In a little noticed but
potentially monumental development, the House of Representatives voted
unanimously for an
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (H.R.
5515) that says no statute authorizes the use of military force against Iran.
The amendment, introduced by
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota), states, “It is the sense of Congress that the
use of the Armed Forces against Iran is not authorized by this Act or any other
Act.”
A bipartisan majority of the
House adopted the National Defense Authorization Act on May 24, with a vote of
351-66. The bill now moves to the Senate.
If the Senate version ultimately
includes the Ellison amendment as well, Congress would send a clear message to
Donald Trump that he has no statutory authority to militarily attack Iran.
This becomes particularly
significant in light of Trump’s May 8 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
That withdrawal was followed by a long
list of demands by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which could set the
stage for a US attack on Iran.
Co-sponsors of the Ellison
amendment include Reps. Barbara Lee (D-California), Ro Khanna (D-California),
Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) and Walter Jones
(R-North Carolina).
“The unanimous passage of this
bipartisan amendment is a strong and timely counter to the Trump
administration’s withdrawal from the Iran deal and its increasingly hostile
rhetoric,” Ellison said in a press
release. “This amendment sends a powerful message that the American people
and Members of Congress do not want a war with Iran. Today, Congress acted to
reclaim its authority over the use of military force.”
Likewise, Khanna stated, “The
War Powers Act and Constitution is clear that our country’s military action
must first always be authorized by Congress. A war with Iran would be
unconstitutional and costly.”
McGovern concurred, stating,
“Congress is sending a clear message that President Trump does not have the
authority to go to war with Iran. With President Trump’s reckless violation of
the Iran Deal and failure to get Congressional approval for military strikes on
Syria, there’s never been a more important time for Congress to reassert its
authority. It’s long past time to end the White House’s blank check and the
passage of this amendment is a strong start.”
Moreover, the Constitution
only grants Congress the power
to declare war. And the War Powers Resolution allows the president to
introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only after
Congress has declared war, or in “a national emergency created by attack upon
the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” or
when there is “specific statutory authorization.”
But even if the Ellison
amendment survives the Senate and becomes part of the National Defense Authorization
Act, Trump would likely violate it. He could target Iranian individuals as
“suspected terrorists” on his global battlefield and/or attack them in Iran
with military force under his new targeted
killing rules.
Unilateral Sanctions Against
Iran Are Illegal
Although the Ellison amendment
states that no statute authorizes the use of US armed forces in Iran, it does
not prohibit the expenditure of money to attack Iran. Nor does it proscribe the
use of sanctions against Iran.
In fact, other amendments the
House adopted mandate the imposition of sanctions against Iran.
An amendment introduced by
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) reflects the sense of Congress that “the
ballistic missile program of Iran represents a serious threat to allies of the
United States in the Middle East and Europe, members of the Armed Forces
deployed in those regions, and ultimately the United States.”
The Roskam amendment then
states the US government “should impose tough primary and secondary sanctions
against any sector of the economy of Iran or any Iranian person that directly
or indirectly supports the ballistic missile program of Iran as well as any
foreign person or financial institution that engages in transactions or trade
that support that program.”
And the House mandated the
imposition of sanctions against people connected to named groups in Iran that
“commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism,” in an amendment introduced
by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas).
When Trump announced
his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, he also reinstated US
nuclear sanctions and “the highest level” of economic restrictions on Iran.
Those sanctions could remove
over one million barrels of Iran’s oil from the global market.
The unilateral imposition of
sanctions by the United States, without United Nations Security Council
approval, violates the UN Charter. Article 41 empowers the Council, and only
the Council, to impose and approve the use of sanctions.
The other parties to the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name for the Iran deal, oppose ending
it. Known as P5+1, they include the permanent members of the Security Council —
the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — plus Germany, as well as
the European Union.
At a minimum, France, Italy,
Germany and the United Kingdom are not
likely to cooperate with the US’s re-imposition of sanctions.
Trump Administration Gunning
for War on Iran and Regime Change
Before Trump withdrew from
the Iran nuclear agreement, Iran was complying
with its obligations under the pact.
Once Trump named John
Bolton, notorious
for advocating regime changein Iran, as national security adviser, it was a
foregone conclusion the United States would pull out of the pact.
Pompeo also supported
renunciation of the deal. His over-the-top demands on Iran include the
cessation of all enrichment of uranium, even for peaceful purposes (which is
permitted by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty).
“Taken together, the demands
would constitute a wholesale transformation by Iran’s government, and they
hardened the perception that what Trump’s administration really seeks is a
change in the Iranian regime,” the
Associated Press reported.
Jake Sullivan, who served in
the Obama administration and was Hillary Clinton’s lead foreign policy advisor
during the presidential campaign, said of
the Pompeo demands, “They set the bar at a place they know the Iranians can
never accept.”
Ellie Geranmayeh, a fellow at
the European Council on Foreign Relations, called the demands “conditions
of surrender.”
Meanwhile, it is unclear how
long it will take to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the National
Defense Authorization Act. Constituents who become aware of the risk of a US
attack on Iran will invariably lobby their senators to include an admonition
comparable to the House’s Ellison amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment