House Resolution Seems to “Demand” Blockade of Iran

By Shirl McArthur

On May 22, Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced H.Con.Res.362, with the relatively mild title of expressing the sense of Congress regarding the “threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the U.S. by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.” However, the resolution’s four “resolved” clauses go well beyond “expressing concern.” The first declares that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is vital to U.S. security interests. The second urges the president to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank, international banks that continue to do business with sanctioned Iranian banks, energy companies investing $20 million or more in Iran’s energy sector in any year since 1996, and all companies doing business with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Clause four urges the president to lead a diplomatic effort to support the governments in the region against Iranian efforts at hegemony.

If those three clauses weren’t enough to create friction with our friends and allies and unite the Iranian people behind their most hawkish leaders, resolved clause three would seem to guarantee it. It “demands” that the president initiate an international effort to increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to “suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement” of Iranian officials.

After many groups pointed out that clause three could only be enforced by the imposition of a total land, sea, and air blockade of Iran—an act of war—Ackerman and Pence circulated a letter to their colleagues saying that “these assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense.” (Perhaps Ackerman and Pence have a different definition of the word “all” than most people do.) They argue that the resolution clearly says that “meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic, and economic levers,” and pointed out that the resolution says elsewhere that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” (This is not in the resolved clauses, but is the 21st “whereas” clause.)

Perhaps not coincidentally, AIPAC’s annual conference was held in Washington June 2 at 4, and one of the main items on the Israel lobby’s agenda was to generate congressional support for H.Con.Res.362 and its Senate counterpart, S.Res.580. As a result, by mid-July H.Con.Res.362 had amassed 248 co-sponsors.

The resolution’s four “resolved” clauses go well beyond “expressing concern.”

S.Res.580, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) on June 2, is a bit more moderate. Its first two resolved clauses are the same as those of H.Con.Res.362. Instead of calling for a blockade, however, clause three only “demands” that the president lead an international effort to increase pressure on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities “by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran.” The clause that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran” is resolved clause four. As a result of AIPAC’s full-court press, S.Res.580 by mid-July had 36 co-sponsors.

It is unlikely that H.Con.Res.362 will be passed in its present form. Although it first appeared primed for passage under “suspension of the rules,” chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee Howard Berman (D-CA) is not among the co-sponsors, and Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) have spoken out against the measure. There also are reports that the measure may not even be brought to a vote, either in the committee or the full House. If it does reach the House floor, it will likely be modified first, and if it does pass the House, it must then go to the Senate, which will likely either ignore it or replace its text with that of S.Res.580.

Other New Bills Would Sanction Iran

Three other recent bills would impose or strengthen sanctions on Iran. Perhaps the most interesting is S.3227, introduced on July 7 by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), with no co-sponsors. It was reported out of Baucus’s Finance Committee and placed on the Senate calendar the same day. Essentially it is a modified version of S.970, introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith in March 2007 as the Senate version of H.R.1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which the House passed in September of last year. S.970, with 72 co-sponsors, has stalled in the Senate, largely because of its potential to anger this country’s European allies and affect U.S.-Russia relations. Those concerns still exist; in fact, S.3227 would go so far as to disapprove the U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement signed May 6. With the end of the 110th Congress rapidly approaching, and considering that the Senate’s Foreign Relations and Banking Committees also have claimed jurisdiction, it is hard to see how S.3227 can make it through the legislative process.

H.R.6178, introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) on June 4 with three co-sponsors, and H.R.6361, introduced by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on June 24 with no co-sponsors, both would strengthen existing sanctions on Iran.

Resolution Introduced Urging Iraqi Government to Recognize Israel…

On June 5, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced H.Res.1249 calling on “the administration to use its influence to persuade Iraq and other countries with which the U.S. has diplomatic relations to recognize the right of Israel to exist and to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.” The measure has 60 co-sponsors, including Hastings.

But Two Resolutions Urge U.S. to Sign Declaration Banning Cluster Bombs

Identical resolutions were introduced in the House and Senate “expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should sign the Declaration of the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions and future instruments banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.” S.J.Res. 37 was introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) with 12 co-sponsors on June 3, and H.J.Res.91 was introduced two days later by Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), with 4 co-sponsors.

Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.