(JNi.media) On Friday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) issued a statement saying he would vote in favor of President Obama’s proposed Iran deal.
“I bring to my analysis [of the agreement] the full weight of my responsibilities as a member of Congress, and my perspective as an American Jew who is both a Democrat and a strong supporter of Israel,” Nadler stated, noting: “I have sought to ignore the political pressures, as well as the demagoguery and hateful rhetoric on both sides that I think has been harmful to the overall political discourse.”
In a less analytical but much more colorful fashion, Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-NY) told the Observer he had rented a double decker tour bus, covered it with images of the Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and left it for a few hours outside Nadler’s lower Manhattan office. Hikind told the Observer that next he is taking the bus on visits to other pro-Iran deal representatives.
Councilman David Greenfield criticized Nadler on Facebook. “I join my fellow Brooklynites in outrage that Congressman Jerry Nadler has announced his support of the Iran deal against the overwhelming wishes of his Jewish constituency… We are furious that our community does not have a voice in Congress and can not forgive him.”
Nadler offered an analysis of the Iran deal that’s easily as exhaustive as the one offered by Senator Chuck Schumer in early August. Despite the fact that he reached the opposite conclusion, Nadler is respectful of the opponents of the deal, suggesting “the only decision that matters at this moment is whether to support or reject the agreement that is on the table now, not whether we could or should have gotten a better deal.”
Nadler also deals realistically with the consequences of an override of the anticipated presidential veto of what is certain to be a rejection of the deal by both Republican-controlled houses. He writes:
“Iran might accept the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) without U.S. participation. In that case, the other countries might go along. In 6–9 months, all the non-U.S. sanctions would be lifted. Iran would resume doing business with most other countries, and would get its $56 billion, some of which would be used to sponsor terrorism and other illicit activities.”
Frustrating as such an outcome is to pro-Israel American Jews, Nadler is not wrong in his assessment. And while the White House may be to blame for this outcome, it does not change the finality of these consequences. Nadler also argues that, should the president be forced by Congress to drop the Iran agreement, “there would be less diligent oversight, less fear of punitive action against violations, and Iran would enjoy full legitimacy and inclusion from the international community. Meanwhile, the United States — Israel’s closest ally and the only partner on the Security Council or in the P5+1 whose interests are as closely aligned in terms of preventing Iran from becoming an existential threat — would sit on the sidelines, separated from the JCPOA.”
