Congress, particularly the United States Senate, has a role to play in American foreign policy.
That role, however, should not be so twisted and irresponsible as what we have seen in the ill-timed and ill-advised interjection by the Gang of 47 into the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Indeed, the 47 Republican signatories to the "open letter" to Iran's leaders seem to view their role not to provide "advice and consent" within the U.S. government, but to give unsolicited advice to the Iranian government, going well beyond our constitutional principles -- and leaving little doubt that most of them won't consent to an agreement, regardless of its content.
The letter, authored and pushed by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, purports to instruct Iran on how our system works. Rather than a lesson on the American Constitution, it appears to be a declaration of opposition to any agreement.
The concept of bipartisanship in foreign policy and the notion that politics stops at the water's edge have faded away, as has respect for Senate traditions, including the precept that freshmen senators should be seen and not heard. Obviously, Sen. Cotton has no interest in avoiding the spotlight. And, obviously, any senator has the right to speak on any topic, although many critics have noted Cotton had only two months experience in the Senate before catapulting himself into the middle of a delicate diplomatic process.
As we move toward the latest deadline for a framework agreement, negotiations are at a tense point. A political broadside addressed to leaders of a foreign power and aimed at undermining the high-stakes diplomacy is both inappropriate and unprecedented. If an agreement is reached, those senators who question it can make their case to the American public, but positions on foreign policy should be dictated by national interest rather than political motives.
Cotton roundly condemns the terms of an agreement without knowing precisely what the terms are and without explaining what the alternatives are, other than more severe sanctions. If that happened it would more than likely play into the hands of Iran's hardest hardliners. The implicit alternative is military action.
But there are many reasons to doubt the efficacy and viability of attacking Iran militarily, not to mention the challenges in costs, human and material, and the extensive international repercussions that would result. Among the many who have counseled against such action is Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary under both George W. Bush and President Obama and said it would be catastrophic and inevitably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran.
Cotton is a unilateralist who apparently believes the United States can do as it pleases and Iran will bend to our will and there's no role for diplomacy. Nor does the Cotton letter seem to recognize that, in addition to the U.S. and Iran, this lengthy negotiating process involves five other sovereign nations -- Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany. It is important and in the U.S. national interest to be able to work with other major nations, in this case the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council along with Germany.
There is no certainty an acceptable agreement, one with strict monitoring procedures, can be reached. But the Obama administration and the State Department should be allowed to carry out their responsibilities and work with the other nations to come up with a satisfactory deal.
Executive agreements such as this, unlike treaties, do not require Senate approval. Some will argue that if there is an agreement on Iran it should be treated as a treaty. However, there is a long history of executive agreements on highly consequential international matters.
The letter to Iran's leaders was misdirected and hastily approved by the 47 signees. Some of those who signed have had second thoughts, as well they should. Sen. John McCain, one of the Senate's more prominent voices on international security, said that an impending snowstorm in Washington hastened the action. "It was kind of a very rapid process," he said. "I think we probably should have had more discussion about it given the blowback ..."
In expressing those regrets, McCain did emphasize that it was important for the Iranians to know that Congress has a role to play.
Indeed, the Senate could approve a sense of the Senate resolution, emphasizing that it intends to carefully scrutinize the terms of any agreement that might be reached. That's much more appropriate than the letter to Tehran.
What we need in the Senate is more sense, less nonsense.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor. Email him at [email protected].
Commentary on 03/18/2015