Joseph Lieberman on War & Peace Democratic Jr Senator (CT, retiring 2012), ran for V.P. with Gore, ran for president 2004

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Iraq
• Voting Record
• Other issues under War & Peace

2002 UN report on Iraq: a "12,000-page 100-pound lie"

OpEd: Cast aside by his party for supporting the Iraq war

Amid the near-universal skepticism, a few brave souls defended the surge. Foremost among them were Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a lifelong Democrat who had been cast aside by his party for supporting the war; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

I knew McCain planned to run for president in 2008. The surge gave him a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it. He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said. "But I can guarantee failure is we don't adopt this new strategy."

OpEd: over-support of GWOT is both virtue and vice

2007: Visited Iraq with McCain; led to endorsement

McCain and Lieberman had developed a close friendship through the years , and the war was a big part of it. Lieberman was inarguably the most hawkish Democrat in the Senate. He & McCain saw eye to eye on almost everything when it came to Iraq, but the bond was deeper than that. It was forged around the antipathy they both had for the bases of their parties, which was reciprocated in spades. Lieberman's foreign policy stances had made him an enemy of the left and especially of the netroots, which had successfully targeted him for the defeat in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary. Lieberman now called himself an Independent Democrat. McCain could relate to that.

The day after returning from Iraq, McCain phoned Lieberman to ask: A former Democratic vice-presidential nominee endorsing a Republican? "I don't agree with him on everything, but war and peace is one," Lieberman thought. "Besides, the guy's my friend."

2008: Unity with McCain on Iraq War and "Country First"

The worst-case scenario was that Lieberman's pro-choice stance would cause a walk-out of social conservatives from the convention, and even that would have its benefits, sending a message of independence. Astonishingly, no one among the senior staff objected to Lieberman on ideological grounds.

Withdrawing by July 2007 is retreat & a recipe for disaster

LIEBERMAN: I have said repeatedly that the Administration has made mistakes in the execution of this war, and I have constantly made suggestions on things to do to help us succeed there-because the costs of failure are enormous. Last month, I offered a 10-point plan for success in Iraq. The top item was a change in the Secretary of Defense - we need new leadership there. Second I offered specific ways for us to better train the Iraqi security forces to take over their own defense so we can bring our troops home. I’m not prepared to give up on Iraq and I’m not prepared to fail. Ned Lamont has embraced a proposal for withdrawal by July 2007. To me, that’s not a plan for success, that’s retreat and a recipe for disaster, and it will deeply hurt the American people.

LAMONT: Joe Lieberman & George Bush’s stay-the-course strategy - that’s the recipe for failure.

SCHLESINGER: What we have in Iraq is not a military problem, but political problem.

Wants two-state solution in Middle East without terrorism

LIEBERMAN: The only solution is a two-state solution; peaceful, free Israel next to peaceful, independent Palestine. And the first step must be an end to terrorism. Would I negotiate with terrorist groups? Not while they’re terrorists. But, I believe that people are capable of change.

SHARPTON: Would you meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority?

LIEBERMAN: I did not meet with Arafat. Clinton gave him an offer of Palestinian statehood, along with former Prime Minister Barak, that came that close to being enacted, but he turned against it. I would not hesitate to have the US mediate between Israelis and any Palestinian leader who really had declared war against terrorism. Unfortunately, Arafat has not done that. As long as he’s there, there’s not going to be a real chance for peace.

Leadership means consistency on war views

LIEBERMAN: This is a test of leadership. I don’t know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they support the war but oppose funding. I’ve been over Clark’s record. He took six positions on whether going to war was right.

EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, “I want $87 billion.” I am not willing to give a blank check.

KERRY: I have the experience of being on the front lines when the policy has gone wrong. Our troops are in greater danger because this president’s been unwilling to share the burden.

CLARK: I want to make it clear that I would not have voted on $87 billion. The best welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. We ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. He ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny.

Failure is not an option in War on Terror

LIEBERMAN: What President Bush gave the American people on Sunday night was a price tag, not a plan. And we in Congress must demand a plan. The president, when he took us to war, which I supported, did not have a plan for what to do the day Saddam Hussein fell. We have a right to demand a plan today, how to get international peacekeepers in, how to get our allies in to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. I would be prepared as president to send American troops in there to protect the 140,000 who are there today, because international peacekeepers may not be there for months to come. Bottom line, to answer your question -- this is a battle in the war on terrorism. Failure and defeat is not an option. We can win it if we work together.

Pushing Israel out of West Bank is taking sides

LIEBERMAN: All of us have quite correctly criticized Bush for breaking our most critical alliances. That is exactly what Howard Dean’s comments over the last week about the Middle East have done. We have had a unique relationship with Israel. Based on values of democracy, and based on mutual military strategic interests. We do not gain strength as a negotiator if we compromise our support of Israel. Dean has said he wouldn’t take sides, but then he has said Israel ought to get out of the West Bank.

DEAN: My position on Israel is exactly the same as Bill Clinton’s. I want to be an honest broker. We desperately need peace in the Middle East. It doesn’t help to demagogue this issue.

LIEBERMAN: Dean’s statements break a 50-year record of supporting our relationship with Israel.

Be tough, but no preventive war

Iran: Enforce non-proliferation on Russia & others

The kinds of weapons that are being developed would allow Iran to threaten friendly Arab states, making it harder for them to cooperate with the US. They would raise the risks to US military forces in the region, and would threaten the free flow of oil in this critical region, which could create crises in places far from the Persian Gulf.

We must act to try to prevent this from happening. [This bill] requires reports on the transfer of certain goods, services, or technologies to Iran. This applies to any entities anywhere in the world, including Russia. It authorizes the President to impose measures against these entities but does not mandate him to do so.

Supported NATO expansion; arms to Israel & Saudis

Overthrowing Saddam was right, and we can’t abandon Iraq now

A: My position on Iraq has been clear. And I believe it was the right thing for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I have been critical of the things that the administration did after that. But the fact is, we’re there now. And we have a choice. And that choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting the terrorists take over. The latter choice is one we cannot make. And I have leveled with people about it and asked them to respect me for having the guts to take an unpopular political position.

Getting out too soon will be a disaster for Iraq and for us

LAMONT: Absolutely. Like Chris Dodd, like the heart of the Democratic Party, I supported both of those amendments [setting a deadline for withdrawal]. It’s time for us to change course. Time for us to start getting our frontline troops out of harm’s way, within the next six months, and we get our troops out of Iraq over the course of the next year. That fundamentally is a change of direction. You have an open-ended stay-the-course strategy.

LIEBERMAN: Absolutely untrue. I have said the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. But if we get out too soon, it will be a disaster for the Iraqis and for us. If you tell your enemy when you’re going to leave, they’ll wait and create disaster.

Saddam’s overthrow caused Libya & Iran to capitulate

A: I seriously doubt whether Libya would have given up its weapons of mass destruction if we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein, and if the Iranians would have allowed international inspectors come in and looked at their nuclear weapons sites if we had not done that. I’ve worked to keep our military strong and to know that in a dangerous world, sometimes you have to use that power against dangerous people.

We made the right decision to send soldiers to Iraq

LIEBERMAN: We made the right decision. I didn’t need George Bush to convince me that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. John McCain and I wrote the law that made it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad. This man was a homicidal maniac, killed hundreds of thousands of people, did have weapons of mass destruction in the ‘90s, used them against the Kurdish Iraqis and the Iranians, admitted to the UN he had enough chemical and biological to kill millions of people, supported terrorism, tried to assassinate former President Bush. I repeat: We are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison than in power.

Iraq victory opens door to Israeli-Palestinian peace

LIEBERMAN: The overthrow and then capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. It has not ended all of our problems or all the threats to our security, but a president has to deal with more than one threat at a time. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly related. We have to stay the course in Iraq now and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there. That will show the Arab world what happens as a result of American intervention, that you live better, freer lives, and will send a message to terrorists that we mean business.

Between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is only one good solution, it is a two-state solution. As president, I would devote time, commit my secretary of state to it, appoint a special ambassador to be there to work with both sides to move along the path to peace. The doors are open now, in part because of our victory in Iraq.

US and world are safer with homicidal maniac Saddam gone

DEAN: I beg to differ. Saddam is a dreadful person and I’m delighted to see him behind bars. But since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we’ve lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace. Saddam Hussein has been a distraction [from fighting Al Qaeda].

LIEBERMAN: We had good faith differences on the war against Saddam. But I don’t know how anybody could say that we’re not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the US, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people in prison instead of in power. To say that we haven’t obliterated all terrorism with Saddam in prison is a little bit like saying somehow that we weren’t safer after WWII after we defeated Hitler because Stalin and the communists were still in power.

Stabilize Iraq before pulling out the troops

A: We’ve learned from history, you cannot set a time line in this kind of situation. You’ve got to set a goal line. Because if you set a time line by which you’re going to exit, your enemy will lay back and then strike when you leave. The goal is to stabilize Iraq. When that happens, we can leave.

$87B for Iraq was unpopular, but that’s leadership

A: To me leadership is about doing what you believe is right for the country whether it is politically popular or not. That is the way I felt about my vote in support of the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a lot of money. We could use a lot of it here at home, but we had a choice to make. I didn’t duck it and I didn’t play politics around it. I did what I thought was right to support the 135,000 American soldiers that are there. To finish the job of helping the Iraqi people to build a new country. I hope people who don’t agree with me on this particular vote will decide that they want someone as their president who does what he believes is right, particularly when it is controversial. That is what I mean when I say I will lead America with integrity.

$87B to never leave American troops without support

LIEBERMAN: Well, I’m going to vote for whatever it takes to protect our troops. But you can’t say that you want to protect the troops unless you’re willing to send more American troops to protect the ones that are there.

Q: So if the president says, “I need $87 billion to protect the troops,” you’re ready to say yes to that?

LIEBERMAN: The American people have a right to expect that their president will make tough judgments, and then have the courage to stick with them. I know it’s more popular to say you don’t want to send more troops. Of course I want international troops in there. But we may have to wait six months until they get there and before then, we may have to send troops to protect the 140,000 Americans who are there now. I’m never, as president, going to leave American troops in harm’s way without giving them the support and protection they need.

Not an inch of difference from Bush on Iraq

LIEBERMAN: That statement was made as we were about to go to war. It expressed the best traditions and values of the US, which is when American men and women in uniform go into battle, there’s not an inch of space between any of us on that question.

Look, long before George Bush became president, I reached a conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and to the world, and particularly to his own people who he was brutally suppressing. I believe that the war against Saddam was right, and that the world is safer with him gone. I said last fall and then again a month before the war, “Mr. President, here’s what you have to do to get ready to secure post-Saddam Iraq.” No planning was done by this administration. I believe it’s because this administration divided within itself, and the president as commander in chief has not brought it together.

Purpose of war is to let Iraqis control Iraq

Send more US troops to Iraq, with UN force

LIEBERMAN: I would send more troops, because the troops that are there need that protection. And we need some of the specialized services that will help the Iraqis gain control of their country, and mean that sooner American troops could come home. Obviously, Americans have to control an international force. But a year ago I called for an international force.

Iraq was a heroic struggle against enemies of civilization

Saddam was a threat; we did the right thing by invading

LIEBERMAN: Oh, I absolutely disagree. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and, most particularly, to his neighbors. Remember, this was a man who said he wanted to rule the Arab world, and he invaded two of his neighbors in pursuit of that goal, using chemical weapons against them. We have evidence also over the last several years that he was cooperating with terrorists and supporting them.

We did the right thing, and we gave him 12 years and tried everything short of war to get him to keep the promises he made to disarm at the end of the Gulf War. We did the right thing in fighting this fight, and the American people will be safer as a result of it. And incidentally, no Democrat will be elected president in 2004 who is not strong on defense, and this war was a test of that strength.

Yes on $87B for Iraq-we must support troops

LIEBERMAN: [Repealing the top tax cuts] is certainly my first choice as to how we should finance this $87 billion. The fact is that the only Americans sacrificing today for our policy in Iraq are the 140,000 Americans who are there in uniform for us. If George Bush had a better, more multilateral foreign policy, we wouldn’t have to finance this alone.

But we have no choice but to finance this program for two reasons. We have those 140,000 American troops there. We need to protect them. We need to protect them and bring them home safe to their families. Secondly, we are involved in a great battle in the war on terrorism. Those terrorists have poured in there. They’re attacking Americans. They’re attacking the institutions of civilization: the United Nations, Jordanian embassy, Muslim mosques. We cannot afford to lose this fight.

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

• that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
• that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
• to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
• that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.

• Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
• Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
• Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

• $5.1 billion for security
• $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
• $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
• $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
• $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo.

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

• Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
• Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.

Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Calling for the urgent deployment of a robust and effective multinational peacekeeping mission with sufficient size, resources, leadership, and mandate to protect civilians in Darfur.

• Whereas hundreds of thousands of people have died and approximately 2,500,000 people have been displaced in Darfur, Sudan since 2003;
• Whereas Congress declared on July 22, 2004 that the atrocities in Darfur were genocide;
• Whereas the Sudanese President refused to allow the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur;
• Whereas deliberately targeting civilians and people providing humanitarian assistance during an armed conflict is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, and those who commit such violations must be held accountable;
• Whereas on June 11, 2007, Sudanese President al-Bashir pledged to accept unconditionally the full United Nations-African Union hybrid deployment;
• Whereas to establish conditions of peace and security, the peacekeeping mission must be accompanied by a peace-building process among the parties to the conflict;
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate urges the President of the US to work with members of the UN Security Council and the African Union to ensure the expeditious deployment of the United Nations-African Union hybrid peacekeeping force with a mandate affirming that civilian protection is a primary mission objective;
• Provide the UN-African Union hybrid force with sufficient logistical support and airlift capacity; and necessary vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters for tactical reconnaissance and armed deterrence;
• Be prepared to implement meaningful measures, including the imposition of multilateral sanctions, an arms embargo, and a no-fly zone for Sudanese military flights over Darfur, if the Government of Sudan obstructs deployment of the agreed upon peacekeeping mission.

Legislative Outcome: Agreed to by Senate by Unanimous Consent.

Condemn Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statement.

• Whereas President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated on October 26, 2005, that 'The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.... Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.... There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.';
• Whereas President Ahmadinejad stated on December 14, 2005, that 'They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.... If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?';

  Whereas President Ahmadinejad stated on June 3, 2007, that 'With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine.... By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future';

• Whereas President Ahmadinejad stated on September 12, 2007, that 'We do not accept or officially recognize Israel. They are occupiers and illegitimate'; and
• Whereas President Ahmadinejad stated on January 30, 2008, 'I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line. It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall':
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate--
• (1) condemns in the strongest possible terms President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful and anti-Semitic statements regarding the State of Israel and the Holocaust; and
• (2) calls on all member States of the United Nations to publicly condemn President Ahmadinejad's statements as a violation of the principles of both the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
• Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
• Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
• Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
• Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
• Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
• Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;

1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq.

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq. Expresses the sense of the Senate that:

1. Congress should ensure that General David Petraeus have the necessary resources to carry out their mission in Iraq; and
2. the government of Iraq must make visible progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated in this Resolution.

Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program.

Expresses the sense of Congress that:
1. diplomatic efforts to address Iran's illicit nuclear efforts, unconventional and ballistic missile development programs, and support for international terrorism are more likely to be effective if the President is empowered with explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on the government of Iran;
2. US concerns regarding Iran are strictly the result of that government's actions; and
3. the people of the United States have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran and regret that developments in recent decades have created impediments to that friendship.

States that it should be US policy to:
1. support international diplomatic efforts to end Iran's uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program;
2. encourage foreign governments to direct state-owned and private entities to cease all investment in, and support of, Iran's energy sector and all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran;
3. impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups; and
4. work with allies to protect the international financial system from deceptive and illicit practices by Iranian financial institutions involved in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.

• Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to direct the President to impose sanctions if a person has made an investment of $20 million or more (or any combination of investments of at least $5 million which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $20 million in any 12-month period) that directly and significantly contributed to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources. (Under current law the sanction thresholds are $40 million, $10 million, and $40 million, respectively.)
• Establishes additional sanctions prohibiting specified foreign exchange, banking, and property transactions.
• Includes refined petroleum resources.

Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Declares it to be U.S. policy that:
• Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
• Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
• the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
• Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.