So, Any thoughts on Bibi Netantahu's address to Congress

The misguided, condescending letter from Republican senators to Iran

As first reported by Bloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program. It was organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and advised the Iranian leadership that "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

The letter is brief, and can be read in full here. Republican lawmakers are opposed to the Obama administration's current overtures to Iran, a disagreement that was put into stark relief last week by the polarizing speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a joint meeting of Congress. This is yet another tactic to scupper a potential deal.

It starts with the patronizing premise that "you may not fully understand our Constitutional system" and goes on to explain, first, that any international treaty will need to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and that, unlike the president of the United States, senators "may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms." The message to the mullahs: don't get comfortable with any deal, because we're going to scrap it as soon as we can.

On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong:


The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

Dan Drezner, writing for Post Everything, adds that the letter may "paradoxically help Obama" by persuading Iran's leaders to hatch a successful bargain now with the United States rather than further down the road after Obama has departed. Some argue that a deal pushed through by the White House will not be that easy to overturn later, especially if it appears to be working.

Whatever its effects in Washington, the letter is almost farcically condescending in word and tone. Iran's leaders are well aware of how the United States works. The country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, spent the better part of a decade as the Iranian envoy to the United Nations; like many others in the Iranian cabinet, he was partly educated in the United States.

It reflects the willful ignorance on the part of many hawks in Washington who insist on seeing Iran purely as an irrational actor and a permanent regional threat. As WorldViews discussed earlier, Iran is problematic in many ways, and its regime plays a role in fueling proxy wars in parts of the Middle East. But one can argue that the same is true of Washington's chief Arab ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

On Monday, Zarif issued a statement through Iran's U.N. mission in New York, saying "the letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy." Zarif also takes the opportunity to play the pedant:


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 Obama administration and Israeli critics of Netanyahu seem to believe that it's possible to do business with the government of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Zarif's boss. Rouhani prioritized rapprochement with the United States after his surprise election in 2013. The Republican letter echoes the grimacing and stamping of feet of another set of hard-liners opposed to negotiations -- the ones in Iran.

This post was updated to incorporate Zarif's remarks.

Congress has every right to make sure Iran knows that Obama is negotiating without their consent, and that the rumored framework of a deal will not be approved.

A few brain-dead senators bought by Israel can't speak on behalf of the Congress.

Quote:

A few brain-dead senators bought by Israel can't speak on behalf of the Congress.

hey, if you can make "a few" equal 47% you can do anything.

A Response to Tom Cotton and His Gang of Subversive Foreign Policy Negotiators

An Open Letter to the Leaders of a Rival Government of the United States and Its Ringleader, Senator Tom Cotton:

It has come to our attention while observing your letter to the government of Iran 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 conduct foreign policy and the laws and judicial rulings which restrict your powers in this regard, and the consequences of overstepping the boundaries of your lawful powers in a democracy founded on the rule of law -- which you should seriously consider as President Obama's negotiations with Iran progress.

First, under our Constitution, the president has sole authority to negotiate with foreign governments as the representative of the United States government. There can be no rivalry with the president by other persons or institutions seeking to conduct foreign policy on their own. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936):


The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

The 47 senators who recently sent correspondence on U.S. Senate letterhead to the government of Iran with the stated purpose of opposing and seeking to thwart the president's foreign policy goals in negotiations with that country have violated the legal guidelines established by this Supreme Court ruling.

And that's not all. The Logan Act states:


Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Although no one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act, there has never before been as flagrant and brazen a violation as the recent action organized by Sen. Tom Cotton. The correspondence on U.S. Senate letterhead was sent by a minority of senators and was therefore "without authority of the United States." Its contents were "in relation to... disputes or controversies with the United States" and its purpose was "to defeat the measures of the United States," i.e. President Obama's policy goal and ongoing negotiations to reach an agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear energy program, to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation and war.

Second, our Constitutional system of government is based on democratic elections by the people to choose their representatives. The powers of the people and their elected officials have different characteristics. For example, senators are elected for 6-year terms, but the people retain their right to vote throughout their adult lives. As applied today, for instance, Sen. Tom Cotton and the other signatories of the letter to Iran might be voted out of office at the next election, based on the people's judgment that they have taken an action which violates the Constitution and laws concerning the separation of powers and appropriate conduct of foreign policy and is thus incompatible with holding political office. Furthermore, the people might petition the Senate for expulsion of such senators from office before their terms expire (the Congressional equivalent of impeachment).

What these two Constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any correspondence with the government of Iran regarding that country's nuclear program and the U.S. president's negotiations with that government as nothing less than a gravely unethical and likely unlawful action, demanding the full and unrelenting attention of the American people and appropriate consequences. The United States Justice Department could prosecute a case against the politicians who wrote or signed such a letter; and the American people could use their voice and their vote in our democratic society to demand that such politicians lose their seats, either at the next election or through expulsion. With the stroke of a pen, Attorney General Eric Holder could authorize an investigation concerning the highly inappropriate and quite possibly illegal correspondence initiated by Sen. Tom Cotton. With the marking of a ballot, future voters could end the terms in office of those who used their office to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, such as Sen. Cotton and his allies in undermining U.S. foreign policy and the office of the President.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations with Iran progress.

Sincerely,

The American People

Be they 4 or 47 or 777 doesn't change the fact that they acted on their own, and sent a personal letter. The congress is more than a bunch of individuals: it's an institution. Those guys don't speak for congress.

Obama does not need an international treaty to resolve this, only the lifting of sanctions. All it takes is a vote at the UN security council.