THE BLOG

Everyone Signing or Supporting the Cotton Letter Is 'Disqualified' From Being President -- Right, Chuck Todd?

03/15/2015 12:49 pm ET | Updated May 15, 2015
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Remember when Meet the Press's Chuck Todd declared that senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes was disqualified from being in the Senate because she refused to declare for whom she voted in 2008 and 2012?

Forty-seven Republican Senators tried to usurp the authority of the presidency and aid a foreign country in making a decision contrary to the stated policy of the government of the United States. Although Senator Cornyn (R-TX) declared that it is not only the president who speaks for the country in foreign affairs, he is completely wrong (except, perhaps, when the president is a black man, then the rest of the world needs to hear separately from white males).

Add to that number Republican presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush (R-FL), Scott Walker (R-WI) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA).

There are many questions these so-called hopefuls can be asked, but one can start with this: How can you be president if you applaud an unprecedented act interfering with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy by writing to our adversary encouraging it not to enter into an agreement with the U.S. and others?

Moreover, the letter clearly aids-and-abets Iran as against the United States and its allies in the middle east. Iran can now refuse a deal, claim that members of the U.S. government have told them that the deal will not be honored anyhow, and know that the other members of the P5+1 negotiating for the rest of the world are far less likely to support further crippling sanctions if they walk away.

Remember, it was only President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who were able to gain the support of Russia and China so that economic sanctions would be strong enough to convince Iran to come to the bargaining table.

The President's strategy has always been clear: Tighten the sanctions' noose to bring them to the negotiating table for a deal. If it is unsuccessful, the U.S. would have great moral authority as it would have been clear it went the extra mile to find a peaceful solution.

Now, it is not only less likely will can get a deal, but the letter eroded the U.S.' moral authority, a key element in taking further actions, together, to force Iran back to the negotiating table.

Which of the remaining P5+1 countries will agree, now, to much tougher sanctions?

If this deal crumbles, the Congress can pass all the stronger sanctions it wishes, but it will be ineffective if the other members do not participate.

What, then, is left? Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon that they will then be able to do quickly. It would not be the first time Republican presidents let dangerous nations acquire nuclear weapons: W in North Korea and Reagan in Pakistan.

But, this really isn't, or shouldn't be, about domestic politics, it is about a nuclear arms race in the middle east. That is a national security threat worse than ISIS and al-Qaeda combined. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then other mid-eastern countries will too. (Note: None of them felt they needed one when Israel developed its nuclear arsenal.)

Not only have all the Republican "hopefuls" disqualified themselves for the presidency by usurping authority from that office, not only have they irreparably undermined the threat of future sanctions to bring Iran to the table, they have also increased the likelihood that war is the only option to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

For Republicans, this is all in a days' work.