No "Water's Edge" In Iran Policy

Forty-seven Republican U.S. Senators have published an open letter to the government of Iran, warning them that any agreement they reach with the Obama administration requires, and may not receive, Senate confirmation.

This is, to say the least, an "unusual" approach in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, where the tradition, if not the law, has always been for the executive branch to lead in developing and conducting policy, while the legislative branch has input to the process as it develops, and of course the Senate ultimately must ratify any formal agreements. Foreign policy was always the point where domestic political wrangling was supposed to stop, and bipartisanship took over.  The axiom is (or was): "politics stops at the water's edge."

But we don't have a shred of bipartisanship any longer.  Last week the House had to demonstrate that; now it seems the Senate must.  The GOP Senators involved would suggest that their action is justified because the President is working to reach an agreement on his own terms.  (This may be called the "he hit me first!" defense, familiar to five-year olds all over the world.)  But that is exactly what we expect Presidents to do. 

So is there a "right" and "wrong" here? 

The President, for his part, presumably can foresee that any agreement reached faces a difficult path toward ratification.   So why would he even attempt it?   Because he believes that policy with Iran - the major and most stable power in the Middle East after Israel - needs to be reset; that nothing has resulted from years of attempts to punish and isolate Iran; and as I suggested elsewhere, that ultimately Iran's nuclear ambitions won't be deterred, and may be strengthened, by our unyielding insistence on dictating terms to them.  

Whether or not one agrees with that interpretation of U.S.-Iran relations, I can't see any motivation for Obama's effort other than his view that it's in long-term U.S. interest.   In other words, he's not doing it just to irritate Mitch McConnell.   

On the other hand:  Republicans may detest the policy, but their opportunity to affect things comes with the ratification process.  They aren't telling the Iranians anything new by reminding them any agreement might face difficulty in the ratification process.  They've been very vocal all along that they would like to continue treating Iran as a pariah state.  The purely political nature of the Senators' letter seems still more clear when we consider that only the Senators of one party are involved, and of course that it was made public. 

So, politically motivated most definitely.  The Senatorial Gang of 47 hopes to make Obama's task more difficult; they may also hope that, by trying to derail the process now, they can avoid being put in the position of fighting to kill an agreement that may in fact look appealing to many voters, during the fast-approaching election campaign season.

I enjoyed Obama's remark that the Senate-minority action appears to support armed conflict.  That points out the ironic reality that our esteemed Senators are looking to get in bed with the Iranian mullahs (I mean politically of course). 

 

 

Comments

[PiedType]

I'd hoped at least that a Republican majority in both houses would bring an end to GOP obstructionism and the beginning of some serious lawmaking. After all, as the minority, their only real option was obstructionism (they said). But no, hurting the president still seems to be their only goal. They're proving to be childish and dangerous buffoons. Even with the chance now to implement some of their own ideas for the country, they'd still rather spend their time obstructing Obama in every way they can think of. Only now they've taken it from Washington to the global arena and are mucking around with international relations and foreign policy. Someone should chop off their meddling little fingers ... at the neck.

[Dick Klade]

As far as a "right" and "wrong" in this matter, I believe the president is dead right and the gang of 47 altogether wrong. Taking the broad view, the situation with Iran is a bit like that with Cuba. When a strategy fails for many years, it is time to try something new. That's not a political point of view, it's common sense. Congress has shown quite a lack of that of late.