The following are responses by President Obama, administration officials and Democrats on the GOP letter to Iran’s leadership.
President Barack Obama
“I’m embarrassed for them. For them to address a letter to the ayatollah... who they claim is our mortal enemy, and their basic argument to them is, 'Don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement.' That’s close to unprecedented.”—March 2015 in an interview with VICE News
“I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition. I think what we’re going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we can get a deal or not. And once we do -- if we do -- then we’ll be able to make the case to the American people, and I'm confident we’ll be able to implement it.”
—March 9, 2015 in remarks to the press
Vice President Joe Biden
I served in the United States Senate for thirty-six years. I believe deeply in its traditions, in its value as an institution, and in its indispensable constitutional role in the conduct of our foreign policy. The letter sent on March 9th by forty-seven Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere. This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.
Around the world, America’s influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments. Some of these are made in international agreements approved by Congress. However, as the authors of this letter must know, the vast majority of our international commitments take effect without Congressional approval. And that will be the case should the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reach an understanding with Iran. There are numerous similar cases. The recent U.S.-Russia framework to remove chemical weapons from Syria is only one recent example. Arrangements such as these are often what provide the protections that U.S. troops around the world rely on every day. They allow for the basing of our forces in places like Afghanistan. They help us disrupt the proliferation by sea of weapons of mass destruction. They are essential tools to the conduct of our foreign policy, and they ensure the continuity that enables the United States to maintain our credibility and global leadership even as Presidents and Congresses come and go.
Since the beginning of the Republic, Presidents have addressed sensitive and high-profile matters in negotiations that culminate in commitments, both binding and non-binding, that Congress does not approve. Under Presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without Congressional approval.
In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.
The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.
There is no perfect solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. However, a diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program represents the best, most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, and the world will never be menaced by a nuclear-armed Iran. This letter is designed to convince Iran's leaders not to reach such an understanding with the United States.
The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds. Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely—at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.
The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table. The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.
—March 9, 2015 in a statement
Press Secretary Josh Earnest
I would describe this letter as the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.The fact is the effort that is currently underway by the United States alongside our international partners seeks significant commitments from the Iranian government to curtail their nuclear program and make clear to the international community that their nuclear program exists exclusively for peaceful means. And the international community, and certainly the President, is not prepared to take Iran’s word for it. We're going to insist that the Iranians agree to intrusive inspection measures that will resolve the broader international community’s concerns. And as the National Security Advisor put it, the approach of the international community is to distrust and verify that Iran’s is prepared to live up to the agreement.
And the fact is we have heard Republicans now, for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal was to undermine these negotiations. And, again, that is not something -- that is not a position I am ascribing to Senator Cotton. That is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.
And the fact is that the President is trying to explore this diplomatic option with Iran alongside our international partners because it is in the best interests of the United States, for two reasons. The first is the best way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program is to get Iran’s own commitment to not develop a nuclear weapon and to verify that for the broader international community. And the rush to war, or at least the rush to the military option that many Republicans are advocating is not at all in the best interests of the United States.
Question: Could this have the effect of advancing their goal of trying to thwart these talks? Does it make it harder to reach a deal?
MR. EARNEST: Well, it certainly interferes in that effort. The fact that there are ongoing negotiations with the United States, our P5-plus-1 partners that include our stalwart allies like Germany and France and the UK, but also include our partners like Russia and China, who are cooperating with us in this effort -- that to essentially throw sand in the gears here is not helpful and is not, frankly, the role that our Founding Fathers envisioned for Congress to play when it comes to foreign policy.
Question: Why shouldn’t a deal be considered a treaty that Congress should be able to weigh in on?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Nedra, this is a useful discussion that what we are seeking from Iran are a whole set of commitments from them that are related to commitments to rein in the aspirations of their nuclear program and to submit -- commit to comply with an intrusive set of inspections to verify their compliance with the agreement. What we are seeking, we're seeking commitments from the Iranian government.
This is not that different than the kind of commitments that we seek from other countries when we establish basing agreements with them. So, currently, there are U.S. military personnel that are serving in places like Korea and Japan. We have commitments from the Japanese government and the Korean government, for example, about what sort of rules and regulations will govern the U.S. military presence there. That's an important agreement that has a substantial impact on the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs and to do their jobs safely, but that is not an agreement that is subjected to congressional approval. Those are specific commitments that, in that situation, Korea and Japan have made.
There are other examples. The agreement that was put in place to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons program was the United States and Russia working with Syria to get Syria to make some specific commitments about dismantling their chemical weapons program. That is not an agreement that required congressional participation or approval, but it was a tangible set of commitments that were made by the Syrian government. And the United States and Russia and a number of other countries in the international community worked with us to succeed in that effort.
Let me give you one other example. There are also a variety of other multilateral agreements that relate to nonproliferation. So there are some direct similarities between this agreement that P5-plus-1 is currently negotiating with Iran and other agreements that ensure or prevent the proliferation of weapons, and in some cases, nuclear weapons. The best example of this is that there is a multilateral agreement that is related to interdicting weapons in international waters, and we worked closely with the international community to prevent the shipment of illicit weapons shipments through international waters. And we work with other countries to enforce those agreements and to secure commitments from other countries that they’re going to help us fight those efforts.
Again, that is a multilateral agreement that has significant consequences for American national security that doesn’t require congressional approval. And this is the way that our Founding Fathers envisioned, that the executive branch would be responsible for protecting the foreign policy interests of the United States.
—March 9, 2015 in a press briefing
Secretary of State John Kerry
“[T]his letter was absolutely calculated directly to interfere with these negotiations. It specifically inserts itself directly to the leader of another country, saying, don't negotiate with these guys because we're going to change this, which, by the way, is not only contrary to the Constitution with respect to the executive's right to negotiate, but it is incorrect, because they cannot change an executive agreement. So, it's false information and directly calculated to interfere, and basically say, don't negotiate with them. You have got to negotiate with 535 members of Congress. That is unprecedented, unprecedented.
“And, by the way, that is to say that before there even is a deal. I mean, it's like, you know, giving people a grade on a test before the test is even written, let alone given.
“It's wrong. It's unprecedented. And I hope it hasn't made it very difficult here. And, by the way, we're not -- this is not just the United States of America negotiating. This is China, Russia, Germany, France, Great Britain.
“I'm not going to apologize for the -- for an unconstitutional and unthought- out action by somebody who has been United States Senate for 60-some days.”
—March 15, 2015 in an interview with CBS News
“This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.”
“This risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to with the United States.”
Senators have the right to voice dissent, but doing so in a letter to foreign leaders was “quite stunning.”
“It’s incorrect when it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
“They don’t have the right to modify an agreement reached, executive to executive, between the leaders of two countries.”
—March 11, 2015, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
“This is a brazen attempt by Senate Republicans to sabotage negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This bizarre, inappropriate letter is a desperate ploy to scuttle a comprehensive agreement and the chance for a peaceful resolution, which is in the best interests of the United States, Israel and the world.”
—March 9, 2015 in a statement
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
“The judgment of my Republican colleagues seems to be clouded by their abhorrence of President Obama. The Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian leadership aimed at sabotaging these negotiations.
“It’s unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president.”
—March 9, 2015 in a speech
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
“I am appalled at the latest step of 47 Republicans to blow up a major effort by our country and the world powers to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear program.
“This is a highly inappropriate and unprecedented incursion into the president’s prerogative to conduct foreign affairs and is not befitting this chamber. This letter only serves one purpose—to destroy an ongoing negotiation to reach a diplomatic agreement in its closing days.”
—March 9, 2015 in a statement
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
“This is a cynical effort by Republican Senators to undermine sensitive international negotiations—it weakens America’s hand and highlights our political divisions to the rest of the world. Understand that if these negotiations fail, a military response to Iran developing their nuclear capability becomes more likely. These Republican Senators should think twice about whether their political stunt is worth the threat of another war in the Middle East.”
—March 9, 2015 in a statement
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
"Yesterday we all awoke to the news that there had been a partisan letter signed by 47 Senators--47 of my colleagues, many of whom I work with very closely--not to the President saying 'We have concerns about a deal, and we are going to weigh in' but instead to the leader of a nation that we characterize as a terrorist state. This letter presumed to instruct the nation about what Congress might or might not do. The letter was widely viewed as an effort to undercut or dilute diplomatic negotiations that are in the best tradition of our country, the notion of diplomacy.
"With respect to the Iranian nuclear negotiation, I share many of the concerns of my 47 colleagues who wrote the letter. I share many of the concerns of the Prime Minister that were shared in his speech last week. But I deeply believe we should not try to tank a deal, critique a deal, or undercut a deal before there is a deal because to the extent there are efforts to stand and say this is a bad deal before there is a deal, the message that is communicated to the American public and to the world is: We will never accept any deal. We are not interested in diplomacy. We are not interested in negotiation.
That attitude plays directly into the hands of the nation of Iran, which is currently engaging in terrorist activity. They want to be able to blame the absence of any deal on an intransigent United States that is unwilling to negotiate in good faith.
We should not tank a deal before there is a deal. Instead, why don't we do what we are supposed to do as the greatest deliberative body in the world? Why don't we allow negotiators who have been working in the best traditions of American diplomacy to see if they can find a deal and then put it on the table for the review of Congress, as has always been contemplated?
I am a proud original cosponsor and worked on the draftsmanship of a bipartisan bill that was introduced under the key sponsorship of Foreign Relations chair Senator Corker and ranking member Senator Menendez to guarantee to Congress an appropriate review of any final deal with Iran over their nuclear program if such a deal was reached. This is a bill which is rigorously bipartisan--not partisan, not political, not rushed, not accelerated, but rigorously bipartisan. It respects the ongoing process by allowing the negotiators to do their work and see if they can find an outcome. It guarantees Congress a debate and vote if a deal includes relief under the congressional sanctions Congress has enacted over the years. It is appropriately deferential to the Executive, allowing the Executive the flexibility to do sanctions relief under Executive or international sanctions that have not been part of any congressional statute.
This is a bipartisan bill which provides some assurance to allies. Our allies in the region--allies that are most affected by the Iranian nuclear ambitions are not part of the P5+1, whether you are talking about Israel or Gulf State nations or Jordan. The nations most affected by Iranian nuclear ambitions are not part of the P5+1, and the Corker-Menendez bill would give them some comfort that a deal, if announced, would receive some careful scrutiny in this body.
Finally, I believe the Corker-Menendez bipartisan approach even provides some important assurances to Iran in the negotiation. We want Iran to make not small concessions, we want them to make big and bold concessions and give up any intent to develop nuclear weapons. But what is the likelihood that Iran will make those concessions if they have no knowledge about what Congress's intent is vis-á-vis the congressional statutory provisions?
There is a right way and a wrong way to approach these matters. To rush it, to label a deal as a bad deal before there is a deal, to make it entirely partisan rather than bipartisan, reflecting the will of the body, is an effort to undercut negotiations that weakens our President, weakens our country, and weakens our credibility; whereas if we proceed in a bipartisan way, we can make the deal stronger."
—March 10, 2015 in a floor statement
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
"When 47 Republican Senators signed a letter sent to the Ayatollah Khomeini, it was a letter that although supposedly instructive of the constitutional provisions of the separation of government in the United States, in effect, it was a letter to erode the negotiating position of the President of the United States and his administration in trying to reach an agreement to not have a nuclear weapon capability of building a bomb in Iran.
I think history will show the strength of American foreign policy has always been bipartisanship when it comes to the interests of America as we look out and have to defend ourselves against our enemies. Indeed, Iran with a nuclear bomb would be one of the gravest threats to our national security as well as to our allies. It saddens me that we have come to the point where we are so divided that nearly half of the Senators, on a partisan basis, in this great institution of the U.S. Senate, would in effect try to cut the legs from underneath the President and his administration in trying to reach an agreement to avert a nuclear bomb.
So much has been said about this issue, but one common theme runs throughout, and it is that people seem to know what the agreement is as it is being negotiated in secret. This Senator will reserve judgment. This Senator is also an original cosponsor of the bill we filed to have Congress weigh in on any future lifting of economic sanctions that have been imposed by the Congress, and this Senator feels that is an appropriate role, under the separation of powers, of our job as Congress. But when we see a major part, on a partisan basis, of our government try to undercut and kill the negotiations while they are going on at this very moment in Geneva, then that goes a step too far.
I am saddened. I think about what this Senator would have done when the President was not Barack Obama but George Bush. I cannot imagine that I would have tried to undercut the President of the United States representing this country and trying, on matters of war and peace, to keep peace. We can disagree about the specifics, but we still have to honor the institution of the Presidency, and when it becomes matters of war and peace, then we have to unify. That is why I am so saddened that we have come to the point at which we appear to be so divided."
—March 10, 2015 in a floor statement
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
“It [the letter] certainly was not helpful.”
“Oh yeah, we’ll support it [legislation calling for Congressional weigh in on a deal]. I support congressional review. I think congressional review makes sense.”
—March 10, 2015 according to The New York Times
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
"It is shocking, dangerous, and deeply troubling to me that 47 Members of this body decided to throw away 70 years of wisdom to stand on the side of the Ayatollahs and the most extreme voices in Iran.
When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, I voted no. I voted against his policies. I spoke out publicly about my concerns about that war, but I never would have sent a letter to Saddam Hussein undermining the President before that war happened.
The chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at that time all opposed President Bush's invasion of Iraq, but none of them penned a letter to Saddam Hussein."
—March 10, 2015 in a statement
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
GOP letter increases probability of two bad outcomes: Iran nuke or war. = Really bad strategy. http://t.co/XyBsvCNXVe
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 10, 2015Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT)
"This isn't a case of who can score political points for the evening news broadcast. We are talking about potentially the lives of millions of people. We are talking about the possibility of a cataclysmic mistake that could create havoc long after any of us has left this body. I have had the honor of representing Vermont in the Senate beginning at the time when Gerald Ford was President.
We have had Presidents I have agreed with--in fact, with every President there have been things I agreed with and with every President, Democratic or Republican, there have been things I have disagreed with. But one thing I have always done when there are such negotiations going on, I am willing to talk to the President privately, but I am not going to state my position, for or against, publicly. We can only have one person negotiating for the United States. Can you imagine if everybody who wanted to rush to the cable news shows to get on TV were to say, well, here is our negotiating position--and we are going to force the President to leave the negotiating table? What do you think those countries that joined us in imposing multilateral sanctions would do?
Many of those countries that joined us are doing so at great economic cost to themselves, but they responded--when President Obama went to each of them and asked: Will you join us in imposing sanctions, they agreed. That made the sanctions far more effective. If they think we are not serious, they are going to be very tempted to ask: Why should we join you in supporting sanctions in the future? If the United States were alone in supporting sanctions, no matter what those sanctions are, it would not create any real pressure on Iran.
Have we not made enough mistakes in the Middle East? I remember some who said we must go to war in Iraq because it would protect Israel or because they had nuclear weapons or because they had weapons of mass destruction. None of that was true. None of it. I remember people stopping me on the street, angry that I voted against the war in Iraq. They said: We heard Vice President Cheney say they have nuclear weapons. I said: There are none."
—March 10, 2015 in a statement
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV)
“It [the letter] sure hasn't helped a thing. It hasn't helped one thing, except drive us further apart.
“The country is divided enough. We need to start bringing us together. And for, like you said, over 200 years, we have operated under a process that basically we have had the executive branch, the State Department, the executive branch working and speaking as one, but speaking through and with us being able to have input from the legislative branch.
“I believe that has worked very well. I believe it still can. But we could second-guess all day long and get nothing accomplished.”
—March 15, 2015 in an interview with CBS News
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)*
“It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well. President Obama is working with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China to try to negotiate a peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These negotiations must be allowed to continue and, hopefully, will succeed. It is an outrage that my Republican colleagues are trying to sabotage that effort. ”
—March 9, 2015 in a statement
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
“The Republican Senators who organized and signed this letter have undermined the security and stability of our nation in their reckless attempt to weaken President Obama personally. In reality, however, they have undermined not one administration, but the Office of the President itself and with it, our nation as a whole. That is something that every American, regardless of how they feel about the ongoing negotiations with Iran, should staunchly oppose.
“If these Republican Senators disagree with the ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran, they are free to pass a law overturning the final deal, which the President can veto. What Congress must not do—and indeed must never do--is attempt to speak to foreign nations in place of the President. We should instead afford President Obama the opportunity to complete these delicate, multilateral talks. Our nation’s power and security depend on it."
—March 16, 2015 in a statement