In the past month, President Bush and his allies in the Congress have set Washington once again buzzing with speculation about the administration's end game for Iran. But as everyone from antiwar activists to military insiders wring their hands over the White House's intentions, a lonely handful of Democratic legislators are working to wedge Congress between the administration and Tehran.

Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney and Virginia Sen. Jim Web have emerged as early leaders. Their efforts have drawn mostly tepid support from their colleagues, in both parties. But Tierney points to hopeful signs of a groundswell—and sources say influential Democratic donors have begun demanding that party leaders match Bush's saber rattling with an equally forceful chorus of caution. ...

Tierney sits on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairs the National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee, beneath the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Two weeks ago, he initiated a series of subcommittee hearings, inviting experts to teach Congress about Iran—what the Iranian people support, how their government works, how they can be engaged diplomatically, and what the costs of military action against Iran would be. At Thursday's hearing, the second in the series, five former diplomats and national security experts—four of whom sat in staunch opposition to military action—placed the chances of an American strike against Iran at between 20 and 50 percent over the next nine months.

After the hearing, I asked Tierney which of his congressional colleagues were most likely to help prevent an attack—potential members of a anti-escalation caucus. He demurred, perhaps because the total numbers are still too low, particularly in the Senate. And therein lies the problem.

Steve Clemons, who directs the American Strategies program at the non-partisan New America Foundation, argues that, in the wake of Kyl-Lieberman, the political landscape has changed: No longer can it be argued that the administration has no congressional support for military force against Iraq. "Forget about Constitutional questions. Those went out the window with Kyl-Lieberman. What the Senate can do, if it wants to stop an attack or an accidental war, is get Hillary Clinton and more powerful Democrats to get 50 votes for something—even if it's not binding, even if it's 50 signatures on a letter—showing that a majority of the Senate opposes a conflict." ...

For the complete article, please follow this link.