Posted on 01/25/2006 6:00:05 AM PST by xzins
Many in Congress Hawkish on Iran By LIZ SIDOTI ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - As the Bush administration pushes to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, many members of Congress are advocating get-tough approaches and say military force should remain an option to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Lawmakers largely back the effort to haul Iran before the Security Council over the Iranian government's refusal to give up its uranium enrichment program. But some say they doubt that a simple reprimand from the council - seen as a likely outcome - will be enough to persuade Iran to change course.
Rather, Republicans and Democrats alike say the United States should seek international economic sanctions that are harsh enough to hurt Iran, while securing assurances from Tehran's major trading partners that they will abide by any restrictions the Security Council imposes.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly emphasized that the United States is committed to addressing the Iran standoff diplomatically and is working to line up support for a vote of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the Security Council.
A British Foreign Office official said Wednesday that foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council members - Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States - plus Germany will discuss the situation with Iran while in London next week for a donors' conference on Afghanistan.
In Moscow, Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that Tehran views Russia's offer to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia as a positive development but no agreement has been reached between the countries.
Chief negotiator Ali Larijani also reiterated Iran's threat to renew enrichment activities if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council.
Rice has shied away from discussions of possible U.S. military action, saying the United States is focused on a diplomatic course. But she has consistently said President Bush reserves the right to use any option, including force.
Lawmakers say the threat that Iran could obtain weapons of mass destruction is so serious that the international community must act decisively to halt Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration should not rule out other avenues should diplomatic efforts fail, they say.
"It's important to give diplomacy a try, but I don't believe we should take any option - including military force - off the table," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate Armed Services emerging threats subcommittee.
"If you eliminate the threat of military action, the possibility of it, then there's no way to secure compliance," added Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., a House International Relations Committee member.
The standoff with Iran over its nuclear program has intensified in the month that Congress has been away from Washington for its holiday break.
Iran has broken U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year hiatus. European countries declared dead their negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
The Iranian government claims its intention is purely peaceful - to generate electricity. But the United States and its allies fear Iran has a more threatening objective - making nuclear bombs.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said diplomatic efforts must be exhausted before turning to the "last option," the use of force.
"There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option, and that is Iran having nuclear weapons," the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."
Some analysts have said that while an American military strike could destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, it would anger U.S. allies, intensify the Muslim world's bitterness toward the United States, drive up oil prices and rally Iranians behind their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said the United States and European countries must do everything possible to secure the support of China and Russia to take Iran before the Security Council, and then stake out "a tough posture" that includes sanctions.
However, said Obama, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, "We have to be judicious in how we apply sanctions - there may be some sanctions that may not make a difference."
Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., vice chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said: "We need to use the diplomatic means very, very aggressively."
Some lawmakers are suggesting that new Iranian leadership is needed.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said that for now, the United States and its allies must intensify its pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program. "But ultimately," he said, "there must be change in the country's leadership. The current Iranian government is a corrupt and dangerous regime that's out of step with its citizens."
Cornyn said Iran has become more authoritarian and autocratic. "We need to do a better job of letting pro-democracy forces in Iran know that we are supportive of their efforts of peaceful regime change," he said.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators led by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has introduced a resolution condemning Iran's nuclear program, calling for the immediate suspension of uranium enrichment activities and endorsing a referral of Iran to the Security Council.
At the same time, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., is pushing his own resolution that in part accuses Bush of ignoring the threat of Iran for years.
---
On the Net:
CIA World Factbook on Iran: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Kyl's is the only "tough" response that I saw.
Hopefully we will see a real response like that from our president.
Maybe, but wait till there are some casualties. Then it'll be "we was lied to!"
I see the same big-talking Dems are out in force. The first sign of trouble and they will switch sides.
I think Bayh's opposition is what opposition should look like. If we let the Dems fool us by spending years condemning us for liberating Iraq and then start condemning us for not liberating Iran...it really is our fault and not their hypocrisy. We had a job to do eliminating the Axis of Evil and we have so far not completed even 33% of that.
This article calls that hawkish. I agree with the comment: "hawkish until the bullets fly." Then they'll claim ANYTHING rather than have a backbone.
I think Al-Qaeda is on its heels. It has no government that supports it, and it is in deep cover.
Iraq is now a democratic government learning the ropes. It's military is ferreting out the terrorists in its midst. It is a buffer between Iran and Syria while Afghan is a stopper on the other side of Iran. The US Navy controls the Persian Gulf.
Iran is surrounded on at least 3 sides.
I'd say that's more than satisfactory, and far better than the 33% (Iraq, Iran, NKorea) approach you have taken.
I expect the President will soon make a policy statement on Iran that will force 'rat congressman to put up or shut up.
I've mostly ignored him. I didn't see his convention speech. But I've seen him here and there on the interview shows, and my impression of him is the same as yours. A standard politician--lips moving, not saying anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.