As global tensions intensify over Iran’s nuclear proliferation project and amid speculations that President Bush is planning for military action against Iran, one U.S. representative is issuing a message to Bush: “You are constitutionally bound to seek congressional authorization before launching any preventive military strikes against Iran.”
Local Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is distributing a letter he has drafted to other House representatives, asking them to join him in reminding Bush that despite his “broad reading” of his powers as commander in chief and his fears that Iran is building an arsenal of nuclear weapons that could threaten the U.S. or its allies, the U.S. Constitution is still binding.
“The founders of this country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, large-scale preventive military actions against foreign threats that are likely years away from materializing,” the three-page letter states.
“‘Everybody does it’ is not a legitimate defense to ignore the plain words of the U.S. Constitution,” DeFazio writes.
To emphasize his concern that the administration may be planning to use military force against Iran, the 20-year House veteran cites two articles from The Washington Post and one from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner and contributing writer to The New Yorker magazine.
The articles highlight increased speculation that Bush is doubting the success of diplomacy – and even counting on its failure – and is planning strategic airstrikes to slow Iran’s nuclear technology advancements.
Bush said the articles are “wild speculations,” which happen often in the capital city. He said prevention “doesn’t mean force, necessarily,” and in the case of Iran, “it means diplomacy.”
The U.S., Germany, France and Britain have been pressuring Iran to discontinue attempts to convert uranium to nuclear power, for fear that current
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would use it against the U.S. or one of its allies, particularly Israel. Although the Iranian president has repeatedly threatened Israel, he also says his country’s uranium enrichment program is for safe, energy-generating uses.
DeFazio said in an interview that his fears aren’t based solely on the media reports, but also on the personal conversations he’s had with former CIA officers and diplomats he met with several weeks ago and with an Iranian scholar.
“There is an undercurrent of worry in Washington and some people feel, along with myself, that the way they’re presenting this is eerily reminiscent of the war in Iraq,” he added.
Bush hasn’t been shy about his stance on Iran. In January, speaking at Kansas State University, he said “the world cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon.”
“I’m concerned, when the country of Iran, their president announces his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed. Israel is our ally. We’re committed to the safety of Israel,” he went on, “and it’s a commitment we will keep.”
Bush said in an interview with an Israeli television station in mid-August that “all options are on the table” for keeping nuclear weapons from Iran.
“The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country. It’s a difficult – it’s difficult for the commander in chief to put kids in harm’s way. Nevertheless, I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and to provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies,” he told Israeli TV Channel 1 at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The Washington Post article cited by DeFazio, “U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran,” emphasizes the similar language Bush used before invading Iraq.
Five months before the invasion of Iraq, Bush gave a half-hour speech on “a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.”
At a White House press conference on Jan. 13, Bush stated, “Iran, armed with a nuclear weapon, poses a grave threat to the security of the world.”
“Remember that he told us up until they invaded Iraq that they had no plans to invade Iraq, and none of that is true,” DeFazio said in an interview.
The New Yorker article states that while Bush is pushing for a diplomatic resolution, the ultimate goal of regime change is underpinned by “a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail” and that “the timetable is short,” according to an anonymous European official.
Hersh quotes former Pentagon policy official Kurt Campbell, who said airstrikes “are the only real option ahead.”
In an interview on radio talkshow “Democracy Now,” Hersh said, “Of course they’re planning to attack Iran,” but the goal isn’t to repeat the Iraq invasion and occupancy; it’s to “hit three or four dozen targets.”
On April 10, Bush discussed the war on terrorism at John Hopkins University.
“Now, I want to emphasize this point, and that is, is that we’re not only making sure they don’t have the means to develop the weapon, but the knowledge,” he said.
“I got out a little early on the issue by saying axis of evil. But I meant it. I saw it as a problem. And now, many others have – have come to the conclusion that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon,” he said.
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]
