Harry Reid's likely replacement has announced that he'll vote to disapprove the Iran deal. James Fallows thinks this means that Schumer has concluded that there's enough support for the deal that he can safely vote against it. Maybe so. But although Schumer claims that he's reached this decision "after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching," his stated basis for opposing the deal makes no sense.
Schumer argues that we’ll be worse off with the deal than without it. The agreement would allow Iran to resume its nuclear program in 15 years, and by then Iran will have benefitted from the lifting of sanctions, he argues. In addition, he contends that the additional revenue Iran will gain from the lifting of sanctions will enable Iran to be even more of a bad actor than it already is.
There are two main problems with this. First, the consequences Schumer fears will absolutely come about if we kill the deal. That’s because the sanctions regime will fall apart, and we’ll get nothing for it. As national security analyst Graham Allison explains:
If Congress rejects the deal, Iran will be free to pursue its nuclear ambitions not 15 years from now but right away, and after the sanctions collapse it will regain most of the revenue it’s now losing. Nor will Iran’s leaders have any incentive to moderate their future behavior. We will have proven to them that the hardliners were right about us – that we’re implacably opposed to the existence of the current regime and we can’t be dealt with even when it’s in our interest to make a deal. Schumer claims he doesn’t favor war with Iran, but his preferred policy would make such a war much more likely.
Second, Schumer’s focus on the non-nuclear aspects of the deal shows that he doesn’t just oppose this deal, he opposes any conceivable deal. If we can’t countenance a deal that gives Iran relief from sanctions, then no deal is possible. Of course Iran will gain advantages from this deal. Otherwise it wouldn’t have made the agreement. There’s no way around this.
I have yet to see any argument against the Iran deal that doesn’t suffer from these same fatal flaws. Those who oppose the deal do so without regard to the real world alternatives to this deal, all of which are much worse than the deal itself. No matter how skillfully the nouns and verbs are assembled, the argument is no more sophisticated than “Iran = Bad.” The deal's opponents don't even engage the crucial question: What's your alternative?
It’s appalling to see ostensibly serious people advancing transparently vacuous arguments on such an important question. Too many of us become irrational when our own national security needs conflict with the Likud Party's view of Israel's national security needs.
Schumer argues that we’ll be worse off with the deal than without it. The agreement would allow Iran to resume its nuclear program in 15 years, and by then Iran will have benefitted from the lifting of sanctions, he argues. In addition, he contends that the additional revenue Iran will gain from the lifting of sanctions will enable Iran to be even more of a bad actor than it already is.
There are two main problems with this. First, the consequences Schumer fears will absolutely come about if we kill the deal. That’s because the sanctions regime will fall apart, and we’ll get nothing for it. As national security analyst Graham Allison explains:
At this point, a “better deal” is an illusion. One can always imagine a better deal. But if the U.S. Congress rejects this agreement and proposes sending Secretary of State John Kerry back to the negotiating table, Kerry will most likely find no one else there. Partners who have negotiated and compromised over 20 months to achieve this accord will conclude that the U.S. government is incapable of making agreements. The international coalition will splinter and the sanctions regime will collapse, with Russia and China leading the way, but with France and Germany not far behind. The United States will have demonstrated that D.C. is in fact an acronym for Dysfunctional Capital. In comparison, Iran will appear to be the adult in this paring.
If Congress rejects the deal, Iran will be free to pursue its nuclear ambitions not 15 years from now but right away, and after the sanctions collapse it will regain most of the revenue it’s now losing. Nor will Iran’s leaders have any incentive to moderate their future behavior. We will have proven to them that the hardliners were right about us – that we’re implacably opposed to the existence of the current regime and we can’t be dealt with even when it’s in our interest to make a deal. Schumer claims he doesn’t favor war with Iran, but his preferred policy would make such a war much more likely.
Second, Schumer’s focus on the non-nuclear aspects of the deal shows that he doesn’t just oppose this deal, he opposes any conceivable deal. If we can’t countenance a deal that gives Iran relief from sanctions, then no deal is possible. Of course Iran will gain advantages from this deal. Otherwise it wouldn’t have made the agreement. There’s no way around this.
I have yet to see any argument against the Iran deal that doesn’t suffer from these same fatal flaws. Those who oppose the deal do so without regard to the real world alternatives to this deal, all of which are much worse than the deal itself. No matter how skillfully the nouns and verbs are assembled, the argument is no more sophisticated than “Iran = Bad.” The deal's opponents don't even engage the crucial question: What's your alternative?
It’s appalling to see ostensibly serious people advancing transparently vacuous arguments on such an important question. Too many of us become irrational when our own national security needs conflict with the Likud Party's view of Israel's national security needs.
