You answered your own question: Despite your contention that it's "just plain wrong" to say that he can attack sans permission, there clearly is a body of opinion to which Bush could point, if he so chose, saying the opposite - a body of opinion expressed in the very quotes you include.

I expect that those who favor a resolution stating authorization is required are of the mind that it is a bad idea to wait until the fighting has started to try to do anything about it, which is the risk your course carries.

I also think that your statement "is it controversial that Congress declares wars" indicates that you fundamentally misunderstand what is at issue. It's well established both in law and constitutional principle that in certain circumstances the President in the role of Commander-in-Chief has the authority to initiate military action without first getting the approval of Congress. As I noted in an earlier thread, "one Gulf of Tonkin-style 'incident' and bam! there's the authority."

How broad that authority is, is disputed: Certainly, based on the quoted parts of their testimony, Dr. Fisher's view would allow for much narrower scope than would that of Mr. Berenson or Prof. Dellinger. But the fact that the authority exists is not in question.

So the question becomes, can Congress place limits on that authority? Can Congress say to Bush "as CiC, you cannot do this?" even if, lacking such a statement, he could? That's the point on which all the quoted witnesses agreed: The answer is yes. That means that a resolution requiring authorization for an attack on Iran would foreclose any legal debate about whether or not any attack was within Bush's proper authority - because the clear answer would be "not in the face of Congressional disapproval."

Now - having said all that, I want also to say that the other half of your argument, that it's a bad idea tactically, it's bad politics, is more persuasive, especially since it would face great difficulties in the Senate. (Consider what happened to even the watered-down version of the nonbinding resolution on Iraq.)

I think your concern about "what happens when it does NOT pass? Does that mean ... Bush IS authorized to attack" could be dealt with in the language of the resolution, which could say something like its purpose is to make explicit what is clearly implicit, etc.; that is, to say that this act is declaring Bush's obligation to get permission, it is not creating it.

Even in the presence of the declarations you would like to see made, in the absence of a resolution I would have concerns about the loopholes arising from the War Powers Act and a tricky interpretation of the Iraq War resolution that would "determine" that the source of the "continuing threat from Iraq" is produced by aid from Iran.

Nonetheless, it might be tactically better to simply drop any Iran resolution as "obviously unnecessary" and instead repeatedly declare that permission is of course required. That argument is not without weight as is worthy of consideration. I'm unsure how I feel about it.