US Senators’ attempt to block Iran deal has exposed partisan nature of US politics

The 31 March deadline for a deal between Iran and six world powers is fast approaching. This latest round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme has been ongoing for months – and, if recent rumours are to be believed, there is currently some optimism that the deadline might actually be met. Negotiators stress that major gaps remain and that any deal agreed by the end of March will be a framework agreement, with a more detailed accord expected by the end of June. If a framework is indeed agreed, however, it will be a major breakthrough for President Barack Obama.

But not everyone in the US agrees that this would be a positive development. This week, 47 Republican senators signed an open letter to Iran’s leaders asserting that they could quickly change or discard any agreement once Obama leaves office in 2017. They also insisted that any deal would require the approval of Congress. It is highly unusual for Congress to interfere in matters of US foreign policy, which is usually left to the executive branch of government in the form of the president’s administration. The White House said that the letter was “reckless” and “irresponsible”, adding that it interfered with efforts to prevent Iran from building a bomb.

US Secretary of State John Kerry responded with “utter disbelief” to the intervention, which comes at a sensitive moment in negotiations. “When it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time [it] is flat wrong,” he said. “You don’t have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country.” Under the US Constitution, treaties that legally bind governments to the terms of the agreement must be approved by the Senate. But non-binding executive agreements do not. Kerry also dismissed the idea that a future Republican president would reverse the deal if it were agreed and signed up to by six major world powers. “I’d like to see the next president, if all of those countries have said this is good and it’s working, turn around and just nullify it on behalf of the United States,” he said. “That’s not going to happen.”

There is no doubt that this was a highly provocative move by these senators, although perhaps not entirely surprising given the heated nature of the debate within America on the nuclear deal. In recent weeks, tensions ramped up after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Congress to speak about Iran without consulting the White House.

But why, given that there is no new evidence that Iran is militarising its nuclear power, and that the alternative to a deal is no limits at all on the country’s nuclear programme, are Republican senators so determined to stymie an agreement at all costs? Of course, much of the reason is the toxically divided partisanship currently dominating politics in Washington. Republicans want to undermine Obama to such an extent that they are no longer concerned with appearing to the rest of the world as disunited. Judging from the rapturous response given to Netanyahu when he addressed Congress earlier this month, many also share his view that the Iranians are not to be trusted at all. In this view, increased sanctions and, ultimately, war are more desirable than a deal which puts trust in Iran to limit its nuclear capability in return for an easing of sanctions.

As Obama pointed out on Monday, these Republican hardliners have an “ironic” and “unusual coalition” with hardliners in Tehran, who also want to block a deal. But the Washington Post reported this week that Iranian clerics have said they back the nuclear negotiations, suggesting that they are taking a more moderate line than the Republican senators. Indeed, in inserting themselves into sensitive international negotiations, these senators may have undermined their own goals. The letter has triggered outrage in the US. The New York Daily News described it as “treason”, while the LA Times objected to “the fact that the letter injects the senators into ongoing international negotiations that are properly the prerogative of the executive branch — with the obvious intention of subverting those negotiations”, pointing out that if no agreement is reached, this will make it easier for Iran to blame the US.

The shamelessly partisan behaviour of the Republicans in recent weeks has also discouraged those Democrats who might have been willing to cooperate with them to oppose the deal. The Netanyahu speech angered many, and the letter has cemented the impression of a power-mad and partisan drive to scupper the negotiations. Several Democrats who are reluctant to back the deal have told US media that they are now less likely to work with Republicans.

It is possible that the winners will be the moderates, on both sides, who wish to see a deal. That is what Obama and Kerry will be hoping is true, come 31 March.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.