Alan Dershowitz opines on the “treaty vs. agreement” dispute regarding the Iran deal:

The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.

If President Obama doesn’t treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won’t have the force of law.

Then Dershowitz goes into the history of Congress’ treaty power and the Founders’ intents concerning it. Then he has the following to say about the Corker-Menendez bill:

While a majority of the House and the Senate voted for this exceptional set of rules for approving the Iran agreement, it was only to assure themselves that they would have any say at all in the matter. President Obama’s position was that he could make the “executive” agreement without Congressional approval.

It occurs to me that, among other things, the Republicans in Congress did not communicate at all well to the public what the Corker-Menendez was about when they passed it so that their base—and anyone else who might be listening—could understand it. They tried, but it involves a rather complicated point of law and procedure and precedent—although there really is no precedent because no president has ever done such a thing. So basically, Congress was flailing around to try to get some tool to stop him, because they realized they could call it a treaty and unapprove it but that course of action would probably have no power or meaning. Nor did they think they were giving up the right to do this in addition, even if they did pass Corker-Menendez.

Dershowitz goes on to point out what he sees as one of the weaknesses of Obama’s position:

An agreement, as distinguished from a treaty does not have the force of law. It can simply be abrogated by any future president. In the end, the court of public opinion decides important policy decisions that may affect us all

But smart as Dershowitz is, I think Obama has outsmarted him on this one. Unfortunately. By signaling a lack of determination to continue the sanctions several months ago, Obama cued the rest of the world on plans to dismantle them, and to vie for the lucrative business opportunities that Iran presents. In addition, if the next president is a Democrat and/or if Congress becomes majority Democrat, either would be extremely disinclined to change the status quo. What’s more, if before the next election Iran violates the treaty and secretly advances its bomb-making capacity, that horse will be out of the barn. The same with its capacity to wage terrorist war with the huge amount of windfall money the deal will give it.

In other words, the deal can be abrogated in the future. But time cannot be turned back, and many of its consequences will already have taken place.

[NOTE: Among other things, Dershowtiz ought to feel like a fool on this issue, because even as late as the 2012 election he supported Obama and explicitly defended the president’s position regarding Iran and nuclear weapons.]