Le Département d’Etat américain a recensé plusieurs éditoriaux et tribunes de personnalités en vue en matière de politique étrangère. Le document montre à quel point la missive en question est en train d’éclabousser ses signataires. Les 47 républicains ayant signé la lettre ouverte adressée le 9 mars dernier aux autorités iraniennes voulaient informer Téhéran (photo: le président iranien Hassan Rohani devant un schéma d’installation nucléaire/AFP) qu’il était presque inutile de négocier un accord avec le président Barack Obama, car après 2017, ce n’est plus luui qui présidera aux destinées des Etats-Unis.
Nombre de gazettes régionales n’ont pas manqué de clouer au pilori les sénateurs qui ont approuvé cet acte sans précédent de sape de l’autorité de la Maison-Blanche au profit d’un pays étranger, en l’occurrence l’Iran. Les sénateurs les plus critiqués sont ceux qui ont des aspirations présidentielles, Marco Rubio et Rand Paul.
Voici un résumé des éditoriaux en anglais qui donnent la mesure de la tempête politique provoquée par les 47 sénateurs républicains:
Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic): “Republicans May Have Undermined Their Own Cause Against Iran.” “It is not in the best interest of the United States to provide Iran any excuses to walk away from the table, and to provide Russia, China, and America’s various European and Asian allies with arguments against strengthened sanctions. The smug, stomach-churning statement from the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, in response to the Republican letter can be understood as a preemptive attempt to blame a future negotiations collapse on the U.S. Republicans in the Senate may believe they were doing the U.S. a favor by issuing their warning to Ayatollah Khamenei, but advocates of crushing sanctions against Iran might just have undermined their own cause.”
Carol Giacomo, New York Times: “Republicans’ Latest Threat To An Iran Deal.” “..the senators’ suggestion that international political commitments made by presidents can and should be easily overturned — and therefore by implication have no value — is at odds with tradition, American security interests and good sense. Every president has negotiated scores of agreements with foreign governments that have not required congressional approval and sometimes, not even congressional review. These include last year’s security agreement with Afghanistan, the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime which aims to limit the spread of ballistic missiles and — oh yes — the 2013 interim agreement with Iran that has already substantially curbed the country’s ability to make nuclear fuel.”
David Ignatius, Washington Post: “GOP Senators’ Letter To Iran Is Dangerous And Irresponsible.” “Even by congressional Republican standards, the naysaying letter to Iran sent Monday by 47 GOP senators was grossly irresponsible. Not only did it undercut President Obama’s ability to negotiate a diplomatic agreement, but it also undermined the aspect of the Iran nuclear deal that would potentially be most beneficial to the United States and Israel…The Obama administration surely isn’t going to take its GOP critics to court. But this latest gesture of congressional defiance should make reasonable Republicans wonder whether their party’s foreign policy agitprop has moved beyond being merely partisan to downright dangerous.”
Leslie Gelb, The Daily Beast: “GOP Hates Obama More Than A Nuclear Iran.” “That letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators could well destroy critical bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy for years to come and treacherously undermine the bargaining power of the person constitutionally authorized to conduct American affairs abroad—the President of the United States. On top of what House Speaker John Boehner did by unilaterally inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, this letter seriously points to one terrible conclusion: A formidable number of congressional Republicans hate President Obama more than they love America.”
Mehdi Khalaji, Politico: “Thanks, Tom Cotton. You Just Got Us a Hard-line Supreme Leader.” “… U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican senators suggested that even if Washington comes to a nuclear deal with President Obama, the next American president could decide to reject it, presumably if he (or she) were more of a hard-liner than Obama is. But the next ayatollah who becomes supreme leader of Iran could do exactly the same thing—and many signs are that he is going to be more of a hard-liner. Ironically, opponents of a nuclear deal in Washington could well be contributing to this outcome by creating an atmosphere of mistrust in Tehran that only consolidates the power of the conservatives there.”
Louisville Courier-Journal Editorial: “Senate Saboteurs.” “Has Congress gone crazy? That’s what many U.S. observers and much of the world must be wondering after a group of rogue Republican senators opted to communicate directly by letter with ‘the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,’ seeking to undercut President Barack Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over nuclear enrichment. A blatant attempt to sabotage the discussions to limit Iran’s nuclear capacity, the letter is signed by by 47 GOP senators, aligning themselves — President Obama noted ironically — with hardliners in Iran who oppose any deal with the United States … Whatever the outcome of negotiations with Iran, the 47 senators have done immeasurable harm to their image and U.S. credibility in world affairs. It is regrettable that Kentucky’s two senators were among them.”
Tim Mak, The Daily Beast: “Republicans Admit: That Iran Letter Was A Dumb Idea.” “Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter. ‘I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,’ Corker told The Daily Beast.
Talking Points Memo: “Sen. Flake: Senate Republican Letter To Iran Not ‘Productive.’” “Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), one of a few Republican senators who did not sign a letter warning Iranian leaders against a nuclear deal with the United States, said on Tuesday that he doesn’t think the letter is ‘productive.’ ‘I just didn’t think it was productive during this time when there are very tough negotiations going on. They’re tough enough without introducing this element,’ he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.”
The Hill: “McCain: GOP Letter To Iran Not ‘Most Effective’ Response.” “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the signers of the controversial letter to Iran’s leadership, admitted Tuesday night that the letter may not have been the way to express frustration that President Obama isn’t working with Congress on nuclear negotiations with Tehran. ‘What that letter did was tell the Iranians that whatever deal they make, the Congress of the United States will play a role,’ he said on Fox News’s ‘On the Record with Greta van Susteren.’”
David Goldstein, McClatchy: “Precedent For GOP’s Iran Letter Hard To Find, Historians Say.” “The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has so far been unable to find another example in the chamber’s history where one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran this week The letter sent by 47 Republican senators sets out to instruct Iranian leaders about how the U.S. Constitution works. They wrote that the deal currently being negotiated with their government by the U.S. and western allies, to limit Iran’s nuclear expansion could be undone by Congress.”
Politifact: “Ron Johnson: Iran’s Parliament Gets To Vote On Nuclear Deal … We Rate The Statement Mostly False.” “[Sen. Ron] Johnson said, ‘The Iranian parliament will get to say yes or no’ on the nuclear deal. This is incorrect on two accounts. Experts said the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran won’t require ratification by Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Consultative Assembly. It’s possible the deal will be contingent on Iran’s ratification of a previous international nuclear agreement, which might require the assembly’s approval, but the body won’t weigh in on the deal currently being worked on. And even if it did, it would be entirely symbolic, as the assembly is heavily influenced by the Supreme Leader on foreign policy matters. We rate the statement Mostly False.”
The National Interest: “The Bogus Uproar Over Iran’s Nuclear Sunset.” Given the level of criticism, one might think the sunset provision the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, coordinated by the European Union) agreed to with Iran was unprecedented. Alas, you’d be mistaken. Indeed, sunset provisions are a common feature of international arms control and even Congressional legislation. In fact, even in the case of Iran’s nuclear program, the idea of establishing a sunset period for restrictions isn’t new, having first emerged as an element of U.S. policy under President Bush in 2006.”
