Opinions

Sen. Sullivan blundered when he signed Cotton's Iran letter

Sen. Dan Sullivan has taken a lot of flak for his signing of Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton's letter to Iran, and deservedly so. His signature not only contributed to a huge policy blunder, it has hurt the capacity of the U.S. government to conduct foreign policy down the road, regardless of who is in office.

For context, Sullivan signed a letter, penned by Cotton, addressed to the "Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" in the midst of negotiations to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. These senators, ironically taking the same position of the anti-Western hardliners of Iran, wanted to undermine the Obama administration's attempt to diplomatically prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry.

The letter briefly stated two points. One was that the Senate must ratify any agreement between the U.S. and Iran. The other was an explanation of term limits for the Senate and presidency.

The first point is technically wrong. The Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, rather they approve or reject a resolution of ratification for a treaty; ratification occurs when the governments close the deal. While Sullivan apparently doesn't fully understand this, the more important issue is that an Iran deal may not even be a treaty, it can be executive agreement. Not acknowledging this is simply misleading the American people.

The second point is simply condescending. Iran's government cabinet has the highest number of U.S. alumni in a foreign cabinet. It's plain ignorance if Cotton, Sullivan and the others assume that Iranian leadership is unaware of U.S. term limits. If it's simply condescending, passive-aggressive diplomacy now has a "Made in USA" stamp on it. By the way, that's not how a responsible superpower should act.

The letter alone is legally questionable, and is likely in breach of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized actors to negotiate with foreign governments. The president, secretary of state and respective ambassadors conduct foreign policy dealings with other nations, and with the work of the State Department.

Not only is it not the jobs of these senators to conduct such communication, it is not a function of a responsible foreign policy, and conflicting messages from government officials make the entire nation look weak at the soft power level. Cotton and company's future political ambitions are not more important than how the U.S. interacts with the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is no doubt that many members in the Senate and House have nothing but contempt for President Barack Obama. However, by claiming that the U.S. can simply forgo international agreements, the 47 are not weakening the Obama administration, they're eroding the efficiency with which the U.S. conducts itself with other nations, ruining future chances for human rights, development, etc. Can the far right really expect the same respect and capacity to conduct diplomacy if they took the White House? It's a foolish mistake, and Sullivan's name is literally on it.

It's disappointing to see Sullivan continually showcase his name and defend the letter in the media. A recent CNN poll revealed that 68 percent of Americans support talks with Iran. Despite Sullivan's "sky is falling" approach to the congressional role in a treaty, the obvious should be pointed out: The U.S. and Iran are still in talks, which are incredibly progressive given the rocky history.

Sullivan harps on the Constitution, while forgetting his recent constitutional mishap, trying to be a Marine Corps reserve commander and a sitting senator at the same time. He stated that sanctions in 2011 are what brought Iran to the table and should not be conceded. One, the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, took office in 2013. Two, Iran is at the table now, and that's where you negotiate, even if compromise is a foreign concept in Washington.

Iran is far from perfect, and is still a geopolitical rival, but a rival willing to negotiate a reduction in nuclear power. Even President Ronald Reagan did that with the USSR.

Sullivan's signature is irresponsible, not representative of the American people and certainly not beneficial to Alaskans. Despite the partisanship that poisons our election cycles, this isn't a matter of big or small government, it's a matter of smart government, and Sullivan has already failed Alaska and the rest of the U.S. on that.

Brett Scruton is a born and raised Alaskan working on his master's degree in public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Brett Scruton

Brett Scruton is a born and raised Alaskan working on his Master's degree in Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

ADVERTISEMENT