Iran Resolution Must Change

Over the past several weeks, there has been a growing debate in Congress, the blogosphere and throughout the media about a controversial non-binding resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 362), which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the threat Iran's nuclear pursuit poses to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States.

This resolution's introduction and the subsequent debates that have taken place across the country have come at a time when the United States faces grave security challenges. It also comes at a time when Congress and the US must be especially careful -- given the monumental foreign policy failures of President Bush -- and remain vigilant in deciding which direction to take our nation, especially as it relates to our policy in Iran.

In the coming weeks, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, may vote on House Concurrent Resolution 362. Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote. Despite being a cosponsor of this resolution -- these changes will ultimately determine whether or not I will continue to support H. Con. Res. 362.

My rationale for originally supporting H. Con. Res. 362, which currently has 230 cosponsors, was to urge the Bush administration to pursue a policy to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran as part of an international endeavor to prevent Tehran from moving forward on its nuclear program. Given my intense distrust of President Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policy record, I also sponsored legislation (H. R. 3119), which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress and prevents the president from unilaterally going to war.

It is still my belief that it is in America's strategic interest to use strong diplomacy and directly engage Iran in order to prevent the Iranian government from developing nuclear weapons and to avoid a third regional war. However this diplomatic surge will only be successful if the US takes the lead role along with our European allies in directly engaging Iran. American engagement with Iran must be done from a position of strength and with sufficient leverage. In this vein, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently pointed out in a May 2008 article, "When you have leverage, talk. When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."

It should have been an American representative last week along with European Union High Representative Javier Solana sitting down with Iranian leaders and offering an incentives package as part of an international effort to suspend a key part of Iran's nuclear program. It is my goal to add language to H. Con. Res. 362 highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism.

It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that "nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as "a green light" to use force against Iran.

The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an "international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.

To that end, I am not willing to leave even the "slightest crack" open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran.

We are in a unique moment in American history because the misgivings about the Bush administration's intentions and policies run so deep that the President is not trusted to carryout security policies that are in the best interest of our nation. As we debate H. Con. Res. 362, it has become clear that Congress must counter the Administration's tendencies of preferring armed conflict over diplomacy, and we must make every effort to change the text of this resolution. The stakes are too high for Congress to kowtow to this Administration; therefore, I am preparing to offer amendments to H. Con. Res. 362 and articulate a responsible policy that places America in the strongest possible diplomatic position to thwart Iran's nuclear program and the difficult security challenges we face.

Comments

[philipwitak]

congressman wexler - your "intense distrust of President Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policy record" apparently matches mine - and that is good enough for me. i support you and your efforts wholeheartedly.

[mgloraine]

Here's a better plan: scuttle H. Con. Res. 362 altogether. Don't give Cheney-Bush ANY resolutions with which to launch their Iran War. It won't stop them from starting the war anyway, but at least they won't be able to pretend that Congress told them to attack (as they surely will based upon the current wording of the resolution).

Instead, why not work on those Articles of Impeachment? That is the only meaningful legislation which the House can enact in the short term to oppose the Cheney-Bush plans for conquest and colonization of the entire Middle East.

If you want to prevent World War III, you need to disarm the aggressors: Cheney and Bush. Only when they have been removed from office will we be safe from their war-mongering schemes. Don't waste the little time left before Cheney's October attack haggling over the wording of non-binding resolutions when our democracy needs saving TODAY by the only group with the authority and resources to do so: Congress!

[PATina]

This is the biggest crock of crap. sir... you may have the greatest intentions and you may mean well... but you know (shame on you if you don't) President Bush is going to do whatever he wants to do regardless of what your resolution says or doesn't say. Seriously... what do you plan to do to stop him... impeach him???

[Gma11]

Very, very important point! Thank you.

[AndrewW]

I'm glad you've come to your senses and I pray it's not too late. After 2002, shame on you for sponsoring such an open-ended, bellicose resolution to begin with! Iran poses no threat to the United States whatsoever. They are deemed a threat for exactly the same reason that Saddam Hussein was -- daring to challenge US/Israel hegemony in the region.

[dayala]

thank you Rep.Wexler

PLEASE!..on behalf of all sane American people do not let these saber-rattling, war-mongering demogouges lead this country down another path of mayhem and destruction, we have lost too many of our American brothers and sisters in the ill-conceived chaos called the Iraq war.

is there anyway for the Congress to embark on a "mutiny" of the White House and shackle those two madmen at Gitmo until January 2009.

[NorCalNative]

Representative Wexler, thank you for your interest in diplomacy over arms. I too have a deep mistrust of this administration. I support your efforts at diplomacy because I believe this administration has used miliatary action to gain expanded executive powers. There is no logic in giving this President the chance or opportunity to start another illegal war.

P.S. Every Democrat who voted to support telecom amnesty over 4th Amendment rights is on my eternal SHIT LIST.

[edwarvir]

Robert Wexler is a voice of reason this is a very informative post. I liked him
for Senator O's veep every since I first heard him argue for Senator O about the
Florida delegates and how they should be divided.


OBAMA/WEXLER 08

[ceu]

Perhaps, Sir, you could try to get the language of H.R. 362 changed to reflect what the NIE of 10/31/07 ACTUALLY says. Specifically this provision:
Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate ..., but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009
should be amended to read:
...as soon as late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
And this provision:
Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions;
should be amended to include:
although Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
In addition, how about READING a copy of the NIE of 10/31/07 aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives? Make your colleagues listen to what our own intelligence agencies are saying about Iran. PLEASE!

[lisakaz2]

Thank you for supporting the interests of We the People over a WH run amok. This WH cannot nor should be trusted. How has it earned any trust? Where has it shown any competence? This is why I would not give them ANY pretence to start yet another disastrous war. We cannot sustain militarily nor economically the mess already underway. Our liberties deserve more respect, too. Why is the Congress showing any willingness for this tyrant to pout and get what he wants? It's like Congress is a beat up gf.

[Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Rep. Wexler! Barney Frank is with you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/in-praise-of-barney-frank_b_111674.html

[2LaneIA]

A blockade without a UN resolution is an act of war. War is what Cheney wants. You will not be able to stop him. They will cook up some Tonkin Gulf type of provocation and drop the dime. I am betting on November. Remember Fallujah? After the election, they will know whether Obama will be the next president. If so, they will leave him with a new war to manage. They know that McCain is all in for war with Iran, so they don't need to hurry if he is elected.

By cosponsoring this reincarnation of the Iraq resolution of the late 90s, and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, you are enabling the administration to do what it wants to do. I realize the demographics of your district make it difficult for you to withdraw, but I think it is the right thing to do.

The larger question is: why should Bush care what anyone in Congress thinks? We thought we were electing change in 2006, but we're still in Iraq, and the fourth amendment is being crossed out of the constitution today. The most unpopular president in the history of polling can get whatever he wants from Congress.

More and better Democrats.

[Soothsayer08]

Thank you for a voice of reason. Anyone calling diplomacy anything but sensible is insane. This administration cannot be trusted after all of the blood that has been shed in the name of
National Security. Our country is already stretched to the breaking point militarily and economically
This sabre rattling and threats of war and obliteration is just one of the reasons why our standing in the world has deteriorated to such a low.

[Rob Kall - Huffpost Blogger]

Congratulations. I have to give you a lot of credit. We spoke about this on my radio show, then followed up with a dialogue-- an experiment in using the internet media to go deeper, as reported here:
My Experiment With Rep. Robert Wexler on Fixing A Media Flaw That Angers Many Viewers/Listeners and my own site, OpEdNews.com.

I just got off the phone with Rep. Wexler's chief of staff and he confirmed that the initial radio interview, the follow exchange that our "experiment on Huffpo and OpEdNews involved, with the help of OpEdNews writer/editor Cheryl Biren-Wright, played a considerable role in Rep. Wexler's decision. He deserves our kudos and respect for listening, considering, getting involved in a conversation deeper than most politicians expect to go when they do broadcast interviews, and for having the courage to change his mind on his position on this legislation.

[bayside]

Ahhh a sane voice...Investigate their motives. They have another agenda...Have you heard one truth from them.. Just one? .Expose them..Thank you for doing what you are doing...