opinion

Editorial: GOP letter to Iran disgraces America

America looks weakest when its internal arguments spill over into its international diplomacy — something that has been rare in the nation's history.

That it is happening now is a blot on the 114th U.S. Senate; specifically, on the 47 Republican senators who signed an open letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a missive whose sole purpose is to end President Barack Obama's ongoing nuclear negotiations with that country.

Among the signatories of this letter are Sens. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky; Marco Rubio, R-Florida, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, all three potential 2016 presidential contenders. At minimum, signing such a letter should disqualify each man from holding the high office they seek to degrade.

At worst? Well, it's unlikely that, as some have suggested, this letter rises to the level of treason or violates the Logan Act, which bars unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign powers. But it certainly betrays a deep misunderstanding of our governmental structure, and a profound and dismaying disrespect for the office of the presidency, as well as its incumbent occupant. To disagree with a sitting president is one thing, even if that disagreement is loud, even if it is raucous. A deliberate attempt to undermine a sitting president's efforts to discharge his constitutional obligations is something else entirely.

Last week, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the floor of Congress. That, too, was a politically fraught act — Netanyahu also opposes Obama's deal — but this is a step farther.

Orchestrated by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, this letter masquerades as a civics lesson. Addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," it begins with a note of condescension: "It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system." The letter goes on to explain that the U.S. Congress must ratify any binding international treaty. That's not precisely correct, as Harvard Law School professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith writes on the Lawfare blog. Though Congress votes on a resolution of ratification, the actual duty is left to the president.

The letter goes on to warn that any agreement reached by Obama without Congress' approval carries only the weight of an executive order, and that a future president could reverse it with "the stroke of a pen"; a future Congress could amend it. (This, we will note, could be an argument against any country ever making a deal with the United States; new senators are elected every six years, new presidents every four).

The Iranians aren't buying it.

"In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy," Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, said in a written statement published in the New York Times. "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with 'the stroke of a pen,' as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."

Daniel Drezner, writing in the Washington Post, notes that this letter may have the opposite effect its signatories intended — signaling to Iranian leaders that a new American regime would be less likely to make a deal, prompting more cooperation now. And if an Obama-crafted deal were successful, he writes, it's unlikely to be dismantled by a future president.

There's no doubt that congressional backing for any international deal is preferred — congressional support would simplify questions such as whether Obama has the authority to lift congressionally imposed sanctions as part of an Iranian deal, and a ratified treaty carries more weight than an executive order.

But the Republicans who dispatched this letter have done more than embarrass a president they dislike. They have also disgraced themselves and undermined the credibility of the nation whose constitution they took an oath to uphold.