A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362
Ordinarily, the American Israel Policy Action Committee (AIPAC) has an influence on U.S.
foreign policy way which goes unchallenged. In the case of the current House
resolution, H. Con. Res. 362, despite the intense pressure exerted by AIPAC, some
members of the United States House of Representatives who initially were about to rubber
stamp this reckless non-binding resolution promoted by the powerful pro-Israel lobbying
group, are having a change of heart. After receiving many thousands of messages which
pointed out that the resolution could be interpreted as Congressional authorization for
military action against Iran, legislators began expressing their own reservations.
On May 19, 2008, a 12-member House delegation led by House Speaker Pelosi met with Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. At that lunch meeting, Olmert proposed
that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran in order to stop its uranium enrichment
program. Present at this meeting were: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs
Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and AIPAC loyalists Reps. Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman.
Three days after this meeting, Mr. Ackerman introduced the resolution H. Con. Res. 362 in
the House.
The legislation calls for prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum
products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships,
planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran. This certainly sounds as if
the resolution is seeking the blockade which Prime Minister Olmert had requested. A
military blockade is an act of war. The passage of this resolution would add the voice of
the United States House of Representatives to the growing calls for armed intervention
against Iran.
AIPAC, the highly influential advocate for the Israeli government on Capitol Hill, is the
author and tireless promoter of H. Con. Res. 362. Israel has openly declared that it seeks
armed intervention in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.
There are many in the Bush administration who are known to favor bombing either
Irans alleged nuclear weapons sites or their military bases, among them, Vice
President Dick Cheney. It was reported in Israel and has since been corroborated
by Time, that during the Presidents May visit to Israel, the U.S.
delegation convinced the Israelis that America would attack Iran before the Bush term
expired. Time claims that the administration has reversed its policy and now
favors negotiations, although the U.S. governments true intentions are not actually
known.
Over 5000 AIPAC activists went to The Hill at the beginning of June, where in 500 separate
meetings, they lectured our representatives and Senators about the great importance
American supporters of Israel attribute to the swift passage of their Iran legislation.
Initially, the results were predictable based on past performance. Congressman rushed to
offer their support. As of today, 252 members of Congress have co-sponsored the
legislation in a truly extraordinary show of loyalty to the pro-Israel lobby. An unnamed
AIPAC official predicted the legislation would quickly and easily become law with no
amendments, like a hot knife through butter. But strangely that did not
happen.
The legislation is presently stalled. Mark Weisbrot reported that the Chairman of the House Foreign
Relations Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, has promised that H. Con. Res. 362 will not be
reported out of the committee until the blockade clause is removed. Ghandi
Peace Brigade activist Leslie Angeline wrote, after lobbying on the Hill, that
Berman indicated he had "no intention of moving the bill through his committee unless
the language is first altered to ensure that there is no possible way it could be
construed as authorizing any type of military action against Iran." My requests to
the House Foreign Relations Committee for information about the immediate future of the
resolution and to verify statements attributed to Berman did not receive a response.
Many people, already alarmed by U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling, were startled at the
aggressive tone of the AIPAC resolution. They reacted especially adversely to the clause
prohibiting imports of refined petroleum which appeared to demand a blockade. Even if a
blockade did not materialize, passage of the resolution could be understood by the Bush
administration as a Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran. At the
very least, passage of H. Con. Res. 362 would indicate a lack of Congressional resolve to
prevent the U.S. from expanding Americas Middle East war to Iran. This is especially
worrisome in light of the fact that, as Seymour Hersh has written in The New Yorker,
a Congressional delegation led by Nancy Pelosi has already authorized 400 million dollars
for covert operations in Iran aimed at arming dissident groups and subverting Iranian
nuclear sites.
Galvanized by the extreme language of the AIPAC resolution and the growing evidence that
both the U.S. and Israel are considering an attack on Iran before the end of Bushs
presidency, activist groups started asking their members to send emails and make phone
calls to their legislators in order to express concerns about H. Con. Res. 362. Among the
groups that had formal actions were Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, the
National Iranian-American Council, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Code
Pink, Just Foreign Policy, the Madison Institute for Peace and Progressivism, Jstreet,
Voters for Peace, AfterDowningStreet, and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military
Intervention in Iran. According to reports, members of the House of Representatives
received tens of thousands of messages asking lawmakers to oppose the legislation, many
specifically citing the blockade clause.
The non-binding resolution is built on a series of assumptions which selectively and
inaccurately reflect the conclusions of the American intelligence and United Nations
intelligence sources. The legislation ignores the key conclusion of the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which state
that there is no hard evidence that Iran has an active nuclear program. The NIE report,
which was published in November 2007, states that evidence indicates that Iran abandoned
its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Rep. Gary Ackerman has written two separate letters to the members of the House which
explain the importance of his resolution. He described as nonsense the claim
that the legislation calls for a blockade of Iran. Ackerman stated that the qualifying
clause which expressly says that the resolution should not be taken to assert that
military force should be used against Iran, makes it clear that no use of such force could
be implied by the resolution. The problem is that if the resolution is quoted by those
seeking to use military force, as an indication of Congressional support, it would be very
easy for them to selectively quote the blockade clause and omit the denial of
authorization of force clause. Ackerman also stated that the prohibition of refined
petroleum clause is meant to be enforced voluntarily in the exporting countries and not in
the Persian Gulf. The phrase entering or departing Iran in the resolution
tends to contradict that claim.
Reps. Robert Wexler and Barney Frank have publicly said that they will attempt to alter
the legislation in order to eliminate all ambiguity about its demanding the use of
military force. Neither has withdrawn his co-sponsorship, however. Three Congressman have
withdrawn their co-sponsorships and others have expressed concern about the legislation in
general and about the blockade clause in particular. Rep. Ron Paul
went further in a speech on the House floor in which he warned that the resolution is
indeed a call to war.
Senator Barack Obama met with House Democrats on July 29. At that meeting, Rep.
Howard Berman, who is so far refusing to report H. Con. Res. 362 to the House for a vote,
asked about the candidates opinion of the current state of negotiations with Iran
over its nuclear program. The Democratic candidate, reflecting a reluctance many share
about appearing soft on Iran said, according to Rep. Shelly Berkley, "if
the Iranians don't accept a deal now because they think they're going to get a better deal
from the next president, they're mistaken." If Berman thought he was going to get a
statement from Obama supporting negotiations and/or opposition to military threats, he was
mistaken. Obama has been making a major effort to court the Jewish vote, so is not about
to criticize the Bush administrations or anyone elses use of a military threat
against Iran.
Non-binding legislation initiated and supported by AIPAC usually passes in the House
quickly with only 15 to 20 dissenting votes. The unexpected delay in committee and the
growing opposition to the legislation may reflect the increasing and understandable
concern about the role of AIPAC in creating American foreign policy in the Middle East and
the alarm that Iran will be the next target of Americas expanding war in that
region.
What will be the fate of H. Con. Res. 362? Even if it is held up indefinitely in the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, the fact that it has 252 co-sponsors means that it expresses
the sense of the House regarding the alleged threat posed by Iran and a
willingness of a majority of members of the House to support AIPACs Iran foreign
policy.
It is clear that the antiwar movement has emerged as a voice in the ongoing debate
concerning Iran. However, if military confrontation with Iran is to be avoided, the peace
movement must convince our politicians not only to oppose legislation like H. Con. Res.
362, but, more importantly, to renounce the world view of AIPAC and the neo-cons which has
been the foundation of the Bush administrations Middle East policies. This means the
work has just begun.
Ira Glunts lives in Madison, NY where he owns and operates a used book business with his
wife. Mr. Glunts has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.