Important distinctions are too often lost in the heat of controversy. The problem with the letter sent to the Iranian government by 47 Republican senators was not its addressee but its content.

Had they confined their message to the fact that they are opposed to the deal they believed was emerging regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity, it would have been an entirely legitimate expression of their view.

What made it a wholly inappropriate infringement on our constitutional system of government was the threat that if the president were to conclude an agreement within the scope of his legitimate authority to conduct foreign policy, they would use any control they gained within the legislative branch to disregard it.

Formally communicating to another country that the solemn commitment of the president of the United States has no binding force is a recipe for American impotence in global affairs.

I stress this difference because this column is my own effort to communicate with the Iranian government. I do this not to assert a right to repudiate any deal the president might make, but to reinforce the message that if Ayatollah Khamenei insists on severely restricting the right of independent inspection as part of any agreement, it will be impossible for the president to persuade the American people to accept it at the outset – and in fact I do not believe that he would even want to do so.

I continue to support an agreement of the sort that has been outlined because the only other possible outcomes are no deal at all or a war with even more terrible consequences than the Iraq disaster.

True, some critics, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claim they really do want a deal. But they then outline an absolutely unreachable one that is much tougher than the one on the table, not just on nuclear matters, but on Iran’s general foreign and domestic policies.

I agree with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that it would be a good thing if Iran recognized Israel. I also agree (he is a demagogue on this issue, not an ignoramus) that insisting on this as a condition rules out any accommodation on nuclear weapons work.

Similarly, anyone who listens to Netanyahu’s deep conviction that Iran is an existential threat to Israel is led inescapably to realize that he does not want an outcome that in any way makes Iran less of a pariah to the West, short of fundamental changes that go far beyond severely retarding a nuclear weapons capacity.

To date, the American people seem to understand that an agreement is the least bad of the outcomes that are possible, given the reality – which President Obama inherited – of the Iranian regime. That is why for all their partisan rhetoric, which ignores the fact that Obama has taken the effort to restrain Iran far beyond what George Bush accomplished, the congressional Republicans have settled on a legislative course that will allow them to express unhappiness with the outcome of the current negotiations without actually derailing them.

But – and this is what the ayatollah must understand – the acquiescence of the American public will turn to opposition if there is no provision for legitimate, unrestrained, independent inspection to ensure compliance. I do not think the president would seek to win support for such an incomplete approach, but even if he did, there are constitutionally legitimate ways for Congress to block it – for example by a veto-proof enactment of very tough economic sanctions unwaivable by the executive. (Liberals who doubt this should remember when we – I was then a member of Congress – did this to South Africa, over President Reagan’s morally obtuse objection.)

I take some pride in my role as Financial Services Committee chair in helping adopt the existing sanctions, which have inflicted enough economic pain on Iran to drive them to seek a deal. They should know that rejection of a reliable inspection regime will very likely lead not just to continuation of existing restrictions, but also to much tighter ones.

Barney Frank is a retired congressman and the author of landmark legislation. He divides his time between Maine and Massachusetts.

Twitter: BarneyFrank

 

Copy the Story Link