[Peace-discuss] more on Iran from Mother Jones

[Barbara kessel]

"No Congress, No Peace"

Jonathan Schwarz, Mother Jones, May/June 2007 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2007/05/plan_for_iran.html

If the United States spreads its Middle Eastern disaster into Iran, it
won't be the fault of George W. Bush alone - a Democratic Congress
will share some of the blame. Fortunately, the legislative branch has
effective options for stopping war before it starts.

Gauging the Bush administration's true intentions toward Iran is not
easy. Each week brings a new story that hints at a struggle between
the hardliners who'd like to take down one more point on the Axis of
Evil and the realists who prefer one disastrous Middle East conflict
at a time. Given the administration's track record, uncoordinated and
sporadic attempts by members of Congress to prevent an attack on Iran
will restrain it no more than would cobwebs. Yet Congress does possess
the power to stop a war-if it chooses to exercise it. If we wake up
one morning to find cruise missiles flying, the responsibility will
not be Bush's alone. It will also belong to a Democratic-controlled
Congress that could have acted but decided not to.

What, then, would a serious congressional strategy to block a war with
Iran look like? Constitutional scholars and congressional staff agree
there's no one magic answer. The alarming truth is that 220 years
after the adoption of the Constitution, there are few settled answers
about what legal powers the executive branch possesses to start a war.
But there are several steps Congress could take to make a war with
Iran politically very difficult for the White House.

Unfortunately, the Constitution isn't much help here. It does state
that Congress alone has the ability to declare war, but precedent,
inertia, and technology have eroded this power almost to naught. (In
the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the commander in chief
can launch an apocalyptic nuclear strike without so much as a courtesy
call to the speaker of the House.) The 1973 War Powers Act requires
the president to "consult" Congress before launching military action;
if he doesn't receive further authorization, he must cease operations
within 60 days. But this leaves the door wide open for all sorts of
attacks-a massive bombing campaign could certainly be carried out
within two months. Bill Clinton arguably breached the War Powers Act
during his 78-day Kosovo bombing campaign, without consequences.

The limiting factor on a determined president, then, is not whether an
attack is legal. Rather, it is how high a political cost he's willing
to pay. Just because Bush can launch an attack on Iran in the absence
of congressional action does not mean he can legally do so in
contravention of congressional action. If Congress specifically
forbids Bush from attacking Iran, and he does so anyway, it would
precipitate a political crisis. Fortunately, Congress has some
powerful tools at its disposal.