The Iran deal: Will congressional Democrats choose political power over principle?

Printed from:

As President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry continue to insist this week that the Iran nuclear deal will make the world a safer place, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatolla Ali Khamenei bragged on Twitter that the pact prevents the “Great Satan” from directly inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned Israel that in 25 years it will no longer exist.

The irony is not lost on the American people, hundreds of whom protested the Iran deal on Capitol Hill yesterday, some carrying signs that read: “What part of ‘Death to America,’ ‘Death to Israel’ don’t you understand?” 

It is, of course, not surprising that our capitulation to a sworn enemy of the United States was negotiated by Kerry, a man who built his career promoting appeasement of America’s enemies in the name of “peace.”

He is, after all, the anti-war Vietnam vet who, in the early 1970s felt such shame for his country that he threw military medals (his or someone else’s — the truth remains unclear) over the fence at the U.S. Capitol.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

John Kerry at the Fulbright Hearings in 1971. Courtesy of Wikipedia

He is, after all, the same man who supported a unilateral “nuclear freeze” during the Cold War because he believed that our own nuclear weapons — not America’s enemies — were the greatest threat to world peace.  That Kerry considers military weapons (nuclear or otherwise) to be a greater threat than the enemies of America who seek to wield them should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his long career.

In fact, the deal with Iran is exactly what one would expect from Kerry and Obama, the leaders of the blame-America-first crowd.

What is surprising, however, is that more congressional Democrats aren’t willing to stand up to the president and secretary of state to oppose what they know in their hearts is a very bad deal — for America, for Israel and, therefore, for world peace.

To be sure, several key Democrats, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), oppose the deal, which lifts sanctions on the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism but does not prevent (and at best delays) Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  But although opposition to the deal is bi-partisan, support for the deal remains entirely partisan — with many Democrats supporting the deal to prove their loyalty to Obama or to hold on to power within the party.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla), a longtime supporter of Israel, reportedly fought back tears in announcing her support for the deal.

“There is nothing more important to me as a Jew,” she said, “than to ensure that Israel’s existence is there throughout the generations.”

And yet, as the leader of the Democratic National Committee, Wasserman Schultz put party over principle to support her president.

“I am confident that the process I’ve gone through to reach this decision is one that will ensure that Israel will be there forever,” proclaimed an emotional and defensive Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz is just one of many Democratic politicians who have chosen political self-interest over national security by supporting the flawed pact with Iran.

In July, the Washington Examiner suggested that Democratic congressmen Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado and John Yarmuth of Kentucky, had supported the deal as a way of cozying up to the president, who on July 19 rewarded the trio with a round of golf.

Meanwhile, here in Massachusetts, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has admitted that Iran “undermines international peace and stability.” But in order to support her president she is voting for the deal.  (She justifies her vote by claiming that Tehran’s support for terrorism is a separate concern with no bearing on whether the nuclear deal should go forward.)

Senator Ed Markey, who tops the list of candidates financially supported by the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC),  also concedes that  “[Iran] is a state sponsor of terrorism, a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and present[s] an existential threat to Israel.”

Yet, Markey, too, stands by his president.

Along with Senators Warren and Markey, Massachusetts Representatives Jim McGovern (2nd); Niki Tsongas (3nd), Joe Kennedy (4th), Katherine Clark (5th); Seth Moulton (6th); Mike Capuano (7th); and Stephen Lynch (8th) have all declared their support for the deadly deal.

Representatives Richard Neal (1st) and Bill Keating (9th) are reportedly still mulling over whether or not to support the pact.

Are they, too, willing to sacrifice America’s national security for golf dates and party loyalty?  Will the entire Massachusetts delegation sell out?

Today, on the 14th anniversary of 9/11, let’s hope Neal and Keating oppose the deal that will lift sanctions and allow the world’s largest supporter of terrorism access to billions of dollars and the technology necessary to obtain a nuclear weapon.