Thread by @RezaNasri1

#Thread

Some suggest the @JoeBiden administration should abandon the #JCPOA and instead seek a treaty with Iran which is approved by 2/3 of the Senate. This is a roadmap designed to fail, and they know it.

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1336829985093455872

1) First, they know that no president can get 2/3 of the Senate on board with any substantial foreign-policy issue, let alone on Iran. This is why, over the past decades, Article II Treaties have been gradually set aside in favor of Executive Agreement and political commitments.

2) In fact, whereas the United States concluded twice as many treaties as executive agreements in the first 50 years of its history, today "executive agreements comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded".

law.cornell.edu/constitution-c…

3) The Trump administration itself only submitted one treaty for Senate consent in the first two years of its reign and five more subsequently; And most were either uncontroversial "technical" agreements or bilateral extradition treaties.

4) So, the question is why advise @JoeBiden on following a path and an semi-abandoned procedure that is politically infeasible, legally impractical and exceedingly time-consuming when it comes to Iran?

The answer is obvious.

5) Secondly, those who make those recommendations should also tell us what would be the added-value of a Senate approved treaty as opposed to an Executive-agreement, a Congressional-Executive agreement or a simple political commitment?

6) History shows that the degree of congressional participation in the conclusion of an agreement is inconsequential and irrelevant if (and when) a president decides to exit that agreement.

7) In other words, in the U.S, a president can seemingly just as easily withdraw from a "political commitment" concluded by his predecessor as from an Article II Treaty that was approved by a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate!

8) The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran; The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; The Treaty on Open Skies; The Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention...were all 2/3 Senate-approved treaties Trump could withdraw from with relative ease!

9) Truth is - in the U.S legal order - the JCPOA is just as vulnerable and fragile as the #INF Treaty which enjoyed 93 votes in the Senate at the time of its conclusion!

10) This mean that - despite the principle Professor Harold Koh wishes to instill - the degree of congressional participation in the termination of an international agreement does absolutely not mirror the degree of congressional participation at the time of its conclusion.

11) In fact, the factor other countries counted on when they entered into agreements with the US was never the impeccability of its legal system (which is obviously flawed) but the presumed "rationality" they conferred on the American political establishment as a whole.

12) Needless to say, @realDonaldTrump took care of that "presumption of rationality" too; And few in the world believe today that the U.S political establishment is equipped to overcome even the most dangerous whims of an unreasoned president.

13) So @JoeBiden should forget aiming for a Senate approved treaty with Iran! It's politically infeasible and unjustified from a legal standpoint.

14) And the world can't wait for Congress or the Supreme Court to finally get a chance to address the structural flaws that mark America's Treaty-making/Treaty-unmaking constitutional process.

15) But @JoeBiden can at least attempt to restore some degree of "rationality" within the U.S political establishment - which is currently the only guarantor of U.S international agreements - and rebuild some confidence in US ability to uphold its commitment in the long term.

16) And to do so, the Biden administration needs to portray the Trump era as an exceptional chapter in US history; Respect Int'l law; Observe UNSC resolutions (namely Res. 2231 pertaining to Iran); Resume its commitments under various multilateral agreements Trump has scuttled;

17)...Genuinely engage in "damage control" and put on display a will to shift of paradigms in U.S foreign policy.

Any attempt to "build on" Trump's illicit, illegal, criminal and irrational legacy would deprive the U.S the ability to engage in international agreements for good.