Jack Reed on War & Peace Democratic Sr Senator (RI)

Coalition to stop Syrian WMDs, but nothing more militarily

REED: It will help because one of the first things that we have to do is verify, although there is increasing evidence that the Assad regime conducted a horrific attack on its own people, but we have to verify that it was directed by the Assad regime. Because that will allow us to build an international coalition, which is absolutely necessary to take any further steps in Syria.

Q: What do you think the president ought to do?

REED: He has to be careful about defining what is our objective. I believe our objective is to make it prohibitive for any country to use chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. So a military option that would be limited to that point is something that he should be thinking about very carefully. But I think we can't let ourselves get into a situation where this becomes a springboard for a general military operation in Syria.

Red line in Syria if chemical weapons used against people

REED: We don't have a good sense of who is on the ground. A no-fly zone could be feasible from an operational standpoint.

Q: What would it accomplish?

REED: It might not accomplish a great deal, but it would give us a step further to our engagement in a very complicated civil war. I think the best approach is a diplomatic approach at this point.

RADDATZ: What about the "red line" and evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons?

REED: I think we have to take it very seriously. We do have to be careful, though, because we've had situations in the past where we've acted on information that was incomplete, and frankly, to the detriment of our country.

Q: Should Obama have drawn that red line?

REED: I think he should have made it clear, as he did, that the systemic use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people is something the international community cannot tolerate.

More pressure on Iran; keep all options on the table

REED: It's going to take increased pressure, economically, and that's why the issue of multilateral sanctions is so critical. Up until we enlisted under President Obama, the entire world or significant parts of it in putting pressure on the Iranians, they were not at all responsive. We have to continue that pressure. Also, they have elections scheduled for June. We hope we it will shape it in a positive way, that they will back down from their aspirations for nuclear technology and nuclear weapons. But the first issue is keep the pressure on. We need every option on the table. We have to assess all those options.

No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.

Sponsor`s introductory remarks: Sen. BIDEN: This bipartisan resolution opposes the President`s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America`s military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence. Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That`s the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Excertps from resolution:
• Whereas the US strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
• Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;
• Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the US in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;
• Whereas more than 3,000 US military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;
• Whereas on January 10, 2007, Pres. Bush announced his plan to deepen the US military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional US combat forces to Iraq;
• Whereas an open-ended commitment of US forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
• Resolved: That it is the sense of Congress that it is not in the national interest of the US to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq;
• the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

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.

Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.

Excerpts from Letter from 85 Senators to President Obama We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime. We urge you to insist on the realization of these core principles with Iran:

• Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Any agreement must dismantle Iran`s nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a path to a nuclear bomb.
• Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, and that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak.
• Iran must submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime.
• Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions.

Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, `Enforcing Iran Nuke Deal,` Jan. 25, 2017): More than anything else, the Iran nuclear deal must be kept because the alternative is a return to ever-heightening tensions and clamoring by hawks in both countries. From 2003 to 2014, years of unrelenting U.S. sanctions and confrontation, Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. The hostile approach generates a more expansive, less transparent Iranian nuclear program and increases the chances for another disastrous U.S. war in the Middle East. Let`s hope the Trump administration chooses not to go that route.

Stay out of Israeli wars, according to CC survey.

The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'The US Should Continue to Support and Stand with the Nation of Israel Against Her Enemies?' Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.

No military force against Iran without Congress approval.

Axios.com summary: The House passed a symbolic war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt the use of military force against Iran unless he obtains approval from Congress.

The big picture: A classified briefing on the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani [by the US military] left Democrats and even some Republicans deeply skeptical, with many claiming that officials did not provide evidence that there was an `imminent` threat from Iran. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said they will vote in favor of a similar resolution in the Senate [S J Res 68].

What opponents are saying: Former national security adviser and notorious Iran hawk John Bolton tweeted: `The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed.` Pres. Trump quote tweeted Bolton and added: `Smart analysis, I fully agree!`

What supporters are saying: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was one of the few Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, stating on the House floor: `Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision.` Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation that would block funding for offensive military force against Iran without congressional authorization. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is also seeking to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used repeatedly to justify war in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, criticizing it as a `blank check.`

Legislative outcome: H Con Res 83 Passed House 224-194-13 on 1/9/20; S J Res 68 passed Senate 55-45-0 on 2/13/20. Vetoed 5/6; Senate veto override failed 5/7/20.

Sponsored bill to oppose Israeli annexation of West Bank.

Congressional summary: A resolution affirming the United States commitment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and noting that Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank would undermine peace,, harm Israel`s relationship with its Arab neighbors, threaten Israel`s Jewish and democratic identity, and undermine Israel`s security.

Aljazeera summary, 4/22/20: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that it was Israel`s decision whether to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, and the US will offer its views on this to the new Israeli government in private. `As for the annexation of the West Bank, the Israelis will ultimately make those decisions,` Pompeo told reporters. Israel`s intention--in accordance with President Trump`s Middle East plan--to annex the Jordan Valley and illegal Jewish settlements would defy international law. Last year, the Trump administration said it would no longer abide by a 1978 State Department legal opinion that the settlements were `inconsistent with international law`.

Letter to Secretary Pompeo from 13 members of Congress on 6/30/20: We express our deep concern over the planned annexation of occupied Palestinian territory by the government of Israel. Annexing parts of the West Bank will perpetuate and entrench human rights violations against the Palestinian people, including limitations on freedom of movement and mass expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land. Furthermore, Israel has stated it will not grant citizenship to Palestinians living in annexed territory or to the many more Palestinians living in the isolated enclaves that Israel will opt not to annex, paving the path toward an apartheid system. Already existing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Legislative outcome: Never reached a vote.

Sponsored resolution to repeal 2002 AUMF against Iraq.

Resolution excerpts:
• Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 and 2002 currently remain valid law;
• Whereas, since 2014, U.S. military forces have operated in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of supporting its efforts to combat ISIS;
• Whereas authorizations for the use of military force that are no longer necessary should have a clear political and legal ending:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States [that]
• The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq is hereby repealed.

Politico.com in OPPOSITION, 3/25/21: Republicans who opposed repealing the 2002 authorization said that it should be replaced because Iraq is still home to terror groups that threaten the United States. Rep. Michael McCaul called for consultations with first in order to craft a replacement. `Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the administration working together on actual text to replace the aging 2001 and 2002 AUMFs to provide authorities needed to keep the American people, and, most importantly, our deployed troops, safe from terrorists,` McCaul said.

Heritage Foundation in SUPPORT (1/6/20): There has been an open and vibrant debate about whether the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS, a terrorist organization that did not even exist when the 2001 statute was passed and has disavowed and formally broken away from al-Qaeda, the group that is covered by the 2001 AUMF. Yet both the Obama and Trump Administrations claim that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS and associated forces. Congress has shied away from the much-needed debate about whether the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer necessary.

Legislative Outcome: Passed House 268-161-2 on H.R.256 on 6/17/2021 (rollcall 172; no vote on S.J.R.10 nor H.R.3261 in 2021)