Freshman Republican Senator Tom Cotton tells CBS News he stands behind his letter to Iran, saying it is critical to stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon.Reuters
Those hoping for measured, high-minded public discourse on the delicate relationship between the U.S. and Iran will probably find little comfort in the fact that the latest development on that front last week involved Senator Debbie Stabenow trying to take her colleagues' stationery away.
On Wednesday, the Michigan Democrat filed a firmly tongue-in-cheek budget amendment in the Senate "prohibiting the purchase of stationery or electronic devices for the purpose of members of Congress or congressional staff communicating with foreign governments and undermining the role of the President as Head of State in international nuclear negotiations on behalf of the United States."
The amendment was a clear shot at Republican Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas, who earlier this month made a heroic attempt at crafting the most extreme piece of Iran-related grandstanding yet, when he authored and convinced 46 of his fellow Republicans to sign an open letter to Tehran. The letter, written in the guise of a civics lesson, sought to derail President Barack Obama's ongoing nuclear discussions, in part by warning Iranian leaders that Congress or the next President may well tear the whole thing up.
"President Obama will leave office in January, 2017," the letter noted, "while most of us will remain in office well beyond then – perhaps decades."
The relationship between Washington and Tehran has been, for many years, antagonistic, oblique and complex – perhaps no more complex than in recent months, as Iranian and U.S. leaders navigate a delicate nuclear agreement, possible political rapprochement and a growing number of proxy conflicts throughout the Middle East. It is, in all, one of the most nuanced political relationships on Earth.
That's why it is all the more ironic that so much of the public-facing narrative of that relationship – composed mostly of open letters and video messages between the two country's leaders – is so often the exact opposite: hyperbolic, oversimplified and delivered with all the subtlety of a brick through the window.
The most recent exchange of public-facing messages between the two countries began in January, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, issued a letter "to the youth in Europe and North America." The letter, written in the aftermath of bloody attacks in Paris by Islamist militants, aimed to correct what the Ayatollah saw as a distorted image of Islam in the West.
"I don't address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth," he wrote.
Publicly condemning and ignoring Western politicians, and in particular those in the U.S., is not particularly surprising given Tehran's tense relationship with a country long-described by some Iranian leaders as "the great Satan." However, as negotiators appeared closer and closer to a nuclear deal, Mr. Cotton and his Republican colleagues also opted to forgo official channels and address Tehran directly – a move widely seen as an attempt to weaken Mr. Obama's position.
That, in turn, compelled the President to issue his own public message. Like Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Obama addressed his video message primarily at the people, rather than leadership, of Iran. Of all the missives released this year, the President's appeared by far the most conciliatory in tone, beginning with a congratulatory greeting on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year. Indeed, the closest Mr. Obama came to antagonism was a passive-aggressive shot at politicians in Washington.
"Our negotiations have made progress but gaps remain," he said. "And there are people in both our countries and beyond who oppose a diplomatic resolution."
Although many of the most public statements on Iran-U.S. relations in recent months have served as little more than tools for grandstanding, some do carry far more significant subtext. Ten days after Mr. Cotton issued his missive to Tehran, another group of Washington lawmakers wrote an open letter to Mr. Obama, also expressing serious concerns about what a final deal with Iran should entail. And while Mr. Cotton's claims that Congress could easily overturn any deal were hard to take seriously given that only 47 politicians signed it, the bipartisan letter to Mr. Obama was signed by 367 members of the House – more than enough to override the President's veto power.
"Although the tone of the letter was respectful and co-operative, it represented a clear warning shot across the administration's bow," wrote Brookings Institute fellow and former Bill Clinton policy adviser William A. Galston in an analysis of the bipartisan letter.
"Unless the terms of a proposed final agreement definitively foreclose any Iranian pathway to a bomb, Congress will not be able to consider permanent sanctions relief."