An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran’s nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.
The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.
“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. “It’s an unusual coalition.”
Vice President Biden blasted the letter as “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”
“In 36 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,” Biden said in a statement.
What are these legislators thinking? Their behavior is unprecedented. Why would these senators cozy up to the Iran hardliners? Why would they assume that they are there to sit down along side the president and negotiate treaties?
I believe Hillary Clinton has it right. They either want to aid the rogue regime or they want to do anything they can to disrupt the President, regardless of what it does to the country. Apparently they chose war over peace.
I find their behavior despicable and treasonous. Perhaps they can go ride in a tank with the Iranian head-honchos, you know, sort of like Jane Fonda. I see almost no difference other than Fonda was a lot younger than most of them. In essence, 47 senators found common cause with terrorists. I find those that signed to be stupid, self-serving and impetuous.
They were thinking that
A) the first time Obama said he had a deal…the Iranians revealed that they got everything they wanted….they had to show it. Obama refused to reveal the negotiations.
B) Obama tends to act as if he alone makes law and ignores the Constitution.
C) that Obama is incompetent and is giving the Iranians what they want.
So…they reminded the Iranians that whatever Obama agrees to must also pass muster with the Senate…and THEY are not so forgiving. Unlike Obama, they don’t agree that the Iranians should have nukes within 10 years and they don’t believe either the Iranians OR Obama is negotiating in good faith. Obama has proven himself to be a known liar and he has messed up every foreign relation that we have.
The 47 senators definitely overstepped their boundaries.
I am curious…world opinion…of the United States now vs in 2008. Get serious. Our foreign relations are far better now.
I think 1, 2, 3 are pure bullshit. Sorry…A,B,C. They were simply out of line, bordering on treason. Obama refused to reveal the negotiations because they were a work in progress. You believe the Iranians? Might I remind you of an embassy incident back in the 70’s. Do you really think all that much has changed? You are still dealing with a theocracy.
They are thinking that Obama cannot have any success at all – in any way and they will try and stop any and all success. They will then blame him for not getting the deal.
The GOP has meddled with Iran in the past in order to throw egg on the face of a Dem President.
Having Iran postpone a nuke for 10 years give another 10 years for the younger and more moderate Iranian’s to come to power. No deal means a nuke sooner not later. Why do we want to pick and choose which sovereign nations are sovereign? Remember, it was a R administration that took out their biggest adversary and let them continue to focus on things other than border patrol for past 12 years.
Unprecedented? Hmmmph! It is well known that Ted Kennedy sent back channel letters to Andropov trying to undermine Reagan’s Soviet policy. There you have it. The so-called Democratic “Lion of the Senate” finding common cause with the “Evil Empire.” What a stupid, self-serving, impetuous, and underhanded “Lion.”
And in Nicaragua, when the Contras were up against Marxist Daniel Ortega, Congressional Democrats were all over the foreign policy arena, including supportive back channel contacts with Ortega and his people and multiple efforts to block Reagan’s support for the Contras. And this at a time when Ortega was openly getting moral and monetary support from Cuba and the Soviets to establish a second Cuba on the Central American mainland. The cap of this interference was the Boland Amendment banning US support for the Contras. Stupid, self-serving, impetuous, and underhanded Democrats throwing in with Marxist tyrants.
And this is what? One letter. One letter signed openly by 47 US Senators, including the Majority leader, and sent openly instead of attempting to hide it a la the Democrats. In case you happened to miss it, the Iranians have been bragging about snookering the Americans and other negotiators. And given what we know about what’s on the table right now, those US senators, just like Netanyahu, suspect they may be right. Now you have a warning from the Senate majority to the Iranians not to think that just getting some chicanery past Kerry and Obama means you are out of the woods on this. And I posit it is also a warning to Obama to stop his post-2012 election act of prancing around like a wannabe despot as if the constitutional separation of powers does not exist.
If Obama is getting eggs in the face from Congress, he has been asking for just that.
Ye gods and all the little fishes, another damned lie from this guy about not knowing of Hillary’s email situation until he learned about in the media! Josh Ernest should be known as “Mr. Walk-It-Back.”
Is that all you have to bitch at him about today? Wanna be despot? He is the last thing I think of when I think of despot.
I think what the 47 senators did was unconscionable. I would rather reach an agreement and avoid war, even if for only 5 years. You are pitting what you think individuals did against what 47 senators who should have known better did. It is they who have a problem with constitutional duties. They can’t do their own job mainly because they are so busy messing in Obama’s business.
The republicans are siding with our nation’s enemies.
I forgot to add that one of those Democrats who was in contact with Daniel Ortega during the Reagan era and trying to undermine Reagan’s policy was none other than John Forbes Kerry, then a House member from Mass.
Right, Joe Biden. You cannot recall Ted Kennedy’s letters to Andropov or the fact that, in 1985, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin went with Rep. John Kerry to Nicaragua to meet with Daniel Ortega. That’s only about 30 years ago, pal.
Always reflexive bs in that White House crowd.
I don’t remember. I’m talking about events of the past week.
If you actually think that the Iranians are going to abide by any half-assed, time-limited agreement negotiated by Obama………….Well, I suppose you used to think that Clinton had dissuaded the North Koreans.
“Wannabe despot” is a damned good description — almost every time he opens his mouth or signs a memo.
You must have had a really miserable past 6 years. Isn’t there anything you like about the guy?
You could say that about any peace treaty, regardless of who negotiated it. It depends on what they want and how bad they want it.
We have different world views and therefore different objectives from leadership.
They can’t do their own job because, as I said before, they have yet to install majority leadership smart enough and tough enough to get past the Democratic Party of No in the Senate. I say their first job is to clean up the messes made by Obama and his liberal Congressional cronies.
Thank goodness. Are you upset we aren’t at war with Iran yet?
The fallout:
Washingtonpost.com:
It’s sad when certain folks are so sure of their rightness that they are blind to the feelings of those around them. Apparently this describes the US Senate.
A letter signed by the Senator’s.
Threats of signing more sanctions against Iran during the negotiating period.
Allowing Netanyahu to speak during the negotiations and near his own election.
Trying to undermine any and every thing that Obama tries. Even when he sides with them, they reject whatever it is that he is trying to do. If he proposed to eliminate the income tax, the R’s would be up in arms to increase it. What was the R plan on Iran when they were planning on taking out Iran’s main adversary?? Nothing? Or a plan for a new war in the Middle East?
Congress has been creating faux crisis after faux crisis since Obama has become President – all in an effort to cripple his administration. Fiscal cliff, not voting on appointees, budgets, lack of budgets, not going to conference, etc. This is just another example that the Republicans cannot legislate.
Funny thing is – no one has seen the final agreement as it has not been signed yet.
Iran is a young country and the regime is getting old. Make friends with the youth as they will be in charge in the coming years – ignore them now and they will remember that.
Just curious as to what you think about when in 2007 Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represented ALL house Democrats) didn’t just write an open letter but traveled to Damascus to meet personally with Assad while at the same time the Bush Administration was in negotiations with Syria?
Was that an example of how when Bush was President Democrats “either want to aid the rogue regime or they want to do anything they can to disrupt the President, regardless of what it does to the country.”?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
Yeah, this Administration had their chance to make friends with the youth in 2009 and did nothing. Remember this? https://www.google.com/search?q=iran+green+revolution+2009&biw=1920&bih=971&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DyEAVbjLKMzOgwT_l4GAAQ&ved=0CDwQsAQ
The onus is on the Executive Branch to consult with Congress on foreign policy, particularly for something as controversial and significant as a nuclear treaty with Iran. The fact that the Iranians know more about the deal than Congress and the public is a problem. The unstated premise here seems to be that Congress should back off while it is being negotiated. But historically and constitutionally, that is not the way it works. And when the Administration ignores the views of Congress, this type of reaction should not be unexpected.
The statement by the Washington Post that this challenges Obama’s authority “in a new and unprecedented way” is hog wash. I think we all know this. It is clearly meant to inflame left-leaning, low-information voters.
@Jackson Bills
+1
OK, Kelly, I’ll bite – what’s the precedent? I consider myself a fairly assiduous non-academic student of American history. I can think of no prior situation where roughly half the Senate of the United States has opened a channel to America’s adversaries to tell them that Obama can’t sustain a deal if he makes one. In fact, I think it’s safe to say it has never happened in the history of the United States under any President. I’ll go even farther and suggest one doesn’t have to be particularly knowledgeable about American history to know that this has never happened before.
The content of the letter was juvenile, its timing needlessly precipitous, its immediate impact was overtly intended to be corrosive of Executive authority, its likely projected message to other nations, be they friend or foe, is that the United States can’t get out of its own way in complex international negotiations, its impact on the Iran nuclear issue likely to be one that give ammunition to hard-line elements in Iran who oppose any constraints, and, if it succeeds in torpedoing current talks, its likely effect will be to weaken the international sanctions regime, accelerate Iran’s progression to full weaponization, and increase the probability that only armed conflict can result. The last time we rejected a proposed deal with Iran, their nuclear program leap-frogged forward dramatically. Why will this not happen again, short of all-out war?
Any Senator with serious concerns on this probably could get a line open to the Secretary of State or the President to vent and, if they have better ideas, to persuade. Instead, they chose a path that weakens the United States at a time when there loom multiple international complexities that will require multinational cooperation, and do so by violently dismantling a former strength of the United States – that we have our domestic debates raucously, but on security issues we talk quietly and internally, but present a strong, united front abroad. How can that ideal be a bad one?
The conduct of foreign affairs is clearly an Article II, Executive Branch function. Congress has some checks in terms of funding, oversight, and, in the case of formal treaties, the Senate has ratification powers. This system generally works well, because the nature of international diplomacy requires attention span and expertise that cannot be readily developed and applied in a large legislative body that stands for election on two-year cycles. The Republican letter is a direct effort to attack this constitutional structure. The best one can hope for is that the harm they did will pass quickly and stand as an example in the future on how not to protect the interests of the United States.
Hm. Wolve’s and Jackson’s spin seems to be that Republicans are doing the right thing because they are just following the footsteps of those pinko-loving liberal Democrats who hate ‘merica and are working for it’s downfall.
Cargo’s spin is that the best way for Republican to show Obama and the country that Congress has a strict separation of powers philosophy and will tolerate no constitutional fuzziness between branches of government is to directly negotiate a treaty with our adversaries despite the constitution explicitly giving that job to the executive branch.
@Jackson Bills
Were we supposed to wage war against the Iranian Government?? No, it is up to the people to get the government they want. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan for inspiration (not) – meaning that we can prop up a government and it may not be able to stand on its own.
Another way that Congress is failing and trying to make the POTUS look bad is with the current AUMF and the three year life span – many in Congress (mostly GOP) do not like the 3 year span but also question the use of the ‘old’ AUMF.
I would really want an AUMF of a one years life time and have Congress VOTE every year to continue the efforts. Also any AUMF should provide a funding stream.
Odd, I never said anything close to that at all. If you want my opinion on the letter Ill give it to you… I don’t agree with them sending it. I do think that it’s counter productive to the negotiation process.
What I find hilarious Mr. Ed is your blatant hypocrisy on this issue. If your upset with Republicans about this then why not Democrats for the same “unprecedented behavior”?
@Jackson Bills
Juxapositional sound byte.
She wasn’t speaking for the entire house. She didn’t have the authority to do that. It isn’t the same thing.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
@Jackson Bills
You really advocate going into Iran, a soverign nation? More juxapositional sound bytes.
@Kelly_3406
It isn’t a bi-lateral agreement. It involves 5 other countries. Treaties aren’t usually discussed out in the open until agreements have been reached.
@Scout
The part that matters is that numerous other Senators and Congressmen have engaged in back-channel talks with foreign entities during sensitive negotiations. You only need to read Wolve’s comments above for some of the precedents. The rest is just hyperbole.
This also shows that the treaty is likely to be DOA in the Senate. Ratification is highly unlikely, but perhaps Obama does not really care whether it enters into force or not.
@Pat.Herve
They were already pissed at us for propping up the Shah of Iran. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.
@Kelly_3406
The treaty doesn’t need to go to the senate, does it? It goes to the UN. The deal is with 5 other countries.
Who said anything about war? He completely cut off funding to opposition in Iran and refused to publicly support the movement. Why? Well, it’s funny you ask… because he was attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal at the time and didn’t want to rock the boat with Iranian leadership. That worked out great, he is STILL trying to get a deal with them 6 years later.
It’s funny, you say that we need to listen to and support the Iranian youth because they will be in charge one day on one hand but on the other hand when we had a chance to do exactly that you say f’em, it’s up to them to change their government.
Well we did that Pat in 2009 and I agree with you, I’m sure they will remember we did nothing.
Gross over-simplification. If you look back, that uprising wasn’t totally ignored. He didn’t respond the first day. You know, Iran is a sovereign nation. Sometimes sitting back and waiting rather than shooting off at the mouth is a good thing.
Nope, never said anything close to that Moon. Just pointing out how in 2009 President Obama had a chance to publicly support Iranian youth with their green movement. Not only did he turn his back on them in 2009 but he also cut off ALL funding to opposition in Iran as well as other U.S. based Iranian groups.
For example… The Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was a nonpartisan group that documents Iran’s human-rights abuses. President Obama cut off ALL funding to them and they had to shut down.
Another example is Freedom House, the nonpartisan watchdog group founded in 1941, also lost State Department funding. It ran a Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights for Iran-related efforts.
Then there is the International Republican Institute (IRI), which for several years received State Department support to train Iranian reformers and connect them to like-minded activists in Europe and elsewhere. IRI’s application for funds was denied shortly after Obama took office.
I could go on an on but I think you get the point… there are other ways to support Iranian youth than going to war and Obama has proven time and time again that he will not support them at all and I agree with Pat, they will remember that.
Maybe he wants private citizens to fund these groups. We cant fund every human rights group on earth.
She was speaker of house, she was the Democrat majority leader, she was the #3 in charge, she went to Damascus and met personally with Abbas at a time of sensitive talks when she was explicitly asked not to by the President. Your right about one thing, it’s not the same thing as the 47 who signed an open letter… it’s much much worse.
If only there were some way that this ‘deal’ could be submitted to Congress for approval or ratification even. That way it would be clear that the agreement was between the US and Iran, not some personal deal with The Executive.
Unfortunately though, The Executive has made it clear that his ‘deal’ with Iran is not a treaty and that He has no intention of submitting anything to the Senate for ratification.
It goes to the UN for approval. Those kinds of treaties do not fall under US domestic law. They fall under International law.
I was wondering if even the more extreme element on this blog would defend this treasonable action, and I sure got my answer.
Wolve (post#4)-are you seriously comparing the Democratic (alleged) back channel effort to prevent Reagan from illegally providing weapons to terrorists to 47 senators trying to undermine a sitting president negotiating an agreement that requires no formal congressional approval? If you’re not joking you’re way farther down the rabbit hole than even I thought…
@middleman
I don’t support the letter, I think it was a bad idea. Do you defend the treasonable actions of Pelosi in 2007?
You are suggesting that we should fund a Coup? No. We have meddled in Iran for far too long. Let the people decide what they want.
@Pat.Herve
Sooooo yeah…. funding the HRDC (who document human rights abuses in Iran) is akin to funding a coup. Got it…
Don’t you think its best to let the people of Iran handle their own internal affairs? Did you want to go racing in to Egypt? How about Syria?
@Jackson Bills
He completely cut off funding to opposition in Iran
I was talking funding opposition in Iran.
HRDC – I really do not know the details nor have time to lookup – but there are all kinds of funding that was and is being cut. Funny some people want all the funding to continue but fail to get the revenue to support it and then complain about the debt/deficit.
@Moon-howler
“Those kinds of treaties”? Sorry to break the news to you but there is only one kind of treaty. The kind that is ratified by a 2/3rds in the Senate. Anything else is an agreement that is not binding on future Presidents. If The Executive wants to make his deal with Iran binding on his successors, the only legal solution is to have the treaty ratified by the Senate. Please tell me what ‘international law’ overrides this?
It’s really pretty simple: If the US is a party to an agreement and it binds future governments, it is a treaty. And it must be ratified by the Senate.
Back when he was President, Obama did have two treaties ratified by the Senate. Unfortunately, now he enjoys his ‘Bulworth moments’ too much to bother with the law.
Kelly, from my understanding the agreement wouldn’t have to be approved by congress, which is good because the GOP is pretty disfunctional right now as evidenced by the letter. How can a president “consult” with a group that opposes everything he proposes?
Riiiiiiight…. 😉
He just chooses randomly to defund any and all Iran opposition groups just before or during the green revolution because he wants private citizens to fund it? Hey, I’ve got a bridge for sale, interested?
Oh sure, because they don’t live in an overly oppressive regime where they torture/rape/kill dissidents. Let them do it on their own… f’em. But what about the Iranian youth that Pat is so concerned about?
Syria? Nah, lets just let Nancy Pelosi go over there and hug Assad and Assad’s minions. I’m sure that will help the Syrian people out.
Where are you getting that from? So, in your view, international treaties much less arms negotiations are not subject to review by the Congress? When did the US give up its rights to the UN? Has it been done before – never heard of it.
Ill direct you to the U.S. State Departments own FY 2009 “Budget in Brief” pfd: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100033.pdf
Starting on page 15 in the ‘Highlights by Activity’ section…
“Diplomatic Relations ($795,406,000 including $ 787,165,000 from direct appropriations, $8,225,000
from Defense Trade Control Registration Fees, and $16,000 from Commercial Services Fees)”
Page 16, bullet point #1 explains these funds being spent on the following:
“Promoting human rights internationally, supporting emerging democracies and economic development,
improving the global environment, and meeting humanitarian emergencies that destroy political and
economic well-being and stability are vital to America’s long-term interest. ”
Now I will point you to FY 2010 “Budget in Brief”: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122511.pdf
Starting on page 15 again… “Diplomatic Relations ($1,386,115,000 including $1,363,099,000 from direct appropriations,
$23,000,000 from Defense Trade Control Registration Fees, and $16,000 from Commercial
Services Fees)”
So, from 2009 thru 2010 President Obama’s State Department increased the ‘Diplomatic Relations’ budget from $795,406,000 to $1,386,115,000 (an increase of 74%, or $590,709,000) and he defunded ALL of these quasi anti-Iranian groups and you think it’s because “Maybe he wants private citizens to fund these groups”?
Really?
Operative word…maybe. I have no earthly idea and frankly….I don’t give a rat’s ass. Write him and ask him why. I am sure I don’t know.
Deflecting the issue…still.
Juxtapositional sound byte…still.
All of the groups I mentioned above together were denied a total of around $10 million in funding (and that’s being very generous… the actual figure is more around 1/2 that). That equates to about 0.72% of the Diplomatic Relations budget during that time period.
Question… while this turbulent time was going on in Iran where the Iranian youth were crying out for help President Obama defunded all of these groups (0.72% of the budget while there was a 74% increase in the overall budget). And he did this why?
Blue, treaties need senate approval, executive agreements do not. My understanding is that this would be an executive agreement, as 94% of international agreements have been since 1939. WSJ article here: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/treaties-vs-executive-agreements-when-does-congress-get-a-vote/
Excellent find, middleman. Thanks.
Jackson, Pelosi met with Assad as part of a visit to numerous nations in the Middle East in 2007. She was only representing herself, and made it clear that she was not contradicting Bush policy. There were no treaty negotiations going on at the time. Bush’s main complaint with Pelosi was that “sending delegations doesn’t work.”
And he might have had a point. Who knows. When has anyone heard me singing the praises of Nancy Pelosi..
What irritates me is that nothing can be discussed on this blog without juxtaposition sound byte..well what about ???? regardless of what the event is. Let’s discuss the effen event on the block rather than go for the juxtapositional wimp out each and every time. Defend the senators on the merit of what they did. Arrgghhhh
BTW, Pelosi was trying to nudge the Bush administration into going the treaty route instead of war, something the Republicans are still obviously reluctant to do.
@middleman
So middleman, I’m glad to see you agree with the Senators that wrote the letter are taking the Constitutionally correct side. Hopefully now that you realize how feckless The Executive is with respect to the Constitution, you might want to look at His immigration decrees again. From the letter:
“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.”
Which is 100% absolutely correct. It’s a personal deal between The Executive and Iran unless it is approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. And its certainly not some magical UN-approved treaty.
Blue, you might want to explain your theory to the other 5 nations. Just a suggestion.
@middleman
All presidents make executive agreements, but it never occurred to me that an executive agreement would be used for an important, strategic issue that could affect our security for decades (even if it exists only for the last two years of Obama’s presidency).
Now I see why the Republicans are attempting to undermine the negotiations. This agreement is far too important for a single leader to negotiate and sign without ANY oversight. This is the stuff of a banana republic, not the US.
He isn’t going it alone. There are 5 other countries involved. 5 +1. The 1 is Germany.
I hate to keep repeating myself but there are other countries involved in these talks. 6 of them as a matter of fact.
It hardly seems like a paper tiger to me.
The interests of the other countries do not necessarily coincide with those of the US. If Israel gets nuked by Iran, the other countries may not feel the same obligation assist with their defense. It would be our blood and treasure on the line, so the other countries do not necessarily have as much skin in the game. Something this important and this strategic should be a full treaty that requires 2/3 approval of the Senate before ratification.
If this does goes through as an executive agreement, I hope it is challenged in Court.
I would say that France, UK, Germany and the USA all have skin in the game. Russia and China, not so much.
Kelly, do you really trust the Senate to not take us to war?
Court challenges to executive agreements haven’t been particularly successful, Kelly. Most of our significant defense/military agreements (by “most”, I mean, like, by a huge margin) are formatted as executive agreements, rather than treaties.
Getting back to the issue of precedent. Nice try, but I have to mark you down on that. There is no problem with individual Members of Congress visiting foreign countries and leaders and trying to learn what they can. If they convey their own views as individuals, I see no harm, although any Member of Congress visiting an adversary should be circumspect and measured to ensure that his/her words are not misconstrued as an inclination to undermine Executive Branch conduct of foreign policy. However, I asked for precedent of nearly half the Senate, en bloc, advising an adversary in writing that a critical international agreement that the United States was seeking to negotiate should be regarded as a dead letter. It has never happened. Period.
The closest thing I could think of was old Jesse Helms warning the Russians that strategic arms limitations would be DOA when they reached him in the Senate. The Russians heard the message and that agreement didn’t happen, at least not then. But that was chicken feed compared to what happened this week with the Magnificent 47.
Magnificent 47 is a great name for those arrogant bastards.
@Ed Myers
Yea, yea yea and Clinton killed Vince Foster.
I seriously don’t blame Obama for refusing to work with Republicans. How many times has he extended a hand only to be met with a fist. I would be very disappointed if he have any of them the time of day.