Republicans Admit: That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea

[kyredneck]

Yea, I'm interested to know what general American opinion on this will be, especially if it actually scuttles the negotiations. Was disappointed to see both KY Senators were in on this.

"A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.....

....even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.....

...Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”....

....“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive,” Corker said. “I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”

Sen. Jeff Flake was another Republican who declined to sign the letter, telling reporters Tuesday that there was already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House, and that the Iranian nuclear threat was “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”

“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful,” Flake said......"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-admit-that-iran-letter-was-a-dumb-idea.html


IMHO, this attempt by the GOP congress 'to govern' has the potential to backfire on them come 2016 elections.

 

[kyredneck]

Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors

"Republican senators' letter to Iran about ongoing nuclear talks has prompted a lengthy response from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who delivered an overview of international law as he critiqued the letter.

Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.

The Iranian minister said that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy."...

...The letter seemed to strike a nerve for Zarif, who moved to the U.S. as a teenager and holds a doctorate and two other advanced degrees from American universities....

...The senators cited the U.S. process of ratifying treaties in Congress and President Obama's term that expires in January of 2017...

...President Obama said, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran" who are also against making a deal over Iran's nuclear program....

Zarif, noting that negotiations are ongoing and haven't yielded an agreement, said the U.S. lawmakers' "unconventional methods" show that they "are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."

Saying he hopes to "enrich the knowledge of the authors," Zarif said:

"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been "mere executive agreements," and not full treaties that received Senate ratification.

He said any deal on sanctions and Iran's nuclear program would not be bilateral; would require approval by the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council; and would not be subject to modification by Congress.

He added, "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."....

For a different perspective, Ailsa spoke to Richard Nephew, who was on U.S. teams negotiating with Iran during both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Nephew said, "The idea that a sitting group of senators of either party would write to the other side of a negotiation to say, 'Eh, don't sign a deal with these guys' — to me, it really smacks of a misplaced understanding of how the international system is supposed to work."..."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...r-propaganda-ploy-offers-to-enlighten-authors

Again, IMO, all this could come back and bite the Republicans later.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There is precedent. The democrats sent a similar letter to Daniel Noriega in 1984, and Ted Kennedy met with Breshnev around the same time. Just another game they play.

 

[carpro]

It's not a new tactic, but...

No letter of any kind from anybody would be necessary if Obama was not trying to make a treaty without Senate approval.

Just another example of his lawlessness.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is precedent. The democrats sent a similar letter to Daniel Noriega in 1984, and Ted Kennedy met with Breshnev around the same time. Just another game they play.

Doesn't matter. It was a dumb idea.Now the GOP is seen as supporting Iran's hard liners and we know they hate us. So, this puts the GOP in a very negative light. The GOP letter is an attempt to derail negotiations with Iran, a direct interference. Wisely the Iranian government officials saw it for what it is and called it propaganda. The GOP should be embarrassed.

I read the letter to Noriega and it certainly was nothing like the one sent to Iran.

Lots of senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle met with Brezhnev. Also not the same at all.

 

[carpro]

Only to Obama acolytes.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Doesn't matter. It was a dumb idea.Now the GOP is seen as supporting Iran's hard liners and we know they hate us. So, this puts the GOP in a very negative light. The GOP letter is an attempt to derail negotiations with Iran, a direct interference. Wisely the Iranian government officials saw it for what it is and called it propaganda. The GOP should be embarrassed.

I read the letter to Noriega and it certainly was nothing like the one sent to Iran.

Then I doubt you read it. You've certainly lied about reading stuff before.

Lots of senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle met with Brezhnev. Also not the same at all.

Again, exactly the same principle.
I agree that it was a dumb idea but your conclusion is ridiculous. The GOP is telling them a peace treaty with Iran is out the window in 2 years. How in the world can you twist that as colluding ?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

No letter of any kind from anybody would be necessary if Obama was not trying to make a treaty without Senate approval.

That is a fair point.

 

[church mouse guy]

What is a dumb idea is that Obama wants to make a useless deal with Iran and enforce it by executive order for the last two years of his term.

The GOP has brought all of this on themselves by refusing to stand up to Obama for the last six years. The letter was just a sign of GOP weakness that Obama has not invited them to the table by promising to submit the deal to the US Senate. Obama has signaled that the deal with Iran that he makes will be an executive order.

Indiana US Senator Dan Coats did not sign the letter, but then he has slept with the dogs so much that he has fleas.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's not a new tactic, but...

No letter of any kind from anybody would be necessary if Obama was not trying to make a treaty without Senate approval.

Just another example of his lawlessness.

Quite untrue. The Senate has no responsibility in negotiating treaties, only is approving them once they have been agreed to by the executive branch. To meddle in the negotiations is not part of the Senate's responsibility.

Now the GOP is lumped in with the Islam, Iranian hard liners whose only goal is harming the USA.

 

[church mouse guy]

The GOP did not negotiate anything with Iran. They merely pointed out that the deal is not a treaty but an executive order by the Democrats and that it is likely to expire in January 2017. It doesn't matter--Iran will have the nuclear bomb by the time Obama leaves office.

 

[carpro]

Now the GOP is lumped in with the Islam, Iranian hard liners whose only goal is harming the USA.

:laugh:

Straight out of Obama's mouth. Got anything original?

 

[kyredneck]

The Options

Excerpt from what I thought was overall an informative piece

9 questions about Iran’s nuclear program you were too embarrassed to ask November 25, 2013

"...8. So an Iranian nuclear weapon would be bad. What can the world do to stop it?

Not a lot. There are four bad options and one okay option.

The first bad option is to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, which probably wouldn't set Iran back more than a few months but would almost certainly make Tehran more likely to develop a nuclear weapon. This would also likely reduce international support for efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program.

The second bad option is a full-on invasion to topple the government. After the disastrous 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a country that is much smaller and weaker, this is quite simply not on the table.

The third bad option is to try to topple the government in other ways. But the Islamic Republic has survived tougher things than we can throw at them. Even in Iran's mass 2009 protests after the disputed presidential election, people were calling for the government to behave better, not for it to collapse outright. Any Western-led effort to topple the government is probably just going to deepen its popular support and make Iran more likely to want a nuclear weapon to protect itself.

The fourth bad option is to try to force Iran to surrender and simply give up its nuclear program. This would be the status quo. International sanctions have indeed taken a tremendous toll on Iran. Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli efforts to sabotage the Iranian program, such as through cyber-attacks, have found some real successes. But Iran's nuclear program has continued to grow despite all these efforts. The world, it seems, can slow them but not stop them.

That brings us to option number five: negotiating a deal directly with Tehran. This is the direction that the world is moving in with this weekend's agreement. The goal is that Iran gets its dignity-affirming nuclear program, but with enough restrictions and inspections and limitations that the rest of the world can accept it as peaceful. The downside is that this would be difficult to enact, no deal will please everybody and, most pointedly, it requires trusting Iran with a nuclear program even though it has cheated on past agreements. The upside is that all of the other options are much worse...."

 

[carpro]

That brings us to option number five: negotiating a deal directly with Tehran. This is the direction that the world is moving in with this weekend's agreement. The goal is that Iran gets its dignity-affirming nuclear program, but with enough restrictions and inspections and limitations that the rest of the world can accept it as peaceful. The downside is that this would be difficult to enact, no deal will please everybody and, most pointedly, it requires trusting Iran with a nuclear program even though it has cheated on past agreements. The upside is that all of the other options are much worse...."

Pretty sorry excuse to make a deal. An agreement everyone knows Iran won't honor? Smells more like political cover and legacy building for our islamic sympathizing president.

 

[OldRegular]

Now the GOP is lumped in with the Islam, Iranian hard liners whose only goal is harming the USA. [/FONT][/SIZE]

You mean to tell me they have joined ranks with Obama and Kerry!

 

[OldRegular]

Yea, I'm interested to know what general American opinion on this will be, especially if it actually scuttles the negotiations. Was disappointed to see both KY Senators were in on this.

"A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.....

....even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.....

...Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”....

....“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive,” Corker said. “I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”

Sen. Jeff Flake was another Republican who declined to sign the letter, telling reporters Tuesday that there was already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House, and that the Iranian nuclear threat was “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”

“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful,” Flake said......"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-admit-that-iran-letter-was-a-dumb-idea.html


IMHO, this attempt by the GOP congress 'to govern' has the potential to backfire on them come 2016 elections.

So you stand with the Daily Beast and Crabbie?

Senator Graham was on Fox this morning. he said he signed the letter only after Obummer said he would veto the Senate legislation being proposed by Sen. Corker of Tenn. He certainly expressed no regrets at signing the letter!

 

[Revmitchell]

Now the GOP is lumped in with the Islam, Iranian hard liners whose only goal is harming the USA.

Ants kill elephants.


Oh wait I thought we were just making stuff up that no on could believe anyone. Silly me.

 

[kyredneck]

So you stand with the Daily Beast and Crabbie?

What kind of question is that? I want the administration to get a good deal and narrow-minded hothead ignoramuses won't even give the negotiations a chance to see what comes of them.

Those jockeying for war should have to be with the first wave in.

 

[Zaac]

What kind of question is that? I want the administration to get a good deal and narrow-minded hothead ignoramuses won't even give the negotiations a chance to see what comes of them.

Those jockeying for war should have to be with the first wave in.

And jockeying for war is one of the primary reasons this will backfire on the GOP. It will be viewed by a lot of the American people as a desire to return to the Bush years and more war.

On one hand you have a President trying to negotiate a deal and keep everyone out of war. On the other you have a party and its leadership trying to undermine the negotiations to prevent war. This is right in line with trying to use Netanyahu's speech to influence foreign policy.

They look stupid.

Israel will do what Israel needs to do, agreement or not. So what's the point in throwing yourself on the sword and borderline committing treason?

 

[kyredneck]

And jockeying for war is one of the primary reasons this will backfire on the GOP. It will be viewed by a lot of the American people as a desire to return to the Bush years and more war.

On one hand you have a President trying to negotiate a deal and keep everyone out of war.....

It makes absolutely no sense for the Republicans to be interfering at this moment. They could at least stay out of it until they see what the framework agreement is going to be, but they're blatantly trying to scuttle the negotiations now. Yes, I believe this will be used against them big time in catching the blame for no deal.