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.

 

Syria: President Obama’s Rwanda

Protests in Syria on March 26th, 2011 (Retrieved February 26th, 2014. Image License: Attribution, Some Rights Reserved).

This is hard for me to write. It is rare for an issue to offend literally every sensibility I have, to find an issue that enrages me to the very core of my being. This is one such issue. The civil war in Syria is a wildfire, only instead of firefighters trying to stop it they stand back wondering what to do. The Obama administration has been wrong in virtually every way possible when it comes to Syria and it has cost over 100,000 lives and has displaced over 4 million people. If nothing is done Syria will pull Lebanon, and Iraq into its hellish civil war. Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states will begin picking sides (some have already done so).

A brief timeline.

• It began March 15, 2011, with a protest against the Assad regime, it was called a Day of Rage. It began to protest some youths who were being held and a peaceful protest was held to support their release.

• Three days later security forces open fire at a protest  where an unknown number of activists are killed. This causes protests to spread all over the country.

• April 26, 2011, thousands of soldiers backed by tanks and snipers open fire on civilians in Daraa and two other locations, according to witnesses. Armed security agents conduct house-to-house sweeps. Neighborhoods are sectioned off and checkpoints are erected. Electricity, water and cellphone services are cut. At least 11 people are killed and 14 others lay in the streets, either dead or gravely wounded.

• June 7, 2011, details emerge of a mutiny by Syrian soldiers in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour, where 120 troops were killed, according to the government. This is the first recorded act of violence against the regime, keep in mind it took 4 months of protesters being slaughtered in the streets before they started to fight back. Imagine that, marching against tanks, snipers and machine gun nests, and taking it for four months. Aside from sanctions and tough talk the United States did nothing.

For a more detailed and in depth timeline, Politico has constructed one for you view here.

The earliest known supply of weapons being sent to the Syrian free army is September 12, 2013. The rebels say they have yet to receive these weapons. Keep in mind that since the uprising began in Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have been arming, reinforcing, and aiding the Assad regime from the very beginning, and that is not even including the aid Russia is giving the Assad regime. It is unclear when but sometime in early 2012 foreign fighters began streaming into the country. They lacked the nobility of the Syrian free army who was attempting to make a Democratic state for all Syrians. These new rebel groups have coalesced around two groups, Al-Nusra, and the Islamic State of the Leviant (I.S.I.S.). Both are radical Sunni fundamentalists who wish to force Sharia law on well, everyone. Al-Nusra is violent and responsible for multiple atrocities, The I.S.I.S. is so bloodthirsty that even Al-Qaeda wants nothing to do with them and has condemned them.

So, who is the Assad regime? Before I answer this, here’s some background on Syria. The Assad family has ruled Syria for over 40 years now and they make up a religious minority called the Alawites, who are closely related to the Shia. The Alawite minority makes up 12% of the population Sunni’s make up over 60%. The Assad regime is closely allied to Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. It has a population of 21 million people and is almost twice the size of the state of Tennessee. The Assad regime is ruled by Bashar Al-Assad who has been in power since his father died on June 10, 2000. His government is alleged to have ordered assassinations all over the world and is a known supporter of terrorists organizations. During the war in Iraq it was widely believed that his government encouraged the pipeline of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, through Syria. This was all before the Syrian uprising when he started slaughtering his own people.

I told you this just to put into context the scale of how bad the situation is, and of how little this government, the United States government, has done to stop it. I could talk about the two peace conferences the U.S. has helped start, or the President’s bungling of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but those don’t really matter. I will tell you what does. Snipers use pregnant women as target practice, body parts are shot off of children just to see if a sniper could make the shot. When some of the more violent rebel groups take over a town they drag random men into the street and use a machete to hack off body parts until they are dead. Whole towns of Christians have been executed, whole neighborhoods demolished, there are unconfirmed reports of children becoming soldiers, some as young as 12.

These atrocities lead into another compounding problem about people in the Middle East, which is that the extended family is very important, and extends over borders. A family member killed by group A will cause the whole family to hate group A. It is also why whole communities tend to be destroyed, because a cycle of violence has been started and will demand blood for blood. It will consume a generation of Syrians and it will not stop at borders it will build and grow consuming all nations around it. When I see a growing wildfire my first instinct is to run, but that is the wrong instinct, a plan must be made to fight it at some point, otherwise it will consume you as well.

At one point direct intervention by the United States would have helped this situation, but that time has passed and we watched as the flames of Syria consumed her children and we shrugged our shoulders and did nothing. Now those flames lick at the heels of Lebanon and Iraq, by all accounts this administration will once again shrug its shoulders and do nothing. To be fair the President does have several valid reasons for not intervening. The first being that he was elected on an anti-war platform and many people on the left would see any intervention in Syria as a betrayal of that position. He has also been attacked from the right in this country for attempting to aid the Syrian free army. These attacks are ignorant and incredibly foolish, and only reveals their astounding level of ignorance on Syria. The President himself has many reservations about any intervention, as has been shown by is complete unwillingness to do anything of substance on the issue. The worst part is there are many options to help contain this.

First we must begin a massive effort to arm and train the Lebanese army, if we do this they will be able to control Lebanon, enforce the will of a democratically elected government in Lebanon and most importantly keep the various Sunni militias and Hezbollah from fighting in its country. By doing this we support a democratic government and help the people of Syria by cutting off a huge pipeline of weapons and foreign fighters. Next we help train and pressure the Nouri Al-Maliki government in Iraq. Our inaction over the last three years have pushed him into an informal alliance with Iran, and the Assad regime. This has happened partially because of Iraq’s instability and Maliki’s heavy handed tactics, but with a power and impartial broker it would be very possible to bring the Sunni and Shia factions back to the table and help Iraq heal, while simultaneously creating a bulwark from spreading chaos and slaughter from Syria. Then we begin arming and training the Syrian Free Army, really arming and training them. Not saying one thing and doing another like this administration has done with respect to Syria. These are not good options but they are better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Our other option is we do nothing and watch as the middle east eats itself alive. We will have three failed states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) in the middle of the crossroads of the world, oil prices will spike, unrest will spread, and Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia will become increasingly involved. Rebel and terrorist groups will target these respective governments and some will send troops in. What happens when a terrorist group targets Israel? What happens If Saudi Arabia and Iran have a direct confrontation? I am willing to bet that things will spiral out of control, tensions will mount, regional powers will start picking sides, troops will encounter each other, and some 19 year old kid will make the tiniest of mistakes and God only knows what happens then. And please don’t forget that both Russia and the United States have very close ties to multiple countries in the region and either one or both could be drawn into a conflict. Unlike other humanitarian crises in the last 20 years this one has the potential to pull in multiple great powers including the United States. While inaction is tempting, it is not possible. Like a cancer the longer you ignore it the worse it will be.

I called this piece President Obama’s Rwanda, but that is an unfair criticism. Primarily because unlike Syria, Rwanda’s cyclone of violence did not risk starting a major war between great powers. If the humanitarian concerns fall on deaf ears, if the slaughter of the innocent does not prick your heart, then keep this in mind: there are over 1,700 fighters in Syria fighting for jihadi groups, all from Europe. Battle hardened Islamic fundamentalists who will take their skill of violence and mayhem to the next great enemy of the faith. If this sounds familiar look up Afghanistan, because it will be a harbinger of our future, and like the sands of Syria will be bathed in the blood of the innocent. It is unfair because at least inaction from an American President then did not get any Americans killed, you cannot say that about Syria, because one day this war will spread, and this Administration will be judged harshly. The World is watching and history is judging Mr. President.