The Iran Deal Turns

David Brooks considers the Iran deal a bad use of American soft power, and one that won’t truly prevent the hard choices that face the West and a nuke-delivery-having-mullah-ocracy.  In other words:

‘This administration has given us a choice between two terrible options: accept the partial-surrender agreement that was negotiated or reject it and slide immediately into what is in effect our total surrender — a collapsed sanctions regime and a booming Iranian nuclear program.’

Brooks did start out as a Social Democrat, and has reformed to some kind of fiscally conservative, generally anti-far Left public critic, but as public opinioneer he needs to stay relevant at the NY Times. The predictions seem inflated, but possible.

David Brooks And Writing For MoneyHenry Kissinger & George Schulz Via The WSJ: ‘The Iran Deal And Its Consequences

Senator Chuck Schumer is not on board.


Adam Garfinkle takes a look in ‘The Big Sell:

‘So what did the President say that, in my analysis, is not true? He claimed the deal “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon”, that it “cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb”, that “under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon”, and that “Iran will never have the right to pursue a peaceful program as a cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past.”

The President needs one-third of Congress to continue with the agreement as well as keeping it going as long as he is in office.


James Fallows (former speech-writer for Jimmy Carter) is on-board and summarizes the on-the-record meeting Obama held to push the deal and the logic behind it.

Personally, as someone not identified with the Left-liberal base, party loyalty and some tribal/political affirmation seems occuring between the activist base and the party center; a reaffirmed worldview.

But hey, responding to the logic and the best case that can be made is vital.