Iran's foreign minister replies to GOP senators' letter

[alhoon]

The gist: Persian foreign minister Zarif replied to the letter sent to the Persian government by 47 GOP senators, warning them that the next administration could, and probably would, overturn any nuclear deal with Iran. His reply was more or less "Nope, the UN is behind these talks not just USA" and "a change of administration doesn't relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...usaolp00000592

The Iranian minster also said that many U.S. international agreements are not ratified by the Senate. According to Zarif, that means that even if the deal with his country is not an executive agreement the way Cotton and his GOP colleagues suggested, the senators have undermined other U.S. agreements by suggesting they aren't taken seriously.


Personally, I think the GOP senators going behind Obama's back trying to torpedo any kind of deal is underhanded. Give diplomacy a chance and when you come to power, you can see if you can change or null the agreement. The letter was not meant to clear any misunderstanding, but to create division and make negotiations harder.
As Obama said, the GOP has a common cause with Persia's hardliners.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's not underhanded, it's unprecedented in US history. It is totally insane for Republicans to be doing this: it is dangerous. Undermining the Executive in front of a foreign country, inviting a foreign head of state to speak to Congress without the knowledge of the executive? Jesus, I cannot imagine the thought process that leads you to vote Republican in this context, they are damaging US foreign policy and security.

[chilon]

It's not underhanded, it's unprecedented in US history. It is totally insane for Republicans to be doing this: it is dangerous. Undermining the Executive in front of a foreign country, inviting a foreign head of state to speak to Congress without the knowledge of the executive? Jesus, I cannot imagine the thought process that leads you to vote Republican in this context, they are damaging US foreign policy and security.

Could be borderline treason:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...age-iran-deal-


I don't think its necessarily treason but its taking partisan politics to such an insane new level. Its disgusting.

[Sphere]

It's not underhanded, it's unprecedented in US history.

Nixon sent Kissinger over to promise the South Vietnamese government a better deal if they waited until after the election. It sunk LBJ's attempt at a negotiated peace in his last term.

But Nixon had the common decency to conduct his treason in a clandestine manner.

[chilon]

Nixon sent Kissinger over to promise the South Vietnamese government a better deal if they waited until after the election. It sunk LBJ's attempt at a negotiated peace in his last term.

But Nixon had the common decency to conduct his treason in a clandestine manner.

So did Ronnie Raygun with his deal for the Iran hostages

[Dracula]

It's not underhanded, it's unprecedented in US history. It is totally insane for Republicans to be doing this: it is dangerous. Undermining the Executive in front of a foreign country, inviting a foreign head of state to speak to Congress without the knowledge of the executive? Jesus, I cannot imagine the thought process that leads you to vote Republican in this context, they are damaging US foreign policy and security.

I thought that this was actually democracy for. Not giving the head of state absolute powers. Or it isn't so in the "most democratic state" ?

[Admiral Piett]

Treaty legality has always been a hotly contested issue in the US since our very founding. A great example is the Jay Treaty. Authored and supported by the federalists, but vehemently opposed by the newly forming democratic-republicans. James Madison argued that no treaty which concerns affairs of commerce can be legally signed without approval from both chambers of the legislature. Thomas Jefferson later threw out most of the terms of the treaty and allowed it to expire.

So what the GOP is doing isn't exactly unprecedented at all actually. They did the same thing in 1994 concerning a potential deal with North Korea over its arms program and actually defeated Clinton's effort. In fact, executive agreements between the US President and a foreign government cannot legally circumvent things like sanctions passed by Congress. Executive agreements typically are not large in scope, which means that actually the Republican Senate does have historical and legal concerns raised by an executive circumventing Congress over an issue relative to commerce and national security.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...ss-get-a-vote/

Whilest it may be easy to say 'hey, the Republicans are crazy anyway, why should we count on their support?', well he still needs their support for a treaty to be legal if it affects Congressional resolutions.

[alhoon]

I don't think it's treason. They didn't start a war for their VPresident's former company to profit after all.

But I do think it's damaging for USA and underhanded.

[ShockBlast]

Epci fail on behalf of the Republican Party.

[mongrel]

Epci fail on behalf of the Republican Party.

Indeed seeingm that Iran's intervention is keeping what is left of Iraq together.

[Roma_Victrix]

Since we are not at war with Iran, it's not tantamount to treason, although this is still despicably partisan nonetheless.

[ShockBlast]

Since we are not at war with Iran, it's not tantamount to treason, although this is still despicably partisan nonetheless.

They broke a US law, they should at least appear before a court.

With all the respect, if some random senators get to make US external policy then what can you expect of the rest of the world ?
Like it or not USA has a standard to maintain with USA self entitling itself the "leader of the free world".

[Gaidin]

Treason is a hilarious word to throw around with regard to Americans, given its specific definition.

[alhoon]

I don't think they broke any law either... USA may actually be quite authoritarian but it has democracy and senators are free to send letters with their opinion. They didn't say they are the USA government, and they are part of USA government.

They may be despicable human beings that act contrary to reason and common sense, but they have every right to do so. Their actions may be harmful to USA but they're not illegal.

[ShockBlast]

I don't think they broke any law either... USA may actually be quite authoritarian but it has democracy and senators are free to send letters with their opinion. They didn't say they are the USA government, and they are part of USA government.

They may be despicable human beings that act contrary to reason and common sense, but they have every right to do so. Their actions may be harmful to USA but they're not illegal.

The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, withoutauthority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on anycorrespondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer oragent 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 orimprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[alhoon]

The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, withoutauthority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on anycorrespondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer oragent 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 orimprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Crap... I thought USA was more democratic than that. My bad. I keep forgetting that "Freedom of speech" is relative these days. It also seems that 47/100 Senators are not authority enough in the USA...

Wait, was that law passed in 2006? By Republicans?
They don't support their own undemocratic law?

[Derpy Hooves]

Crap... I thought USA was more democratic than that. My bad. I keep forgetting that "Freedom of speech" is relative these days. It also seems that 47/100 Senators are not authority enough in the USA...

Wait, was that law passed in 2006? By Republicans?
They don't support their own undemocratic law?

​No, it was passed in 1799. Read the section entitled History of the Logan Act

[ShockBlast]

Crap... I thought USA was more democratic than that. My bad. I keep forgetting that "Freedom of speech" is relative these days. It also seems that 47/100 Senators are not authority enough in the USA...

Wait, was that law passed in 2006? By Republicans?
They don't support their own undemocratic law?

Since when Freedom of speech allows you to commit treason ?

Nah, 1799 under President Adams insistence.

It is a really good link if you read it. It was passed after a private US citizen (named Logan, hence the title) sailed to Revolutionary France and pretended to be a US diplomat representing the US government. At the time information took over a month to cross the Atlantic, so Logan got away with it and it seems he actually did some good for US-French relations.

Despite being over 200 years old, the law has never been used to prosecute anyone.

The law is the law and it must be applied.

[Venomousmonkey]

To be honest Republicans should have just persuaded Obama for them to be more involved in the negotiations. This route says that they're going to take their ball and go home. It definitely could have been handled better, but that's neither here nor there. If the deal that is signed allows Iran to get a Nuclear weapon at any point there will be a three way arms race in the Middle East. The Saudis have warned in the past that they would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran was armed. If the deal prevent Iran from ever getting a Nuclear weapon it would be a good thing.

If we get a deal, what assurances would we have that they wouldn't build in secret? U.N. weapons inspectors have proven unreliable. (Of course the opposite could present the same issue.) My main point is that they could have easily gotten more influence behind closed doors instead of making a spectacle. There's too much at stake for grandstanding.

[caratacus]

Well we also have a member of Parliament in the UK, who similarly speaks and some times travels abroad, trying to undermine UK foreign policy, he is called George Galloway.

It does seem there is real hate between the Republicans and Obama. But trying to undermine your country's Executive in such a way, is really not acceptable.

However, Obama seems exceptionally weak on foreign policy and in a week in which events in the Middle East are getting even more intense.The only memorable utterance I heard from him, was one of his flowery speeches concerning American civil rights.