Republicans Warn Iran — and Obama — That Deal Won’t Last
Republicans Warn Iran — and Obama — That Deal Won’t Last
MAR 8, 2015 10:07 PM EDT By Josh Rogin Via Bloomberg
(In other words, Congress will wait until the next president to literally tear up a piece of paper. That ought to scare the Iranians. – LS)
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “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.”
Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal — — which is reportedly near done — especially if it is working reasonably well.
Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval — something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted — the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. “Iran’s ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril,” Cotton told me.
The issue has already become part of the 2016 GOP campaign. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush came out against the negotiations in a speech at the Chicago Council last month. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry released a video criticizing the negotiations and calling for Congressional oversight. “An arms control agreement that excludes our Congress, damages our security and endangers our allies has to be reconsidered by any future president,” Perry said.
Republicans also have a new argument to make in asserting their role in the diplomatic process: Vice President Joe Biden similarly insisted — in a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell — on congressional approval for the Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear weapons with Russia in 2002, when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.
Still, Senators from both parties are united in an insistence that, at some point, the administration will need their buy-in for any nuclear deal with Iran to succeed. There’s no sign yet that Obama believes this — or, if he does, that he plans to engage Congress in any meaningful way.
Explore posts in the same categories: Congressional Critters
WarSclerotic 
March 9, 2015 at 7:32 PM
LS,
What it proves is that there aren’t 67 Senate votes necessary to override Hussein’s veto right now (and there probably won’t be on any issue for the next two years).
The Rats are following their Muslim leader like lemmings right off the cliff!
March 9, 2015 at 7:49 PM
This is the part that caught my eye….
“… Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “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.”
To me, Congress is already waving the white flag in its battle with the Obama administration. You would think Congress would find a way to take a stand, but alas, it’s not so and as you say, the numbers are not there.
March 9, 2015 at 9:11 PM
It’s worth reminding again that Bill Clinton did the same thing with his 1994 “Agreed Framework” with North Korea.
The numbers were never there to ratify it as a treaty in the Senate so Clinton never put it up for a vote.
And even though North Korea didn’t even comply, the US still held up it’s side of the “deal” for the first 2 years of the Bush presidency as well!
March 9, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Here’s an article on that 1994 “deal”.
Remember Clinton used the same lead negotiator – Wendy Sherman – as Hussein uses on Iran today!
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/10/21/north-korea-agreed-framework-turns-20-nuclear-iran/
March 9, 2015 at 9:13 PM
I do think the fact that we see this GOP letter, just days after Bibi’s speech, represents another sign we are well into the endgame here.
Soon after Bibi wins reelection (God help Israel if Likud loses), his cabinet is going to finally have to take a decision on Iran.
March 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM
In a sane world every Republican senator and most Democrats would’ve signed today’s letter. Instead we have most Republicans and no Democrats. Not even a majority of the Senate is willing to state the obvious, that our Senate is supposed to ratify treaties under the Constitution.
March 10, 2015 at 11:38 AM
As if the Iranians were serious about honoring the treaty in the first place
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/a-mini-5-1-question-quiz-for-secretary.html
Answer to question 3
Iranians: Geneva is ‘Treaty of Hudaybiyyah’
by CLARE M. LOPEZ
Although it is doubtful that any of Kerry’s advisers is even remotely familiar with this key episode in the accounts about Muhammad and the early Muslims, the Center for Security Policy explained the story in its 2010 book, “Shariah: The Threat to America.” The context is about situations in which Muslim forces might lawfully enter into a treaty or truce with the enemy. With troubling ramifications for current day negotiations, those situations demonstrate the centrality and importance of deceit in any agreement between Muslims and infidels. As it is recounted, in the year 628 CE, Muhammad (whose forces already controlled Medina) agreed to a 10-year truce with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, primarily because he realized that his forces were not strong enough to take the city at the time. Islamic doctrine in fact forbids Muslims from entering into a jihad or battle without the reasonable certainty of being able to prevail. In such cases, as with Muhammad, Muslims are permitted to enter into a temporary ceasefire or hudna, with the proviso that no such truce may exceed 10 years (because that’s the length of the agreement Muhammad signed). And so, Muhammad agreed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. But just two years later, in 630 CE, now with some 10,000 fighters under his command, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca.