This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/politics/republican-moves-imperil-democratic-cooperation-on-iran.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Republican Moves Imperil Democratic Cooperation on Iran Irate Democrats Denounce G.O.P on Iran Letter
(about 9 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The open letter that 47 Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s leadership on Monday warning about making a nuclear agreement with President Obama is forcing Democrats to choose between confronting Tehran and rallying around Mr. Obama as he searches for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. WASHINGTON — Angry Democrats on Tuesday excoriated the open letter sent to Iran’s leadership warning about a nuclear agreement with President Obama, but the 47 Republicans who signed it remained defiant and unapologetic, saying the president should have seen their opposition coming.
Democrats say that as concerned as they are about an emerging deal with Iran, Republicans’ extraordinary moves to undermine Mr. Obama’s efforts to reach an agreement are weakening their resolve to cross party lines and challenge their own president. The recriminations from Democrats threatened to unravel the bipartisan coalition that had been building to oppose a deal, though Democrats also confronted the choice between challenging Tehran and rallying behind the president. “I think Republicans have made it harder for us to approach this in a careful and bipartisan way,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, who has led his party’s push for congressional review of the administration’s policies on war and sanctions, and sponsored a bill that would allow Congress to review any removal of congressionally imposed sanctions against Iran.
“I think Republicans have made it harder for us to approach this in a careful and bipartisan way,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, who has been a leader in his party on pushing for congressional review of the administration’s policies on war and sanctions, and is a sponsor of a bill to review any removal of congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran. Democrats said the Republicans’ letter, written by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, undermined Mr. Obama’s efforts to reach an agreement but also weakened their resolve to cross party lines and challenge their own president.
He added: “I regret that this partisan and nutty behavior makes people focus on politics and not the substance.” Her voice shaking with rage, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said that while she had opposed the war in Iraq, “I never would have sent a letter to Saddam Hussein.”
On Tuesday, Democrats took to the Senate floor to denounce the letter to Iran. Noting that she had opposed the war in Iraq under President George W. Bush, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, her voice shaking with rage, said, “I never would have sent a letter to Saddam Hussein.” Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, said, “We can disagree about the specifics, but we still have to honor the institution of the presidency. And when it becomes matters of war and peace, then we’ve got to unify. And that’s why I’m so saddened that we’ve come to the point at which we appear to be so divided.”
Republicans said Mr. Obama’s actions were unduly provocative. “I think it’s pretty obvious that the president does not want Congress to have any say-so over the bad deal that we are certain he seems to be inclined to make,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who was among those who signed the letter. “I think all of us should be suspicious of an administration that’s so intent on keeping the elective representatives to the American people out of this deal,” he added.
The Republican hardball tactics, while angering Democrats in the moment, could prove effective. Democrats may well support legislation to review a nuclear agreement if it comes up for votes in the House and Senate after March 24, one week before the next negotiating deadline, although they have said they would not do so before that date.
Indeed on Tuesday, Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, signed onto the oversight legislation led by Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. Mr. Corker was among seven Republicans who did not sign the letter. “I thought it was best to focus on my bill,” he said.
At the same time, more conservative Republicans are bolstering their position with their pro-Israel evangelical base and appealing to Jewish voters and political donors.
“I don’t know why they did what they did,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland and a strong Israel supporter. “It certainly was not helpful.” But, ultimately, he said he would vote for the legislation demanding congressional review of an Iran nuclear deal. “Oh yeah, we’ll support it,” he said of his fellow Democrats. “I support congressional review. I think congressional review makes sense.”
The White House, which is working to head off a Democratic revolt on the deal, is in the meantime seeking to capitalize on the deepening partisan rift.The White House, which is working to head off a Democratic revolt on the deal, is in the meantime seeking to capitalize on the deepening partisan rift.
In a lengthy and harshly worded statement released late Monday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Senate veteran of more than three decades and a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he could recall no other instance in which senators had written to the leaders of another country, “much less a foreign adversary,” to say the president had no authority to strike a deal with them. In a lengthy and harshly worded statement released late Monday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Senate veteran of more than three decades and a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he could recall no other instance in which senators had written to the leaders of another country, “much less a foreign adversary,” to say the president had no authority to strike an accord with them.
“This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Biden said. “Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.”“This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Biden said. “Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.”
Mr. Biden’s public outrage signaled that the White House planned to use its most trusted and experienced emissary to Capitol Hill to make the case to Senate Democrats that whatever they might think of the emerging nuclear deal, Republicans had crossed an inviolable line on foreign policy. Hillary Rodham Clinton also weighed in during a news conference in which she defended her use of a private email account while secretary of state. “The recent letter from Republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of American leadership,” she said. “And one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?”
The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who has been steeped in the negotiations with Secretary of State John Kerry and other leaders, said the letter suggested that the United States could not be trusted. Two bills — one to increase economic sanctions against Iran and another to force the administration to bring any deal with Iran to Congress for review — have been co-sponsored by several Democrats. Both measures stand a chance of drawing a veto-proof majority in the Senate, which would be a humiliating outcome for Mr. Obama. The president has vowed to veto both bills.
“This kind of correspondence, which is an unprecedented and nondiplomatic action, in fact, tells us that the United States is not trustworthy,” Mr. Zarif was quoted by Iranian news agencies as saying. The Republicans’ aggressiveness that so angered Democrats, however, could imperil reaching the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.
Two bills — one to increase economic sanctions on Iran and another to force the administration to bring any deal with Iran before Congress for review — have been co-sponsored by several Democrats. Before this week, both measures looked as though they could draw a veto-proof majority in the Senate, which would be a humiliating outcome for Mr. Obama. The president has vowed to veto both bills.
Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the most outspoken opponent of an Iran deal, to address a joint meeting of Congress last week angered the White House and prompted many Democrats, even ardent supporters of Israel, to boycott the speech.Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the most outspoken opponent of an Iran deal, to address a joint meeting of Congress last week angered the White House and prompted many Democrats, even ardent supporters of Israel, to boycott the speech.
Shortly after the address, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, moved to speed consideration of the bill to review the Iran deal, which would have led to votes on it before the late-March negotiating deadline for an outline of the agreement. Democratic sponsors of that bill reacted angrily and said that Republicans were politicizing diplomacy and that they would not vote on the measure until after the negotiating deadline. Shortly after the address, Mr. McConnell moved to speed up consideration of the bill to review the Iran deal, which would have led to votes on it before the late-March negotiating deadline for an outline of the agreement.
Some Democrats warned that the Republican letter to Iran may in the end backfire. Democratic sponsors of that bill reacted angrily and said Republicans were politicizing diplomacy, and some Democrats warned that the Republican letter to Iran may in the end backfire.
“The whole brouhaha last week reduced from a 40 percent chance to a 4 percent chance that Democrats will vote in sufficient numbers to override a veto,” said Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and one of the most ardent supporters of Israel in his caucus.“The whole brouhaha last week reduced from a 40 percent chance to a 4 percent chance that Democrats will vote in sufficient numbers to override a veto,” said Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and one of the most ardent supporters of Israel in his caucus.
Administration officials have for months made the case to restive lawmakers in their own ranks that they should wait to see the outcome of the nuclear talks before moving to impose new penalties against Tehran or airing concerns about the terms of any deal.
Mr. Obama has said doing so would allow Iran to argue plausibly that the United States was responsible for a breakdown of the negotiations.
Even as some Democrats have privately argued they were working to strengthen, not undercut, the president in taking a hard line in the talks — playing “bad cop” to his “good cop” — the White House has cautioned that the strategy could derail an emerging international pact.
Republicans’ latest moves have underlined those risks, vindicating Mr. Obama’s arguments. And the White House is hopeful that in the longer term, they might strengthen its hand in a struggle with Congress, persuading Democratic skeptics to side with the president over Republicans who have injected partisanship into the issue.
“The letter was a flagrant, partisan attempt to interfere with the negotiations,” Eric Schultz, the deputy White House press secretary, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama on Air Force One to an education event in Atlanta. “We have one president at a time in the United States.”