There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is a very serious matter and that America has to consider every option to deal with this threat. This is the bipartisan policy of the United States, and President Obama has made it abundantly clear, stating that “…the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Resolving this issue diplomatically however represents the best possible outcome for the United States. So why are some Members of Congress doing their utmost to make this outcome less likely?
Take for example Senator Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamSenators to Obama: Make 'timely' call on Afghan troops levels Senate amendments could sink email privacy compromise Trump: Romney 'walks like a penguin' MORE (R-S.C.), who “…plans to introduce a resolution next month that would call on the United States to support Israel ‘militarily, economically and diplomatically’ if the Jewish state launches a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” according to Congressional Quarterly (CQ). CQ added that “… while previous resolutions have focused on U.S. policy toward Iran, Graham’s resolution would be the first to signal the Senate’s willingness to commit the United States to military action in response to an Israeli strike.”
Why would Graham consider offering a resolution that calls for military action only weeks after the Senate just passed another resolution – authored by Graham himself – condemning Iran’s nuclear program? That legislation states “Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.” This resolution passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 90-1, largely because of its anti-war authorization language.
Importantly, Graham’s potential effort comes just days after former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates delivered a speech outlining the consensus view among America’s senior national security leaders that an Israeli attack has virtually no chance of comprehensively eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and that, "such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert."
In addition to this perspective, a recent report signed by more than 30 former military and national security heavyweights from both political parties reinforced this point by concluding that war with Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel “…greater than what the U.S. has expended over the last 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”
The path forward is clear. A negotiated solution with Iran would likely involve an agreement establishing strict limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment and a verifiable commitment to not make a nuclear weapon – a demand made by Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations last month. It would be enforced by on-site intrusive monitoring of its program in exchange for some level of recognition of its ability to have a nuclear program and a concomitant easing of sanctions.
Members of Congress should learn from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our commander in chief needs political space to do what’s necessary to prevent a new war in the Middle East. What he doesn’t need is Congressional encouragement of a military strike that may in fact accelerate Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear bomb.
Rubin is director of policy and government affairs at the Ploughshares Fund. You can follow him on Twitter @JoelMartinRubin. This post originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle