Iran: “The letter by American senators indicates the collapse of political ethics in the United States”

The letter to Iran, designed to undermine nuclear program negotiations between the Obama administration, Tehran and European powers, was signed by 47 of 54 Republican senators. The issue, underscored by a speech to Congress by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu – at Republicans’ invitation – that railed against the deal, allowed Republicans to briefly unite on a policy point. The party has otherwise been riven by conservative and libertarian factions who disagree about issues such immigration, the economy and foreign intervention.

But the condescending tone of the letter, which suggested that Iranians do not understand the American political process, provoked harsh words from Iran.
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday during a meeting with members of Iran’s top clerical body, which includes President Hassan Rouhani. “The letter by American senators indicates the collapse of political ethics in the United States.”
“Governments are bound to their commitments by international laws and would not violate their obligations with a change of government,” he said. “They [the Republican senators] said they want to teach us their own laws but we don’t need their lessons, our officials know how to make agreements binding if there’s a deal.”

Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif called earlier the letter a “propaganda ploy” and derided Republicans for failing to understand international and US law. Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith notes that Zarif has a valid point: the letter incorrectly states that the Senate has the power to ratify treaties, which it does not – a fact stated even on the Senate’s own website.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Republicans’ open letter’s “most profound impact” was to erode the trust of international partners and allies in the United States.

Earnest said “generations of credibility” were threatened by the actions of the Republicans, and that “that confidence in the United States of America has been undermined” as allies and other nations weighed whether the US would keep its promises.

“It’s not a laughing matter,” Earnest said.
Republicans briefly enjoyed a moment of unity by sending the letter, but their coalition cracked as several conservative congressmen and media outlets described the letter as a folly.
Corker, one of the few Republicans who did not sign the letter, told the Daily Beast that he “immediately knew that it was not something that, for me, anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive”.

Republican senator Jeff Flake said the letter was “not appropriate or productive”, and that the matter of Iran’s nuclear capabilities was “too important to divide us among partisan lines”.

Hawkish congressman Peter King also called the wisdom of the letter into question. King told reporters on Tuesday he thought the letter set a poor precedent: “I don’t trust the president on this, quite frankly, though I don’t know if I’d go public with it to a foreign government.”
Flake’s comments echoed those of Democrats who continued to excoriate Republicans over the letter. Senator Debbie Stabenow took to the chamber floor to quote former senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican during the second world war who she said “loathed” president Franklin D Roosevelt.
“‘Politics stops at the water’s edge,’” Stabenow quoted Vandenberg. “I can only imagine what senator Vandenberg would say if he were alive today,” she said, about Republicans who had “decided to throw away 70 years of wisdom and stand on the side of the ayatollahs”.

Florida Democrat Bill Nelson also urged Republicans to keep perspective: “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.”
Obama said that the letter put Republican senators in an “unusual coalition”, saying: “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” Vice-president Joe Biden said the the letter was “beneath the dignity of the institution I revere”.
Conservative media sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, both owned by Rupert Murdoch, also shied away from the letter. The Journal’s editors published an editorial calling the letter a “distraction”. Fox host Megyn Kelly asked Senator Tom Cotton, the letter’s author: “What’s the point in writing to the Iranian mullahs?”

Read More: 


  1. So ....... how does ISRAEL assist AMERICA with the Russian nuclear threat? ............................. Israel HELPS OUR ENEMIES.

    By far the most egregious damage done by Johnathan Pollard was to steal classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR and send them to Israel. According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel. Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, "[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by... Pollard's treasonous behavior."
    This should end the suggestion that Israel’s spies are harmless. They are not. The United States’ nuclear deterrent cost an estimated FIVE TRILLION taxpayer dollars during the 50s and 60s to build and maintain, and less than $100,000 for Pollard to undermine. Israel waited 13 years to admit Pollard had been spying for them, and now lobbies for his release, having granted him Israeli citizenship.
    Israel SOLD America's drone/military technology to China ..... Israel has helped China LEAP forward with America's technology.
    The Israeli Defense Ministry’s Head of Defense Export Control, Meir Shalit, resigned last week after the United States expressed anger over a decision he made to sell sensitive military equipment to China, of a miniature cooling system for missiles was in direct violation of Israel’s preexisting obligations to the United States.
    .....Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against US competitors. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion, to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 fighter.

    Israel has been stealing and selling Our secrets to our enemies and stabbing America in the back for too long. .........34 Sailors MURDERED on the USS LIBERTY ----- Rachel Corrie ------- Johnathan Pollard ----- 135 Mossad operatives were detained after 9/11 and deported to Israel. Israel had sole interest and opportunity in 9/11. ------------ 60+ years living off American WELFARE
    American Taxpayers give over $4BILLION a year to Israel. How much of YOUR $4 BILLION is coming back to America as BRIBES to "your" politicians? The Stooges that fall all over themselves putting Israel's interests AHEAD of America!

  2. Since when have treaties not had to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate?

  3. Danny StrawMarch 13, 2015

    Every one of these sons of bitches should be arrested and throwing in jail..

  4. Treaties are not ratified by the Senate; they're ratified by the president with the consent of the Senate. Small but significant difference.

  5. I think technically they both "ratify" the treaties (since to give formal consent to a treaty is synonymous with to ratify it...) I guess a president's signature to a treaty without consent of the Senate would pretty much amount to "I'll do my best to support the terms of this treaty within the bounds of my executive branch authority and within the bounds of the constitution and laws of my country", which I suppose is better than nothing if the treaty is accomplishing a just and constitutional goal.


Thanks For Sharing Your Views