A Daily Briefing on Iran: NY Sun credits our blog: Senate Democrats Soften Iran Resolution

Brian McGuire, The New York Sun:

A Senate resolution condemning the president of Iran for anti-Semitic comments he made earlier this month is riling its Republican sponsors on Capitol Hill. They claim Senate Democrats forced them to strip language from the document expressing support for self-determination and a national referendum in the country.

Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, drafted the resolution after a December 14 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a "myth" and suggested Israel be relocated to Europe, Canada, or Alaska. In its original form, the statement condemned the remarks, demanded an apology, and supported efforts by "the people of Iran to exercise self-determination" and hold a national referendum with oversight by international observers.

When Mr. Santorum moved to introduce the resolution last Friday, Senator Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, registered an unusual objection. According to the Congressional Record, Mr. Wyden told Mr. Santorum on the Senate floor that he was objecting to the resolution because his Democratic colleagues in the Senate had asked him too. Mr. Wyden did not say who asked him to issue the objection.

"While I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the president of Iran," Mr. Wyden said, "I have been asked by the members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object."

Mr. Wyden's office did not return repeated calls yesterday to explain who suggested that he object to the Iran resolution or why he was chosen to register the complaint. And a spokesman for Mr. Santorum, Robert Traynham, said he did not know who raised the objection either. "We're still trying to see who those Democrats are," he said. An Internet blog devoted to promoting Democracy in Iran, "Regime Change Iran," detailed the flap over the resolution. It simply said that "Senate Democrats" objected to the resolution. READ MORE

Confusion over Mr. Santorum's resolution was first evident when an aide to Senator Voinovich, a Republican of Ohio and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last Thursday that she thought the resolution had passed. When a reporter said it hadn't, the aide, Garrette Silverman, double-checked and discovered it was held up. Mr. Voinovich then issued a statement condemning Mr. Ahmadinejad's re marks as "shocking and disgusting."

The following day, Mr. Santorum introduced a revised resolution, absent the language calling for a referendum in Iran. Once it passed, he delivered a floor speech in which he condemned not only the comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad but also members of the Senate and others who have resisted a similarly strong condemnation of the remarks.

"We could not adopt tonight in the Senate the Senate saying to the people of Iran that we support efforts of self-determination and a national referendum that was free and fair," Mr. Santorum said. "That is, in my mind, a rather unfortunate occurrence. But I found, from my perspective, that it was so important to condemn these actions that we agreed to strike those two sentences from the resolved clauses. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would oppose either of those sentences, those resolved clauses. They state that we are for freedom and democracy for all people, including the people of Iran."

Disagreement over the proper response to Mr. Ahmadinejad has not been limited to Mr. Santorum's resolution. Senator Clinton, a Democrat of New York, last week criticized the Secretary of State Rice, for not issuing a formal response. Senator Brownback, a Republican of Kansas and a co-sponsor of Mr. Santorum's original Iran resolution, also asked the White House to step up its criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Ms. Rice denounced Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments in a radio interview on the "Sean Hannity Show" the day they were made.