Obama steps up campaign for Congress’ support for Syria strikes

WASHINGTON — The White House appealed Monday to two of Congress’ most powerful interests — protecting Israel and challenging Iran — as President Obama and his aides scrambled to win lawmakers’ support for a resolution authorizing punitive missile strikes in Syria.

Obama led the full-throttle Labor Day lobbying campaign by dialing up congressional leaders and huddling for an hour with two Republican hawks, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who now may prove pivotal to the president’s aims. McCain later gave a qualified endorsement, which cheered the White House.

The president is staking his credibility, and arguably his legacy, on the battle that will play out in Congress over the next two weeks. Before he leaves Tuesday night on a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia for an economic summit, he will meet with the leaders and ranking members of the key national security panels, including the Senate and House committees on armed services, foreign relations, and intelligence.

Obama is betting that a deeply divided Congress will come together on an issue that he has called a core security interest, and give him political cover to attack Syria without a United Nations mandate. The White House stands to lose a great deal if Congress refuses.

Analysts say a congressional rebuke could undermine the use of executive power and prerogatives in the future, severely damage U.S. standing with Israel and other Middle East allies, and embolden Iran, North Korea and other adversaries.

Obama worked hard Monday to avoid that scenario. McCain, who long has pushed for greater U.S. intervention in Syria, said after meeting with Obama that he would back a resolution if it included greater support for the opposition militias that have fought to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad since March 2011.

Rejecting a resolution against Syria would be “catastrophic,” McCain told reporters. “It would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States. None of us wants that.”

But in a sign of the uphill contest, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other senior administration officials struggled to convince skeptical House Democrats that military action was needed to punish Assad’s government for allegedly using sarin nerve gas on civilians Aug. 21.

In a sometimes heated conference call, House Democrats, many of whom are still in their home districts during the summer recess, said they were getting an earful from constituents deeply opposed to launching another war, according to a Democratic aide briefed on the call.

A senior administration official said the White House was working with lawmakers to adjust the language in the resolution to address their concerns.

Obama “made clear that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground or an open-ended intervention, and that he intends to undertake tailored military operations, limited in scope and duration,” the official said. “We are open to working with Congress” to win authorization for use of military force.

The White House strategy for threading the needle between opposing views rests heavily on the argument that airstrikes are necessary to send a clear message about U.S. resolve. The target, the White House argues, is not just Syria.

The broader strategic goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to safeguard Israel’s security, sensitive issues that tend to galvanize an otherwise-gridlocked Congress.

Obama has pledged to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, and lawmakers are generally united on that issue. They also understand that Israel, though officially silent on how Congress should vote, is looking to Washington to help shield it from the Syrian civil war’s spillover into neighboring countries.

Administration officials warn privately that a “no” vote in Congress would encourage Iran to push ahead with its nuclear development program and would make it harder for the United States to intervene if Tehran decides to build a bomb.

Some officials say pro-Israel advocates who have leverage among House Republicans may play a key role in the coming debate.

Conservative Christians, who are passionate defenders of Israel, can be expected to weigh in with House Republicans from the South and West, said a House Republican aide. “They’re tuned in to all of this,” said the aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly under office rules.

Congressional antagonism toward Iran has grown over the last decade, as lopsided bipartisan majorities repeatedly have voted for tougher Iran sanctions, sometimes against the wishes of the White House. Lawmakers have discounted arguments that economic sanctions mostly hurt ordinary Iranians, not government rulers.

Some antiwar Republicans have begun arguing that missile strikes could put Israel more at risk by encouraging Syria and its ally, the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, to launch attacks on Israeli settlements or cities. But many analysts doubt Syria or Hezbollah would want to provoke Israel’s powerful military while Assad’s forces are fully engaged in a civil war.

Israel doesn’t want to be seen as urging the U.S. to take military action for Israel’s protection. For that reason, the Israeli government can be expected to keep a low profile, and pro-Israel groups in Washington will probably avoid taking too prominent a role on the issue, said an official of one group.

The White House can probably rely on help from some powerful lawmakers who have been supportive of Israel. They include Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), the foreign affairs panel’s ranking member.

Kerry and Hagel will testify Tuesday at the first Senate hearings to consider the proposed resolution. After meetings Tuesday, Obama will fly to Stockholm before he heads to the Group of 20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Wednesday.

In Russia, which is a key ally of Syria, Obama will probably find an audience of skeptical world leaders. He failed to win their support as the crisis mounted last week, most dramatically when the British House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s bid for backing on the use of force. Cameron’s office said Monday that there were “absolutely no plans” to ask Parliament for another vote.

Obama won’t find the terrain any easier now, said Anthony Cordesman of the nonpartisan Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington.

“It’s very hard to get allies to support you when you don’t have the support of Congress and you’ve said you’re waiting on it,” Cordesman said. “They want to see some sense of clear direction.”

Syrian officials have denied using chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack, which the U.S. says killed 1,429 people in Damascus’ suburbs, including hundreds of children. On Monday, Assad warned that foreign military retaliation could set off a “powder keg” and spark a regional war.

“Chaos and extremism would ensue,” Assad told the French daily Le Figaro.

French authorities Monday released a report implicating Assad’s government in three alleged chemical attacks. But the French inquiry gave a death toll of at least 281 in the Aug. 21 incident, far lower than that reported by U.S. officials last week.

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com

paul.richter@latimes.com

Times staff writers Patrick J. McDonnell in Beirut and Henry Chu in London and special correspondent Kim Willsher in Paris contributed to this report.