Sen. Tom Cotton was serene Tuesday as he discussed the open letter to Iran and the value Republicans believe it brings to the debate over President Obama’s proposed nuclear détente with Tehran.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner, the Arkansas Republican suggested that he chose the route of penning a letter to Iran’s leaders because he and most in his party concluded that it was the best way to get Obama’s attention. The letter, signed by 47 Senate Republicans, offers Tehran a tutorial on Congress’ role in approving binding diplomatic agreements.
The missive has generated a furor in Washington and among many in foreign policy circles since it was unveiled on Monday. Particularly rankling was the portion warning that any accord Obama reaches with Iran that isn’t ratified by Congress would be deemed illegitimate and subject to cancelation by the next president.
But Cotton, who did circulate the letter among Senate Democrats but received no takers, dismissed the criticism (including some that came from fellow Republicans) and expressed confidence that letter was having the desired affect. “Clarity is a good thing, and this brought clarity to the matter,” he said.
“The overreaction, as well as the obsession with process and protocol, masks the fact that Barack Obama and other Democrats know they can’t defend the terms of this deal.”
Following is his interview with theExaminer, edited for length and clarity.
Examiner: Why did you write the letter?
Cotton: I thought it was important, as did 46 other Republicans, that Iran’s leaders understand that under our constitutional system, the president negotiates agreements but the Senate has to approve them. Or, the Congress has to approve them as a whole. Many Iran experts will tell you that Iran’s leadership doesn’t fully understand our constitutional system. In fact, some of the president’s own senior aides have said that’s why the Congress shouldn’t pass conditional, prospective sanctions, or shouldn’t pass a bill requiring a review period, because Iran’s leaders wouldn’t understand it.
Examiner: But why communicate this to Tehran rather than the Obama administration?
Cotton: We wanted to have complete confidence that Iran’s leaders understand that Congress must approve the deal if Congress is going to accept the deal. I think the deal that’s been discussed in the media by the president and his own national security advisor, right now, is very dangerous because it sets Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon, sooner or later. But regardless, Congress has to approve, certainly, a nuclear weapons agreement with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, for it to be binding and lasting and the United States.
Examiner: Are you hoping to prod the administration to negotiate a better deal, or send a message to Iran?
Cotton: Iran’s leaders need to understand that if we don’t approve the deal, we don’t accept the deal, now and almost certainly in the future. Likewise, as we wrote in the letter, a future president could eliminate the deal in the stroke of the pen. And you’ve already had four senators who are presidential aspirants sign onto the letter. If anything, our position should help strengthen our negotiators’ hands because it brought that kind of important clarity to Iran’s leadership.
Examiner: Is it realistic for a new president in 2017 to revisit or cancel a deal?
Cotton: Yes, it is realistic. Certainly, if the president doesn’t come to Congress for approval and modification of the sanctions that Congress imposed. The president presumes to say he can waive or modify these sanctions for apparently as long as 10 years, if not longer. But, in part because Congress created those sanctions, then yes it is very realistic for a president first to say ‘I’m not bound by this agreement’ and second to come to Congress and impose new sanctions and to put more pressure on Iran’s regime to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. President Obama essentially dishonored the [George W. Bush-Ariel Sharon] letter of 2004, which was an executive agreement that helped set the terms for Israel to disengage in Gaza in recognition of house developments in the West Bank, and that was actually approved in a nonbinding resolution of both chambers [of Congress]. Yet Barack Obama didn’t like that policy, so he simply repudiated it.
Examiner: Why not send a private letter to the Obama administration rather than an open letter to Iran to make all of these points?
Cotton: Many congressmen and senators of both parties have made that very clear to the president and to his senior advisors, both publicly and privately. What we wanted to make clear on this letter was that Iran understood our position and understood the constitutional system of America. We wanted to make perfectly clear to Iran that we do not accept this as a binding deal if we do not approve it. We wanted to make absolutely certain that was communicated to the leadership of Iran.
Examiner: What did you make of Iran’s reaction?
Cotton: If you look at Javad Zarif’s statement in response to the letter, it proves the need for the letter to begin with. It proves that he does not understand America’s constitutional system.
