Schumer’s Iran Dissent The New Yorker Joins a Growing List of Democratic Opponents.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/schumers-iran-dissent-1438986991
Chuck Schumer’s decision to oppose President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal may not defeat the accord, but it certainly does showcase its flagging political support. Mr. Schumer is a party stalwart who wants to succeed Harry Reid as Senate leader, and his defection suggests that the deal will be opposed by at least a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress.
Think about how extraordinary that would be. Major foreign policy initiatives are often controversial, but they typically garner at least majority support. The resolutions for the Gulf War and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq all earned majority support, as did the Nixon and Reagan arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union.
Mr. Obama may escape humiliation only because by submitting the deal as an executive agreement rather than a treaty, Mr. Obama maneuvered to need only one-third of either house of Congress to uphold his veto of a resolution of disapproval. In other words, he can still proceed to implement the accord, but only by ignoring the consensus view of the American public.
Opinion Journal Video
Mr. Schumer didn’t come to his decision lightly, as his 1,670-word explanation makes clear. (See excerpts nearby.) The New Yorker dissects the accord’s flaws on all major points, including the President’s claim of nearly fail-safe inspections:
“First, inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD)—the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.”
He adds that the supposed “snapback” sanctions if Iran cheats won’t really snap back, and that after 10 years Iran will be in a far better position than it is now to build a weapon. In essence, he says, the deal concedes that Iran has the right to become a “threshold nuclear power.”
Some Beltway denizens are wondering if Mr. Schumer’s decision means that the President already has 34 Senate votes to sustain a veto. The claim is that Mr. Schumer would never dare be the final vote to undermine a President of his own party on so consequential a priority. But precisely because the stakes are so high, Mr. Schumer may want to lay down his marker early so it doesn’t become a matter of party loyalty if the final vote is close in September. He joins at least five New York House Democrats who have already broken against the accord.
Note that for his sins Mr. Schumer is now getting the treatment Mr. Obama usually reserves for Republicans. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said pointedly Friday that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if Senate Democrats consider Mr. Schumer’s Iran defection when they choose a new leader next year. This lashing out follows the President’s charge this week that GOP opponents of the deal share “common cause” with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
As Mr. Obama’s bitterness grows, so does the backlash against his dangerous nuclear deal.
Comments are closed.
