Foreign policy by committee

The Republican letter drafted by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to the leaders of Iran proposes, in effect, what could only be construed as “foreign policy by committee.” This is truly striking, and one can only conclude that the real purpose of this correspondence was to embarrass the president. In reality, it compromised important negotiations.

{mosads}The contrast between the Republican position on Iran and the president’s request for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is striking. TPA will allow the executive branch to negotiate trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and submit them to Congress for an up-or-down vote. There would be little or no congressional input, no ability to renegotiate the deal and given the strong commitment of the vast majority of the signers of Cotton’s letter to TPA, it should give us pause given the blatant inconsistent application of constitutional principles so emphatically cited in Cotton’s letter.

Is it Congress’s intention to punt to the executive on matters of trade, because philosophically the signers of Cotton’s letter are in concert with the president, but to attempt to take back the constitutional authority of the president with regard to Iran? There is no practical difference between the executive branch’s process in negotiating TPP versus negotiations with Iran. It is impossible to imagine negotiation by committee of the complex issues that require resolution in order to strike a deal before we can effectively move forward. Congress is not at the negotiation table, nor should it be with regard to Iran nor TPP; it simply wouldn’t work.

Recent disclosures by the Department of Defense about “bunker buster” bombs being more effective than in 2012 adds an interesting twist to the discussion of the Iranian nuclear agreement. If one were slightly Machiavellian, it might be perceived as a subtle warning to the Iranians from the administration to stick with the deal. If the latter, I like it. We should not lose sight that any use of the “bunker busters” will likely result not in destruction of Iran’s nuclear capacity but merely a several year delay and the elimination of the threat of further military action.

The Iranian nuclear agreement certainly needs to be critically analyzed by our military leaders and scientists, like Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and others, so that Congress and the American public can decide, based upon the facts, if it is our “best bet.” I suspect it is.

Clearly, Congress has a role and legislation to provide for an up-or-down vote is appropriate, including termination or abatement of the sanctions. This would be consistent with the approach to TPA: Allowing the administration to conduct its negotiations and then giving Congress its rightful role in the process. I think we all recognize that the sanctions have, in fact, worked; if the announced deal is breached, then sanctions can be immediately reinstated.

Owens represented New York’s North Country from 2009 until retiring from the House in 2015. He is now a senior strategic adviser in the Washington office of McKenna, Long and Aldridge and a partner in the Plattsburgh, N.Y. firm of Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane, Kelleher & Trombley, PLLC.