From the beginning of U.S. negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, it has been clear that their importance does not rest on the mere fact of having or not having a deal. The details of the deal matter. In fact, they are all that matters.
It is far less important that a deal be agreed to than it is that the final deal truly serves the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
For this very reason, it is crucial that the deal not be just an Obama administration deal with Iran. The deal must have a buy-in from Congress.
Secretary of State John Kerry has recently been quoted disparaging congressional involvement. Speaking of himself and the Obama administration, he asserted that “we’ve earned the right to be able to try to complete this without interference and certainly without partisan politics.”
This is absolutely wrong. There are good reasons for the constitutional processes outlined in our nation’s founding documents, including the prescription for input from more than one branch of government when it comes to the negotiation of treaties with foreign nations. Treaties require an overwhelming two-thirds ratification in the Senate because they have implications that last well beyond current leaders’ terms. Any attempt to sidestep Congress betrays an insufficient commitment to making a deal that truly serves America’s best interests.
If the U.S. Constitution teaches anything, it is that process matters, even when it is inconvenient. This applies to foreign policy as much as it does to the administration of criminal justice. Unilateral decision-making tends to thwart the common good, no matter who happens to be president. The founders of the United States chose and established a republican form of government precisely because they wanted a society in which the public and its elected representatives would be highly involved in decisions of great consequence to their lives.
Accordingly, Senators Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., wish to involve Congress in approving whatever deal Obama strikes with Iran. Corker and Menendez have a bipartisan bill that will provide for congressional oversight of whatever deal is ultimately agreed to. In short, Congress must be given its opportunity to approve or disapprove of the deal.
This is not an option for Obama — it is the rule of law. Presidents get to take the lead on foreign policy, but they cannot simply adopt new foreign policies that Congress will not fund, support, or authorize. As a matter of law, Obama lacks the authority to bind Congress or the United States to an agreement with a foreign power that Congress will not back.
If Obama thinks that his deal with Iran is in the best interests of the United States of America, then he should welcome congressional involvement in legitimizing the deal he makes. On the other hand, if Obama feels committed to hiding the ball from Congress — preventing this deal from getting the up-or-down show of support that something of this importance merits — then this deal should be viewed with even more suspicion than it already is.
