Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern with timely insights from global affairs analyst Michael Moran of, risk and geostrategy consultants. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!



Self-Sabotage or Diplomacy the Hard Way?

By William Beecher

The ham-fisted letter by 47 Republican Senators to Iranian leaders about the negotiation to curb their nuclear weapons program was from many perspectives ill-conceived and counter-productive. But, ironically, it might serve a very positive and productive purpose. It all depends on how it is interpreted in Tehran.

From an American point of view, the best face that can be put on the letter was that it was motivated to persuade Iran to offer terms to President Obama that are not only acceptable to him, but also to the Senate of the United States, including members of both parties. The worst interpretation, pounced on by the White House and some U.S. allies, is that it was a gross attempt to scuttle the arms talks.

The letter argued that the Iranians should be put on notice that, if they insist on terms that Republicans in particular regard as contrary to U.S. national interests, then the next president and congress could easily—with the “stroke of a pen”--vitiate the executive agreement, since it would not have the constitutional standing of a treaty.

Contrary to many critics of the letter, there is precedent for such action. A controversial arms control agreement with North Korea, negotiated by the administration of President Bill Clinton, was torn up by President George W. Bush on the basis that Pyongyang was blatantly cheating. It was not a treaty either. Just as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif described the letter from Senate Republicans earlier this week, Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dismissed the missive at the time as “propaganda.”

It is anyone’s guess whether, if terms can be agreed among the parties, that the Ayatollah will accept a nuclear deal or scotch it. Assuming terms can be agreed, Khomeini now is in a position to blame the Republicans for his rejection. Similarly, President Obama is now in a position, should talks fail to achieve closure, to also blame Republican interference, rather than failure on the part if his negotiators to be persuasive at the bargaining table.

In either of those two cases, it might be difficult either for the Senate to impose tougher economic sanctions, or for many trading partners to observe even the current sanctions. However, recall that when President Bush sent forces into Iraq to go after Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, suddenly Tehran put all of its nuclear weapons activities on hold. Assumedly, they were fearful that the U.S. might put Iran next on its invasion list.

If hardliners in Tehran interpret the Republican letter as an effort to scuttle the talks in order to open the way for military action, they conceivably could decide that even a diplomatic agreement less favorable for Iran would be preferable to facing two or three months of heavy bombing by the U.S. and Israel. Sure, Iran would be in a position thereafter to try to reconstitute the program it insists doesn’t exist, but only after having suffered colossal damage to existing infrastructure at a cost of many billions of dollars over a decade or more.

On the assumption that the Republicans might conceivably win the next presidential election and that war would be a more likely option, then it might be advisable for Iranian policy-makers to offer an agreement than is less-than-ideal from their point of view.



William Beecher is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Washington correspondent for The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times. He is also a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.

[Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]


Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.


Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy

Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.


Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 


When the Senate Worked for Us:
New book offers untold stories of how activist staffers countered corporate lobbies in the U.S.

MA in International Policy and Development
Middlebury Institute (Monterey, CA): Put theory into practice through client-based coursework. Apply by Feb. 1.

Millennium Project’s State of the Future 19.0: Collective Intelligence on the Future of the World


To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook