Iraq and Region Update for June 27, 2008

Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update for June 27, 2008

In this update . . .

Take action: Congress approves war money: next steps to stop the war
Congress reaffirms "no permanent bases"
Will Congress encourage an Iran blockade?
Update on Israeli-Palestinian peace process

I. Take Action

Congress has sent President Bush the largest single war funding bill since the Iraq war began. After a Senate vote last night, the House and Senate have both approved $162 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, keeping the U.S. war machine rolling at least until March 2009. The United States will have invested $864 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the summer of 2009.
See more on the votes below.

What now? We at FCNL will be working with Congress to pass legislation requiring a new U.S. policy in Iraq-one that prevents the current administration from locking this country into a long term military presence in Iraq. Congress could have several opportunities this summer to lay the groundwork for a new U.S. policy in the region. We believe this policy should include setting a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and establishing a comprehensive U.S. regional diplomatic strategy in the region that is essential for ending the war.

Help begin the work for a new policy by contacting your representative today. Let him or her know you are disappointed that Congress has approved more money for war, and urge your representative to support legislation establishing the basis for a new U.S. policy that could end the war. You'll see a different sample letter depending on how your representative voted.

II. In Congress: War Supplemental Passes

In addition to the $162 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress included $21 billion in the war funding bill to meet veterans' and domestic needs. They expanded GI education benefits, extended unemployment insurance, increased State Department funding, provided international food aid, funded levee construction in New Orleans, and provided Midwest flood relief. (This related measure was what the Senate approved last night by a vote of 92-6; this measure also reduced the previous approved war funding by $3 billion. The Senate approved the war funding itself by a vote of 70 to 26 on May 22.)

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was one of 151 Democrats and 4 Republicans who voted against the war funding June 19. Find out how your representative voted. The number of representatives willing to vote against war funding has been growing, but it is still not enough to change policy. And, as the Speaker pointed out in her floor speech, the Senate also has not yet been able to muster the 60 votes needed in the Senate to change the administration's war policy. Find out how your senators voted on more money for war.

"No Permanent Bases" Reaffirmed
The House approval of war money had one consolation. At the last minute, House leaders included a provision that FCNL has championed since 2005; banning the construction of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The "no permanent bases" measure had been included in every Iraq spending bill for more than two years, but because of the politics of this supplemental it had not been included in the bill the House was considering. Failure to reaffirm the "no permanent bases" policy at a time when the administration is seeking to conclude a long-term agreement, with Iraq would have sent the wrong signal to the White House.

The House also included in its legislation report that accompanies the bill a requirement that the administration provide detailed plans for how and when the U.S. will close down military bases in Iraq. The Senate has approved similar language, possibly forcing the administration to reveal details of its plan for a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Congress Can Still Help or Harm
While this bill marks the end of the struggle over war funding in the 110th Congress, Congress could still have several opportunities this summer to lay the groundwork for a new U.S. policy in the region.

FCNL continues to urge Senate leadership to allow a vote on pursuing diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. A resolution calling for a diplomatic surge introduced by Sen. Bob Casey (PA) with bipartisan support (S. 2130) or a similar measure could be attached as an amendment to the military authorization bill that Senate will likely consider in late June or early July.

We at FCNL agree with the many experts who are convinced that inclusive regional diplomacy is crucial to stabilizing Iraq and the region and facilitating U.S. withdrawal. Admiral William Fallon, who just stepped down as commander of U.S. forces in the region has said, "From my perspective, we are not going to be able to help to solve the problems inside [Iraq] without assistance from outside." Five former secretaries of state-Madeline Albright, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Henry Kissinger, and Colin Powell-have urged the U.S. to talk to Iran about Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, and other issues of concern. If Congress were to endorse inclusive regional diplomacy now, it would set the stage for a new administration to take a new approach to regional security in the Middle East and could discourage military action against Iran in the remaining months of this administration.

Will Congress Encourage a Blockade of Iran?
But Congress could also act in the coming months to the opposite effect: encouraging the administration to act against Iran and making it more difficult for a new administration to chart a different course in Iraq and the region.

Dangerous new legislation in the House (H.Con. Res. 362) calls for new sanctions on Iran and demands that the president initiate a partial land, sea, and air blockade of Iran. A blockade, even a partial one, is an act of war unless imposed with United Nations authority., In less than a month, 96 House Democrats and 111 Republicans, including strong opponents of the Iraq war, have cosponsored this resolution.

Adoption of the resolution would send a strong and dangerous signal to the Bush administration that Congress supports military action against Iran. In the current climate of rising tensions and threats of war, approval of the resolution would increase the chances of military confrontation. Provisions in the measure that would prohibit travel abroad of "all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program" would, if they become law, cut off the U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume and would violate international treaty obligations on the movement of diplomats.

FCNL opposes this resolution and is working to persuade cosponsors, especially those strongly opposed to the Iraq war, to remove their names from the resolution. You can contact your representative through the FCNL website

III. Annapolis Peace Process Watch

Fragile Cease-Fire Passes One-Week Mark
Months of persistent Egyptian diplomacy were rewarded last week when Hamas and Israel agreed to a cease-fire in Gaza. The cease-fire took effect June 19 but faced immediate challenges. An Israeli attack against Islamic Jihad in the West Bank (an area not included in the cease-fire) prompted Islamic Jihad to retaliate by firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. Several days later a faction related to Hamas rival Fatah fired two rockets into Israel from Gaza, prompting Hamas to declare that the cease-fire was serving the Palestinian national interest and warning of action against any faction breaking it. Israel has so far responded to the rocket only by temporarily closing Gaza crossing points, though some Israeli cabinet ministers have called for an additional military response.

A majority of both Israelis and Palestinians support a cease fire, but not necessarily the one currently in effect. A poll taken in Israel a day after the cease-fire went into effect showed 56% in favor of the agreement and 39% opposed. Israelis expressed skepticism about the cease-fire's effects: 79% do not believe that it will last.

Many of the Israelis opposed to the cease-fire are angry that the initial agreement did not include the release of an Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas for two years. If the cease-fire were to hold, however, it could give the Egyptian-mediated negotiations for a prisoner exchange time to succeed.

In a Gaza-West Bank poll, 78% of Palestinians supported a cease-fire agreement with Israel, but only if it includes the West Bank as well as Gaza. Only 23% of Palestinians supported a Gaza-only cease-fire. This opposition reflects both concern about to Israel's continuing lethal raids and arrests in the West Bank and the fear that West Bank hostilities could eventually end the Gaza cease-fire.

How to Proceed?

The Bush administration still has time to help close the gaps between Israeli and Palestinian positions and achieve a peace agreement before January , according to Former Israeli cabinet minister and peace negotiator Yossi Beillin. Among the differences that need to be settled are borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees.

Beillin's former aide, Daniel Levy, on the other hand, writes that carrying negotiations into the next U.S. administration might be better for both Palestinians and Israelis. He states that "it would be no bad thing to allow the Palestinians to engage on these issues [of unity] themselves rather than to force through an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on paper in a situation where one side has basically lost legitimacy and the other is so deeply divided and perhaps also legitimacy-challenged."

IV. Articles, Documents, and Reports

Post-Intelligencer Sees "Scary Language" in Iran House Resolution
"So, are supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?" the Seattle Post-Intelligencer asked in a June 26 editorial entitled "Iran: Scary language," referring to the House resolution that calls for what amounts to a land, sea, and air blockade of Iran. "Might that be construed as an act of aggression? Only if we pay any mind to the rules set forth by the United Nations… stating that such a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war," the Post-Intelligencer said.

Israeli Analyst Says Gaza Blockade, Sanctions Counterproductive
Israeli analyst Yossi Alpher says that the lesson of Israel's confrontation with Hamas in Gaza over the past year is that "economic sanctions are counterproductive. Starving Palestinians in Gaza did not make them turn against Hamas but did stain Israel's human rights record." In a long Q&A discussing the Hamas-Gaza ceasefire, the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv added that "If and when the ceasefire ends, the sanctions should not be renewed, and any subsequent Israeli military operations should be pinpoint and focused…"

Majority of West Bank-Gaza Palestinians Still Backs Two-State Solution
The same opinion poll that showed 78% of Palestinians in favor of a cease-fire with Israel that included Gaza and the West Bank (see section III, above) also showed that a majority of West Bank-Gaza Palestinians, 58%, still back a two-state solution with Israel, rather than a one-state solution, and 67% support the Saudi peace initiative calling on all Arab states to make peace with Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Stanley Foundation Report Advocates Selective Engagement With Iran
A new Stanley Foundation briefing argues that "containment of Iran is an unrealistic solution, given that coercive isolation has only fostered a more radical and security-dominant domestic Iranian brand of politics." Riccardo Redaelli, an Italian scholar and track II diplomacy participant, writes in "Why Selective Engagement? Iranian and Western Interests Are Closer Than You Think" that the U.S. and Iran have converging strategic needs and should escape the current "capitulate or escalate" framework and engage diplomatically to resolve their differences.