GOP Letter on Iran Nuclear Talks Draws Obama Rebuke

GOP Letter on Iran Nuclear Talks Draws Obama Rebuke

Republicans say Congress could nullify nuclear deal, White House likens them to Tehran hard-liners

By Michael R. Crittenden and Byron Tau in the Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—The already heated battle between Congress and the White House over U.S.-led nuclear talks with Iran got nastier Monday as President Barack Obama chastised 47 Senate Republicans who wrote directly to Iran’s leaders to criticize U.S.-led nuclear talks.

After Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lay out his case against an emerging nuclear deal in a congressional speech last week, the nearly four dozen GOP senators wrote to Iran’s leaders to warn that any agreement between the White House and Tehran could be quickly nullified or changed once Mr. Obama leaves office.

Mr. Obama, firing back, said the lawmakers were effectively aligning themselves with Iranian hard-liners who oppose an international nuclear deal.

The unusual Republican move to send a direct message from Congress to a top U.S. adversary—over one of the administration’s central foreign-policy priorities—highlights tensions between foreign treaties that must be submitted for approval by the Senate and increasingly common executive agreements negotiated by the president but not approved by Congress.

The White House denounced the action by the Senate Republicans. Late Monday, Vice President Joe Biden said in a long, blistering statement that the letter not only undercut presidential authority, but was “beneath the dignity” of the Senate.

“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,” Mr. Biden said.

Sen. Tom Cotton, the freshman Republican senator who led the unusual move, said in an interview he acted because Iran’s leaders don’t understand the American system and “need to know” that any deal not approved by Congress is perishable.

The deal being negotiated, he said, is “certainly not acceptable to me, and not to many other members.”

Asked to respond to President Obama’s comment that the letters’ signatories are effectively teaming up with Iranian government hard-liners to kill a deal, Sen. Cotton replied: “There are nothing but hard-liners in Iran.”

Senators said in the letter, signed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and a number of committee chairmen, that unless approved by Congress, any agreement would be seen by GOP lawmakers solely as a deal between Mr. Obama and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and could lapse or undergo changes when a future administration takes over.

The senators noted that Mr. Obama will leave office in January 2017, while “most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

Messrs. Obama and Biden criticized the Republican outreach.

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” the president told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Mr. Obama said his focus was on getting to an agreement with Iran that would allow the country to develop a nuclear energy program while ensuring that it could not be weaponized.

“I think what we’re going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we can get a deal or not,” he said. “Once we do—if we do—we’ll be able to make the case to the American people.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that world relations are based on international obligations and commitments, “not based on the domestic U.S. laws.”

Any future annulment of U.S. commitments would be “an obvious violation of international laws,” Mr. Zarif said.

Those signing the letter included Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R., Ariz.), as well as 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Absent from the list of signatories was Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has been in the middle of discussions with the White House about the direction of negotiations. Asked about the letter, an aide to Mr. Corker said he was more focused on garnering support for legislation giving Congress a 60-day review period for any agreement.

The other Republican senators who didn’t sign were Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Dan Coats of Indiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

Mr. Flake said he didn’t think the effort was productive. “These are tough enough negotiations as it is. I just didn’t think it was useful,” he told reporters.

In Tehran, one expert predicted the letter wouldn’t sway Iran’s negotiators, who likely view it as a “disruptive trick,” rather than a genuine threat.

“This is just a disruptive, radical move in the middle of the talks by some of their extremists who are against Iran and the system” of the Islamic republic, said Hamid Reza Jalaeipour, a political analyst.

Key Democrats said the GOP move gave leverage to Iranian negotiators while hurting the U.S. position. “Let’s be very clear, Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said during an appearance on MSNBC that he was “appalled” by the letter. “On an issue of this seminal importance while sensitive negotiations are going forward, for these senators to interfere in this way, it’s really unthinkable,” Mr. Schiff said.

Executive agreements, such as that sought by the Obama administration with Iran, have existed for more than 200 years and have become increasingly popular in part because they are easier to broker than a treaty, given the role of Congress. A 2009 study by the University of Michigan found 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.

This included the 1994 “agreed framework” reached by the Clinton administration and North Korea. The deal was meant to push North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. energy assistance and improved ties with Washington.

Many lawmakers reacted angrily at the time, demanding the White House present its plan as a “treaty” so lawmakers would get a formal vote. The deal was never fully implemented and remains controversial because North Korea has continued to pursue nuclear weapons.

Other past international nuclear weapons agreements were treaties, such as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, a deal between the United States and other countries.

But many significant international agreements—including the World War II-era Yalta and Potsdam conferences—weren’t submitted to the Senate as treaties.

“It’s a blurry line, there’s not agreement between the Senate and any executive branch on what kinds of international agreements constitute treaties as opposed to executive agreements,” said John Bellinger, a former legal adviser for the National Security Council and the State Department during the George W. Bush administration who is now at Arnold & Porter.

Mr. Biden said the “vast majority” of foreign policy agreements have taken place without congressional approval, including U.S. recognition of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis and the end of the Vietnam war.

—Aresu Eqbali and Damian Paletta contributed to this article.

Poster’s comments:

1)      This article suggests that there are many more people in charge of the USA and its foreign policy these days than just the Federal Executive, like the Federal Legislature, too. Said another way, “we the people” are still in charge of our fates, including influencing what happens “overseas”. Nobody said politics was ever pretty.

2)      One can expect much turmoil to arise, too.

3)      By this article, even Obama’s pretension to wanting to the king (I only suspect), maybe of the World, will in the end be much more limited by just American politics, to include our Constitution.

4)      I personally fear the impacts of any kind of nuclear war that eventually happens in the Middle East. Said another way, I don’t worry about myself, but I do worry about my own Family and their future lives. It is the fear of amateurs in charge politically in the USA that especially makes me worry.

5)      I no longer have trust, faith, and confidence in my present Federal Executive leaders, and even their appointed and hired minions.

6)      I am a Desert Storm veteran, so I have already been through the drill.  Mostly I learned everyone loves their Family, like trying to help them as best we can.

7)      I grew up in my time inside the DC beltway. I even thought about trying to be a Congressional Page, so I think I have done my own homework. I applaud anyone who makes it, too. It is a high honor, and also a lot of hard work, also.