The war powers measure S.J. Res. 68 (116), passed 227 to 186, next heads to Trump’s desk. The resolution amounts to a legal slap on the wrist for Trump, who is certain to veto the resolution.

The Senate passed the measure, sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), in February. But neither chamber has passed the measure with nearly enough votes to overcome a veto.

The resolution calls for end to military hostilities against Islamic Republic without congressional authorization.

Democrats — and a handful of Republicans wary of expansive presidential powers — have been seeking to restrict Trump’s aims on Iran since last year.

Those efforts gained steam in January after Trump ordered the killing of Islamic Republic Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani  listed on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) — which the administration argued came in response to an imminent threat — and a retaliatory missile attack by Iran against bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq.

Since then, the House has passed its own war powers resolution, which the Senate did not take up. House Democrats also pushed through legislation from progressive California Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, respectively, to block funding for offensive military operations against Iran that aren’t authorized by Congress and repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization the administration employed to justify killing Soleimani.

Democrats have panned the Trump administration’s legal and tactical explanations for the strike in the intervening months. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel(D-N.Y.) argued the legislation was still needed even though “tensions have ratcheted down” between the U.S. and Islamic Republic Out law Regime.

“The drafters of the War Powers Resolution accounted for the situation we are in today,” Engel said on the House floor. “They were clear that Congress’ powers are not as narrow as the administration would like us to believe, and apparently as some members of this body would like us to believe.

“The American people don’t want war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war with Iran,” he added. “That should be crystal clear.”

But only six Republicans broke ranks to support the measure, well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Only eight Senate Republicans supported the measure last month, passing the chamber with below the threshold to overturn a veto.

The vote comes amid reports that three people, including two U.S. troops, were killed in a rocket attack at Iraq’s Camp Taji , just north of Baghdad. Army Col. Myles Caggins, a spokesperson for the U.S. mission against ISIS, said on twitter that the base was hit with “more than 15 small rockets.” but provided no additional details on the attack.

House Republicans, meanwhile, contended Trump had exercised restraint against Islamic Republic Out law Regime and called the resolution a partisan exercise.

“In my judgment, we are wasting precious legislative days and setting a terrible precedent of abusing war powers procedures,” said Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Foreign Affairs Republican.

The measure was  hailed by advocacy groups aiming to restrain executive war powers and limit future overseas wars.

“The United States should always retain the capability to protect itself from threats, and it is important to note this measure does not prohibit the president from defending our country and our fellow Americans should they be threatened,” said Nate Anderson, executive director of Concerned Veterans of America, a conservative veterans’ group backed by the Koch family. “Rather, this is a positive step toward a better foreign policy that will better position America to prioritize American safety, engage productively in the world, and prevent endless wars with no clear mission or end goal.”

Defense policy legislation approved last year by the House included a provision, authored by Khanna and Trump ally Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), that would have required congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran. The provision was dropped from a compromise defense bill after opposition from the Republican Senate and the White House.

Progressive lawmakers are nonetheless predicting Iran will reemerge as a top issue when the House takes up its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act this spring.

The White House has threatened to veto the measure, saying it “fails to account for present reality.” Ahead of last month’s Senate vote on the resolution, Trump also urged senators to vote against by arguing it would “show weakness.”

The post House votes to curtail Trump’s war powers against Islamic Republic Out Law Regime, setting up veto fight appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.

In 2015 when President Hassan Rouhani advertised his “nuke deal” with the Obama administration as “the greatest diplomatic victory in the history of Islam,” few people realized that he had, in fact, endorsed a neo-colonial document that put key aspects of Iran’s economic, industrial, scientific and security policies under the tutelage of six foreign powers led by the United States.

For several reasons, the “nuke deal” did not provoke the popular explosion in Iran that some analysts expected. To start with no one had signed that deal which meant it was neither a treaty nor a binding international agreement but a wish list. Nor was it put through the legislative process to give it legal authority. More importantly, perhaps, the text did not offer a readily recognizable and concrete image of the humiliation the “Islamic Republic” had accepted in the name of Iran.

Rouhani’s euphoria that “even the Americans have recognized our right to enrich uranium” sounded good to some who did not know that the right to enrich uranium is recognized for all nations by international law. Having got away with that odious exercise, Rouhani and his team decided to do a similar favor to Vladimir Putin. This came last year when Rouhani flew to Kazakhstan to sign a Russian text on the Caspian Sea.

The text, in 24 articles, suffers from a crisis of identity.

It is not clear whether it is a treaty or a draft for a future accord. It offers no definition of the Caspian, either as a lake or a sea – a definition that would automatically establish its status under existing international maritime laws and conventions. It pretends to establish the legal status of the Caspian Sea without tackling the crucial issue of sovereignty.

In its preamble, the text refers to “changes and processes that have occurred in the Caspian region at the geopolitical and national levels”, and insists on “the need to strengthen the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.”

Leaving aside the confusion between “Caspian region” and “Caspian Sea” the text implies that a legal regime already exists but needs to be strengthened.

So, what is that legal regime?

It is shaped by three treaties between Iran, the Tsarist Russia and, finally, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Under those treaties, Iran and Russia (in its two epiphanies) have joint sovereignty over the Caspian Sea. The treaties do not mention the figure 50-50 and, in reality for many decades, the Caspian was a Russian lake for all practical purposes. Nevertheless, the treaties show that Iran and Russia were the only two sovereign powers in the Caspian.

That could be challenged with the internationally recognized legal principle of change, notably by the emergence of “successor states” or “rebus sic stantibus” in Latin.

The Russian text does not do so. For if it did it would have to accept that the four Caspian littoral states that emerged from the disintegration of the USSR would have to share their half of sovereignty among themselves, leaving Iran’s share as unchanged.

To muddy the waters, the text, which, according to its first article, is the exclusive work of The General Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, ignores the issue of sovereignty altogether and goes straight for ascertaining the share of littoral states in the ownership of the body of water.

In that context, Iran with the shortest coastline on the sea ends up with the smallest share, just around 11 percent.

However, sovereignty and ownership are two different concepts.

You may own an apartment in Paris and be recognized as proprietor. However, the sovereignty of the area in which your apartment is located belongs to the French Republic. Several Scottish islands are owned by individuals but are still under British sovereignty.

The relationship between sovereignty and ownership comes in numerous forms. The entire state of the Vatican is sovereign but located in the middle of the Italian capital Rome and subject to its municipal rules. The Republic of San Marino, on the Italian coastline has a similar status while Monaco’s real estate is 80 percent owned by foreigners without the princely family losing their sovereignty. Andora is owned by Andorans but under joint French and Spanish sovereignty. Initially, the Congo was the private property of Leopold I, the Belgian King, who, in the absence of a sovereign status, treated the vast territory as he pleased.

Sovereignty could also be exercised long distance. New Caledonia, in the Pacific Ocean, is under French sovereignty as are the Falkland Islands under the British, both being thousands of miles away from their respective sovereign authorities. Closer to the Caspian we have the Shah-i-Mardan enclave in Kyrgyzstan that is under the sovereignty of neighboring Uzbekistan to the west.

To make sure that this is an exclusively Russian document, the text uses Russian terminology, measurements and even pseudo-legalistic shibboleths instead of internationally recognized concepts, terms and references codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

What is the good of ownership, and property rights, if we do not know which sovereign authority shall enforce them?

Because this is a Russian text, in the preparation of which other littoral states played no part, the implication may be that Russia is the sole sovereign power, and thus ultimate arbiter of disputes in the Caspian Sea. If that assumption is correct, we may conclude that Russia has acquired a colonial advantage that it could not obtain even when Iran was weak, famine-stricken and war-broken under the Qajar Dynasty.

With this text, Russia secures two other advantages.

First, it gains control of pipelines transiting the Caspian Basin’s immense oil and gas reserves to world markets, notably Europe. That would push Iran, which is the economic route for those pipelines, out of competition. Russia will retain its principal card in facing Western powers.

Russia, already the only significant military force in the Caspian, will retain its monopoly by forbidding other littoral states to build a military presence with the help of non-littoral allies.

In trying to push this text through, President Vladimir Putin is acting like a tactician seeking quick advantage even though that may produce a strategic loss. Shaken by the consequences of their childish adventures, the mullahs of Tehran may swallow this Russian brew. However, I doubt that any future Iranian government worth its salt would not spit it out.

BY Amir Taheri Prominent Scholar Journalist. Mr. Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books. Mr. Taheri is the most sought after guest by Farsi speaking media. He promotes global peace and stability through his various publications and speeches around the world.

The post Putin and Mullahs appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.