War games: Republicans could write Obama blank check on Iran

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that Congress should consider giving the president preemptive authority to attack Iran. Democratic leaders were wary of the plan.

|
Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) escorts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after they spoke in the US Capitol in Washington Tuesday.

By showering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with affection on his trip to Capitol Hill Tuesday, members of Congress partially obscured a larger disagreement over just what tools the US should employ to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Netanyahu, who had private meetings with groups of House and Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle, was giving love as good as he was getting. 

“I don’t think there is a place anywhere else on earth where we can match the clarity, courage, and wisdom that I find here in the halls of this institution," he said.

But the definition of “clarity” was up for debate as Democrats took issue with a bold plan floated by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, which would preemptively give President Obama the green light to take military action against Iran.

“I think it is time to consider a resolution authorizing the use of force” against Iran, Senator McConnell said at an afternoon press briefing with reporters. “A resolution authorizing the use of force does not mandate the use of force. It would clearly indicate to the Iranians that we were willing to go beyond sanctions, that many of us are skeptical are likely to get the final result.”

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual meeting the night prior, McConnell laid out his thoughts on Iran in more specific – and strident – terms.

“In my view, the only way – the only way – the Iranian regime can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time enforcing a firm declaratory policy that reflects a commitment to the use of force,” McConnell said, receiving a standing ovation from a group widely regarded as one of the nation’s most powerful lobbying groups. 

He said he would consult with Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to introduce such a resolution “if at any time the intelligence community presents the Congress with an assessment that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Many Senate Republicans have been critical of the administration's willingness to give sanctions time to have an effect.  

“I’m willing to talk, I hope sanctions will work, I’m willing to apply more, but time is not going to last forever. The Israelis have a different clock than we do,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) of South Carolina.

Democrats, on the other hand, took issue not only with McConnell’s suggestion but an op-ed by GOP presidential front runner Mitt Romney addressing America's conflict with Iran.

“I’m not going to be part of rushing forward to a declaration of war. These are things that have to be done very, very cautiously,” Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said at an afternoon news conference. 

McConnell's proposed resolution was "premature," added Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an e-mailed statement.

Obama likewise sounded a cautionary note during his first press conference since November.

“This is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it,” he said. 

Senator Kerry even took to the Senate floor to criticize Mr. Romney, the former governor of his home state, for what he called “idle talk of war.”

“Talk has consequences, and idle talk of war only helps Iran by spooking the tight oil market and increasing the price of the Iranian crude that pays for its nuclear program,” Kerry said. “And to create false differences with the president just to score political points does nothing to move Iran off a dangerous nuclear course.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to War games: Republicans could write Obama blank check on Iran
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0306/War-games-Republicans-could-write-Obama-blank-check-on-Iran
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe