00716 (HHK) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”

New Sanctions Resolution Introduced into the House of Representatives

Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) are circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter on the hill to drum up co-sponsors for H.Con.Res. 362, introduced on May 22, 2008. The legislation expresses “the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes” and urges the President to impose new sanctions on Iran.

H.Con.Res. 362 resolves that Congress:

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--
(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;
(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and
(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) 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 the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

Below is the full “Dear Colleague” letter requesting co-sponsorship of the legislation.

Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying:
Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362

May 28, 2008

Dear Colleague:

We write to encourage you to join us as sponsors of H.Con.Res.362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

As the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, we have been monitoring with growing concern Iran's manifest efforts to destabilize and reshape the Middle East, to block efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and, worst of all, to acquire the means to produce enriched uranium, the key to producing nuclear weapons.

Iran is backing and arming militias and terrorists fighting the United States and our allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; it is the proud patron of both the Hamas take-over in Gaza and the Hezbollah insurrection against the Lebanese government; it is the major funding source for numerous terrorist groups and, increasingly, its fellow state-sponsor of terrorism, Syria; it is supporting Islamist sectarian groups in places like Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen; and, it is radically reorienting regional security calculations (e.g., the sudden interest among Sunni Arabs in commercial nuclear power).

In various public statements, Iranian leaders proudly take ownership of these policies and promise more of the same. Meeting the threat posed by Iran is an urgent requirement for the United States, and a challenge that will require us to work closely with the international community, and especially with partners in the Middle East. Though the stakes are high and time is short, the resolution is explicit in stating that meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic and economic levers, and that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."

The threat from Iran is real and growing, and Congress needs to sound the alarm to ensure that today's efforts by Iran at subversion and proliferation do not, tomorrow, become the seeds of new and more terrible conflict in the Middle East.

Please contact Dalis Blumenfeld (dalis.blumenfeld@mail.house.gov) at the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia at 202-225-3345 if you'd like to be added as a sponsor.

Sincerely,

s/ Gary L. Ackerman s/ Mike Pence

HASC Passes Iran Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

In the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) markup on May 14, 2008 of the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, HASC Ranking member, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), and Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced an amendment that would have required the Department of Defense to develop and maintain a military option against Iran and require the Department of Defense to report on Iran’s achievements in uranium enrichment efforts.

In his statement introducing the amendment, Rep. Franks called Iran a “regime gone rogue” and said that despite the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran is not one less day shorter of gaining a nuclear weapons capability. He also said, “I truly believe in doing everything diplomatically, economically, in terms of sanctions, informational options, that we can possibly do, to prevent Iran from successfully gaining nuclear weapons. But my amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should develop and maintain a military option against Iran alongside of these measures. The amendment also establishes a reporting requirement for the Department of Defense as Iran achieves key milestones in its uranium enrichment efforts. Mr. Chairman, our best chance to avoid war with Iran is to make sure that Mr. Khomeini [sic] and Mr. Ahmadinejad know that all options, including the military option, Mr. Chairman, are on the table, should they continue to defy those standards of behavior that all responsible members of the international community must respect in order to coexist…” Mr. Franks also said during the debate that Iran was “hell-bent” on acquiring nuclear weapons and that some day our children could be faced with “nuclear jihad.”

Behind the scenes, there was an agreement negotiated with Representatives Hunter and Franks to combine their amendment with one offered by Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX). In describing the compromise, Rep. Reyes clarified for the committee that Mr. Frank’s amendment actually started off as two amendments from the Minority side. Representative Hunter had introduced the first amendment that contained language requiring an annual report on Iranian nuclear capabilities. Representative Franks introduced a Sense of Congress provision “calling on the Department of Defense to develop and maintain viable nuclear options to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from successfully developing or deploying a nuclear weapons capability.” Representatives Franks and Hunter submitted a revised amendment combining the two amendments.

In introducing his substitute amendment to the combined minority amendment, Representative Reyes added said the minority amendment “ignores the state of readiness of the armed forces and its possible inability to execute a national military strategy. Additionally, the administration has been less than forthcoming on its planning for a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.” Rep. Reyes explained his revised amendment as follows: “The second order amendment now being offered expresses concern over the readiness of the armed forces to carry out the full range of contingencies to include those in the Middle East. It also maintains the requirement for the Defense Department to report on matters pertaining to the preparation of contingencies for the Middle East in general and regarding Iran and its nuclear facilities in particular, and to also include a comprehensive description of information used in their preparation.”

Following Mr. Reyes’ introduction of his substitute language, Representative Hunter introduced a second degree change to the amendment adding a few more details to the Department of Defense reporting requirement on Iran’s nuclear program, including information on the number of centrifuges and the number of weapons that could be built, etc. to be delivered in March of every year. The language was worked out with Rep. Reyes.

Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) opposed the perfected amendment calling it more egregious than the first one. He said “Take a look at what is being proposed here. Why don’t you just go ahead and declare war on Iran? I mean that is what this is all about. You want to talk about targeting destruction? The language in [Rep. Franks’] amendment and the language in Mr. Hunter’s amendment in effect is a declaration of war on Iran. We seem to have forgotten in the process that we overthrew the government of Iran. If you want to talk about terrorism, if you want to talk about attacking other nations, if you want to talk about interfering with the governments of other nations, this goes back more than half a century where this country has systematically interfered with various governments in Iran. Whether you think that’s a good idea or a bad idea, the fact of the matter is that our relationship with Iran for the past half century has been one of constant opposition and interference in the government…”

He said if the issue is terrorism, then we have to bring India, China and Pakistan into it because they’ve signed contracts for oil with Iran. He also noted that the building of nuclear power plants is taking place all over the Middle East. “So if the idea is about centrifuges, if the idea about enriched uranium, for plutonium and so on is going to be an issue, then you’re going to have to add a lot more countries in the Middle East to this than Iran. This [amendment] is something where we’re going off on a tangent that has very serious, very deep implications for extending the United States into a position where it will be seen as literally threatening Iran with destruction.” He noted that there is an entirely new social context in Iran. He said we need to be reaching out to Iranians and creating a new reality for them, not threatening them.

Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) said as someone who actually did planning at the Defense Department that the reporting requirement on Iran’s nuclear program as stipulated in the amendment, “We don’t do those things in the Pentagon. You just tell us to drop the bomb and we do that. Doesn’t this have to go through the Intelligence Committee? This is Intelligence work.” Rep. Franks interjected, “Under the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA, we already have inspections that take place all the time in these facilities” and called Iran’s progress on a new generation of centrifuges “astonishing.” Despite Mr. Sestak argument that the amendment was articulating intelligence work, not Pentagon work, the amendment was cleared by Parliamentarians because it required the reporting from the Pentagon and not from the Intelligence Community.

Rep. Ellen Tausher (D-CA) spoke against Rep. Hunter’s perfecting amendment, which she said essentially called for a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. She reiterated Rep. Sestak’s concerns that it was something for the Intelligence community and argued the amendment went beyond the purview of HAS

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) said the question at the end of the day is whether we are going to be provocative and have a policy that focuses on the needs of this country in the long run. He called the amendment “questionable” in terms of what it would add to U.S. national defense.

After debate concluded, the Hunter perfecting amendment to the Reyes amendment passed by a voice vote, followed by the Reyes amendment, as amended by the Hunter amendment. The Franks amendment, as substituted by Mr. Reyes and amended by Mr. Hunter, then also passed by a voice vote. There were no roll call votes.

The full debate over the Franks amendment and the subsequent perfecting amendments can be viewed online at the HASC website (Part VII, 2:59:16-3:32:45).

Special thanks to Lara Friedman for sending the timing of the debate (HASC mark-up lasted for more than 17 hours).

Rep. Franks to Offer to Iran Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill

This just in...

A veteran hill lobbyist who is closely watching today's House Armed Services Committee markup of the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Act says that Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), one of the most conservative members in the House, will offer an amendment to the bill this evening with language to the effect that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. Committee markup of the is expected to go late into the evening. The bill is expected to be on the House floor next week.

New Bill Introduced to Limit Travel of Diplomats from State Sponsors of Terror

On April 24, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 5886, a bill designed “to restrict the diplomatic travel of officials and representatives of state sponsors of terrorism.” The bill has 15 co-sponsors and a cutesy title, “Limiting the Intrusive Miles of International Terrorist Sponsors Act of 2008” or the “LIMITS Act of 2008.”

Essentially, H.R. 5886 seeks to limit the ability of diplomatic and official representatives of “state sponsors of terror” from receiving visas to travel to the U.S., with the exception of travel to and from John F. Kennedy and La Guardia airports to the United Nations in New York “in connection with official business at the United Nations headquarters complex” without any stops along the way. Delegates and representatives would not be allowed to move outside of the half-mile radius of the United Nations. Currently, they are permitted to travel up to 25 miles for UN activities.

The bill specifically highlights Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. H.R. 5886 cites that “between 2002 and 2007, the Department of State issued, with full diplomatic immunity, 1823 visas to delegates and representatives from Cuba, 2782 visas to delegates and representatives from Iran, 132 visas to delegates and representatives from North Korea, 1242 visas to delegates and representatives from Sudan, and 706 visas to delegates and representatives from Syria.” Sponsors of the bills argue that mobility should be restricted because these visas create a security vulnerability within the U.S.

Iran Stuck in the Middle of Partisan Debt Relief Politics

On April 16, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 2634, legislation "to provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries."

During the debate on H.R. 2634, there was a procedural motion to recommit the bill offered by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) that would allow it to include Amendment 994 which states: “Countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program.” However, the Republican motion backfired because the wording in the instructions to motion to recommit also cleared existing conditions that would apply to debt relief, along with previously adopted amendments.

According to Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill, the only way to fix the problem would be through a vote on new bill. In an article on April 17 for CQ Today by Adam Graham-Silverman, Rep. Frank said, “I’m going to invoke the old motto: to the victor goes what he spoiled. This is what happens when you do these things in a hurry because you want to ambush and not do legislating.”

Rep. Frank also called the motion to recommit, which passed 291-130, “mischief.” Proving once again the short-sightedness of U.S. policy towards Iran, Rep. Frank said the motion passed because “people get afraid in an election year of being accused of having helped Iran.”

In addition, there was little debate over which countries the amendment might affect, except for a minute amount spent on Iraq. Rep. Frank noted, “…the Government of Iraq [has] business interests with Iran. I know there are close ties between the Governments of Iraq and Iran. There’s interchangeability.” Rep. Diaz-Barlart reassured Rep. Frank: “It does not affect Iraq.”

Amendments erased by the motion were a tough pill to swallow for Republicans and included one introduced by Rep. Frank on behalf of Republicans to require that countries commit to free elections and fight human trafficking and illegal immigration in the United States (passed 424-0) . Another amendment erased was introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) would have excluded governments from debt relief not chosen by free elections (passed 382-41). Also, the motion to recommit erased Bush administration supported language that would have required savings from debt relief be applied to poverty reduction and a ban on conditions that could have limited countries’ ability to boost spending on health care or education.

Although the Office of Management and Budget opposed the passage of the bill, it did not include a veto threat in a statement of Bush Administration policy on the legislation. House Financial Services ranking member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said “I would be stunned if [President Bush] did anything but sign it.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is planning a hearing on the companion bill, S. 2166 on April 24.

Update on Iran Provision in House Debt Relief Legislation

The motion to recommit H.R. 2364 was offered by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) to include Amendment 994 which states: “Countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program.”

In his floor speech, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued: “This motion to recommit is frankly very, very simple. It just states the following, that countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program. Now, the underlying bill in front of us today has a very noble goal, Madam Speaker. It is to work comprehensively to ensure that poor countries that have heavy international debt are able to relieve these debts through certain responsible actions. But the question is, should we separate these goals, these noble goals, from our broader foreign policy interests?

Rep. Diaz-Barlart claimed: “The Iranian regime, we all know, has a very active program to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and therefore, it makes it one of the most dangerous regimes in the entire world. In addition, Madam Speaker, as we heard just recently, just last week from General Petraeus, we are increasingly concerned by the Iranian terrorist regime’s efforts on behalf of terrorist elements in Iraq and elsewhere. The lives of our troops are at stake, and any country that assists Iran economically should not benefit from the bill in front of us today.”

“Our country, obviously the United States, does not have diplomatic or financial ties to Iran, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that countries that choose to participate in our debt relief program should shatter whatever economic ties they currently have with that terrorist regime. And if they don’t have them now, if they don’t have those ties now, they clearly should not develop them as long as they want or expect debt relief from us through this program.”

Financial Service Committee Chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) engaged in a debate with Rep. Diaz-Barlart and expressed concern that the amendment might affect Iraq. According to Rep. Frank, “You limit eligibility under this program. Iraq might very well owe us money. The question isn’t nuclear weapons. It is, would this prevent Iraq from being eligible, these criteria. And I would hope someone would answer that.”

Rep. Diaz-Barlart responded: “Your bill does not deal with Iraq. It does not affect Iraq.”

Rep. Frank responded back, “…the Government of Iraq have business interests with Iran. I know there are close ties between the Governments of Iraq and Iran. There’s interchangeability.”

The vote to recommit the bill and add the amendment then passed by a vote of 291-130.

Iran Provision Added to Debt Cancellation Legislation

Special thanks to Mark Harrison for sending information. I had no idea Iran would be so central to the debt cancellation debates.

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 2634, legislation "to provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries." There was a motion to recommit the bill back to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to include a provision that no country that has a business relationship with Iran can receive debt cancellation. The motion carried.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chair of the Financial Services Committee, later returned to the House floor, to state that the Committee accepted the language. The debt cancellation bill then passed with the Iran language.

I will check Congressional record tomorrow for specific language and post.

Resolution on Effectiveness of Sanctions Against Iran

On April 8, 2008, H.R. 5084, originally introduced on January 18, 2008 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) to require the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, and the intelligence community to conduct ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran, was referred to the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. The bill will need to pass the other House committees, including: Foreign Affairs; Oversight and Government Reform; Ways and Means; and Agricultural.

Comprehensive Diplomatic Initiative for the Stabilization of Iraq

On December 19, 2007, Representatives Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Walter Jones (R-NC), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John Murtha (D-PA), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) quietly introduced a new bipartisan resolution, H.Con.Res. 274, the Comprehensive Diplomatic Initiative for the Stabilization of Iraq Act of 2008.

The bill was introduced following President Bush’s announcement that the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq had begun and will continue in the coming months. Members of Congress believe any responsible drawdown in U.S. troops requires a more comprehensive and regional diplomatic initiative and the creation of an adequate diplomatic and political infrastructure to help reconcile Iraq’s fledging government.

H.Con.Res. 274 urges the need for a collaborative effort between the President, the administration and government of Iraq to initiate, develop and implement a sustained comprehensive regional and multilateral diplomatic initiative. It also expresses the vital role that the United Nations Security Council, United Nations Secretary General, Iraq’s neighboring states, regional organizations such as, the Arab League and non-governmental organizations should play in achieving this effort.

The bill also recommends the implementation of Iraq Study Group Recommendation 9, which states, “Under the aegis of the New Diplomatic Offensive and the [Iraq International] Support Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.”

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.

New House Resolution on Iran World Bank Disbursements

On October 16, 2007, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced H.Con.Res. 235, a resolution which “urges the Board of Directors of the World Bank to request a policy review of current disbursements to the Islamic Republic of Iran and to end these disbursements until the International Atomic Energy Agency certifies the compliance of Iran with resolutions 1696 and 1747 of the United Nations Security Council and the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” The resolution also urges “the United Nations Security Council to order the World Bank to end disbursements to Iran if the Board of Directors of the World Bank fails to take action on its own.”

The resolution has 23 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Financial Services.