TheWeekInCongress

CONGRESS IS POISED TO SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION INSIDE IRAN

by Robert H. McElroy 2007

(TheWeekInCongress.com July 30, 2007) The Bush Administration has been consistent in its position that Iran is a military threat and that nothing is ‘off the table’. The effort in 2006 to prove that weaponry used against troops in Iraq are imported from Iran was quickly withdrawn under press scrutiny, but while the subject slipped from the news, evidence building against Iran continued.

Now, with the State Department ready to identify Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, seen by some as a step towards military action, there is a twist provided by a Congress that having fumed about the administration’s resistance to congressional oversight is showing a curious accumulation of directions on Iran. Those who think that Congress, after attempts to withdraw troops from Iraq, would see unilateral action in Iran as a non-starter might think again.

The 110^th Congress has not been reticent in laying the groundwork for identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a military threat and it is following that designation with what appears to be authority to take military action inside Iran.

The issue surfaced in HR 1591, the March war supplemental containing troop withdrawal language, that was passed by the House and Senate and later vetoed by the President.

During consideration in the Senate, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) offered an amendment to HR 1591 prohibiting funds for US military operations in and above Iran or in its territorial waters…sort of. His amendment provided exceptions: funds could be used to repel an attack from within Iran, thwart an ‘imminent’ attack from within Iran, enter Iran in hot pursuit, and for collecting intelligence.

Senator Webb said his amendment would restore balance between the executive and legislative branches relating to the commencement of war. He said, “Any general attack on Iran would be, beyond cavil, a commencement of a new war in a region that is already enduring two costly and debilitating wars. If this action is to be taken, it should be done only with the full and considered consent of the Congress.” He later withdrew his amendment without comment.

The next opportunity for Congress to address concerns or impose oversight was HR 1585, The Defense Authorization bill. An amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4th) clarified that military action against Iran is not authorized by any previous law and, unless Iran attacks first, no future action against Iran can be taken without specific authorization from Congress. The amendment failed 136 to 288.

An amendment to HR 1585 by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-VT) was passed 97 to 0 requiring a report from the State Department and the coalition commander on external support or direction provided to anti-coalition forces by agents of Iran and an assessment of the strategy and ambitions of Iran in Iraq. The amendment, modified to clarify that it does not authorize US military action against Iran, is far from benign. In light of the administration’s disputed evidence that supported entering Iraq, it will need substantial evidence to sell any action against Iran. Senator Lieberman’s amendment aims to provide that evidence from the same sources that provided the flawed evidence on Iraq. Another amendment, offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ties together his conclusions that Iran is developing longer-range missiles and is defiant in its nuclear program. He says nothing about nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the solution in Senator Session's amendment is to develop and deploy a missile defense system to protect US allies. The amendment passed 90 to 5.

It was HR 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, passed by the House in June that showed where Congress stands.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-2nd) offered an amendment that also requires evidence, from the Secretary of Defense, on the incidents of Iranian Weaponry entering Afghanistan from Iran that may be sold or used by the Taliban. The necessity of the amendment rests on the assertion that one shipment of Iranian-made weapons intended for the Taliban in Afghanistan was recently intercepted by US forces.

It is interesting how Rep. Franks narrowed the focus to the IRG. He explained that the interception represents the beginning of a flow of Iranian-made weapons into Afghanistan. He then steered the amendment to its point, “What we do not know is if indeed this is an official sanction of the Iranian government,” adding, “However, some in the intelligence community believe that this effort is on the part of a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are responsible for shipping these deadly weapons to the Taliban.” The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

Congress took its most definitive step in the motion to recommit HR 2446 offered by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). The motion adds text to the bill establishing a US policy towards Iran. The policy is based on ‘findings’ that Iranian weapons are entering Afghanistan from Iran and includes a list of weaponry. Short of the reference to one intercepted shipment, the veracity of the rest of the evidence is qualified by the adverb ‘reportedly’. No source given. The amendment ends with the assertion “Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit the ability of the United States to respond to Iranian-supported or facilitated attacks against United States Armed Forces or interests in Afghanistan.”

Chairman of the International Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos (D-CA-12th) said of the Pence motion, “...no statute prohibits the President from ordering a response to military attacks upon our Nation or upon our Armed Forces. However, this motion does not provide for taking any military action outside Afghanistan, nor should it. Therefore, I will support this motion to recommit.” Rep. Lantos added that there is no legal obstacle to the president taking such action but adds that the bill does not authorize that action outside of Afghanistan. The motion passed 345 to 71 and the bill passed 406 to 10.

The incongruity between the bill language and comments by Rep. Lantos in particular, leaves quite a bit ‘on the table’. The Pence motion clearly authorizes action against "Iranian-supported or facilitated" attacks, not actual attacks by Iran. It authorizes U.S. military action should the administration, Senator Lieberman and others believe the evidence is there. Considering the willingness to believe conjecture and the sources they are going to for evidence, the Pence motion provides the critical authorization to allow the administration to strike inside Iran when it believes it is justified to do so.

This confusing legislative maneuvering should not be taken lightly. This is not an administration known to bluff and Congress appears willing to acquiesce. In the climate established by those convoluted authorizations and comments one can imagine that the explanation of a strike, after the fact, would rest on authorization already established and supported by Congress. And then it is only a matter of substitution to argue that the authority is applicable to ‘responding’ from Iraq or anywhere else...at anywhere else.

<< Click the flag for map and country data, Iran

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)