Are You Really Surprised by the GOP’s Manhandling of Obama-Iran Talks?

Misguided, condescending, unprecedented, brazen – these are words that might bring images into your head of people like Dwight Shrute, Michael Scott, (The Office, U.S. Version) or even Gregory House (House, M.D.), with their perplexing, peculiar, and often times extreme comments, worldviews, and methods of handling difficult situations. But is it hard to believe that those are words used to describe the GOP? If so, you shouldn’t be.

On Monday (March 9th, 2015), 47 GOP Senators signed a letter drafted by Arkansas Senator (R), Tom Cotton, which was directed at Iranian officials. You can read the letter in full here, but below are some of the more incendiary, indeed condescending remarks:

“It has 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….

…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.”

It’s not hard to guess the tone of the letter, and the parts left out in this post follow the same tone, the content of which outlines internal U.S. laws. It’s difficult for me to see how the Republicans can take Iran seriously with such an approach, one that suggests Iran is ignorant – if not entirely stupid – as to how the United States Government functions, or even International Law. Republicans seem to have made up their minds in regards to Iran. They demand Iran dismantle its Nuclear program immediately, without Iran receiving anything in return. Were the United call  told something similar we would call that appeasement. Senator Cotton only seems to see things through an extremely short sighted view.

Still, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister, who has attended San Francisco State university, and received his PhD in International Law and Policy at the University of Denver didn’t waste any time in responding to the letter. You can read his full response here, although below are some poignant excerpts:

“…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.”

Dr. Zarif continues by pointing out that, if a newly elected President were to just revoke international treaties, it would be a violation of international law. Going further, he points out that Congress would not be able to just up and change any deal that’s been made with other nations unless it went through P5+1, as well as the Security Council – a daunting task to say the least. Dr. Zarif’s rebuttal is echoed with PolitiFacts analysis of Tom Cotton’s open letter, of which they labeled “mostly true”, although needing more explanation.

Some have asked Tom Cotton what he aimed to achieve by sending an open letter, signed by 47% of the sitting Senators, indeed 87% of sitting Republican Senators? His response was simple: “complete nuclear disarmament.” When asked during his interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe if his goal was to undermine the president, he said no, that his point was that “if Congress doesn’t pass a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal.” This runs counter to comments he made in January at a conference held by the Heritage Foundation in which he said:

“The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak.”

Interestingly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, led by Mark Kirk (R), and with the help of Robert Mendez (D), had already drafted legislation that aims to strengthen sanctions on Iran, as well destroying all talks that would end in a negotiation with Iran. It is hoped that this legislation will pass before any agreements are made.

Still, many supporters of the letter indicate that this isn’t really unprecedented, as many times in the past, various congressional members traveled to, or directly communicated with foreign leaders amid foreign talks with presidents. Although true to some extent, these examples lack the same context as this open letter. Some examples would be when John Sparkman and George McGovern went to Cuba in 1975 and met with government actors, or when Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviet Union to undermine. Many examples persist, much similar to these two, involving even Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. When instances like this arrive, opponents refer to the Logan Act, which you can read an accurate summary here. Regardless, this piece of legislation – which is over 200 years old – is essentially useless. No one has been punished under it, and many allude to it being unconstitutional due to its vagueness. I would agree.

I would also like to reiterate the importance of context. In all of the examples in the past in which  a Senator traveled abroad, communicated with, or interacted with a foreign leader or officials, with or without the intent to dismantle talks between the President and foreign leaders – it was always one or a few individuals. In many instances, Senators were only going over to discuss, or to witness, in an unofficial capacity to better understand and assess the situation. Others, such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy, may have, in an official capacity, gone over to intervene, if not entirely achieve a goal very different than that of the president. In all events in which a person attempts to destroy discussion, i.e., going behind the president’s back to achieve a different goal – I would argue is wrong, and should be illegal. That all having been said, I would argue that what makes this open letter unprecedented, and fitting of all critiques, is that it wasn’t just one individual, or even three. It wasn’t an emissary on behalf of one sitting U.S. Senator. It was half of the Senate that said, in essence, they have no respect for their President, they have no respect for Iran, they have no respect for the complex political forces, they have no respect for the other nations currently in talks with Iran, and they certainly have no respect for the notion of governance.

The President has the authority to work out negotiations with other foreign leaders. Executive agreements constitute the vast majority of negotiations with other countries. The President may make such negotiations with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate has made their stance clear – sanctions on Iran – a rather bipartisan agreement in fact. The proper method of intervention from a foreign policy standpoint is to pass a veto-proof Senate bill, forcing the President to follow along with that they feel is a better approach to dealing with Iran. Sending a letter to Iranian officials, condescendingly attempting to enlighten them on how the U.S. works, with the goal of undermining international negotiations is dangerous, irresponsible, and poignantly hypocritical.

Say what you will about Iran, or your stance on Foreign Policy, and nuclear proliferation, as these topics really are not that subject matter of this post. This piece has everything to do with the negligence, indeed the very misplaced tactical approach of Senate Republicans. It’s one thing for the Senate to pass a bill concerning foreign relations, but a whole other idea when a very partisan half of the Senate attempts to destroy foreign relations. It’s a blatant disregard of not just the President, but the other 5 countries currently in talks. Republicans need to learn that international treaties and negotiations aren’t just U.S. matters, but world matters.

Some have argued that the letter may very well strengthen the Democratic cause in objecting any bill that gets pushed through the Senate – which may well be the case. But what the letter does more than “enrich” Iran’s knowledge of the U.S. political system, it goes to show that 1) Republicans have no respect for Obama, or his ability to handle foreign matters, and 2) it goes to show that the United States has a dysfunctional political system, driven by partisan politics rather than legitimate goals at ending maritime conflicts.