Well, this is interesting: Senator Charles Schumer has decided to oppose the Iran deal. From the New York Times:
Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,’ Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a lengthy statement. “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.
Mr. Schumer is one of the leaders of the Democratic caucus. For such party loyalist to kick over the traces is no small thing. There are at least three possible reasons:
1) He thinks that the deal is a bad one in terms of U.S. interests.
2) He thinks the deal is a bad one in terms of Israeli interests.
3) He has been so relentlessly pressured by his New York constituency that he feels he must accommodate them.
Of course, it may well be a combination of all three. No doubt politically opinionated types will select among them according to their various viewing angles. For example, I imagine that Patrick Buchanan would share with the academic Left a preference for option 2.
It’s certainly rare that I find myself agreeing with Senator Schumer, but even a stopped clock is, as they say, right once a day. My own three points of objection are:
4) The deal immediately frees up vast sums of money that Iran will use, as even President Obama admits, to project its power in the region, in the usual unsavory ways.
5) Iran will surely cheat, especially given the three-week warning period for inspections. And when it does, the idea that sanctions will “snap back” is a pipe dream.
6) The treaty commits the United States to defend Iran’s nuclear program against sabotage and attack. (This is perhaps the most distasteful condition of all.)
See also some a conversation we had about this treaty earlier, here.
I will say also that President Obama’s remarks yesterday on this topic — in which he likened Iranians chanting “DEATH TO AMERICA” to the Republican caucus, were not helpful.
23 Comments
Is it possible that Obama has the votes to ratify the treaty, thus freeing Schumer to tell his constituents that he opposed, but to no avail?
I would like to see israel get knocked down a notch or two. It is absurd that we have to do what israel wants and serve their interests. It like the tail wagging the dog.
Of course, nukes for Iran is bad for the us, but hey, I try to see the postive side of everything, optimist that I am.
Diddler, it’s is only a slur to say that the Israeli tail wags the U.S. Dog. We have common interests, we protect Israel, and I for one am very happy about that. Israel is a little spot of democracy surrounded by the most loathsome dictatorships on earth. It’s only right that we give them the resources to protect themselves.
Taken down a notch? What in the world does that mean?
MoveOn wants Schumer removed from any position of leadership. Half of twitter agrees. The big tent is not so big after all.
Pangur,
Yes! Of course. I could kick myself for not seeing that as a live possibility. It is what the Republican leadership does all the time.
Thanks.
“it’s is only a slur to say that the Israeli tail wags the U.S. Dog.”
I find it deeply objectionable when someone tries to shut down reasonable discussion by characterizing a comment as a “slur.” The phrase “wagging the dog” is well known in politics and is not objectionable to reasonable people.
“We have common interests”
A debatable assertion, particularly given that the USA is far bigger. My view is that if our interests on any given issue are identical, we should conform our policies; if they are not, we shouldn’t. I do certainly admire Israel’s stance on certain issues, such as closing its borders to illegals, and believe we have much to learn from Israel on that issue.
“Israel is a little spot of democracy surrounded by the most loathsome dictatorships on earth.”
The notion that we should support any country because of its political system is again rather odd. Democracies can do and have done horrid things (and Israel’s track record of human rights vis-a-vis Palestinians is spotty), and non-democratic states can do good things. In other words, the political form is secondary at best.
“It’s only right that we give them the resources to protect themselves.”
American involvement in the Middle East in the last fifteen years has been a disaster. We have problems closer to home ( a *lot* closer to home); why not look to our own first?
Israel’s neighbors speak openly about exterminating Israel and its inhabitants. Sometimes this is written into state charters. Iran’s theocracy is based on the arrival of a hidden imam who will make the trees and stones reveal the hideouts of Jews so they can be destroyed. To say israel’s track record towards these people is “spotty” is very nearly a compliment. They do not crucify their minorities, or kidnap their school girls.
Should we support democracies? If we can, yes.
Malcolm, I’m amazed that you find significance in Schumer’s announcement of “opposition” to the deal. Of course, Obama does not need every Democrat vote to sustain his veto of the resolution of disapproval. It takes only 1/3 in each House to sustain a veto. Schumer probably wanted to support Obama, but the heat from his pro-Israel constituency in NY was intense enough to persuade him to vote no, at least initially. He’s not going to lobby other Democrats to vote with him, and I’m sure he ascertained that Obama would not need his vote before announcing his position. The man is a two-legged lizard.
Israel is not responsible for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now turning over the Middle East to Iranian hegemony and triggering a nuclear arms race there. This is idiotic and irrational.
djf, guilty as charged. What can I say? Even Homer nods.
I suppose pro-Israel American Jews, who broadly supported candidate Obama and his re-election campaign, are feeling some buyer’s remorse.
Elections, as they say, have consequences.
“Israel is not responsible for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Quite right, although it’s fair to say that neocons, many of whom happen to be Jewish, were ardent in their support for these conflicts. A sober Middle East policy would draw lessons from these debacles, and adjust accordingly. As I mentioned above, time to tend to our own many, complex issues, without sowing the wind abroad.
“Sowing the wind abroad” is exactly what Obama is doing by entering into his “deal” with Iran.
I don’t see how one can draw from our follies in Iraq or Afghanistan the lesson that we should throw away the nonproliferation strategy of the last 50 years and allow a lunatic theocracy to go nuclear, expand its terrorist activities and influence in the region, and ultimately control the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.
And, FWIW, I’m one pro-Israel Jew who did not vote for Obama (or any other Democrat for president, other than Clinton in 92 – we all make mistakes). Most of the Jews who did vote for Obama feel no remorse because they don’t care about Israel, regardless of their pious declarations that they do.
But I see that many supposedly thinking people are of the school of thought that any policy supported by “neocons” is automatically wrong and should be opposed for that reason alone, no further analysis being necessary.
True, we do have many problem here at home. Obama is making every one of them worse.
Chuck Schumer is a lower life form than Harry Reid. For today’s “Democrats” even voting on an agreement that is bad for America and for the Middle East, becomes strictly a political calculation. Obama has turned the Democrat party into the surest ally of every American enemy. We spent 4 decades fighting a Cold War against the wrong people.
Woah, when did Obama compare the GOP caucus to Iranians chanting “death to America”. I gotta see this Link?
Asher, you really aren’t serious? Are you?
Here you are.
Also Asher. Using the spelling “Woah” befuddled this here Arkansaianese personage as that’s a term dating from the 16th Century sailors used to announce departures for a particular destination. Later shortened upon adoption into vernacular English for instance, “Westward Ho!”
I think maybe besides looking for somebody to look up a link for something else you might also been looking how to spell, “Whoa.”
________
Getting kind of hard to locate posts I can comment on around here Malcolm.
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2015/08/iran-big-sell
The right wing elements in Iran are, in fact, making common cause with the Republican caucus. They are both trying to kill the deal.
Aside from a handful of Democrats and some Israelis, they are about the only ones who oppose the deal. It passed the UN by a 15-0 vote, which is somewhat remarkable for a body where very little passes with unanimous approval.
None of those who oppose the deal have suggested a credible alternative which prevents Iran from going nuclear within a year or two. Nobody has come up with a plausible reason why Iran would not restart its nuclear deal if the deal collapsed; nobody has explained why the other countries (supposedly too timid to reimpose a snap back) would suddenly agree to more punishing sanctions after a deal they support fell apart because of Republican opposition; and nobody has suggested the terms of a deal which will prevent Iran from going nuclear in perpetuity.
And yes, “any policy supported by neocons is automatically wrong and should be opposed for that reason alone.” Neocons, and the conservatives who preceded them, have opposed all arms agreements over the past fifty years, and have been consistently wrong. Even though their unspoiled record of error should prevent any reasonable person from following their advice now, their enthusiastic support of the disaster in Iraq removes any remaining doubt. They have no credibility.
Conservatives opposed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — described by National Review as ““immoral, foolish, and probably most impractical, a policy that makes nonsense of our defensive alliance in Europe, that favors our enemies and slights our allies” — although it is now the legal basis for the international effort to prevent Iran from going nuclear, and is the very treaty they demand be upheld. Conservatives opposed Nixon’s opening to China, his policy of dÁ©tente with the Soviets, and the SALT treaties. In each case, they were wrong, as the deals they opposed led to decreased tensions, reduced nuclear stockpiles, and working relationships between adversaries. And, of course, we never went to war with them, and no nukes were detonated.
The conservative case against arms treaties is invariably the same. There is the ritual invocation of Neville Chamberlain. Any deal which falls short of complete capitulation by the other side is denounced as a giveaway. The President who negotiates the deal is naÁ¯ve in the face of evil, desperate for an agreement, and as a result was taken to the cleaners. The adversary we are dealing with can never be trusted, and will cheat. The (fill in the blank: Russians, Chinese, Iranians) are sworn to our destruction, and making any agreement with them folly. In each cause, no plausible alternative is offered, and none of the predicted catastrophic results ever came to pass.
The conservative preference for militarism over diplomacy is sold as being tough-minded and realistic. The triumphs of diplomacy have shown it to be weak-minded, dangerous, and wrong. History tells us that there is no reason to give any credence to what they say now.
Yes, we already know how you feel about conservative straw-men, Peter. (Boy, do we ever.)
We have already had this argument. I have already explained why I oppose the treaty. It has nothing to do with neoconservatism.
To suggest that acceptance by the U.N. of the deals that Kerry and Obama rushed there to make constitutes evidence of their congruence with U.S. interests is a howler, even for you. And to suggest that this treaty’s opponents oppose it merely because it falls just short of “total capitulation by the other side” is simplistic to the point of propaganda. There are many good reasons to be leery of this treaty, and reasonable people may disagree. (Look at how well our diplomacy stopped North Korea, for example, from getting the bomb.)
The link posted by JK is, I think, a well-balanced assessment.
Interesting, also, that both Charles Schumer and the top-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee must now be, in President Obama’s mind, making common cause with Iran’s “hard-liners”, whatever their political motives might be.
Actually, the whole thing is patently ridiculous. Consider the transparent mendacity of suggesting that the “death-to-America”-chanting “hard-liners” are somehow at odds with the Iranian government itself. If Mr. Obama really believes this is so, perhaps he might then explain why, back in July, Iran’s Supreme Leader had this to say as he addressed a crowd engaging in that very chant:
No, Mr. President. If anyone is making common cause with Iran’s hardliners, it is you.
Iran, once it has its hands on the funds we will release as a condition of the treaty, will cheat. No? What will stop it? “Snap-back” sanctions? But according to you and the President, we are to understand that sanctions already don’t work. Why, then, would they possibly be expected to work after Iran is flush with newly unfrozen cash, building up its store of ballistic missiles, and is busily engaged in mutually profitable relations with nations now released from trade restrictions? So if war is inevitable, it’s inevitable anyway. But do you for a moment believe that President Obama is going to declare war on Iran if the treaty dies?
And then there is the most humiliating condition of all, namely that the treaty binds the U.S. to defend Iran’s nuclear program against attack or sabotage. Astonishing.
To quote Churchill:
“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
Well, maybe. We certainly get the dishonor of being played like a fiddle by a regime that despises us, and wants to see us and our friends wiped off the face of the Earth.
And about those missiles …
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2015/08/between-fall-and-second-coming-radiological-weapons-irans-un-constrained-missile-program
Even accepting for the sake of argument Obama’s claim that there are “hardliners” in Iran opposed to the deal, that begs the question whether the disagreement between Iran’s “hardliners” and its “pragmatists/moderates” (or whatever you want to call them) is on means or ends. If their disagreement is just on means, then we have to ask ourselves whether we’ve been had (probably by both Iran and Obama).
Hi Dom, thanks for your response.
First of all, its weak to start off with an insult against someones opinion because it betrays an emotional reaction that dooms whatever else follows, no matter how valid.
I agree with you that we have some common interests with Israel, and I am happy to unite with them when it suits us. The issue that I have is, due to jewish control, it is often hard to tell who serves who. Israel or the US?
The majority of public opinion in the US does not unconditionally support israel like so many of our power elite and politicians do. There is no reason to consider israel our “greatest ally” when they have spied on us, possibly formented unrest in neighboring countries, and are responsible for much of the anti-US sentiment among the arabs.