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
Apparently the situation is this: our boy leader has so run up and maxed out our national credit cards that we are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Thus, the only alternative he can come up with is attack, distract, and ransack the economy of some other country or countries. That's it.
What "terrorism" has the Iranian Revolutionary (not "Republican") Guard engaged in?
The Marine Barracks boming in Lebanon - carried out by Hezbollah? The target was a MILITARY BASE for INVADING FOREIGN TROOPS - not civilians. The US was actively involved in shelling Lebanon. All that made us a legitimate target. And if Hezbollah's actions make Iran responsible, then the Contra nun-raping death squads in Central America make US responsible for their acts too.
And lets not forget that at the time, the US was supporting, financing and arming Saddam's use of chemical weapons.
Mr. Wilson's shilling for the Vichy Democrat Hillary Clinton is most disappointing. She's a war-monger, an appeaser of predatory corporations, and is complicit in the policies that have brought about the disastrous state the US and Middle East are in.
Obama, though not an ideal candidate, is right to disassociate himself from the likes of HRC and the other Vichy Democrats.
The wagons circle round Hillary. Dynastic presidency comes of age in America. Time for after dinner sleep where one hath nor youth nor age nor folly nor wisdom. Long live the Republic.
THE ISRAELI LOBBY WANTS WAR
SEARCHING FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE AND PEACE IN MIDDLE EAST...
ANTI-SEMITISM IS EVIL, just as is anti-any-e
We Americans need to stop playing word games. For example, if we apply the Webster definition of "TERRORISM" to the already-forgotten recent Middle East war between Israel and Hezbollah, and use OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS, then Israel and not Hezbollah was the biggest terrorist in this tragedy, with 50 to 1 non-combatant deaths for Lebanon vs. Israel (2/3 of Israeli dead were soldiers), and an even greater disparity in terms of infrastructure and the long-term suffering of people. Israel could have fought Hezbollah up close and personal, but instead involved over a million innocent Lebanonese in an asymmetrical war using United States-supplied warplanes and smart bombs.
Of course, the word terrorism is reserved for our enemies, and not part of our terms of endearment with Israel. However, before we consign what happened to Lebanon and its people to "collateral damage" and it completely fades from our short attention span, perhaps we can find a more appropriate term to describe ravaged Lebanon, such as "collateral devastatio
Human beings think and rationalize in words. For this reason, words decide issues. Many people use words imprecisely or for advantage, and not for truth. The prime example here, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. If they were the same, then the Israeli government would be infallible. Israeli tough-guy terror (seen often, even on American TV) is about half the reason the United States is hated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have to go along too because no one can speak the truth of words and reality. Our one-sided policy in the Middle East is a disaster.
Your point is well taken and appreciated, but diplomacy requires a reasonable nature and an innate desire for fairness. This administration has proven repeatedly that they possess neither the desire, nor the skills to broker anything other than a power grab for themselves. Yes, the language of this most recent bill is balanced and appropriate, but it sets up a nice platform on which to build the usual rhetorical house of cards. What I think most Americans could agree with is that while the world goes on and sometimes these things won't wait, we'd all like to see if Iran can wait - at least until there is a State department equipped to handle the job.
"He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush,"
He is right.
Bush has done far more damage to the country than any 'islamofascist' EVER will.
And hrc will continue his idiotic policies of war and fear and failure.
bush in drag!
"real adversaries that would do us harm. These clearly include Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."
What does that mean? I don't think the Iranians are forming sleeper cells in the U.S. They probably see us as a danger to their region and they don't trust us. I know I see it that way. You should go on a mission and see if you can find any evidence that we invaded that region to take their oil. Remember, we are moving tons of weapons into Iraq and the gulf and destabalizing the region. What are you accusing the Iranians of doing?
If you want to talk about a reality check and what lacks merit on the substance, then let’s talk about supporting ANY of the Democratic presidential frontrunner featherweights who are clearly not the best equipped or most qualified for the job, or best able to provide strong and sure leadership, at home and abroad.
I would have assumed that someone in your position would be vociferously supporting the candidate who is not only the best equipped, most qualified, and who has demonstrated wise, intelligent, and courageous leadership, but who possesses impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials that are wholly unmatched by any of his rivals. I would have assumed all of this, especially in view of the fact that Senator Biden, like you, intimately understands the importance of American ideas and ideals and the proficient use of diplomatic engagement to advance American interests and to restore America’s global leadership role.
But, despite the critical nature of this election campaign - critical for reasons you know too well - I know better than to make such sweeping assumptions that informed citizens like yourself would want the very best candidate in the position of leader of the free world.
‘Help Make Hope and History Rhyme’...B
Joe, it is obvious that you are not objective and you are trying to help Hillary by attacking Obama. Also, everything we accuse Iran of doing, we ourselves do much worse. So, enough with the hypocrisy!
Unfortunately, hisotry appears to escape Mr. Wilson's attention. One might suggest the wise commentary of that marvelous iconoclast and defender of liberty, Clarence Darrow, who said: "History repeats itself. That's the damn problem with history." It would seem Mr. Wilson and others he appears to like (or possibly is trolling the waters for an appointment) has nor read Mr. Darrow on protecting liberty, or for that matter paid attention to the failed efforts of Mr. Chamberlain, so long and so many lives ago. I would suggest Mr. Wilson have an open mind if he wishes to push an appeasement agenda and possibly read Mr. Bernard Lewis on Iran and Mr. Podhoretz's new nbook, which is certainly bellicose, but also has insights as well. The core issue is that the Iranian leadership is dedicated to the spread of the faith at any and all cost, and, clearly, the defeat of the Wset, especially Western values that have sullied the Molem world in the Middle East and West Asia in the form of the reborn Jewish State, Israel. The leadership is less interested in the survival of the State Iran, or any other Moslem State and is more concerned with the reestablishment of the Islamic Empire (that never really exisited). Just as Chairman Mao was prepared to sacrifice tens of millions for a different cause, the Islamic loonies see death as a doorway to reward, struggle as their mandate, the destruction of Israel as ordained by their God and their Prophet's words, and the ejection of Western civilization and all its "corrupting influences: secularism, equal rights for women, freedom of religion or non-religion, sexuality, education, art, etc., as the goal. Like the Nazis or the Communists or any other perverted ideology, winning is all that matters. When a State such as the Netherlands, each year publishes more translated and forein books than the ENTIRE Moslem world, one knows there is a problem of perspective.
Joseph C. Wilson's article is a loaded text.
That he writes it in support of HRC means she is to be regarded with suspicion as part of the problem.
America needs big shovel right now, not armaments.
The true enemy is within , either stupid, or contrived or both, busy muddying the waters without using reasons that can be weighed and assessed.
Many posts seem to support this view, as if there is a team who write in a pattern, rather like littleblackcat in answer to tyruler's anger above; either stupid or contrived or both. This is conjecture but given the events of the last years and the lies promoted in America by people right at the top it is reasonable conjecture. It is as if propagandists are systematically applying their devious art of war to their fellow citizens; as if somebody is gambling all without regard for truth or validity, just with a desire to win at all costs, as in war.
You can do that with a clear conscience of you believe you have god in your pocket, rather like Joseph C. Wilson
Yea, so you are a Hillary supporter. No thanks.
Try thinking less about bringing others "to heel". Such arrogant language contributes to the unabashed love the rest of the world has for our history of such diplomacy.
There is absolutely nothing diplomatic about the Kyle-Lieberman resolution as it is obviously a prelude to war with Iran. Mr. Wilson's attempt to help out Mrs. Clinton is not at all impressive.
Obama seems to have lost his way. Unfortunate, but he has many years ahead of him to re coup his losses. Hillary seems to have let her converstation with Bush scare the Hell out of her- and she's turning colors before our eyes (Just cause you're not Bush doesn't mean you're not a Repug, in disguise). Edwards- good guy, but still not what we need right now- same for the rest of the crew. Not one has really floated to the top (and stayed there) for me.Would love a Female Pres- just like wanting a female Speaker of the House, But we see hwo she's done, so I can wait until it is the RIGHT Madame President, as much as the Right Mr. President. No time for Political Bullshit - we are at a cross roads. We need the Best this country can offer sitting in all positions- top to bottom.
What are you & the Mrs doing thru 2013? Looking for a Challenge??? WE need the best & the brightest. Frankly a Draft should be happening now- into Politics ( like a 4 yr Jury duty)
WE need New Contestants -I've 'gonged' the first round of auditoners already.Ne
Calling all true Patriots, can you lend US a hand?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
