The Obama Administration's ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran have drawn significant criticism from Republicans.  Just last week on March 3, 2015, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lambasted the negotiations in his address to a joint session of Congress.  Now, forty-seven Republican senators, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) released a controversial open letter to the leaders of Iran.  Democrats were fiercely critical of the letter describing it as "a political stunt" and "deeply irresponsible."  Vice President Joe Biden issued a statement saying the letter "expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."  Seven Republican senators did not sign: Alexander (TN), Coats (IN), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Flake (AZ) and Murkowski (AK).

---

March 9, 2015

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government 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 make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

 

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

 

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.  For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

 

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that 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.

 

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

 

Sincerely,

 

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR

Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT  

Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA       

Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY      

Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL         

Senator John McCain, R-AZ 

Senator James Inhofe, R-OK           

Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS   

Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL  

Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY

Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID           

Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC       

Senator John Cornyn, R-TX             

Senator Richard Burr, R-NC

Senator John Thune, R-SD  

Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA

Senator David Vitter, R-LA  

Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY     

Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS           

Senator Jim Risch, R-ID

Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL       

Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO     

Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS

Senator Rob Portman, R-OH           

Senator John Boozman, R-AR          

Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA  

Senator John Hoeven, R-ND

Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL  

Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI 

Senator Rand Paul, R-KY

Senator Mike Lee, R-UT       

Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH 

Senator Dean Heller, R-NV  

Senator Tim Scott, R-SC       

Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX       

Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE  

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV         

Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA    

Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO           

Senator James Lankford, R-OK       

Senator Steve Daines, R-MT

Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD

Senator David Perdue, R-GA           

Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC   

Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA       

Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE     

Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

---

The White House
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release

Statement by the Vice President on the March 9 Letter From Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran

I served in the United States Senate for thirty-six years. I believe deeply in its traditions, in its value as an institution, and in its indispensable constitutional role in the conduct of our foreign policy. The letter sent on March 9^th by forty-seven Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere. 

This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.

Around the world, America’s influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments. Some of these are made in international agreements approved by Congress. However, as the authors of this letter must know, the vast majority of our international commitments take effect without Congressional approval. And that will be the case should the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reach an understanding with Iran. There are numerous similar cases. The recent U.S.-Russia framework to remove chemical weapons from Syria is only one recent example. Arrangements such as these are often what provide the protections that U.S. troops around the world rely on every day. They allow for the basing of our forces in places like Afghanistan. They help us disrupt the proliferation by sea of weapons of mass destruction. They are essential tools to the conduct of our foreign policy, and they ensure the continuity that enables the United States to maintain our credibility and global leadership even as Presidents and Congresses come and go. 

Since the beginning of the Republic, Presidents have addressed sensitive and high-profile matters in negotiations that culminate in commitments, both binding and non-binding, that Congress does not approve. Under Presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without Congressional approval. 

In thirty-six 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. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.

The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.   

There is no perfect solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. However, a diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program represents the best, most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, and the world will never be menaced by a nuclear-armed Iran. This letter is designed to convince Iran's leaders not to reach such an understanding with the United States. 

The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds. Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely—at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL. 

The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table. The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.

---

Press Release from America Next

Gov. Jindal Calls On All Potential Presidential Candidates To Sign On To Senate Iran Letter

BATON ROUGE – America Next Honorary Chairman Governor Bobby Jindal called on all potential presidential candidates to sign on to the letter sent by 47 members of the U.S. Senate to Iran warning the country that any nuclear deal should be approved by the Senate. 
 
Governor Jindal said, “America Next supports the letter sent by Senator Tom Cotton and his colleagues to Iran warning them that Congress will have to approve any nuclear deal.
 
“Vice President Biden owes Senator Cotton an apology.  He wore the boots in Iraq. He's earned our attention, not your insults. I'm glad some Senators are showing leadership in the absence of leadership from the White House.
 
“Further, every single person thinking about running for President, on both sides, should sign on to this letter to make clear to Iran that they are negotiating with a lame duck President. Make no mistake – any Iran deal that President Obama makes is not binding on a future president.
 
“If the deal President Obama is trying to get truly commits the U.S. to actions through an international agreement like a treaty does, which is equal to the Constitution in authority, then it is a treaty. And if President Obama wants that kind of deal, then he needs to accept that it is a treaty requiring a U.S. Senate vote. But he doesn't want to submit it to a vote. He can’t have it both ways.
 
“The President’s dithering on Iran is the reason we are where we are today. At present, we have an occupant in the White House that thinks we are at war with medieval Christians and Senate Republicans. It’s time for the President to focus on the real enemy – Radical Islam and a nuclear Iran.”