We applaud New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision to go public with his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement six weeks before the Senate will vote on the measure. As the third-ranked Senate Democrat, generally presumed to soon become number one, parting ways on an issue of such magnitude with a sitting president of his own party – a president who speaks  of the agreement as his signature foreign policy achievement – could hardly have been easy.

That said, it is not enough that Sen. Schumer has stated his position on the agreement and intends, as he has said, to “discuss” it with his colleagues. To be sure, others may well look to him on their own. But he must do much more.

Advertisement




Sen. Schumer’s statement of opposition got to the heart of the problems with the agreement. And he made a compelling case for rejection in terms of its profoundly corrosive impact on American interests around the world, including the security of Israel, international stability, and the war on terror.

Plainly, as a leading member of the Senate, there is a moral imperative that he forcefully advocate against the agreement and do all he can to see to it that it never be implemented. The public interest requires no less of him. That would be true leadership.

There is another reason for Mr. Schumer to rally his Senate colleagues against the agreement. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry seem never to miss an opportunity to caution us that Israel’s opposition to the agreement will further isolate it around the world.

Recently, in a televised interview Mr. Obama went out of his way to note that of all the world leaders who have publicly commented on the agreement, only Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed opposition. The president also said he does not “recall a similar example” of a foreign head of government so forcefully seeking to sway Congress as Mr. Netanyahu had done in terms of the Iran agreement.

The picture the president and the secretary of state paint is one of Israel standing alone in its opposition to the agreement. When coupled with their mantra-like statements that the only alternative to the agreement is war, the message being sent is that a selfish and bellicose Israel favors war with Iran. An overwhelming vote in Congress against the agreement would do much to dispel this notion.

In this connection, we note the results of two recent pubic opinion polls relating to the Iran agreement. A Quinnipiac University survey found that American voters oppose the Iran deal by a 2-1 margin, 57-28 percent, with only tepid support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition from Republicans. According to the poll, 58 percent of voters say the agreement will make the world less safe.  A poll of Jewish voters by McKeon & Associates found virtually the same 2-1 margin against the agreement, 45 to 22 percent.

In a rational world, given the overwhelming negative analyses that have surfaced, Mr. Schumer’s job in persuading his colleagues to nix the agreement would not be all that difficult. But the debate is being played out in a take-no-prisoners political context and we recognize that many will be reluctant to buck the president – even to the extent of relying on silly word games to get around the obvious problems with the agreement, as did Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand. (We’ll address her in the editorial following this one.)

In any event, the fight against the agreement will be facilitated by the polls that show overwhelming public opposition to the agreement. Senate and House members need only look to their constituents.

Advertisement

SHARE
Previous articleSen. Gillibrand Sorely Disappoints
Next articleHow to Be a Successful Mother and Entrepreneur