When New York Senator Chuck Schumer declared his opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran, it was a very big deal. The number-three Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Schumer has long been touted as the successor to that body’s number-one Democrat, Minority Leader Harry Reid. And he came out in opposition to a signature effort by a sitting president from his own party who views the Iran deal as a legacy issue.
Notwithstanding this apparent act of courage, some wondered whether there might be some sort of wink-and-nod arrangement in play. As per that scenario, the president would overlook Mr. Schumer’s vote against the Iran deal if the senator would in turn ultimately support a presidential veto of a Senate resolution of disapproval.
Accordingly, the widespread feeling among opponents of the Iran deal was that Sen. Schumer needed to allay any such skepticism by doing more than just cast a personal vote against the deal. He would have to “whip” his fellow legislators – i.e., make a real effort to persuade them to oppose it.
But events have not exactly played out the way many thought they would. From the get-go, an incensed President Obama unleashed administration mouthpieces to aim some really nasty comments and threats Mr. Schumer’s way. Any notion of a tacit agreement between the president and the senator suddenly seemed considerably less credible.
Notwithstanding all that, we are troubled by reports that Sen. Schumer has been reaching out to his Democratic colleagues to assure them that while he opposes the Iran deal, he will not be “whipping” opposition to it – and this after making such a trenchant and persuasive case against the deal in his statement announcing his opposition to it.
If the reports are accurate, it’s hard to fathom why Sen. Schumer feels it necessary to eschew urging his colleagues to oppose the Iran deal. Given Mr. Obama’s long memory and Mr. Schumer’s strongly worded brief against the agreement, it doubtless would make little difference in terms of assuaging the president if the senator were to forgo a more proactive role in attempting to sway his colleagues.
We hope the senator will prove the reports wrong and take an active approach to fighting the deal. In the last analysis, however, this is not about Chuck Schumer. It is about the security interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East, most notably Israel. As such, it is a moral imperative that all of us do what we can to see to it that this potentially calamitous agreement is defeated.