Republicans in the Senate don’t trust Iran. They don’t trust President Obama to negotiate with Iran. Since he is part of a worldwide coalition seeking a nuclear deal with Iran — including Russia, China, European and Asian allies — they apparently don’t trust them either.
They only have eyes for Israel’s war hawk-in-chief, Benjamin Netanyahu, who also says no one can be trusted. In their view, the only way to prevent Iran from getting a bomb is to ratchet up punishing sanctions. And if that doesn’t work, over the top, men. Attack! Bibi showed his mettle, and theirs, by appearing in Congress to attack a sitting president.
Not content with this, the youngest Senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, with six weeks Senate experience under his belt, persuaded 46 of his colleagues to sign a letter to the Ayatollahs of Iran telling them not to bother negotiating a nuclear deal with Obama. It’s pointless because the Senate will renege on any deal as soon as Obama leaves office. This condescending missive was presented to the Iranians as a primer on the Constitution, though several in the leadership are American educated and presumably know as well as Cotton that his letter is an extreme step. Some say it could violate the Logan Act, which dates back to 1799 and prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.
I suppose Cotton and friends could argue that “refusing to negotiate” with foreign governments isn’t quite the same thing. But as a Harvard educated lawyer, Cotton ought to know better. But perhaps that gives too much credit to the credential. A wag once pointed out that even at Harvard somebody was at the bottom of every class. I once worked with a Harvard man whose cleverness far outran his common sense. Other notable alums include, Putzi Hanfstaengl, Hitler’s piano player and court jester, Jeff Skilling, the Enron crook, and the Unabomber.
Perhaps Cotton was absent the day his class got around to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Logan Act and the separation of powers question implicit in it. They said: “The president alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.”
Presumably that’s what sticks in the craw of Cotton and his fellow Republican Senators. They look at themselves in the mirror each morning and see the next president of the United States. But for the nonce, Barack Obama, Harvard Law, is President, and they can’t bear it. Worse, as the Supreme Court starkly puts it, on this sort of negotiation they are powerless. Damn James Madison and his separation of powers!
Those who know the murky world of international diplomacy far better than young Tommy Cotton think the letter and the Netanyahu attack are really risky business. Much of the world is united in thinking Iran is dangerous and should not be permitted to gain nuclear arms. They are cooperating in the current negotiations and the threat of continued or worsening sanctions in the hope that Iran will see reason. They are willing to wait and see if the negotiators can succeed.
They may not, and then a similar coalition will still be needed to deal with the aftermath, to impose harsher sanctions, perhaps, or to destroy the capacity of Iran to arm itself with nukes. But all those involved, with the exception of Likud and the Cotton Club, are reluctant to rush to such an endgame. Why? Maybe they remember the bold talk about how Iraq and Afghanistan would be pushovers that came from W, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and friends. Instead, the cakewalk turned into a bloody decade-long quagmire with endless unintended consequences.
And Iran would be many times worse. First, at any hint of hostilities it would surely accelerate its rush to nuclear weapons. Unlike in the case of Saddam, we could wind up facing WMDs. Those who remember history rather than yearn to repeat it also may recall the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It lasted eight years, ended in a stalemate and by conservative estimates Iraq lost 300,000 dead perhaps 400,000 wounded. Iran lost 500,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. They seemed able to take a lot more punishment than we might be willing to dish out or take ourselves. And any fantasy that we will eliminate their nuclear option by air power alone is nonsense.
Iran is big, four times as large as Iraq, almost as big as Mexico. A lot of places to hide a nuclear program. A lot of territory to invade. It has a large population too, nearing 80 million, almost three times the size of Iraq. And it is young, over half the people are under 30. That’s a lot of cannon fodder, if it turns into a war of attrition.
Cooler heads than those rallied by Cotton think negotiating is a good idea because the alternatives are repulsive. They also think the Supreme Leader, at 75, may not have too much longer at the helm and a change of regime to a younger leadership team might improve prospects. Many of the young lack enthusiasm for a repressive theocracy and are not opposed to friendly relations with the West. But sanctions that make their lives miserable and any attack from outside would likely strengthen the hand of the regime, not undermine it. As would happen here.
Many also fault the Senators for giving the Iranians an excuse to ditch the negotiations and blame the failure on the U.S. The intrusion of Cotton could also offer wobbly allies on our side of the table a reason to run for cover. No doubt if we found ourselves alone after the Senate caused negotiations to fail and disgruntled allies to defect from a sanctions regime, Netanyahu would be happy to hold our coat as we tried to render Iran a nuclear free zone by force. Our competitors and enemies, such as Russia and China, would also be delighted to watch us descend into another decade-long mess in the Middle East.
Did the Cotton Club think about any of this? Or did they just think it would be fun to poke Obama in the eye, to scare the country with the notion of nuclear terrorism, to paint the Democrats as weak on defense, and to proclaim that the greatest country in the world couldn’t possibly lose a war? Especially after 2016, when led by a real Commander-in-Chief. Someone like President Cruz or President Scott Walker, scourge of the teacher’s union, or Bush III or Tommy Cotton.
Why not? He’s got the right stuff. In the words of Clint Eastwood, “he’s a legend in his own mind.” And, unlike his party’s sainted hero, Ronald Reagan, arms negotiator, his motto is not “Trust, But Verify.” It is Distrust and Vilify.