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.

Comments

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Pakistan has the nuclaer bomb.

If the Taliban succeeed in deposing Musharraf in Pakistan they may well be a greater threat to world peace than George Bush.

[kellygrrrl]

"War has been its first, second and final option -- its preferred option -- with disastrous results."

Isn't that whole idea?
I think most of the Nation realizes we are being led by a group of monsters who LIVE for disaster. The only Economy they have planned for is a War Economy.
They have spent their entire lives mastering this.

[DoctorDoctor]

No one will ever know exactly why Obama did/said what he did. Hillary's motivation might be (but also might not be) clearer. the point is, they're dealing with an administration who, when permitted a crack in a door, tends to push it open the rest of the way --- hard; before the "legal system" can keep them from doing whatever unconstitutional thing it is they have in mind. So, when Hillary signed off on the Iranian terrorists, everyone gasped, since they assumed the Bushkrieg would take that as "congressional authorization" to invade Iran (um, since we're at war with all terrorists -- everywhere -- as long as we define them that way).

No one ever thought they'd have to "clarify" that sort of self-serving, imperious mis-interpretation of the power of the executive branch. But here we are, reduced to Reminding the executive branch that nothing they've received from congress constitutes an authorization to invade Iran. It'll be interesting to see how the "unitary presidency" deals with this; intended as a constitutional roadblock to something they want to do -- badly. wonder if they'll take their lead from venezuela and pakistan. worthy models, i'm sure. Trouble is, unlike venezuela and pakistan, this imperial presidency doesn't seem to be able to make the trains run on time or provide health care for its citizens children -- or much else, for that matter.

just for grins, has anyone thought up a name for the NSA's private army yet? I never thought i'd see the day. Reagan's idea of only educating the already rich and compliant was a lousy idea. of course, we now know that demonstrations in the streets won't reach the main stream media anyway. Only important stuff, like the fact that Britney Spears spends a lot of money made it. whew. how did i survive without that information?

[Not Blind]

I'm suspicious of anything that Joe Lieberman says or does. He's a tool for the AIPAC, Mossad and Israeli interests, not representing this country's security.
Think about the OIL, first. Iran had a democratically elected leader, who was pro-west and staunchly anti-Communist. The problem was he nationalized the oil fields, so British Petroleum could no longer have their drilling rights and leases. The solution: Operation AJAX which was a series of false flag raids, attacks and murders of Iranians, blamed on the leader who was replaced by the Shah and Savak (to keep people in line). The result: BP was back in business.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was no military threat to the US. There were no WMD's or any ties to al-Qaeda (whom he shunned). Instead of false flag ops, our administration LIED about Saddam, WMD's, ties to al-Qaeda, and then the phoney Uranium and "mushroom cloud" to Congress, the U.N., the press and Americans. In fact, upon taking office, Cheney & oil co. executives had maps of geological surveys and oil fields in Iraq with which they were planning to take over. Well before 9/11, the plans to invade and occupy Iraq were made.
Iran, like Iraq, sits between the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf, with proven reserves, which our oil companies, and this administration want to control and dominate. They'll stop at nothing to get it.
Side-stepping or lying to Congress, circumventing the law, undertaking secret operations is the usual MO of Cheney & Bush.
So long as impeachment hearings and evidence does not come, they'll get away with more of the same.

[PhyloSeFiser]

Mr. Wilson,

I've spent a lot of time defending you against right wing lies. But I'm very disappointed in this post. It's clearly a campaign piece for Hillary. Did she promise you a high post at State? Ambassador to Switzerland perhaps?

The difference between Hillary and Obama on this issue is that Hillary thinks that a strongly worded letter to President Bush would actually accomplish something. Obama knows that this president isn't going to let a silly little letter get in the way. That's why he actually introduced legislation to reverse Kyl-Leiberman.

This article is just more proof that the establishment is behind Hillary Clinton and they want to keep Obama out because they're afraid that he might actually change Washington.

Phylo out.

[JoshuaF]

Mr. Wilson,

I am certainly no Bush supporter by any stretch of the imagination. Can't stand the guy actually. But this article is just so blatantly a Hillary campain ad it's nauseating. To try and put a positive spin on her vote labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is a transparent attempt to shift focus from the reality of what she was doing: trying to lay the groundwork for a national campaign. She knew full well that such a hawkish stance would diffuse any future Republican rival's ability to label her as "soft" on defense. It's a political maneuver to pull in moderate Republican voters and more defense minded independents in the general election. Unfortunately, there are 15 months remaining in the current administration, and that's plenty of time for them to use the Kyl-Lieberman resolution as a cornerstone for building up the case to attack Iran. It may not give authorization, but it is plenty strong enough in its language to ratchet up the rhetoric toward a military showdown (lest we forget the drumbeat to war against Saddam). And with two wars being waged in that part of the world already and our military stretched to the utter bring, we can hardly afford to start a third front. So, say it ain't so, Joe. Say that the importance of Hillary getting elected does not outweigh your common sense.

[wizinit]

Hillary Clinton cannot defend her vote on Kyle-Lieberman. So Joe Wilson has come to her rescue, claiming professional expertise and his experience in the Middle East, to serve as her apologist and, in this case, hit man.

I am not intent on diminishing a fellow former Foreign Service Officer. But, the fact is, Clinton of all people should have been more circumspect at this time in history, whether or not she was running for President. Kyle-Lieberman and the subsequent letter to the President lack any binding force of law. Instead, with her vote, she encouraged an Administration with a proven track record to abouse its authority and again undertake a dangerous foreign adventures.

If Clinton ccalculated that her vote would stake out a position in the "center" on this issue, she apparently did not learn from her past mistakes. Whatever "diplomatic element", as Joe claims, may be found in Kyle-Lieberman is overwhelmed by the aggressive and confrontational approach it encouraged. Joe Wilson cannot disguise the fact that Hillary Clinton's vote is a reflection of either political expedience or poor judgment, or both. That is not the kind of leadership America needs to extract itself from the mess in Iraq, re-orient our foreign policy and restore our international prestige.

Mark Wiznitzer

[zedog]

Talking about a vote only suggests the need for a vote, which, in turn, only suggests that Bush has the power to got to war without the authorization of Congress. Bush doesn't have that power, but he will take. If he does, impeachment efforts should commence immediately. Who is Bush working for the Chineses, the Russians? We will be totally defenseless unless we just start lobbing nukes about, which would pretty much insure our inihilation. But, I suppose the military industrial executive complex recognizes the need to thin the herd. Besides, they're all going to heaven.

[Benton]

JOE, JOE, JOE. Do you think the Bush will give a dam about the technicalities of that sense of the Senate? When Bush decides to bomb Iran he will simply say the Senate agrees that this branch of the Iranian military is a terrorist organizati­on.I can hear it now "Even the Democrat Congress agrees they are terrorist, now Congress wants to have tea and crumpits with those who kill or troops." Were the technicalities of the outing of your wife discussed in the media? Have you learned nothing. Hillary gave them the hook they need, period. The debate has been framed and this country is screwed. As for your comment about Obama seeing Bush as the Enemy and not Iran, you sound like a carbon copy of the Bush administration. By the way, have the Iranians shredded the U.S. Constitution. Who is the biggest imminent threat to the American Constitution and way of life, Bush or Tehran.

[EyeballKid]

Well done, Joe, in taking Obama to task for his irresponsible maneuvering, but from what I know, a letter to Bush is far different than a resolution from an entire legislative body. The Kyle-Lieberman Amendment is the real tragedy here, and there were scads of Congresspeople who voted for an inflammatory, aggressive message that is very consistent with the Bush warmongering and mass murdering policies.

That's the far more urgent issue to address, IMO.

[beef33]

Yeah this sure sounds like a thinly guised campaign add for the corporate shillstress. This idea that Iran is somehow a "terrorist" nation and is helping iraq etc. is garbage. We have a helpless yearning for the oil as well as strong thirst for the money spigot turned on in the form of HUGE military contracts to quench it. Plus of course the israel lobby involved particularly with the likes of Clinton, Wilson, Lieberman etc. Money talks as it were. Save it Joe we know what it is all about. I guess I wonder if we had never invaded and occupied iraq for the above mentioned reasons would we even be discussing iran? just a thought.

[davidly]

Honorable Ambassador Wilson,

If it is true what you say, that you 'yield to nobody' in your own efforts to 'bring the lies of the current administration to public attention', then why is your post a transparent advocacy for Senator Clinton above all else?

Does it even seem like she is doing anything to bring these lies to public attention? Why write letters to a rogue presidency when it should have been jailed by now in the first place? Don't the dangerous state of foreign affairs in which we currently find ourselves rise to the level of catastrophic under this administration? How is this being brought to public attention: warning the President with a "strong letter"?

What is "clear"--as those in the Clinton camp like to repeat ad nauseum, piling loads of obfuscation to hide the same-- is that this post is an attempt to dampen potential momentum by a certain "viable alternative" who may have had a decent campaign week. Let me make MYSELF clear: the post is transparent, and it's not difficult to see who is behind it. You, sir, have "yielded" to the democratic front-runner, which is your choice, but please don't insult our intelligence with all of this "clear-speak".

Anything short of unmitigated support for articles of impeachmen­t--beginni­ng in 2003 at the latest--is not doing anything substantive to bring these lies to public attention. Indeed, it is tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy.

If the truth regarding this administration's lies is ever to come to public attention, then the rule of law must be followed. This is clear. For the lies rise to the level of treason (surely you're aware of this).

Furthermore, the lies have caused the destruction of liberty and cost the lives of thousands upon more. This is transparently clear, if I may use this oft-employed redundancy in an attempt to be clear.

The only thing that is clear regarding this post, is that there is ENORMOUS support for politics as usual, ie. the struggle for power. No lies are being brought to the public attention.

[lgillooly]

I would like Joe Biden or Clinton.Ei­ther one would be a tremendous upgrade from Bush. The real issue is can we wait until 1/09 ?? The current group in the WH can do a lot of damage still. Impeachment might slow them down....no­thing else seems to work. The media really has done a job on this country and needs to do their job properly.

[Susanholmes]

Like it or not, Senator, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard IS a part of the Iran military apparatus. What separates terrorism from other forms of military-style violence is that terrorism occurs in the context of an armed group that is not recognized as a military organ of state. Say whatever else you like about them, but the Revolutionary Guard indubitably exists as a military organ of the state of Iran.

It's possible, of course, for members of the Revolutionary Guard to engage in specific acts of terrorism, much like our own military and secret services have done and continue to do. However, the responsibility for those acts is on the leaders of the state as opposed to the military, except in such cases where the head of the military is also head of state (like in the U.S.) In a terrorist organization it's simply a matter of dealing with the fighters themselves.

Giving the "terrorist" label to state military groups like the Revolutionary Guard cheapens the word "terrorism" itself, and will ultimately change the meaning of "terrorist" such that it's simply a synonym for "enemy."

[stupidforum]

Look, if Iran let's the IMF come in and restructure it's economy so it functions as a "democratic" "free market", then all will be forgiven. That was Saddam Hussein's biggest mistake. If he'd let the IMF and World Bank privatize Iraq's oil industry he could be gassing his own people to his heart's content right now!