A Reality Check on Iran Policy and U.S. Campaign Politics
On November 1, 30 Democratic senators, led by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, delivered a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress. This message follows up on the bill proposed by Senator Webb and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force on Iran. Senator Clinton, in fact, first proposed that the administration could not act without a wholly new authorization in a floor speech on February 14.
The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."
Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''
As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger. This measure is just one of the appropriate tools at our disposal, and there should be other diplomatic initiatives, as Senator Clinton has proposed: strengthening multilateral negotiations and opening direct bilateral relations with Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not adopted the comprehensive diplomatic approach proposed by Senator Clinton.
The November 1 letter reinforces the actual language of the Durbin amended version of Kyl-Lieberman, calls for broad diplomacy of the kind advocated by Senator Clinton and puts the Bush administration on notice that it has no authorization for the use of military force against Iran. The letter states that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution "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, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress."
Given these facts, distorted criticism of those senators who voted for the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman, especially Senator Clinton, and refusal to sign the November 1 letter lacks merit on the substance.
Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. Since then, he has repeatedly argued for direct presidential talks with the Iranian leadership with no preconditions. Rather than reinforcing diplomatic options, his actions have the effect of eschewing diplomatic efforts to bring the Revolutionary Guard to heel, while placing all his bets for peaceful coexistence with Iran in the future on his own charisma and charm.
He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.
As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy. Needless to say, profound distrust of Bush and the administration is more than merited. I yield to nobody in my own efforts to bring their lies to public attention. But the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman and the November 1 letter are clear in drawing lines in not granting the Bush administration authority it does not have.
The administration has rightly been criticized for its refusal to use the broad array of tools at our disposal other than military action in the conduct of national security. War has been its first, second and final option -- its preferred option -- with disastrous results. Successful policy-making requires the use of complex diplomacy, carrots and sticks -- incentives, such as structured talks, and disincentives, such as sanctions against rogue elements. Coping with the Bush administration should not cause us to ignore at our peril very real adversaries that would do us harm. These clearly include Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Joe,
You had me at "bellicose."
Will you again censor my critical but polite comments?
Ambassador Wilson,
I vigorously defended you family against acts of treason committed and trashing your professional and personal reputation. I respect both your professional contribution to protection of USA.
However, I am extremely disappointed that this article bears your respected name yet it is clearly meant to: (i) clean-up Hilary’s Kyl-Lieberman vote mess (ii) attack Obama who has dared to oppose party establishment.
Democrats are tired of leaders trying to have it both ways by taking one reprehensible vote and then turning around and attempting to cover this up by writing a useless letter. Obama says that a letter means nothing to Bush when a blank check for Iran war has already provided by legislation.
I thought that Ambassador Wilson understood that one’s most important valuable is their reputation!! Why in the world would you put your integrity out to promote Clinton’s double-talk that is and her latest drum-beat to attack Iran?
Do you think that we ordinary mortals don’t understand that Kyl-Lieberman resolution is a first-step in a strategy to attack Iran and that Webb’s letter is just sham to cover up a legislative blunder? We know the motives of Lieberman.
Webb’s letter is just another Clinton maneuver for triangulating on Iran. Obama and Edwards have no business cleaning up Clinton’s mess generated by over-confidence of being the nominee. What arrogance before even a single vote has been cast! Clinton and others should stop taking votes on Iraq and Iran that make them very complicit in starting wars.
Obama doesn’t want to publicly criticize Senator Reid whose scheduling of votes on Kyl-Lieberman resolution appears to have been motivated by strong family ties between Reid and Clinton’s campaign. Internet prevents manipulation by a self-serving Clinton Party establishment who want to perpetuate Clinton’s hold on the party’s future. Articles doing the job of a “CLEAN-UP-PUNDIT” won’t change our disgust at this obvious manipulation.
The only things missing in all of this, are: 1) an understanding between the executive and the Congress that they are a team working together to ensure the security and progress of the nation; and 2) a President, Senate and House willing to shelve their political posturing for the good of all. After the totally misconstrued request for, and authorization of, action against Iraq (based largely on mistaken intelligence and misunderstood Presidential commitment to war rather than use of force as a threat during diplomatic endeavors) we don't have much confidence in either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. That has effectively cost us the 'good cop, bad cop' tactical advantage in diplomacy.
This post has been obviously seen for what is, campaigning for Hillary Clinton. However, more worrisome is the pack of unsubstantiated statements it contains:
1) It is not obvious that Iran or its Qud force was involved as it is portrayed. No evidence that would hold up legally has ever been presented that they are the culprits. Ms. Clinton again left it to her "sources" instead of looking into this herself. Saudi Arabia has many of its citizens involved in Iraq and somehow that doesn't reach the same level of alarm.
2) The Qud force is a secret military wing of the Iranian government, much like our CIA. Our secret organization could likewise be called a "terrorist organization" and the Iranians have promptly done so.
3) The PKK, an organization on the terrorist list, is killing Iranians in their own territory from Iraq bases. Pouring gasoline on this fomenting conflagration by being hypocritical with this resolution is bound to backfire.
4) Every politician is political, just that the Senator from NY is more than most.
5) Every other substantial diplomat from several countries and experts in the region roundly condemn this resolution. The gun boat diplomacy you are recommending has been shown to be a dismal failure.
6) Deception is the main tool of the Bush administration and given Ms. Clinton's vote on Iraq and its consequences, she should have learned something. Her judgment was again blinded by political ambition on her part instead of thoughtful reasoning. Using a hope and a prayer that the Bush administration will do the right thing is downright silly.
7) Finally, a resolution sponsored by extreme Hawks should have resonated with this Senator. Her first response was jumping on the bandwagon. She can do that on her own time, not as president of the United States.
At last, clarity on Kyl-Lieberman. Thank you, Joe Wilson.
Get the new AG to arrest Bush for sedition if he tries to declare war on Iran.
The fact that it took a second letter (non-binding) to clarify what the original non-binding resolution actually means is demonstrative of the incompetence and lack of leadership Congress (both houses) is showing in standing up to Bush. Obama may be using his non-vote for political purposes but don't you think Clinton is too. She was being reamed from all sides for her vote on Kyl-Leiberman so now she signs this letter to clarify her vote? The real threat is within our own borders and right in the White House. We will self-destruct before anyone outside our borders will lay a finger on us. The President's response to the Pakistan crack down will be more telling than anything else. Either he comes down hard on Musharef (sanctions, etc) or he gives him a pass. I bet on the latter. One dicatator supporting another.
Carrots and sticks? Really?
It seems Bush is eating all the carrots and beating the hell out of Americans with the sticks!
Is there a way to stop them? Correction, was there a way to stop the madness?
According to Clinton, doing the same thing with this administration and expecting different results, isn't insanity.
How many middle fingers does congress want to see King George and Dickie flick them?
What ar they massochist, or do they just like having Sh*t shoveled down their throats when they even mention diplomacy?
Didn't they hear this guy in the White House say the one thing I think he's told the truth about? I'm the War President?!!
When the maturity of compromise is dismissed as unptriotic and aiding and emboldening terrorist is this guy's "saber rattle" shouldn't the rubbler jackets be brought out, when we are already up to our necks in Bush It?
How about some sanity America? How about telling these war profiteering jerks the jig is up, and you"re all fired.
No more blood for oil.
No more destroying our planet for oil corporations quarterly profit margin.
No more no-bid corporate croney contracts with imcompetent leaders in positions of unknown territory or skill.
In short: The America all our forefather's and Ancestors left for us, past on to our children.
We are not so selfish as to use all the resources on the planet to destroy it for the future.
Not our responsible generation.
Just because you old gov ganstas are dying in your own smelly soup of legacy, doesn't mean we have to pay for it in blood and treasure.
Just die off already, and let the leaders held back that care for the people, lead.
NO MORE BUSH IT NOW!!!
Impeach the traitors on "Capitol Hill"
Obama 08 for change in DC
Obama to remove the corruption in DC
Obama for progress in the People's House.
American's first, Obama 08!
" ... rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic."
But, isn't that what Kyl-Lieberman is to begin with? A purely political campaign tactic? Hillary only signed onto Webb's bill (it had languished out there alone for 6 months) AFTER she'd voted for Kyl-Lieberman and took a a whole lot of heat in Iowa for it. How's that for "purely political"?
I have not committed to any candidate yet, although I've donated several times to Richardson. But, I sure won't hold Obama's reluctance to play this game against him.
That said, I love ya Joe!
The are ample reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney. It is irresponsible not to put them out of office now rather than running out the clock.
First, the President does have the authority under the Constitution (Commander-in-Chief) to engage in unilateral military action. I believe an attempt was made in a previous administration to bind the President's hands as Commander-in-Chief under the Bolan Amendments and it was latter deemed unconstitutional. Should we go back to previous police actions which did not receive Congressional approval. Korea, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and Carter's ill-fated attempt to free the IRANIAN hostages come to mind. Funny, isn't it how the liberals hold Republican Presidents to a different standard then a Democrat. Next, Diplomacy would be a better option (Embargo best option) but without Russia, and China on board diplomacy is useless and they have already said they will agree to no sanctions.
I don't have to look past the words ""Kyl" Lieberman" to know that this isn't good. Defining that Iran National Guard as terrorists is only going to give Bush the loophole he needs to take action without congressional approval.
Ambassador Wilson. You and your wife are just trading one Neocon, corporatist hawk with another.
And shame on Obama for not taking a stand on this.
While I agree we must use every tool at our disposal we must be careful. The world slept once it can't afford to again. Here is an interesting commentary, the first time I read it I though the author was spoiling for a fight, after I re-read it I think he is just trying to make us aware.
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/iran-%e2%80%94-the-next-great-threat-too-much-like-the-last/
Mr. Wilson's heroic diplomatic service [especially in Iraq pre-Gulf War]and truth telling with regard to the Niger-uranium story are to be commended.
That having been said, and with all due respect to Amb. Wilson, U.S. foreign policy at present is teetering on the brink of collapse-and I don't mean just that of the Bush administration. I mean the whole post WWII cold war, post cold war policy of interventionism, resource and raw materials hoarding, neo-colonial propping up of "our" dictators versus "their" dictators-that is the military-diplomatic-economic paradigm that is accelerating towards its end. This is being driven by factors beyond the control of U.S. hegemony-prominent among them, the EU soon replacing the U.S. as the world's economic and diplomatic center of gravity; a resurgent Russia, taking the initiative to blunt U.S. power in the Caspian basin; the symbiotic Sino-American commercial relationship, which ironically is turning China into another great power, at present allying itself with Russia precisely because both fear the U.S.and its ambitions in central Asia; a war weary American public that has seen the limits of what even overwhelming military power can achieve; the Islamic bloc, stretching from Indonesia to Bosnia, with nuclear armed Pakistan teetering on the brink of civil war; a resurgent left in Central and South America, where the poor and destitute have woken up to the destruction wrought by globalization; and the inevitable turning of the political debate in America towards domestic issues as the economy spirals into recession, and probably depression.
All this is hard for any of us to imagine, given the world that we grew up in, wherein American superpower and preeminence were givens.
Maybe Amb. Wilson thinks that the U.S. can return to the status quo ante of the nineties, with the return of Bill and Hillary. Not likely. The Clintons are just the smiling face on the Janus head of American, IMF interventionist hegemonist bullying, that's all. [Remember Madeleine Albright's statement that 500,000 dead Iraqis due to Clinton sanctions were "worth it"?
Based on transcripts from the Senate floor on the evening before the vote, the Lieberman-Kyl vote was postponed "indefinitely" and campaign activities scheduled for the next day (New Hampshire debate) acknowledged.
Transcripts from the Senate floor on the date of the vote indicate the vote was called for at 12 noon and completed at 12:44 pm.
If this author has evidence that all members of Senate were notified of the vote "the day before", I would love to see it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
