My Democratic friends in Congress need to say no to this Iranian nuclear deal

I voted for Barack Obama twice for president. I am a lifelong Democrat who has been in and around politics and government (including five years as a senior Hill staffer) since my political awakening as I protested the Vietnam War. That experience taught me, among other things, to hate war. I proudly consider myself a progressive who strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship.  

Yet I look at this Iran agreement and am appalled by it because it’s a bad deal. On its merits — for America and not just for Israel — it fails to protect against the possibility that in a few short years Iranian missiles carrying nuclear weapons can reach anywhere in the world. 

{mosads}I’m really disappointed that I oppose this deal. I hoped, naively I suppose, that negotiations resulting from the sanctions for which my friends and I in the pro-Israel community lobbied, would result in a good deal. After all, the president and secretary of State repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal.” 

Let’s start with the apparent last-minute concession on ballistic missiles. In eight years, Iran, whose intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program is already underway, can legally and without any penalty or sanctions acquire advanced missile parts, equipment and technology from other countries to accelerate its missile program.  

Iran doesn’t need ICBMs to reach Israel; its proxy Hezbollah already has over 100,000 missiles in Lebanon. They need ICBMs to reach America.

This is not just my personal concern. Days before the deal was announced, Secretary of Defense Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey warned Senate committees that we must stop Iran from having ICBMs because “the ‘I’ in ICBM stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States.” 

I never had illusions that Iran’s terrorism support, suppression of its people or holding of four American hostages was to be on the table. 

This was about ending Iran’s nuclear capability in exchange for lifting sanctions. But to the contrary, this deal validates Iran as a nuclear threshold state when most of the restrictions expire in 10 to 15 years, shortly after they have ICBMs. 

It will be very difficult for Democratic members of Congress to defy a Democratic president. The administration’s pressure on Congressional Democrats is and will be enormous. Secretary Kerry has longstanding relationships on both sides of the aisle from his almost 30 years in the Senate, making it even harder.   

But the vote is about this deal, not personalities. This decision must be made on a bipartisan basis on the merits, as has been the case for decades when it came to stopping the Iranian nuclear threat. Unless a substantial number of Democrats vote to disapprove this deal and then vote to override a presidential veto, this will end up being a partisan issue. That itself could have unfortunate, long-term consequences for the U.S.-Israel relationship.  

I accept that President Obama and Secretary Kerry really believe this was the best deal possible. I’m not impugning their motives. While they may view this as their legacy, Democrats in Congress should not and cannot let that blind them to the fact that this is a bad deal. No deal is better than a bad deal — you said so yourself, Mr. President.

So, what’s the alternative, short of war? I don’t want another war in the Middle East any more than I wanted one in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. The alternatives start with not lifting U.S. sanctions and forcing Iran back to the negotiating table. Maintaining American-imposed sanctions is within the prerogative of Congress. 

Even if Europe won’t join us, U.S. sanctions are still the most powerful and significant in the world. Continuing them will hurt Iran financially, maybe enough to get them back to the table. If congressional disapproval results in Iran walking away from the deal altogether, violating the U.N. resolutions and continuing its nuclear program, then under those circumstances even the Europeans cannot lift sanctions.  Let’s call the ayatollah’s bluff — he certainly called ours.  

This is very complicated on numerous fronts, yet even complex issues can be reduced to a bottom line.  And the bottom line here is that in eight years Iran can have ICBMs and in no more than 15 years a clear path to the bomb — under this very bad deal.  

Therefore, the Congress, particularly my Democratic friends in Congress, should stand up and say NO.
  

Goldstein is a partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm and a pro-Israel activist.