The Senate's Sense About Iran

Today, at the tail end of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States, the U.S. Senate approved by a 3-1 margin an amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act regarding Iran. The non-binding “sense of the Senate” amendment is most notable for what it failed to say. As introduced by Senators Lieberman and Kyl, the amendment would have stated that

“It is the sense of the Senate . . . (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; [and] (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies” (my emphases).

According to a staffer in Senator Lieberman's office, due to objections from some colleagues, Lieberman and Kyl removed these two quoted sections regarding use of military force.  The remaining items, which the Senate did approve today, are pretty tame by comparison (though Senate moderates Biden, Hagel, Lugar, and Webb voted against it.  The revised amendment implies that the U.S. military should plan a future force structure in Iraq to help contain Iran; states that it is a vital interest of the U.S. to prevent Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like proxy army in Iraq; and recommends that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards be put on the Executive branch's list of specially designated global terrorists.

As I have discussed previously here and here, twice in early 2007 the Democratic-controlled Congress acted in ways that could be read as signals of support for the use of force against Iran by President Bush.  Most Democratic presidential contenders have, as I discussed earlier, made clear that military force against Iran should be considered an option.  The Senate's action today is therefore interesting.  Does it signal declining support in Congress for military action against Iran?  Does that matter?   

It is likely just a coincidence, but yesterday, only one day before the Senate declined to give its (non-binding) support for the use of military force against Iran, President Ahmadinejad told the assembled press corps that "They [U.S. government officials] want to hurt us, but with the will of God, they won't be able to do it."   

Comments

[Bill in Chicago]

When are we going to stop invading countries which had nothing to do with 9/11, and start confronting the real source of our problems with terrorism:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

The overwhelming majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and now we learn that a majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. This is not a coincidence.

And there is no need to talk about "proxy wars" with the Saudis. They are attacking and murdering our troops with their own bloody hands.

[sailmaker]

By putting the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorists, I believe they have nullified the Third Geneva Convention, to which Iran is a signatory.

When a uniformed soldier carrying arms in the open is captured, they are given POW rights. Non state actors (terrorists and now the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) get the Gitmo detainee no habeas corpus (among other things) treatment.

I am not a lawyer, so see what you think after you look at Goldsmith, "The Terror Presidency", W.W. Norton & Co, 2007, pages 109-110.