SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
What Price for an "Advisory" Timetable? Bar an Unauthorized Attack on Iran
Apr 21, 2007
Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory," the Washington Post reports.
Many Americans looking to Congress to take decisive action to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq will be very disappointed if this turns out to be true. And many anti-war Democrats in Congress will again face a dilemma: whether to support the leadership's strategy on the war in a close vote.
On the one hand, many were already justifiably unhappy with the bill that passed the House. On the other, many will find the political logic for supporting the leadership compelling, as they did before, knowing that ultimately, the political story that will be told will be either "Congress voted to condition funding on a timetable for withdrawal" or it won't be. Congressional action moves the debate forward in a unique way. As even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has acknowledged, the Congressional debate has already had a positive impact.
This is worth considering now, because if the outcome, ultimately, is going to be that the House is going to accept the leadership's strategy, more or less, of passing something closer to the Senate version, then it's worth considering whether the more anti-war Democrats in Congress could win something substantive for going along.
Last time, the Out of Iraq caucus won a commitment from Speaker Pelosi that the provision barring an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization, dropped from the supplemental, would be voted on at a later date. The "later date" is likely to be the defense authorization bill, The Hill reports, with Senator Jim Webb and many House Democrats pushing for a vote on the Iran provision.
Since the "deal" on the supplemental is being re-opened with the proposed removal of binding language on the timetable for withdrawal, it makes sense to re-open it from the other side. In particular, it makes sense to put barring an unauthorized attack on Iran back on the table. Doing so would move the debate forward on U.S. policy towards Iran, even if the effort to enact this provision into law, or even to get it through the House or the Senate, is ultimately unsuccessful in this round.
The logic for doing so is the same that Secretary Gates acknowledged: Congressional action moves the debate forward. So far the debate around the Iran provision has been, relative to the debate around the Iraq withdrawal provisions, an insider game. The debate around the Iran provision has mainly been reported in the "insider" press, not outside.
In the "insider" game, insider forces, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have the most leverage. Contrary to the beliefs of many, it is possible to beat AIPAC in Congress, as was demonstrated when Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and others beat AIPAC on the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act." But this requires extending the debate beyond the usual suspects.
If a significant bloc of Congressional Democrats were to say, we will go along with the leadership on this, but in exchange we want something that really restricts the ability of the Administration to unilaterally pursue a policy of military confrontation with Iran, and forces the Administration to pursue a policy of serious diplomacy, that would put the issue on the table for wider debate, even if the demand were not immediately successful.
Getting the debate out into the wider press would be a significant advance. It would send a signal to people in the region that Congress and the American people are not going to support a policy of military confrontation with Iran, so issues with Iran are going to have to be resolved diplomatically.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory," the Washington Post reports.
Many Americans looking to Congress to take decisive action to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq will be very disappointed if this turns out to be true. And many anti-war Democrats in Congress will again face a dilemma: whether to support the leadership's strategy on the war in a close vote.
On the one hand, many were already justifiably unhappy with the bill that passed the House. On the other, many will find the political logic for supporting the leadership compelling, as they did before, knowing that ultimately, the political story that will be told will be either "Congress voted to condition funding on a timetable for withdrawal" or it won't be. Congressional action moves the debate forward in a unique way. As even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has acknowledged, the Congressional debate has already had a positive impact.
This is worth considering now, because if the outcome, ultimately, is going to be that the House is going to accept the leadership's strategy, more or less, of passing something closer to the Senate version, then it's worth considering whether the more anti-war Democrats in Congress could win something substantive for going along.
Last time, the Out of Iraq caucus won a commitment from Speaker Pelosi that the provision barring an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization, dropped from the supplemental, would be voted on at a later date. The "later date" is likely to be the defense authorization bill, The Hill reports, with Senator Jim Webb and many House Democrats pushing for a vote on the Iran provision.
Since the "deal" on the supplemental is being re-opened with the proposed removal of binding language on the timetable for withdrawal, it makes sense to re-open it from the other side. In particular, it makes sense to put barring an unauthorized attack on Iran back on the table. Doing so would move the debate forward on U.S. policy towards Iran, even if the effort to enact this provision into law, or even to get it through the House or the Senate, is ultimately unsuccessful in this round.
The logic for doing so is the same that Secretary Gates acknowledged: Congressional action moves the debate forward. So far the debate around the Iran provision has been, relative to the debate around the Iraq withdrawal provisions, an insider game. The debate around the Iran provision has mainly been reported in the "insider" press, not outside.
In the "insider" game, insider forces, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have the most leverage. Contrary to the beliefs of many, it is possible to beat AIPAC in Congress, as was demonstrated when Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and others beat AIPAC on the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act." But this requires extending the debate beyond the usual suspects.
If a significant bloc of Congressional Democrats were to say, we will go along with the leadership on this, but in exchange we want something that really restricts the ability of the Administration to unilaterally pursue a policy of military confrontation with Iran, and forces the Administration to pursue a policy of serious diplomacy, that would put the issue on the table for wider debate, even if the demand were not immediately successful.
Getting the debate out into the wider press would be a significant advance. It would send a signal to people in the region that Congress and the American people are not going to support a policy of military confrontation with Iran, so issues with Iran are going to have to be resolved diplomatically.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory," the Washington Post reports.
Many Americans looking to Congress to take decisive action to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq will be very disappointed if this turns out to be true. And many anti-war Democrats in Congress will again face a dilemma: whether to support the leadership's strategy on the war in a close vote.
On the one hand, many were already justifiably unhappy with the bill that passed the House. On the other, many will find the political logic for supporting the leadership compelling, as they did before, knowing that ultimately, the political story that will be told will be either "Congress voted to condition funding on a timetable for withdrawal" or it won't be. Congressional action moves the debate forward in a unique way. As even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has acknowledged, the Congressional debate has already had a positive impact.
This is worth considering now, because if the outcome, ultimately, is going to be that the House is going to accept the leadership's strategy, more or less, of passing something closer to the Senate version, then it's worth considering whether the more anti-war Democrats in Congress could win something substantive for going along.
Last time, the Out of Iraq caucus won a commitment from Speaker Pelosi that the provision barring an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization, dropped from the supplemental, would be voted on at a later date. The "later date" is likely to be the defense authorization bill, The Hill reports, with Senator Jim Webb and many House Democrats pushing for a vote on the Iran provision.
Since the "deal" on the supplemental is being re-opened with the proposed removal of binding language on the timetable for withdrawal, it makes sense to re-open it from the other side. In particular, it makes sense to put barring an unauthorized attack on Iran back on the table. Doing so would move the debate forward on U.S. policy towards Iran, even if the effort to enact this provision into law, or even to get it through the House or the Senate, is ultimately unsuccessful in this round.
The logic for doing so is the same that Secretary Gates acknowledged: Congressional action moves the debate forward. So far the debate around the Iran provision has been, relative to the debate around the Iraq withdrawal provisions, an insider game. The debate around the Iran provision has mainly been reported in the "insider" press, not outside.
In the "insider" game, insider forces, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have the most leverage. Contrary to the beliefs of many, it is possible to beat AIPAC in Congress, as was demonstrated when Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and others beat AIPAC on the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act." But this requires extending the debate beyond the usual suspects.
If a significant bloc of Congressional Democrats were to say, we will go along with the leadership on this, but in exchange we want something that really restricts the ability of the Administration to unilaterally pursue a policy of military confrontation with Iran, and forces the Administration to pursue a policy of serious diplomacy, that would put the issue on the table for wider debate, even if the demand were not immediately successful.
Getting the debate out into the wider press would be a significant advance. It would send a signal to people in the region that Congress and the American people are not going to support a policy of military confrontation with Iran, so issues with Iran are going to have to be resolved diplomatically.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.