Marco Rubio said that if President Obama inks a deal with Iran, he'd revoke it if he becomes president of the United States. He made the remarks in an interview with Hugh Hewitt:
Here's a transcript, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt's staff:
HH: Should we walk away from these negotiations in Geneva right now because of the conduct of Iran in other places than that negotiating room?
MR: Well first of all, we need to remember what’s not being covered by these negotiations, which are just as important as their nuclear ambition, and that’s the intercontinental ballistic missiles that they’re developing. And it’s very reasonable that before the end of this decade, Iran could possess a long range rocket that could reach the United States, the Continental U.S. They’re rapidly, that’s not even being covered by these negotiations. They’re not even the subject of sanctions. And I think that alone is a reason to be imposing sanctions on Iran, not to mention their state sponsorship of terrorism. That being said, any agreement that allows Iran to retain enrichment capability, leaves in place the infrastructure they will need in five, ten, eight, whenever they decide to ramp up enrichment and produce a weapon, if the only thing standing between them and a nuclear weapon becomes, and the ability to deliver it through a long range rocket becomes the ability to enrich at a higher level, that’s the easiest switch to flip. And you saw the North Koreans follow a model such as this. So I just think the deal is premised on an agreement on something that is totally unacceptable, and quite frankly, abandons almost a decade of sanctions built on the idea originally that they would not be allowed to enrich. And by the way, the Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, even the Jordanians have made very clear that whatever Iran is allowed to do under this agreement, they will expect the same. So if Iran is allowed to enrich up to 5%, 20% for research, the Saudis are going to insist on the same capability. And you suddenly are going to have region awash with nuclear infrastructure.
HH: Then let me ask you the three ifs. If that deal is in fact signed by President Obama that allows them to retain enrichment, and if you run for president, and if you win, would you revoke that deal?
HH: Would you go on record and just let them know that’s not going to…
MR: Absolutely, and I already have. And the point, because it’s not, first of all, it’s not an enforceable deal as we made clear in the Cotton letter. It won’t survive this president in terms of you know, a future president will have to decide whether to live by it or not. It’s not enforceable. It doesn’t have the force of law. Now if he brings it to the Congress and can get it passed, that’s a different story. He’s indicated that he prefers to take it to the United Nations instead of the U.S. Congress. The second point I would make is that I think it’ll be difficult to reassemble the international sanctions if this falls apart, but nonetheless, we should be willing to lead unilaterally. And I think others will ultimately see it. And the third is I anticipate the Iranians will take advantage of any loopholes they can find in the deal, and I think they’ll flat out try to violate portions of it. You know, Iran has other challenges ahead. They’re going to have a succession fight fairly soon when the Supreme Leader passes from the scene. And it’s very possible that the new leader of Iran, after the current leader vanishes, could be someone even more radical, as hard as that is to imagine. And that’s something to keep an eye on as well.
Tom Cotton’s letter to the Iranian regime has spurred furious blowback from liberals. They want the president to cut a deal with Iran, and Cotton’s letter gets in the way; thus, they’ve engaged in a specious fight over inter-branch protocol. Never mind that the president is looking to sign an agreement with an enemy without the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne doesn’t like the Iran open letter released by 47 Republican senators last week. And his column today makes clear that he really doesn’t like my support of that open letter.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas explained the reasoning behind the letter he and 46 other senators sent to Iran about the nuclear deal this morning on CBS. Watch Cotton's interview with Bob Schieffer here:
In a preview of Barack Obama's interview with Vice, the president of the United States says he's "embarassed" Republicans sent a letter to Iran:
"I’m embarrassed for them," says Obama in the preview. "For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah — who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is, 'don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement.' It's close to unprecedented."
Liberals have a favorite new legal doctrine. The Logan Act is a federal law enacted in 1799 that, in theory, penalizes American citizens who try to influence foreign governments “without authority of the United States.” Even though the law is still on the books, The Scrapbook describes the Logan Act as theoretical because no one’s ever been successfully prosecuted for violating it. The last formal indictment of anyone under the Logan Act occurred in 1803, when a Kentucky farmer committed the grievous crime of writing a spirited newspaper article.
Finally, a debate about Iran. Last week, 47 Republican senators released a public letter addressed to the leaders of the Iranian regime. The letter made what might have seemed a self-evident point: If the Obama administration reaches a deal with Iran, Congress will not be bound by parts of the deal to which it has not assented.
"In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance" in which senators intervened in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” Vice President Joe Biden declared, outraged by the "open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," signed by 47 Republican senators.
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is encouraging all candidates -- Democrats and Republicans -- to sign the letter organized by Senator Tom Cotton warning that any Iran deal not accepted by Congress can be revoked.
I support "the letter sent by Senator Tom Cotton and his colleagues to Iran warning them that Congress will have to approve any nuclear deal," Jindal's statement reads.
According to Miles's Law, "where you stand depends on where you sit." And so when Vice President Joe Biden hyperventilates over Republican senators' criticism of the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran, we must take him with a grain of salt. He used to have a seat in the Senate; now he stands behind President Obama.