On March 9, a group of 47 Republican senators warned Iran's leaders that a nuclear deal signed during President Barack Obama’s tenure could be revoked by the next president or modified by a future Congress. “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” wrote the lawmakers in an open letter to Iran's leaders. All but seven Republican senators— Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Dan Coats (IN), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Thad Cochran (MS)— signed the letter, organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (AR, left). The full text is below, followed by statements from Republican senators who both signed and did not sign the letter.
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
"The critical role of Congress in the adoption of international agreements was clearly laid out by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. And it's a principle upon which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed.
In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden once reflected on this very topic, writing that "the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations."
It's not often I agree with former senator and now Vice President Biden, but his words here are clear. The Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates with Iran by a two-thirds majority vote.
Anything less will not be considered a binding agreement when President Obama's term expires in two years. This is true of any agreement, but in particular with the nuclear deal President Obama intends to strike with Iran.
Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the Obama administration has so far completely bypassed Congress in its negotiations with Iran.
The administration cares little about what will win congressional approval — only complete nuclear disarmament — and more about just reaching some sort of deal.
Regrettably, it appears the deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran will not be a good one. In fact, if reports are correct, it will be a bad one that will ultimately allow Iran to continue its nuclear program and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon.
That is why this week, I, along with 46 of my fellow senators, wrote Iranian leaders to inform them of the role Congress plays in approving their agreement. Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I do not take my obligations as a senator lightly. Nor do those who are signatories to the letter. If the president won't share our role in the process with his negotiating partner, we won't hesitate to do it ourselves.
Our constituents elected us to the Senate, in part, to protect them from bad agreements like this and to help ensure their safety and security. And that is what we intend to do."
“[W]e wanted to be crystal clear that Iran's leaders got the message that, in our constitutional system, while the president negotiates deals, Congress has to approve them for them to be lasting and binding.
“Iran's leaders needed to hear the message loud and clear.
“I can tell you, they are not hearing that message from Geneva. In fact, if you look at the response of the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, it underscores the need for the letter in the first place, because he made it clear that he does not understand our constitutional system. He thinks that international law can override our Constitution.”
“[Sen. Tom Cotton] came to me a couple of times, and I wasn’t going to sign the letter."
“I told him I don’t think I’m going to do that, because I’m negotiating with Democrats to get on the bill. So when the president just says, ‘I’ll veto that bill,’ in the middle of us putting it together? I said ‘enough is enough.’”
“In exchange for allowing Iran to maintain the capabilities to build nuclear weapons, the Administration promises to “comprehensively lift” as many as 14 Iran sanctions laws, many of which passed with bipartisan veto-proof majorities. There is no Constitutional authority granting a president unilateral power to repeal American law. Sanctions should not be weakened until Iran stops its nuclear weapons program, stops supporting and exporting terrorism, stops aggression against its neighbors, stops egregious human rights abuses, and stops threatening to annihilate Israel. A better deal, with bipartisan congressional backing, is the best insurance policy against a nuclear Iran, a destructive arms race, and war in the Middle East.”
“On one of the most important national security issues in a generation, the idea that the president and Secretary Kerry will negotiation (sic) this deal with Iran alone -- with the largest state sponsor of terrorism -- flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution, the law, and four decades of arms control and civil nuclear agreement precedent.”
“Like those numerous previous agreements, whatever deal the president cuts with Iran has to be acceptable to the American people and voted on by their representatives in Congress.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN)
“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran.”
“I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”
“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive…I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”
“I knew it was going to be only Republicans on [the letter]. I just don’t view that as where I need to be today… “My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will affect the outcome.” —March 9, 2015, according to the press
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
There is already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House and the Iranian nuclear threat is “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”
“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful.”
"I do think that we ought to support negotiations that are going on. I don't think that efforts like this help those negotiations, but I do think that Congress has a role to play and will have a role once this agreement - hopefully, if it is going to come forth - once it is signed."
"Those who signed it, I know that a lot of them are very opposed to the deal or what's been described as a deal. I don't think we know what the deal is really, but I don't want to describe it that way - I just don't think it was our role to do so."
"I'm more concerned not with how Iran receives it, but with how our allies receive it. These sanctions have been effective and Iran is at the table because these sanctions have been multilateral. It's been Iran versus the West rather than Iran versus the U.S., and I think it's extremely important to maintain that coalition."
"Republicans and Democrats realize that Congress has a role here. These sanctions were imposed by Congress, and only Congress can lift them permanently. So I think that's important and it's unfortunate if one party is, I think, signing any one letter here. This needs to be a bipartisan effort."
“It’s more appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president, to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators.”
“I don’t think that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my distinguished and high ranking colleagues.” —March 9, 2015, according to the press
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
“Senator Murkowski believes in congressional input on foreign affairs. As a co-sponsor of Chairman Corker's bill that would allow a 60-day evaluation of the final deal for Senate approval or disapproval, she did not see the need to also sign the Cotton letter.”
—March 10, 2015, in a statement by Murkowski spokesman Matthew Felling
Senator Dan Coats (R-IN)
“The reason I did not sign the open letter to Iran is not because I disagreed with the goals of the letter. All Senate Republicans, and I believe many Senate Democrats, are in agreement on the overall objective of avoiding a bad deal with Iran. But the strategy we need to accomplish this essential goal is now in question, and we are divided in a way that makes this goal harder to achieve.
“Any agreement that contains a sunset clause must be rejected and any agreement with Iran that does not impose permanent restraints on their nuclear ambitions is no agreement at all. We in the Senate have it within our ability and mandate to guarantee that happens. But to do so, we need to reach consensus across the aisle and work together as Republicans and Democrats, for the future security of our nation, and for that matter, all nations.”
The following are responses by Iranian officials on the GOP letter to Iran’s leadership.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
The letter is "the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration."
"American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn't this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration?"
"The tone of the other party, particularly the Americans, becomes harsher, harder and more violent. This is part of their tricks and deceits."
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congressadopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”
Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York
—March 9, in a press release from Iran's U.N. mission
“This kind of letter is unprecedented and undiplomatic. In truth, it told us that we cannot trust the United States.
“Negotiations with the United States are facing problems due to the presence of extremists in Congress."
“Parliament and the government are following the same path.”
“We are together and there is coordination and consultation between government and the parliament... and all are under the supervision of the leader.”
“What the U.S. Congress did was really amateurish. Even their political experts denounced them because they undermined their own integrity. We are not going to copy their mistake.”
“The possible nuclear agreement would not face any problem in Iran in this regard [referring to the open letter by 47 U.S. lawmakers saying a deal might not last beyond President Obama’s tenure], Tehran does not have problems like those of the U.S.”
Photo credit: Zarif by Robin Wright; Khamenei.ir via Facebook
Part III: White House & Democrats Respond to GOP Letter
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.”
“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.”
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
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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I deeply believe that this body, Senate and Congress generally, have to pull back from the brink of irresponsible and partisan action with respect to these critical security questions because the stakes are simply too high.
“I deeply believe we should not try to tank a deal, critique a deal, undercut a deal before there is a deal.”
“Why don't we do what we're 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.”
“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’ve got to unify. And that’s why I’m so saddened that we’ve come to the point at which we appear to be so divided.”
"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.”
“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. ”
“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."
Congressional Republicans are trying to obstruct President Obama from concluding a nuclear agreement with Iran, but the only tangible result of their efforts has been to impede serious debate about the legitimate issues arising from the potential deal. The latest GOP gambit, an open letter to Iran’s leaders disparaging any accord not approved by Congress, prompted predictable blasts of rhetoric from the White House, the Senate caucuses and even the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, but not a word of discussion about what the Republicans say worries them: whether the terms being offered to Iran by the Obama administration are in the United States’ interest.
Republicans had an opportunity to focus attention on weaknesses in the emerging accord with Iran and mobilize bipartisan pressure on the administration to demand better terms. Instead they have engaged in grandstanding tactics that have alienated potential supporters while obscuring critical issues. Their antics are making it easier rather than harder for Mr. Obama to proceed unilaterally.
President Obama's looming nuclear deal with Iran may be the security blunder of the young century, and Congress should vote on it. Which is why it's too bad that Republican Senators took their eye off that ball on Monday with a letter to the government of Iran.
The problem with the GOP letter is that it's a distraction from what should be the main political goal of persuading the American people. Democratic votes will be needed if the pact is going to be stopped, and even to get the 67 votes to override a veto of the Corker-Menendez bill to require such a vote. Monday's letter lets Mr. Obama change the subject to charge that Republicans are playing politics as he tries to make it harder for Democrats to vote for Corker-Menendez.
The letter was an attempt to scare the Iranians from making a deal that would limit their nuclear program for at least a decade by issuing a warning that the next president could simply reverse any agreement. It was a blatant, dangerous effort to undercut the president on a grave national security issue by communicating directly with a foreign government.
The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.
[W]hat is most objectionable about the senators' letter is neither its condescending tone nor its legal analysis. It's the fact that the letter injects the senators into ongoing international negotiations that are properly the prerogative of the executive branch — with the obvious intention of subverting those negotiations. Not only does this intervention put the senators on the same side as Iranian hard-liners who are opposed to a deal — a point made Monday by Obama — but it will make it easier for Iran to blame the U.S. if the talks fail to produce an agreement.
Winning sympathy for the renegade Islamic Republic of Iran is no easy trick. But Republicans in the US Senate seem to be accomplishing it with their breathtakingly reckless intrusion into international diplomacy.
Under the guise of an American civics lesson pointedly but also pointlessly aimed at Iran’s already isolated, mistrustful, hostile-to-the-United States leadership, Senate Republicans may sabotage highly delicate negotiations to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear development program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
The letter not only undercuts the president’s traditional authority to oversee the shaping of foreign policy but badly undermines America’s credibility in the international community. It speaks to the toxic levels of partisanship in Washington that not a single Senate Democrat was willing to sign the poison pen letter, although more than a few are skeptical of Iran’s long-term intentions and are fearful of what it might portend for Israel — Iran’s blood enemy.
It's not every day that you see U.S. senators pressing leaders of a hostile power to help them kill off American-led negotiations aimed at removing a potential nuclear threat to the United States and its allies.
In fact, nothing quite like that had ever happened until Monday, when 47 Republican senators wrote a letter to the leaders of Iran warning that any agreement they reach with President Obama to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons program might be reversed by a future president. .. At a minimum, the senators have given Iran a way to reject the deal and escape blame.
This is neither a small nor improbable thing.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been under pressure from hard-line factions to walk away. Like the senators, he could see the deal as a bad one, requiring inspections that he considers to be too intrusive or lifting sanctions too slowly for his liking.
The open letter to Iran by 47 Republican senators questioning the value of any agreement to freeze its nuclear program is another troubling break with precedent that threatens to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.
The letter is little more than a mischievous attempt to throw a monkey wrench into a years-long, multinational effort to obtain a secure, verifiable agreement with Iran to stop its nuclear-weapons program through diplomacy, rather than war. It’s hard to see how Republicans can reject a deal when they know little more than the outline of the proposal that is still being worked out, especially since they have no reasonable alternative to offer.
The amateurish missive succeeded in doing little but giving the hardliners in Tehran hope that the negotiations will crumble, as their chief argument is that the United States cannot be trusted.
If the U.S. causes negotiations to fail -- because their war profiteers and their Congressional enablers undermine the president's diplomatic authority -- the UN Security Council breaks ranks, lifts sanctions, and Cotton earns his place in infamy.
It's up to Congress whether it prefers war and political posturing to a verifiable agreement. The wrong decision could ostracize the U.S., create another nuclear player in the Middle East, and throw the world into further turmoil.
Washington’s unrelenting partisanship is hitting an all-time low. Senate Republicans are brazenly undermining White House talks with Iran over nuclear weapons by warning Tehran that any deal won’t stick with the next president.
The letter sent Monday by 47 Republican senators to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning him not to sign an agreement with major nations limiting his country’s nuclear program, was damaging to America’s role in the world.
America’s partners in the talks are among the world’s most important nations — China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. They can only be appalled at seeing Secretary of State John Kerry and the president, who are charged with making the nation’s foreign policy, hit from behind by one house of the federal legislature.
The senators who signed the letter should be ashamed.
Other than Iran's unlikely capitulation, the Republicans — as usual in disagreements with President Barack Obama — offer no alternative, other than perhaps an unstated desire for war.
The Republicans who signed this foolish letter should listen to their own members who chose not to participate in this partisan attack on a sitting president. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it would be appropriate for senators to give advice to the president and Secretary Kerry instead of going directly to Tehran.
Rather than listening to their reasonable colleagues, the Republicans who signed this letter are merely continuing to try to undermine President Obama at every turn. Their actions risk undoing years of high-stakes negotiations and threaten the stability of the Mideast, all for the sake of scoring some partisan political points.
The decision by 47 Republican senators to sign a patronizing open letter to the leaders of Iran seeking to instruct them on how the U.S. constitutional system works -- and, by the way, to upend talks closing in on a nuclear weapons deal -- is as depressingly partisan as it is shortsighted.
It is in the United States' interest to negotiate the toughest possible deal that can put the brakes on Iran's drive for nuclear weapons with full, intrusive inspections and controls on its near-weapons-grade fuel stocks.
That aim is undercut by the March 9 letter basically telling the ayatollahs not to bother to negotiate.
That’s what many U.S. observers and much of the world must be wondering after a group of rogue Republican senators opted to communicate directly by letter with “the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” seeking to undercut President Barack Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over nuclear enrichment.
… Whatever the outcome of negotiations with Iran, the 47 senators have done immeasurable harm to their image and U.S. credibility in world affairs. It is regrettable that Kentucky’s two senators were among them.
It will be up to history to judge whether the latest partisan stunt joined by Utah Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch amounts to an act of End Times warmongering or merely another bit of cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global stage.
Chances are that the foolish, dangerous and arguably felonious attempt by the Obama Derangement Caucus of the Senate will soon be forgotten. Unless, as President Obama himself muttered the other day, the Senate Republicans make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran to push the region, and the world, that much closer to nuclear war. … A nuclear-armed Iran is very much a thing to be avoided if at all possible. But, so far, the talks the Senate Republicans seem determined to undermine are the best hope of avoiding such a situation. Or at least pushing it back toward a not-so-distant day when the religious supreme leadership of that nation has left the stage and is succeeded by a more representative, and less confrontational, regime.
By seeking to undermine not only these negotiations, but also the political authority of this and all future presidents to conduct America's foreign policy, the senators seem determined to build tensions in the Middle East, endanger Israel and greatly increase the chances that the United States will wind up taking military action against Iran.
The Republicans said they sent the letter because they consider the deal with Iran to be insufficient, unworkable and a mortal threat to the stability of the Middle East generally and a vital U.S. ally, Israel, in particular.
While their concerns may be valid, it is no business of senators to interfere with the negotiations of the elected official with the authority to barter with Iran, the president.
If President Obama has demonstrated a disdain for his constitutional authority, the 47 GOP senators have just joined him in a bipartisan display of contempt for our governing document. Their actions may fall short of the "traitorous" declamations of Democrats, but "irresponsible" would certainly apply.
[T]he letter may not have any effect on negotiations with Iran, a nation that understands the game as well as anybody. As columnist Robert Azzi wrote in the Sunday Monitor this past weekend, Iranian leaders’ “over-the-top rhetoric” is “designed primarily for home consumption to keep the fanatical Revolutionary Guard at bay.” The Republican senators’ letter serves the same purpose here in the United States. They are catering to their anti-Obama base and are willing to do real long-term damage to the office of the presidency if it means briefly wounding Obama and Democrats politically.
Congress has a long history of criticizing the White House's handling of foreign policy, but the letter sent by 47 Republican senators to Iran's leaders this week was virtually unprecedented. Signed by all but seven Senate Republicans, it bluntly warned Tehran that any deal made with the U.S. over Iran's disputed nuclear program won't be worth the paper it's printed on. The poison pen note was a shocking example of just how far President Barack Obama's GOP critics in Congress are willing to go in an effort to undercut his foreign policy goals.
The GOP senators might just as well have put up a big sign over their chamber warning the mullahs in Tehran to prepare for war because that's the practical import of rejecting any possibility of a negotiated resolution of the two countries' differences.
Did Republican senators really think Iranian leaders needed a primer on how the U.S. government works? The open letter they sent to the leaders of Iran Monday was an unnecessary partisan stunt that detracts from what matters most.
That is, any deal with Iran must include a requirement for unannounced inspections of its nuclear facilities. Verification must be pervasive and intrusive enough to give the world confidence that if Iran cheats, it will be caught before it can produce a bomb.
The risk, however, is sabotaging the multination negotiations and leaving Iran unrestrained in building nuclear weapons. That's a bad path that could lead to use of military force to stop Iran's pursuit of a bomb.
But the Republicans who dispatched this letter have done more than embarrass a president they dislike. They have also disgraced themselves and undermined the credibility of the nation whose constitution they took an oath to uphold.
The News and Observer (North Carolina)
“Burr, Tillis add their names to outrageous letter to Iran” This is one of the most horrid and tangible examples of pure partisanship run amok in modern times. So much do Republicans resent the fact that President Obama has won two terms they’ll now resort to blowing up a negotiation aimed at preventing war in the Middle East. This, despite the fact that since the presidency of George Washington, America has always tried to present a united front to the world. Time and again, Congress has stood behind presidents in war and in peace in the name of national unity. … But if the president, Secretary of State John Kerry and American allies are able to negotiate, for example, a 10-year hold on nuclear development, the Iran of 2025 may be much different than the Iran of today. Isn’t trying diplomacy better than a war into which United States forces most certainly would be drawn? Sacramento Bee (California)
It’s one thing for Republicans in Congress to invite an ally to criticize a potential nuclear deal with Iran, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did last week.
But it’s beyond the pale to write to the leaders of a potential enemy to sabotage the negotiations, as 47 GOP senators did Monday.
Seven Republican senators had the good sense not to sign on. “I don’t think that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my distinguished and high-ranking colleagues,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Iranian officials said as much. So if the ayatollah is going to ignore the letter and the president is brushing it off, what was the point again?
Do you get the feeling that Republican members of Congress really, really don't like the deal the Obama administration is negotiating with Iran?
First there was the rapturous reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who denounced the possible deal. And now 47 GOP senators — including Colorado's Cory Gardner — have sent a letter to Iran instructing the regime that a purely "executive agreement" could be revoked by the next president. As if the Iranians wouldn't already know that.
The reality is that if the agreement actually serves America's interest, even a Republican president would be unlikely to revoke it in 2017, given the race for a nuclear bomb that would likely follow.
The three GOP U.S. senators representing Kansas and Missouri signed on to a letter that undermined President Barack Obama’s ability to work out a nuclear deal with Iran.
Some detractors are labeling as traitorous Monday’s actions by Pat Roberts, Jerry Moran, Roy Blunt and 44 other Republicans.
The critics offer a plausible reason for being so upset: The letter was a near-unprecedented attempt by one party to meddle in the foreign diplomatic affairs of the United States, as presented by the president.
Given the Republicans’ pure hatred of Obama, it also seemed extra personal, yet another politically motivated attempt to stop him from doing anything that might be perceived as a victory for his administration.
The new Senate leadership has decided that instead of allowing experienced professional diplomats to try to negotiate a nuclear disarmament deal with America’s longtime enemy Iran, it should let a freshman senator lead an amateurish and unprecedented effort to undermine U.S. foreign policy.
As much as our diplomats study Iran’s laws and culture, it might be safe to say that their diplomats do the same to us. So, the civics lesson on balance and separation of powers really was useless. What is confounding and should unnerve Americans is that these senators would try to embarrass their president in the face of a mutual enemy — and put our citizens’ national security at risk.
We are struck by your letter that condescendingly attempts to lecture Iran’s leadership on the fine points of the U.S. Constitution while at the same time blatantly trampled on the constitutionally defined roles in foreign affairs of presidents and members of Congress. In short, the chief executive negotiates and the Senate ratifies, or not, as the case may be.
Yet, your letter is a clear attempt to preemptively wreck the president’s attempts at a settlement to put Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check. And this provocative letter is well beyond the protocol for how the U.S. government negotiates international treaties.
Before Democrats and their left-leaning allies across the land get even more riled up about a letter sent to Iranian leaders by 47 Senate Republicans, they may wish to take a moment to recall a time when members of their own party did much the same to a Republican president. Oh, no, wait a minute – that didn't happen.
Just seven of 54 GOP senators had the good sense not to sign the letter. The others acted rashly and allowed their passions to rule the day. They imprudently and shamefully put politics above our national interest, damaging our standing. Our nation will recover, but it shouldn't have to.
We're not saying Cotton can't have his own opinions about what to do in Iraq. The letter, however, was designed to interfere and disrupt, or to shock and awe, if you will, a nation Cotton views as an enemy that should only be dealt with as an enemy. Iran isn't any friend of the United States, but engaging in talks to work out a possible deal is a better approach than pushing for a showdown. Cotton is a little too eager to draw a line in the sand.
The letter sent by 47 Republican senators to Iran's leaders — saying that any agreement the U.S. reached with them without congressional approval could be reversed by the next president "with a stroke of a pen" — is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.
The real galling part of this letter is the feigned concern for Iran. Sure, every leader — every American — should be concerned about Iran and nuclear weapons. However, Iran seems to be a convenient backdrop for what is really a political grudge match. The issue really isn’t about Iran. Instead, it’s about a power struggle between the president and Congress — a Republican Congress that is still reeling from questionable immigration policies done by executive order; or, maybe it’s the fallout from the somewhat successful yet vilified Obamacare health insurance program.
Members of Congress have a constitutional right, and even a duty, to weigh in on matters affecting American security and foreign policy. But they should respect that the president is responsible for conducting the nation's foreign policy -- and refrain from undercutting those efforts in communications with foreign governments.
Even in the current Washington environment, writing letters to hostile foreign governments at a time when the State Department is trying to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough seems well beyond the pale. The Republican senators did not serve their country or their party well with this stunt.