Washington - President Barack Obama and congressional leaders believe he does not need authorisation from Congress for some steps he might take to quell the al-Qaeda-inspired insurgency sweeping through Iraq, the Senate's top Republican and congressional aides said after the president briefed senior lawmakers.
Still, the prospect of the president sidestepping Congress raises the potential for clashes between the White House and rank-and-file lawmakers, particularly if Obama should launch strikes with manned aircrafts or take other direct US military action in Iraq.
Administration officials have said airstrikes have become less a focus of recent deliberations but have also said the president could order such a step if intelligence agencies can identify clear targets on the ground.
Obama huddled on Wednesday in the Oval Office for over an hour to discuss options for responding the crumbling security situation in Iraq with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Speaking to reporters as he returned to the Capitol, McConnell said the president "indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for steps that he might take".
Pelosi concurred with the president, saying in a statement after the meeting that Obama does not need "any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today". She did not specify what options were discussed.
Lack of consulting in the past
An administration official said it was the leaders who suggested Obama already had existing authorities to take additional action in Iraq without further congressional authorisation. The official downplayed the notion that Obama agreed with that assessment, saying only that the president said he would continue to consult with lawmakers.
The White House has publicly dodged questions about whether Obama might seek congressional approval if he decides to take military action. Last summer, Obama did seek approval for possible strikes against Syria, but he scrapped the effort when it became clear that lawmakers would not grant him the authority.
However, administration officials have suggested that the president may be able to act on his own in this case because Iraq's government has requested US military assistance.
"I think it certainly is a distinction and difference worth noting," White House spokesperson Jay Carney said on Wednesday of the comparisons to the Syrian situation.
In addition, an authorisation for the use of military force in Iraq, passed by Congress in 2002, is still on the books and could potentially be used as a rationale for the White House acting without additional approval. Before the outburst of violence in Iraq, Obama had called for that authorisation to be repealed.
Some lawmakers were outraged when Obama launched military action in Libya in 2011 with minimal consultation with Congress and no formal authorisation from lawmakers.
More recently, some in Congress have complained that the White House did not consult on final plans for releasing five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for freeing detained American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
In a diplomatic tour de force, Vice President Joe Biden spoke on Wednesday with Iraq's Shiite prime minister, its Sunni parliamentary speaker and the president of Iraq's self-ruled northern Kurdish region. Biden, who was traveling in Latin America, praised all three leaders for the participation of their respective communities in a televised show of unity against the group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the White House said.
Long-term changes needed
White House officials offered no timeline on Wednesday for how soon Obama might decide on how to respond to the fast-moving militants from ISIL, which has seized Mosul, Tikrit and other towns in Iraq as the country's military melted away.
Obama's decision-making on airstrikes has been complicated by intelligence gaps that resulted from the US military withdrawal from Iraq in late 2011, which left the country largely off-limits to American operatives. Intelligence agencies are now trying to close gaps and identify possible targets that include insurgent encampments, training camps, weapons caches and other stationary supplies, according to US officials.
Officials also suggest that the US could more easily identify targets on the ground if Obama would send in additional American trainers to work with Iraqi security forces. Obama is considering that possibility, the officials say, though he has ruled out sending troops for combat missions.
The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to describe classified details and private discussions by name.
Beyond airstrikes, the White House has been considering plans to boost Iraq's intelligence about the militants and, more broadly, has been encouraging the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad to become more inclusive.
Iraq's once-dominant Sunni minority has long complained of discrimination by the government and security forces. The Obama administration has said that without long-term political changes, any short-term military solutions would be fleeting.
Republicans continued to insist that Obama bears the blame for allowing the insurgency to strengthen because of his decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq in late 2011 after more than eight years of war. Washington and Baghdad failed to reach a security agreement that would have allowed American forces to stay longer.