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.
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.