Congressional Sound and Fury Over Iraq Continues to Signify Little

By Shirl McArthur

As reported in the Sept./Oct. issue of the Washington Report, Senate Democrats failed in July to pass any meaningful Iraq-related amendments to the Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1585. So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) halted debate on the bill, saying he would bring it up again in September. In September, however, the result was essentially the same. The only Iraq-related amendment to pass was one proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) giving the sense of Congress that “the U.S. should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based on the final provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions, consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders.”

The amendment was approved on Sept. 26 by a vote of 75-23, with 26 Republicans voting with the Democrats. Biden has long argued that efforts to reconcile the main Iraqi factions to form a strong central government were not working, and that the only recourse is to shift to supporting a decentralized federal system, with Baghdad as its capital. On Sept. 27 in the House, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced H.Res. 688 with nearly identical provisions as the Biden amendment.

H.R. 1585 passed the Senate on Oct. 1, and Reid said that the next effort to modify President George W. Bush’s Iraq strategy would likely come in early 2008, over the administration’s request for $46 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other side of the Capitol, the House on Oct. 2 passed on a vote of 377-46 a watered-down H.R. 3087, introduced in July by Rep. John Tanner (D-TN). As amended it would simply require the secretary of defense to transmit to Congress “reports on the status of planning for the redeployment of U.S. armed forces from Iraq.” However, Reid gave no indication that he would bring the bill to a vote in the Senate.

Meanwhile, some of the previously described Iraq-related bills have made little progress. S. 1545 and H.R. 2574, both introduced in June by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) and urging that the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) be adopted, have gained two and one co-sponsors, respectively. The bills also give a “sense of Congress” that, with the adoption of the ISG recommendations, U.S. combat forces could be redeployed from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008. S.1545 now has 16 co-sponsors, and H.R. 2574 has 62. H.R. 2605, introduced in June by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which would “sunset” the 2002 authorization for use of military force in Iraq 180 days after H.R. 2605’s passage, has gained one co-sponsor, and now has 23, including Paul. On Sept. 25, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), with no co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 219, an updated version of his previously introduced H.Con.Res. 201. It says the government of Iraq should schedule a referendum to see if the Iraqi people want the U.S. armed forces to be withdrawn.

House Passes “Iran Counter-Proliferation” Bill

On Sept. 25, the House passed H.R. 1400, the “Iran Counter-Proliferation” bill, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1966 by imposing more sanctions on Iran. The bill, introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) in March, would prohibit nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and any country that provides nuclear assistance to Iran; expand and broaden economic sanctions on Iran; expand the types of investment subject to sanctions; and prevent U.S. subsidiaries of foreign oil companies that invest in Iran’s oil sector from receiving U.S. tax benefits for oil and gas exploration. Significantly, the bill also would remove the presidential waiver authority included in the 1996 act. As passed, however, it still included a section saying that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the U.S. armed forces against Iran.” It was passed under “suspension of the rules” by a vote of 397-16. The Senate’s counterpart to H.R. 1400, S. 970, introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) in March, has gained one co-sponsor and now has 68.

The Defense Authorization bill as passed by the Senate also included one significant Iran-related amendment. The amendment, proposed by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), would give the sense of the Senate that “the U.S. should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.” The amendment passed on a vote of 76-22. Sens. James Webb (D-VA) and presidential candidate Biden spoke on the Senate floor against the amendment, saying they were afraid it could be used as justification for military action against Iran. “This administration cannot be trusted,” said Biden. Later, presidential candidates John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) vote for the amendment, saying she hadn’t learned the lessons from 2002.

The other Iran-related bills have made little progress. The companion bill to H.R. 2347, passed by the House in July, S. 1430, introduced in May by Sens. Obama and Sam Brownback (R-KS), has gained four co-sponsors and now has 19. It would authorize state and local governments to prohibit state and local assets from being invested in companies having more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector. H.R. 1357, introduced in March by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), which would require divestment by U.S. public and private pension plans and mutual funds of companies having made more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector, has gained eight co-sponsors and now has 77, including Ros-Lehtinen. H.R. 2880, introduced in June by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), to amend the Iran Sanctions Act to add investing in Iran’s petroleum sector or providing Iran with refined petroleum resources to the list of sanctionable actions, has gained two co-sponsors and now has 27, including Kirk

The one positive bill, H.R. 3119, introduced by Rep. Mark Udall in July, which would prohibit the use of funds for military operations within or above Iran’s territory without congressional authority, now has six co-sponsors, including Udall.

Feinstein Reintroduces Resolution on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

On Sept. 19, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S.Res. 321, her long-awaited update of S.Res. 224, introduced in June and described in the previous issues of this magazine. It reaffirms the Senate’s “commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of 2 states, the state of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and with recognized borders.” It urges Bush to “pursue a robust diplomatic effort to engage the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, begin negotiations, and make a 2-state settlement a top priority.” It calls on moderate Arab states to intensify their diplomatic efforts, and it calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to “refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations.” It also urges Bush to appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace. Perhaps significantly, it no longer “welcomes the Arab League peace initiative,” as did S.Res. 224. S.Res. 321 has 37 co-sponsors, including Feinstein. The 21 co-sponsors not previously named as co-sponsors of S.Res. 224 are Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kit Bond (R-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Larry Craig (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herbert Kohl (D-WI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Smith, Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

In the House, H.Res. 143, introduced in February by Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) “urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace,” and described in the May/June issue of the Washington Report, has gained two co-sponsors and now has 52, including Davis.

But Schumer, Graham Try to Sabotage Peace Meeting

To counter Feinstein’s positive measure, 79 senators signed an Oct. 2 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and strongly promoted by AIPAC. It first says that the success of the planned fall peace meeting “will depend on the cooperation we receive from the larger Arab world, particularly from those Arab states with close relations with the United States who have not yet signed agreements with Israel,” but then listing preconditions that effectively would assure that Syria and Saudi Arabia, in particular, would not attend. Among the six things the letter says the U.S. should press these states to do are “stop support for terrorist groups and cease all anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement; recognize Israel’s right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions; end the Arab League economic boycott of Israel in all its forms; and pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, reject terror and accept prior agreements, and isolate Hamas until it takes such steps.” The letter makes no mention of the Arab League peace plan, nor of a future Palestinian state.

As Arab American Institute President Jim Zogby said in his weekly Countdown, “if the goal is for Arab states not to participate in the upcoming conference, this would be the way to go.”

The 21 senators who resisted AIPAC’s pressure and did not sign the letter were Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Burr, Robert Byrd (D-WV), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Craig, Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Sununu (R-NH), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Warner (R-VA), and Webb.

Israeli Attack on Syria Gets Congressional Support

Israel’s unprovoked Sept. 6 attack on a target in Syria may have been, as most media reports have speculated, to destroy a nuclear site set up with North Korean help. Or it may have been to destroy a weapons cache destined for Hezbollah. Or it may have been a warning to Syria and a test of Syria’s air defense system, newly installed with Russian help. Or, as Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has said, “a building under construction related to the military, but it’s not used.” Those who know the answer are not saying, leaving everyone else to just speculate.

Not having all the facts, however, has seldom stopped some members of Congress from leaping to Israel’s defense. On Sept. 24, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), with 13 co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 674 “expressing the unequivocal support of the House of Representatives for Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Syria.” It also would urge Bush “to condemn the government of North Korea for providing Syria with nuclear technology and expertise and to re-examine diplomatic discussions with North Korean officials,” and “to support strengthening U.S. sanctions against Syria.” For good measure, it also “condemns Syria and Iran for continuing to provide military, logistical and political support to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups.”

Other Anti-Syria Measures Forge Ahead

Following the Sept. 19 assassination of Lebanese member of Parliament Antoine Ghanem, Biden, with two co-sponsors, on Sept. 24 introduced S.Res. 328 condemning the assassination and reasserting the Senate’s “strong belief that the people of Lebanon should be permitted to choose their next president, in a process to begin in September 2007, free from all foreign intimidation, interference, and violence.” The resolution was passed unanimously the same day.

Similarly, by a vote of 415-2, the House on Sept. 25 passed H.Res. 548, introduced in July by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), expressing the House’s concern “for Lebanon’s democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon.” Among other provisions, it urges the Lebanese government “to request UNIFIL’s assistance to secure the Lebanese-Syrian border.” It also reaffirms the House’s intention to continue to provide financial and material assistance to Lebanon. When passed, the resolution had 53 co-sponsors, including Ackerman.

H.R. 2332, introduced in May by Ros-Lehtinen to expand and broaden the sanctions already passed into law by the “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003” has gained 17 co-sponsors and now has 80, including Ros-Lehtinen.

Senate Passes Foreign Aid Bill, with No Surprises

On Sept. 6, the Senate passed H.R. 2764, the State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. As passed, it was essentially as described in the Sept./Oct. issue of this magazine, but with a few Middle East-related amendments agreed to before passage. The bill still does not include the provision in the House version holding back $200 million of Egypt’s military aid until Cairo enacts some civil rights reforms and destroys the smuggling network between Egypt and Gaza; however, it does now include a provision, Sec. 699Q, “urging” Egypt to take those steps. Another new provision would provide $75 million “to support democracy, the rule of law, and the governance in Iran.” (The Washington Post reported on Oct. 11 that 26 Iranian-American and human rights groups signed a letter to Congress to reduce or eliminate this funding, saying it just gives the Iranian government more pretext for harassing its citizens as foreign agents or traitors.)

The next step would be for a conference committee to meet to reconcile the House and Senate versions, but there have been no indications of when this might happen.

Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.