In a piece for the Washington Post, Senator Cardin wrote that, while reviewing the agreement, “I continuously returned to two fundamental questions: Is this deal more or less likely to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state? Would rejection increase or decrease the likelihood of a nightmare scenario of a nuclear-armed Iran?” He emphasizes there is “no clear choice,” because “nobody possesses clairvoyance,” and said his decision on the deal was a “close call.” In the article, Senator Cardin summarized his reasons for opposing the deal: “The JCPOA will provide a legal path (nuclear development) to a country that remains a rogue state and has violated its international nonproliferation obligations for years. It would provide Iran with international endorsement of an industrial-scale nuclear program. Worse, Iran would be economically strengthened by frighteningly quick relief from sanctions and international economic engagement. If Iran violates the agreement, building international support for new sanctions would take too long to be effective. A military response in this scenario would be more likely, although disastrous.”
The problem is the notion that the implementation will be “in good faith, based on mutual respect.” Cardin asks what respect can be given to or received from a country “that actively foments regional instability, advocates for Israel’s destruction, kills the innocent and shouts ‘Death to America.’” Cardin points out the ease with which inspections can be denied and he does not support the lifting of the UN arms embargo or the ballistic missile sanctions. If Congress rejects the Iran deal, he argues, Europe would realize it cannot act alone without support from the US. Senator Cardin proposes that sanctions should not be lifted until Iran gives assurances on issues concerning terrorism, human rights and ballistic missiles. And there should be new sanctions that could be expedited if Iran violates the agreement.
It is unfortunate, although sadly not surprising, that the anti-Semitic canard about Jewish politicians having dual loyalties has reared its ugly head in the discussion of the Iran deal. Opponents of the deal ask those who make this accusation if they really think Israel is the only country Iran dislikes or could harm, given other enemies in the region and Iran’s chants of “Death to America.” When Senator Schumer got heat for rejecting the Iran deal, the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused the critics of playing “gutter politics.”
“The spectacle of labeling Senator Schumer and other opponents of the controversial Iran nuclear deal as ‘warmongers’ who are more loyal to Israel than America is the lowest form of gutter politics seen in our country since Joe McCarthy,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Dean and Founder and Associate Dean respectively of the Simon Wiesenthal center for human rights. “We fear such hateful rhetoric between now and next month’s historic vote will legitimize mainstream hate and anti-Semitism” and reduce the discussion to a “disagreement between the US and Israel,” they wrote.
Ben Cardin belongs to the Beth Tefillah Orthodox shul in Pikesville, Maryland. Recently, a CSPAN caller, Eric from Georgia, who said he was a Democrat, came at Cardin with the dual loyalty accusation, and the Senator skillfully told him off.
“I got a comment and I got a question, and I’d appreciate a little time, don’t cut me off,” said Eric from Georgia. Senator Cardin seemed to think the caller had charm and directness, until he demonstrated why the Senator, or anyone else with a sense of decency, might want to cut him off.
“So, here’s the point. Mr. Cardin looks like a regular white guy, nice guy, whatever, but, in actuality, he’s a Jewish white guy. And if the public was informed of that by C-SPAN, I think they would take his comments differently.”