THE TOPLINE: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Thursday he would oppose President Obama’s request to use force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) if it did not provide authority for troops to help vetted Syrian rebels against Bashar Assad’s regime.
“Any authorization to use force that will not allow us to neutralize the air threats that any group going into Syria would face from Assad is not only militarily unsound, it is immoral,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday.
{mosads}Graham’s comments come with the U.S. military training and equipping 5,000 Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, but still unsure if and how it could protect them in battle against Assad’s forces, according to the Pentagon’s top leaders. The Syrian rebels are expected to face opposition from both ISIS and Assad’s forces.
The administration is currently relying on a 2001 authorization for the use of force for the current campaign against ISIS. It is seeking a new war powers measure specifically against ISIS and its associated forces, but it would only allow U.S. forces to protect Iraqis in battle against the terror group — not Syrian rebels in battle.
“We’re under active discussion about whether and how to support them,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told senators Wednesday at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Dempsey said part of that active discussion includes what legal authority U.S. troops would have to protect the rebels.
“I don’t believe that the legal aspect of that has been determined,” said Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who testified alongside Dempsey.
Other lawmakers have also expressed concerns about recruiting and training Syrian rebel fighters but not offering them protection on the battlefield where they will be targeted by both ISIS and Assad.
“We cannot recruit more if we’re not able to protect them, and yet the AUMF that we have before us doesn’t allow us to protect them,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday.
GRAHAM PUTS GOP ON NOTICE OVER SPENDING. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) warned fellow Republicans to pass a budget resolution that replaces sequestration for the Defense Department.
“I will not be a Republican who votes for a final budget deal that spends less than Barack Obama. That would be hitting bottom for me. We’re not going to hit bottom with my vote,” he said during a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Foreign Policy Institute.
Graham, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and Budget committees, said he and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) are considering a provision in the fiscal 2016 budget resolution, which is expected to be marked up this month, that creates a “deficit neutral reserve account.”
The account could be used to spend more than is allowed under the 2011 budget deal that introduced the sequestration cuts.
“And to those in my party who worship the tax code more than the Department of Defense, we’re going to have a struggle with each other,” Graham said in a direct shot at Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), a fiscal conservative who has stated his budget blueprint won’t adjust the sequestration budget cap.
Graham also called out Republican House leadership.
“What kind of budget are you going to pass? Are you going to continue this race to the bottom in terms of defense capability? Are you going to wake up and become the party of Ronald Reagan again?” he asked.
CORKER BLASTS TALK OF UN VOTE ON IRAN: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Thursday in a letter to President Obama that any effort to get the United Nations Security Council to approve a nuclear deal with Iran would be “a direct affront to the American people.”
Corker said reports that the administration is contemplating taking the agreement to the UN to make it internationally binding while issuing a veto threat on his bill that would require lawmakers to approve the deal would also “undermine Congress’s appropriate role.”
“Please advise us as to whether you are considering going to the United Nations Security Council without coming to Congress first,” Corker said in the March 12 letter.
Corker and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced last month a bill that would require any deal reached with Iran to be submitted to Congress for review before sanctions could be waived or suspended.
Corker’s letter comes a day after Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers any deal reached with Iran to roll back its nuclear program that Congress would not be able to modify would not be “legally binding.”
IRAN LETTER DRAMA: The war of words over GOP senators’ letter to Iran continued on Thursday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed back hard against conservative claims that the recent Republican letter to Iranian leaders is akin to her 2007 visit to Syria against the wishes of the Bush administration.
“Nancy Pelosi went to see Bashar Assad in 2007,” William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “I think that was questionable, but I didn’t criticize her patriotism.”
Pelosi’s office issued a scathing statement Wednesday night saying her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was part of a bipartisan effort and accusing Republicans of launching a “desperate” defense of their Iran letter to mask criticisms coming from both sides of the aisle.
“The desperate hyperventilation by Republicans and conservative talkers over the intense, national backlash to this letter has caused them to search for a Democratic equivalent to the dangerous precedent set by 47 Republican Senators,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. “The fact is, there is simply not one.”
The 2007 meeting between Assad and then-Speaker Pelosi came when the Bush administration was opposed to direct talks with the Syrian leader, whose support for terrorist groups led to an official policy of diplomatic isolation.
“The comparison between the Republican Senators letter to Iran and Leader Pelosi’s bipartisan delegation to the Middle East in 2007 does not stand up to any level of scrutiny,” Hammill responded.
Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader cried betrayal Thursday over the letter. Reuters reported that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was infuriated by the message sent to his nation.
“Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing,” Khamenei reportedly told Iran’s Mehr News Agency.
European allies also blasted the letter Thursday, saying it is creating “mistrust” in the delicate negotiations.
“This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are having in Geneva,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Thursday in Washington before a meeting with lawmakers, according to Agence France-Presse.
FULL HOUSE TO SUBPOENA CLINTON? A Republican member of the House panel investigating the Benghazi attacks said “all options are on the table” to gain access to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) said the full House could even vote to issue a subpoena for the device.
While members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi “certainly believe that that shouldn’t be necessary … I think all options are on the table right now. It’s unclear exactly where this will go,” Brooks said during an interview with Fox News’s “On the Record.”
“This is highly unusual that we find ourselves in this situation,” she added, noting the select panel had already issued a subpoena for the emails from Clinton’s private account during her time as secretary of State.
“So I do believe when we get back to Washington next week, we will be talking about what all of our options might be. But I would urge her not to require us to go down that path.”
Brooks said that Clinton “should want to offer up her server, should want an independent body to resolve these issues.”
While she wouldn’t suggest an arbiter, Brooks suggested the server could be turned over to a retired federal judge or an inspector general.
“We certainly as a country have come together on really tough issues in a bipartisan way and I think we can do that if we find and can find that third party arbiter. I would encourage her to turn that over to whoever we can agree to,” Brooks said.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
– Armed Services chair: New military aid for Ukraine falls short
– Freshman senator wants review of US weapons given to Iraq
– Military helicopter wreckage found in Fla.
– Lawmakers push Twitter to deactivate terrorist accounts
– Cyber bill clears Senate panel
Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@digital-release.thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@digital-release.thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @kristina_wong, @martinmatishak