Analysis of GOP Senators’ Letter to Iran

There has been a great deal of discussion with regards to recent developments between United States and Iranian international relations, particularly with regards to diplomatic efforts to solve the nuclear situation. The United States–under President Barack Obama–has been active to try to come to a political agreement to Iran’s nuclear program.

However, things have recently become a bit more complicated. 47 Republican Senators of the United States of America signed an open letter to Iran. The letter seems to suggest the regardless of what deal the President makes with Iran over their nuclear program, that Congress could still revoke any such agreement (Mediate.com). Others have called the letter “treacherous betrayal.”

However, there has been a great deal of criticism about this letter. Some have been upset that it looks to challenge the direct authority of the United States Commander in Chief. For example, President Obama was quoted as saying that ““It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” … “It’s an unusual coalition.” Along with the statements by the President, Vice President Joseph Biden called the letter “dangerous”. In addition, “Minority Leader Harry Reid said. “Republicans are undermining our commander-in-chief while empowering the ayatollahs” (Friedman, 2015). And Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow was quoted as saying that “I find it hard to believe that they understood the severity of what they were doing” (Politico, 2015).

And while there have been many other critical statements along the lines of what some of the U.S. political leaders have states amongst U.S. politicians, foreign leaders also challenged the letter. For example, “Germanys’ foreign minister [Frank-Walter Steinmeier] said Thursday in Washington that a letter by signed by 47 GOP senators warning that the next U.S. president could scrap any nuclear deal with Tehran was “not very helpful” as negotiations with Iran enter a “delicate phase”” (Stanglin, 2015). And Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said that it showed “disorganization” in D.C., and also that “”Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing” (Reuters, Huffington Post, 2015). He went on to say that “”Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions” (Reuters, Huffington Post, 2015).

But more than just statements against the letter, some legal experts have suggested that it is actually a criminal act. For example, some argue that the letter “is a violation of the 1799 Logan Act, which says starkly:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent 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 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” (Moran, 2015).

Interestingly, while there is debate on the legality of the letter to Iran, some have pointed out that there have been other historical cases where an act along these lines has taken place. For example, “in 1920, 88 members of the House of Representatives sent a cable to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and the British Parliament to protest against Britain’s treatment of Irish prisoners being held without arraignment or trial. This was directly contrary to the policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who sought closer relations with Great Britain at the time, and who did not support Ireland’s push for independence.” Along with this case, “In 1927, the Senate’s anti-imperialist “peace progressives,” led by Sen. William Borah, R-Idaho), wrote directly to the Mexican president in an effort to renegotiate oil leases granted to U.S. oil companies under an agreement reached by President Coolidge.” And, “In 1975, Sens. John Sparkman, D-Ala., and George McGovern, D-S.D., traveled to Cuba to negotiate directly with Fidel Castro about easing relations” (Moran, 2015).

With regards to the letter, there are many that are still upset at how these Republican Senators approached the situation. In fact, “Some Republican senators admitted Wednesday they were caught off guard by the backlash to a letter warning Iranian leaders against a nuclear agreement with President Barack Obama. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Republicans — many of whom blessed the missive during a brisk signing session at a Senate lunch a week ago, as senators prepared to flee a Washington snowstorm — should have given it closer consideration” (Politico, 2015). Regarding this point, Senator John McCain was quoted as saying that: ““It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is” (Politico, 2015).

The letter is concerning since it seems to make negotiations between the United States and Iran more difficult. The two sides need to build trust with one another, and this letter doesn’t seem to do that. In addition, there could in fact be those who do not want a nuclear deal to be happy with such a letter. There is so much at stake with ensuring that a strong nuclear deal is set, and thus, it does not seem to be productive to send a letter in this fashion, right before another round of talks. 

Interestingly, this letter seems to be a great example of the idea that one cannot treat the state as a unified actor in international relations. Realists historically have wanted to suggest that the state has a unified foreign policy (and internal differences do not matter), but this seems to offer support the idea that liberalism (and liberalists) have argued that when studying international relations theory, one needs to learn about the different powerful actors within the state. Leaders within a country are not always in agreement about foreign policies.