http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/020907/iran.htmlAs the House is set to proceed on a resolution addressing the war in Iraq, a potential divide is surfacing over Democratic bills regarding Iran.
Democrats may not stand united behind a series of bills that speak out against a military attack on Iran, concerned that such bills would make the party prone to attacks regarding foreign policy, according to a senior House staffer. In spite of the party’s overwhelming unity behind similar resolutions regarding Iraq, it seems clear that the party’s next challenge will be to craft a position on Iran that is distinct from the White House’s and also insulates it from criticism of being weak in the global arena.
The potential divide also indicates that not all Democrats are convinced that the party has seized control of the national security issue, in spite of their electoral triumphs in November, which were largely due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war.
Within the first month of the new legislative session, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) have introduced bills in the House condemning the prospect of a preemptive strike against Iran and calling for congressional authorization before military action can be taken. The measures also affirmatively reject the notion that the authorization to use force against Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, would also authorize an attack on Iran.
The senior House staffer, who is involved in foreign policy matters, stated that Republicans may try to use any legislation by Democrats concerning the potential use of force against Iran to portray the party as weak on terrorism and foreign policy, and that this could have a profound effect on denying Democrats the White House in 2008. The source went on to say that Democrats still cannot afford to take steps that open the party to criticisms of being weak on these matters.
DeFazio contended that a future attack on Iran would only solidify political support for the Iranian government and intensify its desire for nuclear-weapons capability, stating, “If Republicans want to defend going into Iran … have at it.” He added that the prospect of a military attack on Iran is also a fear for the military community, citing a recent presentation by a retired major general that was delivered during the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting last week. According to DeFazio, the former officer said that there is “a substantial fear within the military community that the Bush administration” was seriously considering an attack on Iran. DeFazio noted that many lawmakers signed on to his resolution after the presentation.
Another House source added that congressional backing for the use of force against Afghanistan after Sept. 11 resulted in an overly broad instrument that has since been used by the White House for a variety of actions, including the detention of suspects without any formal process and incidences of extraordinary rendition.
The DeFazio resolution states, “That Congress … strongly and unequivocally believes that seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary, but is a legal requirement.” The Lee legislation, while intended to prohibit the use of funds for covert military action against Iran, offers a statement of policy that, “It is the policy of the United States not to enter into a preemptive war against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, and then only in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
