Of all the various declarations of support for the Iran nuclear deal we’ve heard from politicians and pundits, Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s is perhaps the hardest to take. His readiness to downplay the virtually certain risks this agreement will create for the U.S. and its place in the world, coupled with an almost cavalier disregard for what a nuclear Iran would mean for Israel, is unconscionable.
With all the problems attendant to this deal that continue to surface – including the relatively short duration of a freeze on an unfettered Iranian nuclear capacity and the concomitant legitimization of it thereafter; the release of billions of dollars to a nation publicly committed to worldwide unrest; the bizarre inspection regime; the unworkable enforcement provisions; the multiple escape clauses available to Iran; and the U.S. commitment to Iranian cybersecurity – the notion that the U.S. will have furthered its security interests and somehow halted Iran’s march to becoming a nuclear power is just laughable.
Mr. Nadler’s support for the deal is a naked political gift to a president who has defied logic in his quest to reinvent international affairs according to his ideological inclinations. Indeed, all Mr. Nadler has offered in his defense of the agreement is the claim that we will have more access to Iran than before – leaving unaddressed the key question of whether that access will be of any realistic help in detecting Iranian violations.
Mr. Nadler represents a congressional district with more Jews than any other in the country. So his support will make it that much easier for other House Democrats to support the agreement. It’s instructive that he is the only Jewish member of the New York congressional delegation to have come out in favor of the Iran agreement. Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, and Eliot Engel in the House and Charles Schumer in the Senate have voiced their opposition.
From our perspective, this was crunch time. And Jerry Nadler failed to measure up – big time. Perhaps he feels his liberal Manhattan constituents either agree with or will overlook his position on Iran. Or maybe he’s convinced his district’s more politically conservative and religious Brooklyn voters will be assuaged by some nice Yiddish phrases and easy words of backing for Israel when he seeks reelection next year. It’s probably some of both.
Whatever the political and ideological calculations that went into Mr. Nadler’s decision, those of us who see the Iran agreement as a reckless gamble with America’s security and Israel’s survival dare not forget or forgive – neither now nor when he comes looking for our support in 2016.