U.S. Republicans warn Iran against nuclear deal with Obama

[frigidmagi]

Reuters

Republican senators warned Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

The letter, signed by 47 U.S. senators, says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017, while many in Congress will remain in Washington long after 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 letter read.

"The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of an agreement at any time," it read.

The letter, first reported by Bloomberg News, followed a speech to a joint meeting of Congress last week by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warned that the United States was negotiating a "bad deal" with Tehran.

It comes as world powers have been negotiating with Iran to try to reach some form of understanding by the end of March before a final deal in June that could ease crippling sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy.

The U.S. Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the president and Congress. The executive branch is responsible for negotiating international agreements and lawmakers rarely intervene directly with the leaders of another nation while the president's administration is negotiating a pact.

Republicans want any U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran to be approved by Congress. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who signed the letter released on Monday, agreed to postpone a vote on a bill requiring Obama to submit any deal for congressional approval amid outcry from Democrats.

[General Havoc]

High Treason.

[Lys]

Advising our enemies on America's diplomatic position does not count as giving them aid and comfort, for if it did all diplomatic negotiation would be high treason. Treaties do need to be ratified by Congress, and since Congress has no intent to ratify any treaties signed with Iran, they are within their rights to go ahead and say so.

[rhoenix]

I don't think "treason" is quite the right word here, but it was at least mutinous. That said, Republicans attempted to purposefully damage ongoing negotiations that their own country is having with a foreign power. That may not be treason, specifically, but there's something truly disgusting about doing so in order to attempt scoring political points with their base.

Advising our enemies on America's diplomatic position does not count as giving them aid and comfort, for if it did all diplomatic negotiation would be high treason. Treaties do need to be ratified by Congress, and since Congress has no intent to ratify any treaties signed with Iran, they are within their rights to go ahead and say so.

That is true, but the problem with this is that America and Iran aren't the only countries involved with this. While you do have a point about what treaties and agreements the US makes specifically with Iran has to be ratified by Congress, the problem is that we haven't even gotten to that stage yet, to the best of my knowledge.

[Lys]

I don't necessarily like what the Republicans are doing here, but if the United States has no intention of allowing any agreement to extend beyond the level of the executive, then it would be in bad faith to let negotiations continue without saying so.

[rhoenix]

I don't necessarily like what the Republicans are doing here, but if the United States has no intention of allowing any agreement to extend beyond the level of the executive, then it would be in bad faith to let negotiations continue without saying so.

The main problem is that the executive branch of the US, as well as some other countries' leadership, is trying to state that this will be an officially ratified agreement between all involved parties. What the Republicans just did is attempt to cast doubt on the US' ability to take a properly active part in doing so, instead of simply being a paper tiger in negotiations.

My interpretation is that this was exactly what was going through some of those Republicans' minds, and they wanted to do so in order to not only score political points with their base, but also to undermine the President's ability to conduct anything on behalf of his nation.

[Lys]

The Republicans are definitely being assholes about it, that i do not context. Executive level agreements are not a big deal, each President will make a fair number of them over the course of his term. Formal treaties are rare, and those with the full weight of law are rarer still, as the United States is a signatory to a number of treaties not ratified by Congress. It is definitely their goal to undermine Obama's efforts to negotiate with Iran because they really don't want Obama to accomplish anything. No doubt if the Democrats had done something like this during the Bush administration, the Republicans would have objected to it, but hypocrisy is hardly a new sport in Congress. The point i'm making is that, unlike when the Speaker invited Netenhayu to speak before Congress, the Senate is within its rights in doing this.

I do like Jon Stewart's take on it:

[youtube][/youtube]

[rhoenix]

The point i'm making is that, unlike when the Speaker invited Netenhayu to speak before Congress, the Senate is within its rights in doing this.

Well, they're within their rights to contest it, but not really to write letters. Apart from that, I agree.

And yes, Jon Stewart skewered it with his usual wit, and it was good to see.

[Lys]

Speaking of wit, the Iranian response is itself pretty good.

Dr. Zarif`s Response to the Letter of US Senators
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 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 Congress adopts 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."