Mediaboss Marketing

As first reported byBloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program. It was organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and advisedthe Iranian leadership that "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

The letter is brief, and can be read in full here.Republican lawmakers are opposed to the Obama administration's current overtures to Iran, a disagreement that was put into stark relief last week by the polarizing speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a joint meeting of Congress. This is yet another tactic to scupper a potential deal.

Itstarts with the patronizing premise that "you may not fully understand our Constitutional system" and goes on to explain, first, that any international treaty will need to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and that, unlike the president of the United States, senators"may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms." The message to the mullahs:don't get comfortable with anydeal, because we're going to scrap it as soon as we can.

Onthe Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong:

The letter states that the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote. But asthe Senates own web page makes clear: The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent,empowering the president to proceed with ratification (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Reporton the Senates role in treaty-making states (at 117): It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent. Ratification is the formal act of the nations consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented is returned to the President, he may simply decide not to ratify the treaty.

Dan Drezner, writing for Post Everything, adds that the letter may "paradoxically help Obama" by persuadingIran's leaders to hatcha successful bargain now with the United States rather than further down the road after Obama has departed. Some argue that a deal pushed through by the White Housewill not be that easy to overturn later, especially if it appears to be working.

Forty-seven Republican senators signed a letter to the government of Iran, warning that any deal they make with President Obama can be rolled back after a new president takes power. (Reuters)

Whatever its effects in Washington, the letter is almost farcically condescending in word and tone. Iran's leaders are well aware of how the United States works. The country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, spent the better part of a decade as the Iranian envoy to the United Nations; like many others in the Iranian cabinet, he was partly educated in the United States.

It reflects the willfulignorance on the part of many hawks in Washington who insist on seeing Iran purely as an irrational actor and a permanent regional threat. As WorldViews discussed earlier, Iran is problematic in many ways, and its regime plays a role in fueling proxy wars in parts of the Middle East. But one can argue that the same is true of Washington's chief Arabally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif described an open letter on a nuclear deal with Iran signed by U.S. Republican senators as a propaganda ploy from pressure groups afraid of diplomatic agreement. (Reuters)

Read more:
WorldViews: The misguided, condescending letter from Republican senators to Iran