Chuck Schumer is right on the Iran Deal

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on August 9, 2015

As a general rule, it's hard to go wrong taking the opposite position of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer on just about any subject of public import. Gun-control, healthcare, government spending, whatever, find out which side Schumer is on and choose the other.

Which brings us to eight words I never thought I'd say or write.

Chuck Schumer is right on the Iran Deal.

Chuck Schumer is right on the Iran Deal.
Chuck Schumer is right on the Iran Deal.

In a statement posted last Thursday (originally planned for Friday, but pushed up after the Obama administration chose to leak the news against Schumer's wishes), Schumer lays out a series of concerns about the deal that will sound familiar to many on the right who have opposed President Obama's capitulation to the Iranian mullahs.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

I think it's pretty unarguable that what Iran wants is a nuclear weapon. Under this deal, they'll get it, but it will be on some other president's watch and you won't hear much about how it all started with President Barack Obama's "deal," because the mainstream media will have been busy polishing the turd that is his "legacy."

What President Obama should've done was not "go to war" (his strawman alternative), but instead tightened the screws even further. The sanctions were working. The Iranian economy was in the crapper and there was growing dissent.

Instead we got a "deal" that gave us a laughably weak inspections regime that we don't even know the breadth of (due to two confidential side deals that Iran negotiated with the IAEA). Obama, the tough negotiator that he is, tossed in ballistic missile and conventional weapons sanctions into the deal—despite claiming that the discussions were only about Iran's nuclear program and nothing else—while failing to get four Americans held by the Iranians released.

The big question now is whether or not this (stupid) inverse treaty deal that GOP Sen. Bob Corker came up with can garner the 1/3 of Democrats needed in one of the chambers of Congress to sustain a presidential veto. Some claim that they can, which is why Schumer was allowed off his leash and allowed to oppose the deal. Others worry that Schumer may bring enough Democrats with him to deal President Obama the embarrassment of his presidency.

I tend to think it's the latter. I just can't imagine enough Democrats abandoning Obama no matter what sort of deal that he made. Democrats are too much invested in the racial grievance narrative that to oppose Obama means you're racist, to toss it just when it may be the only thing that can deliver Hillary Clinton the White House.

It may be 10 to 15 years before we finally see the end results of the deal President Obama has made (if the next president doesn't rip it up and try again). But what I suspect we'll see is an Iran with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to carry them; a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv; and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

That will be the Obama legacy.


[custom-twitter-feeds headertext="Hoystory On Twitter"]


August 2015



pencil linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram