Tina Smith on War & Peace

No War with Iran without Congressional OK

Voted to remove US armed forces from Yemen

Senator Smith voted "yea" on a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services. 06.20.2019

[Saudi Arabia led a bombing campaign in Yemen, using weapons supplied by the United States].

Keep the Iran Nuclear Agreement in place

"Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. A withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement, however, will do nothing to reduce that threat. The Iran deal was never perfect, but I am profoundly concerned that walking away from it with no legitimate basis for doing so is bad for our national security. It heightens the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon and heightens the ultimate risk of military conflict.

"This move also sends a message that the U.S. won't abide by our diplomatic agreements, and it risks serious backlash from the international community.

"President Trump says at the heart of the Iran deal was a fiction. That couldn't be further from the truth. There's always room to improve international relations and strengthen our current agreements--but not when we abandon the diplomatic structures we already have in place.

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 The Resolution should be repealed.` Pres.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)