SPONSORED:

Foreign Relations Democrats 'deeply frustrated' after Iran briefing

Foreign Relations Democrats 'deeply frustrated' after Iran briefing
© iStock

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said a classified briefing Tuesday on U.S. policy toward Iran revealed no new information to clarify the Trump administration’s justification for the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Most of the criticism came from committee Democrats, but Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulCongress set for chaotic year-end sprint McConnell halts in-person Republican lunches amid COVID-19 surge Biden's Cabinet a battleground for future GOP White House hopefuls MORE (R-Ky.) also said he didn't "think there was anything presented today that was new." Paul previously fumed that a full Senate briefing on Iran was “less than satisfying.”

The Foreign Relations Committee was briefed behind closed doors Tuesday by the State Department’s special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook; principal deputy assistant secretary of State for near eastern affairs Joey Hood; and the department’s acting legal adviser, Marik String.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Christopher CoonsChris Andrew CoonsDemocrats face increasing pressure to back smaller COVID-19 stimulus Biden rolls out national security team Democrats brush off calls for Biden to play hardball on Cabinet picks MORE (D-Del.) commended Hook in particular for providing “an engaging articulation of their strategy” toward Iran, but said he remains “deeply frustrated” at the administration’s inability to answer Congress’s questions.

“It was a generally deliberate, respectful conversation, but several members were deeply frustrated at clear refusal to provide any meaningful answers,” Coon said, tracing the shape of a zero with his hand when asked if there was any clarification on the justification for the Soleimani strike. “This was an exercise in physically showing up but not actually engaging in any meaningful” discussion. 

The briefing comes as U.S.-Iran tensions simmer following a spike earlier this month that brought the two sides to the brink of war.

The tensions reached a boiling point after the early January strike in Iraq that killed Soleimani, who led Iran’s elite Quds Force.

Iran retaliated with a missile strike on Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops. The missile strike did not kill anyone, but the Pentagon conceded last week that 34 U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries.

ADVERTISEMENT

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump rages against '60 Minutes' for interview with Krebs Cornyn spox: Neera Tanden has 'no chance' of being confirmed as Biden's OMB pick Pa. lawmaker was informed of positive coronavirus test while meeting with Trump: report MORE and his deputies have offered shifting explanations for why he ordered the strike that killed Soleimani, from citing his past attacks on American forces to claiming without evidence he was plotting imminent attacks on U.S. embassies.

Following the tit-for-tat and frustration at the administration’s explanations, the House passed a war powers resolution largely on party lines aimed at restricting Trump’s ability to wage war on Iran.

A similar war powers resolution from Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineCongress set for chaotic year-end sprint Democrats face increasing pressure to back smaller COVID-19 stimulus Rick Scott tests positive for coronavirus MORE (D-Va.) has secured enough Republican support to pass the Senate, but it has been stalled while the Senate conducts Trump’s impeachment trial.

“I think we’ve been lucky with regard to Iran in the sense that there hasn’t been a response that lost American lives,” Paul said Tuesday when arguing for the war powers resolution and repealing the existing authorizations for the use of military force.

“Had there initially been a response with American lives [lost] we could be at war now. There was a danger of war and still exists a danger of war that comes just from killing one person ... One person died at the very beginning of World War I, and 21 million people died as a consequence,” he added, referencing the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that sparked World War I.

ADVERTISEMENT

Asked if new information was presented Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim RischJim Elroy RischWill Biden choose a values-based or transactional foreign policy? GOP senator congratulates Biden, says Trump should accept results Barrasso to seek top spot on Energy and Natural Resources Committee MORE (R-Idaho) said he already knew “a lot of the stuff” that was discussed, but suggested that’s only because he is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Cory GardnerCory GardnerHillicon Valley: Trump fires top federal cybersecurity official, GOP senators push back | Apple to pay 3 million to resolve fight over batteries | Los Angeles Police ban use of third-party facial recognition software Senate passes bill to secure internet-connected devices against cyber vulnerabilities Democrats vent to Schumer over Senate majority failure MORE (R-Colo.) called the briefing a “good discussion." He said he did think there was new information, but acknowledged “there may be some people who disagree with that.”

Democrats on the committee, though, complained there was nothing new, adding there was no reason the briefing should have been classified.

While some senators asked questions about classified matters, the answers contained no classified information, Coons said.

Sen. Jeff MerkleyJeff MerkleySupreme Court declines to hear case challenging unlimited super PAC fundraising Trump supporters demonstrate across the country following Biden-Harris win Merkley wins reelection in Oregon Senate race MORE (D-Ore.) said the briefing covered “nothing that you can’t read in the newspaper,” calling it “absurdity.”

“I think there’s a lot of frustration that the administration really had so many changing explanations for their activity, said there was important classified information to back up their strategy. While we were there, we didn’t hear it,” Merkley said, adding there was “not a reason at all” for the briefing to be classified.

Sen. Jeanne ShaheenCynthia (Jeanne) Jeanne ShaheenTop Democrat calls Trump's Afghan drawdown 'the right policy decision' as others warn of 'mistake' Overnight Defense: How members of the Armed Services committees fared in Tuesday's elections | Military ballots among those uncounted in too-close-to-call presidential race | Ninth US service member killed by COVID-19 Biden wins New Hampshire MORE (D-N.H.) similarly said she didn’t think the briefing needed to be classified, saying there were “a number of us who urged that we think about what needs to be classified and what doesn’t.”

Sen. Cory BookerCory BookerDangerously fast slaughter speeds are putting animals, people at greater risk during COVID-19 crisis Senate Democrats reelect Schumer as leader by acclamation  Hill associations push for more diversity in lawmakers' staffs MORE (D-N.J.) also said there was “very little that was in that meeting that could not have been in open session.”