|
Stance on Iran Continues to Divide Democrats
CQ TODAY
March 14, 2007 – 10:31 p.m.
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
As Democrats argued this week about an emergency spending
bill that would require U.S. troops to leave Iraq by next year, a deep
internal rift over neighboring Iran appeared to have been settled.
Democrats decided to delete language from the spending
bill that would require President Bush to get congressional
authorization for any war against Iran .
But the Iran issue did not stay settled for long.
On March 13, the same day House Appropriations Chairman
David R. Obey , D-Wis., said he had removed the Iran provision from the
draft war spending measure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., quietly
promised Appropriations Committee Democrats that she would soon bring
the measure up as a stand-alone bill, said James P. Moran , D-Va., who
attended the meeting in Pelosi’s suite.
The continued maneuvering over the war spending bill
reflects deep Democratic divisions not only about how to approach the
conflict in Iraq, but also about how to deal with Iran, which many
members view as an emerging nuclear threat — and possibly Bush’s next
military target.
The American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC,
an influential lobbying group that advocates for strong U.S.-Israel
relations, had pushed hard to remove the Iran provision from the
spending bill, lawmakers said. AIPAC and its allies in Congress fear the
measure would reduce Bush’s leverage as he attempts to dissuade Iran
from developing nuclear weapons.
Many Democrats are persuaded by that argument. But others
fear a possible U.S. military action against Iran , citing Bush’s recent
saber-rattling about Iran ’s alleged support for insurgent groups in
Iraq and his deployment of two U.S. Navy carrier battle groups in waters
off the Iranian coast.
Many Democrats rue their vote to authorize the war in
Iraq (PL 107-243)
and believe Congress has ceded too many war-making powers to Bush.
“I worry there are still a lot of folks in the
administration who think we can win this war by widening it to Iran ,”
said Moran.
In January, Bush accused Iran and Syria of providing
“material support” to insurgents in Iraq . “We will seek out and destroy
the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in
Iraq ,” he said.
Last month, Pentagon officials showed reporters
sophisticated roadside bombs they said were made in Iran and used
against U.S. forces. Bush subsequently told reporters, “I intend to do
something about it.”
Despite the movement of the carrier battle groups into
the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, administration officials have
repeatedly denied that the United States plans to attack Iran . But to
many Democrats, Bush’s rhetoric and his military moves in the region are
reminiscent of his 2003 buildup to the Iraq War.
“We must not go down the same path and end up in another
unnecessary, dangerous, costly and disastrous pre-emptive war with Iran
,” Barbara Lee , D-Calif., said on the House floor last month.
The draft supplemental bill initially included a
provision that would require congressional authorization for any
military action against Iran , with waivers for certain kinds of
operations. But Obey pulled the language, saying it contained so many
exceptions that Bush could “justify any blessed thing he wanted.” He
said, however, that the Iran provision was likely to come up again in
“another vehicle.”
Other members said they opposed the provision because,
with concerns about Iran ’s nuclear program, Bush needs maximum leverage
to stem the program. They said a congressional act that constrains
Bush’s military option could undermine that effort. Backing this
position was AIPAC, which held its annual policy conference in
Washington this week .
Gary L. Ackerman , D-N.Y., said in an interview that the
Iran provision would weaken the message the United States should be
sending about the Iranian nuclear threat.
“AIPAC was certainly strongest among the advocates” of
removing the Iran language, he said.
“Supporters of Israel felt very strongly that this didn’t
belong in there,” said Eliot L. Engel , D-N.Y. He said he and other
pro-Israel lawmakers made their views clear to Pelosi, and that he
announced to a Democratic Caucus meeting that he would not vote for the
supplemental if it included the Iran language.
“She can count,” Engel said of Pelosi, signaling that
those who wanted the language removed were more numerous.
He said AIPAC was “obviously very happy about it ”when
Obey announced that the Iran language had been stripped from the draft
supplemental measure.
But Obey’s decision to pull the Iran provision from the
supplemental triggered a backlash from liberals.
Lynn Woolsey , D-Calif., head of the Progressive Caucus,
said removing the Iran proposal reduced support for the supplemental
among liberals, whose votes will be critical to its passage.
Moran said he was “very disappointed that the Iran
language came out.”
Pelosi addressed AIPAC’s annual meeting on March 13 and
was booed by some in the audience in response to her criticism of Bush’s
Iraq policy. She did not mention the issue of congressional
authorization for war with Iran in her speech.
Later that day, meeting in the Speaker’s suite with
Appropriations Committee Democrats, she made her pledge to bring the
Iran provision to the floor as a free-standing bill.
Moran praised Pelosi’s willingness to defy the powerful
pro-Israel lobby by bringing up the Iran provision again.
“Anybody who is willing to get booed by AIPAC, she’s got
the brass balls to do it,” he said.
Several members said they were considering amending the
supplemental on the floor to add the Iran authorization measure. Moran
said he would offer it, provided he had leadership backing. “If I don’t
have leadership’s support, I’ll lose,” he said.
Maurice D. Hinchey , D-N.Y., an appropriator, said
bringing up the Iran language as an amendment was “very possible.” He
also said it could come up as a freestanding bill or as an amendment to
the defense authorization bill.
Dennis J. Kucinich , D-Ohio, said if the rules for floor
debate on the supplemental spending bill allow amendments, some members
definitely would attempt to include one that would “require the
president to come back [to Congress] in case he wants to attack Iran.”
Jim McDermott of Washington and Peter A DeFazio of Oregon
, two Democratic lawmakers who have advocated the Iran language before,
signaled they were undecided as to whether they would offer it on the
floor.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Jim Webb , D-Va., has said the
supplemental should include the Iran provision.
Jonathan Allen
contributed to this story.
Source: CQ Today
Round-the-clock coverage of news
from Capitol Hill.
© 2007 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
