The debate on the Iran Deal is getting heated all around, as more and more U.S Representatives make their intentions clear vis-a-vis the upcoming vote in September. Many have already expressed deep concerns about the deal, most prominent of whom so far has been United States Senator for New York, Charles Schumer, who explained his objection by stating:
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great".
And as soon as Senator Schumer spoke against the position of the current U.S Administration, all hell broke loose. The New York Times' Editorial page sends him a direct message of vendetta from the White House:
"New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, has cast his lot with Republican presidential candidates, other hardliners and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in declaring his opposition to the nuclear agreement ... Given Mr. Schumer's wrong-headed and irresponsible decision, Democrats may want to reconsider whether he is the best candidate to be their next leader in the Senate, a job he desperately wants".
Senator Schumer, who has been in office for over 16 years, has made it clear that this was not an easy decision for him, one that he reached after serious deliberations:
"Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views. Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits".
Schumer put his finger on the one thing that is missing from the debate on the Iran Deal: judge it by its MERITS!
Those who oppose the deal, make a very clear case against it, based on concrete and visible elements in the deal itself. Commentary Magazine reported last week (Aug 3) of a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Amb. Robert G. Joseph, Ph.D, formerly Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and the person who in 2003 led the nuclear negotiations with Libya.
Dr. Joseph testified the Iran deal is a "bad agreement" and indicated some of its fatal flaws - it does not effectively detect cheating unless Iran decides to do it openly; it leaves a large‐scale nuclear infrastructure in place that could be used to break out with a "virtually zero" breakout time; it has "snap‐back" provisions that are illusory and Iran is permitted to continue work on long-range ballistic missiles that have no use other than eventual deployment of nuclear weapons.
His conclusion was unambiguous:
"As a result, the threat to the U.S. homeland and to our NATO allies of an Iran armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles will increase not decrease under the anticipated agreement".
And yet, those who support the deal, or better yet - support the dealmakers - do not bother to get into these "technical" insignificancies, but rather focus on the bigger picture: anyone who is against the deal is acting "irresponsibly" (NY times above), is a clear-cut "warmonger" who prefers "war" to "diplomacy" and the most heard word of the day? Yes, you got that right: "Iraq", the ultimate debate killer.
But this is not their only line of defense. In their desperation, as every day that goes by exposes their shame (resulting in less and less support for the deal with the general public), the deal proponents evoke ugly tools to stifle any debate.
First and foremost among these is the one targeted at Jewish American legislators: the egregious "dual loyalty" claim. This is an old form of anti-Semitism, which goes hand in hand with words like "lobby" and "millions of dollars", used often to attack those who disagree with the deal and happen to be Jewish. "Dual loyalty" means that Schumer and others made their decision based on "Jewish" or "Israeli" interests alone, and not those of the United States of America and her allies. As if there is ONLY one voice speaking for the American people, and that cannot be that of the "Jews".
Words like "traitor" have been spreading all over social media against Senator Schumer, who would have probably been hailed a "hero" by the same people had he stuck by the Administration's position. However, it seems as a Jew, Schumer is not allowed to "break ranks" and make up his own mind based on his clear thinking. In doing so, he is clearly an "Israel-firster" and a "Netanyahu marionette".
How have we come to this, that in the United States of 2015, we are breathing new life into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the 1903 Russian publication of an anti-Semitic hoax purporting to describe global Jewish domination) ?!
Don't get me wrong: yes, Israel has a lot at stake when it comes to the deal with Iran. The regime in Tehran is a terrorist dictatorial one, which calls for Israel's destruction, while executing expansionist policies and financing murderous organizations fighting the West and Israel. Moreover, Israel is staring directly at Iranian weapons of war, hundred of thousands of missiles from the North and the South. However, as Amb. Joseph stated above, it is the U.S homeland and the U.S's NATO allies who are threatened as a result of the deal, whose rejection is an American, not only Israeli, interest.
But hey, I may be disqualified from speaking, because I am a Jew.