JINSA in the Washington Post on Political Illegitimacy of Iran Deal
Obama’s Pyrrhic victory on Iran
By Jennifer Rubin
Reaction to the 34th vote in favor of upholding a veto of a disapproval of the Iran deal (cast by a retiring Democrat, by the way) has been noteworthy for its high-mindedness.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) put out a written statement, both eloquent and determined:
Obama’s Pyrrhic victory on Iran
By Jennifer Rubin
Reaction to the 34th vote in favor of upholding a veto of a disapproval of the Iran deal (cast by a retiring Democrat, by the way) has been noteworthy for its high-mindedness.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) put out a written statement, both eloquent and determined:
Next week the Senate will hold a serious and consequential debate on whether or not to approve of this deal. The fact that the administration has sought to reduce this important national security matter to a partisan contest raises even more serious questions about its durability and merits. While the President may be able to sustain a veto with the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one third of one House of Congress over Americans’ bipartisan opposition, it will require a bipartisan Congress to strengthen our defenses in the Persian Gulf and to stand up to the inevitable Iranian violations of the agreement that will need to be addressed after he has left office. And because this is not a treaty, it can and should be revisited by our new president.
The administration’s single minded intent to reach an agreement with the government of Iran has resulted in an accord which will leave Iran with a threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the P5+1, thousands of centrifuges, an advanced research and development program and access to billions of dollars to support terrorism, further ballistic missile research and strengthen Iran’s economy. By any measure Iran will emerge stronger from this deal and better positioned to expand its sphere of influence. While the President will be out of office in 18 months, the rest of the country and the world will have to deal with the many predictable consequences of his deal with Iran.
As Senate statements go, that is among the most admirable I have read in a long time.
Michael Makovsky, chief executive of JINSA, which worked in a bipartisan manner to warn the public and lawmakers about the deal, tells Right Turn that “whatever parliamentary defeat was suffered, it stands in contrast to the significant victory we have achieved on the merits of the deal, which is reflected in public opinion. An overwhelming amount of Americans oppose the deal, despite a highly divisive public campaign – that was very partisan and bordered on the anti-Semitic – by the President and Secretary of State Kerry.” He suggested “that should provoke immediate serious reflection among those Members of Congress who remain undecided. Do they really want to vote for a momentous deal that the American people resoundingly oppose, and thus lacks political legitimacy? Substance aside, that seems a politically very risky bet.”
The only discordant notes come from the angry right, which would blame Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), without whom there would have been no debate of this intensity, no vote and no evidence of widespread, bipartisan opposition to the deal which will serve as the basis for undoing it. This is typical of the crowd that blames constructive Republicans, not the egregious actions of Democrats. That same crowd – which applauds xenophobic calls to round up illegal immigrants and American-born relatives, ripping up the 14th Amendment and shutting down the government – has consistently discredited itself.
At any rate, the next steps are clear. Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies advises, “Among other things, Congress should pursue additional sanctions on Iran and on Iranian entities – not least the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – that are involved in terrorism and the holding of American hostages. Congress should make clear that more sanctions will be forthcoming if the funds that Iran will be receiving under the deal are used to support terrorist groups.” He observes, “President Obama has said that such sanctions will be considered separately since they do not directly involve Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I’m skeptical. I can imagine Mr. Obama blocking non-nuclear sanctions. I can imagine him arguing that any additional sanctions might jeopardize his deal. That would contradict statements he’s made in the past but such contradictions must, by now, be anticipated.” As he points out, “Objectively and effectively, this would put the administration in the position of protecting and facilitating Iranian support for terrorism and hostage-taking.”
We will watch the extent of the Democratic opposition and the steps that follow. As Makovsky put it, “For those of us strongly opposed to the deal, our challenge is to heighten the political illegitimacy of the deal and give more space for the next Congress and president to take a fresh, more prudent and responsible approach to Iran’s challenge, which will only grow in the years ahead. And we can do that in the coming days and weeks by continuing to encourage more Members of Congress, especially moderate Democrats – and I believe there are many who care about American national security and the security and existence of our Israeli and Arab allies – to oppose the deal.” Fewer of them than we hoped, more of them than we feared.
I would add one note: This makes it that more critical for the American people to select a stalwart and far-sighted commander in chief. We are not going to halt Iran’s hegemonic designs with bluster, nor can we simply “police” this deal. For Republicans, foreign policy and electability – there is no undoing the deal without a Republican in the White House – become the top considerations in 2016.