Gaylord L. Dold: Roberts’ criticism of Iran talks was ‘fact free’

As a former professor of international law with advanced degrees from London University and the London Institute of World Affairs, I take special exception to claims by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., concerning the role of the president of the United States in international diplomacy (“Disarm Iran, not Congress,” March 29 Opinion).

First, Roberts omitted any substantive factual account or point-by-point criticism of the nuclear negotiations with Iran, making no reference to the stipulations, oversight and particulars on the substantive side of the talks. His commentary was “fact free.”

Roberts misled by giving the impression that the American president is going it alone. In truth, the negotiations, which have been going on for two years and resulted in an framework agreement last week, represent a unified effort by six countries to limit Iran’s ability to create an operative nuclear arsenal. Through a complex system of checks and balances, the agreement offers the prospect that Iran might operate a nuclear program for genuinely peaceful purposes under strict guidelines accompanied by a regime of inspections.

The countries on “our” side of the table include our staunchest European allies, Great Britain, France and Germany, which along with Russia and China undertook this as a joint effort. The prime minister of Great Britain, the president of France and the chancellor of Germany, along with the president of the United States through the State Department, are conducting this policy jointly. These kinds of multilateral arms-control negotiations are common, even between the bitterest of national rivals. The United Nations, contrary to the impression left by Roberts, is not a formal party to the negotiations, but it does have inspection responsibilities and hosted the talks.

Frankly, the only alternative offered to the regime of control and inspection in return for loosened sanctions is another massive land war in the Middle East – a war in which the United States and Israel would truly go it alone. Our country may see that war come, but the negotiations are an attempt to limit the chances.

Secondly, Roberts has a shaky overview of constitutional rights and responsibilities. Certainly, the Senate does have the power to advise and consent to international treaties. In lieu of analysis, Roberts averred that the Founding Fathers believed Congress was imperative to a “good foreign policy,” a circular argument that was nowhere backed up by legal citations. Roberts complained that President Obama wanted to remove “hard-won” sanctions, ignoring the fact that only Congress can remove American sanctions, thus providing Congress the voice Roberts wants.

Most troubling about Roberts’ commentary was his charge that Obama’s priorities are treasonous. The U.S. Code says: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.” It is impossible to see that Obama is levying war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies, unless the same can be said for the British prime minister, the French president and German chancellor. Nor are any of the countries involved in these negotiations at war with Iran.

Invective (“appeasing”), mudslinging (“placating a terrorist state”) and ad hominem argument (“treasonous”) characterized the entire Roberts commentary, and lent it an unappealing, almost feral tone, devoid of reason. If Roberts believes Obama is a traitor, let him lead an impeachment movement in the Senate.

This story was originally published April 6, 2015 at 7:01 PM with the headline "Gaylord L. Dold: Roberts’ criticism of Iran talks was ‘fact free’."