Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What’s in Obama’s best interest is not necessarily what’s in America’s best interest

What’s in Obama’s best interest is not necessarily what’s in America’s best interest

Ensuring the expansion and nuclearization of the Iranian Mullah regime may seal Obama’s deal, but it’s not in our interest.

If the overheated rhetoric and denunciations of the opponents of the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal weren’t over the top before Chuck Schumer announced his position, they certainly have reached that point now.

William Jacobson and Kemberlee Kaye have catalogued some of the more appalling responses here and here. Two of the worst accusations that are being made against Senator Schumer, as well as other members of Congress that have openly opposed the deal, are first, that they are acting against American interests, and second, that they do so at the behest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and AIPAC.

Those who call Schumer “Netanyahu’s marionette” appear oblivious to the Senator’s deliberative, thoughtful, and well-reasoned statement, which rebuts the President’s arguments point by point. They similarly ignore the fact that, as the New York Times reports, Schumer met with the President, with Wendy Sherman and John Kerry, and in addition to those meetings, had “three hourlong meetings with members of the negotiating team during which he received answers to 14 pages’ worth of questions on the agreement.”

The charge that Senator Schumer did anything other than exercise his own independent judgment is scurrilous. Clearly, what is really unacceptable to his attackers is the fact that Schumer failed to blindly follow the party line.

All of which has left me wondering, when did it become anti-American to exercise independent judgment?

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer Iran Deal Iran Nuclear Bomb Inspections Regime Obama National Security

For members of Congress, the exercise of independent judgment is a requirement, not an aberration. Yet, Schumer and other Democrats who oppose the deal are being vilified for upholding their responsibility to their constituents and the public.

The accusation that Schumer is acting against American interests also disregards his actual statement, which reads, in part,

Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States.

The threat to the United States may not be immediate, but it is very real.

The non-nuclear threat this deal poses to other countries in the Middle East, meanwhile, is both real and immediate. The President himself has admitted on at least two occasions that some portion of the Iranian assets set to be unfrozen will support the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the genocidal Assad.

While the Iranian government sponsors rallies at which participants chant “Death to Israel,” it attempts to make good on this threat through its sponsorship of Hamas. Hamas is responsible for launching eleven thousand rockets into Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

At the same time, Iran props up Bashar al-Assad. Several months ago the death toll from Assad’s four-year long war in Syria passed 300,000, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Many of these deaths were due to starvation or chemical weapons.

As a supporter of Israel, obviously I am deeply disturbed by the threat that Hamas poses to Israel and the support that this deal will provide for Hamas. Support for terrorism, however, should be disturbing to all people of conscience, whether they support Israel or not.

As an American, moreover – and as a human being – I am sickened by the fact that, not only have we stood by and watched the slaughter in Syria for four years, we are now poised to fund it.

We had an opportunity with this deal to insist that Iran stop supporting Assad, stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, and stop funding the Houthis that are destabilizing Yemen. We passed on this opportunity.

pelosi and assad

According to one report, the EU’s Federica Mogherini asked that cessation of support for Assad be made a condition of the deal, but it was John Kerry who persuaded her to drop this request. The same report alleges that French and British negotiators asked that Iran stop supporting Hezbollah, and again it was Kerry who argued against this request.

(Notably, no Europeans appear to have asked that Iran stop supporting Hamas.)

Instead of taking the opportunity to stop Iran, we will be giving them more money with which to do these things.

Opposing a deal that funds terrorism and genocide is now being labeled as acting against American interests. When did it become anti-American to oppose terrorism and genocide?

Four thousand Americans have been killed by terrorism since 1970. Fighting terrorism has always been an American policy — including under Obama. In 2011, President Obama declared that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.”

Opposing a deal that will fund terrorism and genocide upholds American values, and it is therefore certainly within the American interest.

The US was once considered the leader of the free world, a role President Obama has rejected. This deal, however, will turn us into the financial backer of murderous regimes. Is that really in the American interest?

[Featured Image: Washington Post / YouTube ]

———————

Mirabelle is a non-practicing lawyer and blogger, writing about Israel, the US-Israel relationship, and media bias at Israellycool.com. On twitter: @MiraWard375

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“What’s in Obama’s best interest is not necessarily what’s in America’s best interest”

Change “necessarily” to “NEVER” and you’ve got it.

Rush Limbaugh was excoriated years ago for his statement that “I hope he (Obama) fails.” by people who could not or would not understand that difference.

Obama wants a legacy which will let him go out with a bang.

All of which has left me wondering, when did it become anti-American to exercise independent judgment?

Jan 20, 2009 – After being sworn in as the 44th president, Barack Hussein Obama

And

Jan 20, 2013 – Obama Sworn In for 2nd Term

To President Projection, more terrorism now, in exchange for a 15 year break-out is a good deal. Turn the proxies loose and they will honor the inspections regime and abide by the deal. Sure thing, Barry! To think otherwise is to honor the hardliners and wish for war.

Humphrey's Executor | August 11, 2015 at 1:42 pm

Obama’s recent nasty rhetoric remind his “hot mike” comment to Russian president Medvedev, “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” That duplicitous, two-faced, disloyal, SOB steams me to no end,

As I said elsewhere, not (even close to) a fan of Schumer’s, his position may be a good opportunity for him to lead contrary to what is being said by the choir of sycophants traipsing around behind Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the light-weight choir. If he challenges them to discuss the agreement and tells them to go away when they try to talk about something else he just might find himself providing cover for some of the younger Party members who are sick of the tired, old, thread bare, disgusting leadership they’re stuck with now, an opportunity to lead Democrats back to thoughtfulness, to take this as an opportunity to separate themselves from the noisemakers who have never been anything but a useful claque to Obama, anyway.

Democrats would do well to take a moment and consider their snide comments about leadership before criticizing him for this decision. Democrat leadership in both houses, the administration at large, and in the Party has been dishonest, shrill, and nasty since George Bush won election to the Presidency and only became more so after Obama was elected.

But then, perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much; Rick Moran said it best, elsewhere: “I’d feel sorry for Schumer except he is one of the architects of the modern Democratic Party and helped create these monstrous extremist groups who have now set their sights on him.” The Party is eating its own, that’s what it does.

I simply cannot believe that this website actually believes that Schumer is doing this for any other reason except to get Reid’s old job. The man knows that he has to vote against it to keep his Jewish constituents in line but he also knows that his vote is not going to be needed to stop the override of obama’s veto. He is one of the most political animals in DC and hasn’t had a noble thought in years.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to inspectorudy. | August 11, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    The man knows that he has to vote against it to keep his Jewish constituents in line

    More important, he’s got to prevent a “neo-conservative” primary challenge, or a strong Republican candidate. This is the kind of thing that could get a candidate into the race, and gove him contributors.

    He also knows he has got to give good solid reasons for his vote – that do not criticize too much the people who vote the other way. He’s got to portray this as something of a close call.

    Today Schumer confirmed that he had indeed planned to release he news of Friday (which would have actually limited the publicity) but somebody at the White House (he had told them) leaked this during the Republican debate – so he released his statement immediately.

    (And a lot of it got published as a New York Post Op-ed – there was no coopyright on that statement)

    Somebody must have thought there’d be even less publicity if the news emerged at the same time as the Republican debate. Maybe nobody would hear about it.

    Schumer took several House members with him, all of whom might have faced a primary or general election maybe challenge if they had announced the other way. These (including Schumer) are all people that normally face only token opposition.

What is in the President’s best interests is really big bucks for his memoirs.

“All of which has left me wondering, when did it become anti-American to exercise independent judgment?”

It has never been “anti-American” to exercise independent judgment.

It has, however, become anti-Democrat, anti-“Progressive”, and anti-Obama (but I repeat myself, twice)to do so.

Nobody questions His Excellency! NOBODY!!

Sammy Finkelman | August 11, 2015 at 2:47 pm

If the overheated rhetoric and denunciations of the opponents of the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal weren’t over the top before Chuck Schumer announced his position..

Do you realize that could be read two ways, depending on the meaning of the word “ of ?

It could mean, and does mean, that the opponents are being denounced.

Or it could mean that the opponents are doing the denouncing – that it is their denunciations, as in, for instance, “the over-the-top rhetoric of President Barack Obama”

Sammy Finkelman | August 11, 2015 at 4:02 pm

(Notably, no Europeans appear to have asked that Iran stop supporting Hamas.)

That’s because Hamas broke from them, although it later sort of regretted it.

Hamas thought Assad was going to fall, so to maintain credibility, it separated from him, and all its personnel left Damascus, including the leader..

There has however been a rapprochement and Iran may never have stopped supporting Hamas militarily and the openly announced policy now is to help anyone who wages war (or terrorism) on Israel and in other places.

Iran favors Islamic Jihad, though, in Gaza, but Islamic Jihad more or elss gets along with Hamas, I think.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend