Aug 20th 2015

Ten Reasons Why Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad Politics for Dems, Bad Policy for America

by Robert Creamer

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.
Many of the same people who rushed America to War with Iraq are now engaged in a no-holds-barred campaign to convince a small group of House and Senate Democrats that they should vote to kill President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Agreement when Congress returns in September.
 
But the fact is that opposing the Iran Nuclear Deal is horrible politics for Democrats.
   If it were defeated, it would be even worse from America – and, by the way, for Israel.

The case is made succinctly in a new video by Americans United for Change:



First, the politics.
 
Reason #1: Polls show that everyday Americans – and especially Democrats – overwhelmingly support the agreement, and they have been supportive of the process that led to the agreement for many months.
 
A Public Policy Polling nationwide poll taken July 23-24 found 54% of the public supported the nuclear agreement with Iran and only 38% opposed. 
 
According to PPP:
 
Democratic voters (75/17) are far more united in their favor for the agreement than Republicans (36/54) were in their opposition to it. Voters within every gender, race, and age group are in support of it.
 
Similarly, 54% of voters want their members of Congress to vote to allow the agreement to move forward, compared to just 39% who would like to see it blocked.
    
It may surprise some pundits that an even greater number of Jewish voters support the deal.  According to a poll by GBA Strategies for J Street, a progressive pro-Israel lobbying group, Jewish voters support the deal by a 20-point margin – 60% in favor and 40% against.  Jewish voters strongly support action by Congress to approve the agreement.
 
And in New York City, where several Democrats are still undecided about their support for the agreement, a PPP poll taken last week found that 59% of the city’s voters want their Member of Congress to allow the deal to go forward, compared to only 33% who do not.
 
In New York City, of course, most key electoral races for Democrats are Democratic primaries.   Far from experiencing a backlash if they support the Iran deal, Democratic Members of Congress will likely benefit.  In fact, 54% of voters say they are more likely to vote for someone who supports the agreement, while only 25% say they’d be less likely to.
 
Reason #2: If the Iran deal goes into effect at the beginning of October as it is supposed to do, every indication is that it will be going very well by the time any Members of Congress face the voters in either a Primary or General Election.
 
The interim agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear program during the 18 months of negotiation that preceded the consummation of the final agreement was derided by Neo-Cons at the time it was signed.  They argued that Iran would never adhere to its terms and it would collapse. 
 
Not only did it not collapse, but many of those same voices thought it was working so well by early this year that they urged the U.S. to scrap the negotiations in favor of trying to maintain the interim deal that that they had earlier excoriated. 
 
By next spring, there is every reason to believe that the same will be true with the permanent agreement.
 
There is no danger that a vote for the Iran agreement will create a nightmare scenario by the next election.  But there is a very high likelihood that if Congress rejects the deal, America could be facing a major foreign policy disaster by next year that will be hung directly around the necks of those voting no.  More on those consequences in a moment.
 
Reason #3: Many of the Democrats who oppose the Iran Deal, or are undecided about their support, fear a backlash from a very small group of influential Democratic donors and bundlers.
 
But many of them ignore the rise of a whole new group of progressive Democratic donors – and progressive Jewish donors – that are just as committed to supporting the agreement as opponents are to stopping it.  J-Street – the progressive alternative to AIPAC – has exploded in size over the last five years.  From the point of view of fundraising and political support, these donors represent the future for Democratic Members of Congress.
 
What’s more, many progressive Democratic donors have made it clear that they will refuse to support opponents of the deal in the next cycle. 
 
Reason #4: Democrats who oppose the deal will be isolating themselves from the vast majority of Democratic voters (including Jewish Democratic voters), from the overwhelming majority of Democratic Members of Congress, from the House Democratic Leadership and from the Democratic President.
 
That isn’t good politics for anyone who wants to have influence within the Democratic caucuses of the House or Senate – or the White House.
 
Reason #5: The organized progressive community within the Democratic Party is every bit as intense in their support for this agreement as the small number of opponents. 
 
Opponents of the deal are likely to alienate these organizations and their leadership for years to come and to bear the brunt of intense criticism from groups that have no compunction inflicting political costs onto Democrats who they believe have betrayed their principles.
 
Reason #6: Most importantly, Democrats who vote against the Iran Agreement will ultimately find themselves on the wrong side of history.  
 
This vote is an “Iraq War” moment that will fundamentally define Members of Congress for the rest of their careers. 
 
Thirteen years later, there are not many Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of the Iraq War and are glad they took that vote.  Many of them have paid a steep political price for allowing themselves to be rushed into war by many of the same people who today are urging that the Iran Agreement be stopped.
 
There are simply no alternatives to this agreement other than a nuclear Iran or military conflict.   If the U.S. Congress stops this agreement, our partners will end sanctions and we will get nothing in return from Iran.  The hard-liners in Iran will be emboldened and will argue that the U.S. never really wanted a negotiated agreement and that the only way for Iran to protect itself is to actually build a nuclear bomb.
 
In that situation, it would likely require another war in the Middle East to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb– a war for which those who vote against this agreement will be held personally responsible.
 
Voting against this deal is horrible politics for Democrats.  It is even worse policy for America.
 
Reason #7: There is no “better deal.”  As Treasury Secretary Jack Lew made clear in the New York Times, those who argue that by unilaterally ramping up sanctions America could force Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program – or even the character of the regime wholesale – are engaging in “dangerous fantasy” that flies in the face of economic and diplomatic reality.
 
The countries with the other major economies in the world joined us in a sanctions regime against Iran that was successful at bringing them to the bargaining table and producing an agreement that will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.  They participated because they believed that Iran’s nuclear program represented an uncontained threat to global security – and because we offered a specific path to a diplomatic solution.
 
Those countries believe we achieved our objective.  They all support the agreement – along with the UN Security Council and 90 other countries.   They believe – along with most nuclear experts – that the deal constrains the Iran nuclear program for the long term and ensures it is exclusively peaceful. 
 
They will not join us in going back to the negotiating table.  Their sanctions will simply end. 
 
The notion that the U.S. could somehow force other countries to re-impose sanctions by levying secondary sanctions on them also ignores economic reality.
 
Most of these countries, like the European Union, China, Japan, India and South Korea – and their companies – represent our trading partners and the largest economies in the world.  Secretary Lew points out that:
 
If we were to cut them off from the American dollar and our financial system, we would set off extensive financial hemorrhaging, not just in our partner countries but in the United States as well.
 
He continues:
 
The major importers of Iranian oil – China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey – together account for nearly a fifth of our goods exports and own 47% of foreign-held American treasuries.  They will not agree to indefinite economic sacrifices in the name of an illusory better deal.
 
Reason #8:  Nuclear experts say the deal has the toughest restrictions of any weapons agreement in history.
 
A letter authored by 29 of the world’s foremost experts in nuclear power and arms control says:
 
This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.
 
They continue:
 
A key result of these restrictions is that it would take Iran many months to enrich uranium for a weapon. We contrast this with the situation before the interim agreement was negotiated in Lausanne: at that time Iran had accumulated enough 20 percent enriched uranium that the required additional enrichment time for weapons use was only a few weeks…..
 
Some have expressed concern that the deal will free Iran to develop nuclear weapons without constraint after ten years. In contrast we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely under the NPT and its Additional Protocol.
 
The signers of this letter include six Nobel laureates, one of the physicists who helped design the first hydrogen bomb, a former Director of the Los Alamos Weapons Laboratory (the facility that produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation’s nuclear arsenal), and the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  In other words, these are people who actually know what is involved in building nuclear weapons – not just reading talking points produced by a political consulting firm.
 
Their views are echoed by more than 100 former Ambassadors from both parties who signed a letter to President Obama endorsing the deal – including five who had been ambassadors to Israel.
 
And while hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has convinced most elements in the Israeli political class to oppose the deal, the country’s national security class – and its scientists – supports the agreement.
 
Reason #9:  The inspection regime to prevent cheating is more robust than anything ever negotiated into an arms agreement. 
 
The agreement blocks any of the three paths Iran could use to get a nuclear weapon – uranium enrichment, production of plutonium or clandestine means. It would change the “breakout” time necessary for Iran to get a nuclear weapon from a matter of weeks to a year.
 
And if we do catch them cheating, it will be Iran that is isolated from the rest of the world – not the United States.
 
If they did cheat, there is a “snap back” provision that would actually result in the re-imposition of international sanctions.  And if the new sanctions weren’t enough we would have massively more intelligence and inspection data to use in planning military action.   Now we have virtually none.
 
If, on the other hand, the United States Congress sinks the deal, it will be America that is isolated and we would not be able to re-impose international sanctions at all.   We would have the worst of all worlds: no international sanctions, no international unity, emboldened hard liners in Iran, and no way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon other than another Mid East War.
 
Reason #10: As Senator Joe Donnelly said in his announcement of support for the agreement:
 
I owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces and to the people of Indiana to have exhausted every other option to stop Iran before we would consider putting any of our service members in harm’s way.
 
War is not just another “policy option.”   Once you launch military action, circumstances spin out of control and – as in Iraq – hundreds of thousands could die.  Just ask the men and women of our military how great it is to be part of a war – particularly part of a war of occupation in the Middle East.
 
And let us remember the General Colin Powell’s  “Pottery Barn rule”: “If you break it you own it.”
 
We spent at least two trillion dollars on the War in Iraq after we “broke it.”   And when we invaded Iraq, we kicked over the sectarian hornet’s nest that made way for ISIS.
 
Do we really want to try to occupy Iran – a country many times bigger than Iraq with a much more robust military?
 
Yet many of the people who are leading the campaign to block this agreement want the United States to take military action to achieve “regime change” in Iran. 
 
In an opinion piece in March in The New York Times, former Bush U.N. Ambassador and leading proponent of the Iraq War John Bolton wrote that when it came to Iran:
 
The inconvenient truth is that only military action ……can accomplish what is required.
 
Sound familiar?
 
That is exactly the kind of thinking that led America into the worst foreign policy disaster in half a century.  It is amazing that people like Bolton – who are personally responsible for that disaster – have the audacity to propose that America start yet another war in the Middle East. 
 
They were wrong about Iraq.  Now they are wrong about Iran.
 
They fooled America once.  Don’t let them fool us again.

 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.



Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Apr 16th 2021
EXTRACT: "When we examined the development of nations worldwide since 1820, we found that among rich Western countries like the United States, the Netherlands and France, improvements in income, education, safety and health tracked or even outpaced rising gross domestic product for over a century. But in the 1950s, even as economic growth accelerated after World War II, well-being in these countries lagged.
Apr 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "Some presidents indulge in the “Mount Rushmore syndrome” making an obvious effort to achieve greatness. Normally soft-spoken and apparently modest Biden is making his own bid for immortality."
Apr 9th 2021
EXTRACT: "New ways of thinking about the role of government are as important as new priorities. Many commentators have framed Biden’s infrastructure plan as a return to big government. But the package is spread over eight years, will raise public spending by only one percentage point of GDP, and is projected to pay for itself eventually. A boost in public investment in infrastructure, the green transition, and job creation is long overdue."
Apr 7th 2021
EXTRACT: " One can, and perhaps should, take the optimistic view that moral panics in the US blow over; reason will once again prevail. It could be that the Biden era will take the sting out of Trumpism, and the tolerance for which American intellectual life has often been admired will be reinvigorated. This might even happen while the noxious effects of American influence still rage in other countries. For the sake of America and the world, one can only hope it happens soon.  "
Mar 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "By refusing (despite having some good reasons) to end electoral gerrymandering, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has directly enabled the paralyzing hyper-partisanship that reached its nadir during Donald Trump’s presidency. By striking down all limits on corporate spending on political campaigns in the infamous 2010 Citizens United decision, he has helped to entrench dark money in US politics. And by gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Roberts has facilitated the racist voter-suppression tactics now being pursued in many Republican-controlled states."
Mar 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "the UK’s tough choices accumulate, and the problems lurking around the corner look menacing. Britain will have to make the best of Brexit. But it will be a long, hard struggle, all the more so with an evasive fabulist in charge."
Mar 15th 2021
EXTRACT: "Over the years, the approach of most American policymakers toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been Israel-centric with near total disregard for the suffering endured by the Palestinian people. The architects of policy in successive US administrations have discussed the conflict as if the fate of only one party (Israel) really mattered. Israelis were treated as full human beings with hopes and fears, while Palestinians were reduced to a problem that needed to be solved so that Israelis could live in peace and security.  ..... It is not just that Israelis and Palestinians haven’t been viewed with an equal measure of concern. It’s worse than that. It appears that Palestinians were judged as less ​human than Israelis, and were, therefore, not entitled to make demands to have their rights recognized and protected."
Mar 8th 2021
EXTRACTS: "XThere’s a global shortage in semiconductors, and it’s becoming increasingly serious." ...... "The automotive sector has been worst affected by the drought, in an era where microchips now form the backbone of most cars. Ford is predicting a 20% slump in production and Tesla shut down its model 3 assembly line for two weeks. In the UK, Honda was forced to temporarily shut its plant as well." ..... " As much as 70% of the world’s semiconductors are manufactured by just two companies, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) and Samsung."
Mar 5th 2021
EXTRACT: "Back in 1992, Lawrence H. Summers, then the chief economist at the World Bank, and I warned that pushing the US Federal Reserve’s annual inflation target down from 4% to 2% risked causing big problems. Not only was the 4% target not producing any discontent, but a 2% target would increase the risk of the Fed’s interest-rate policy hitting the zero lower bound. Our objections went unheeded. Fed Chair Alan Greenspan reduced the inflation target to 2%, and we have been paying for it ever since. I have long thought that many of our economic problems would go away if we could rejigger asset markets in such a way as to make a 5% federal funds rate consistent with full employment in the late stage of a business cycle."
Mar 2nd 2021
EXTRACT: "Under these conditions, the Fed is probably worried that markets will instantly crash if it takes away the punch bowl. And with the increase in public and private debt preventing the eventual monetary normalization, the likelihood of stagflation in the medium term – and a hard landing for asset markets and economies – continues to increase."
Mar 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus programs in the United States and other advanced economies are fueling a raging debate about whether higher inflation could be just around the corner. Ten-year US Treasury yields and mortgage rates are already climbing in anticipation that the US Federal Reserve – the de facto global central bank – will be forced to hike rates, potentially bursting asset-price bubbles around the world. But while markets are probably overstating short-term inflation risks for 2021, they do not yet fully appreciate the longer-term dangers."
Feb 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "To be sure, calls to “build back better” from the pandemic imply some awareness of the need for systemic change. But the transformation we need extends beyond constructing modern infrastructure or unlocking private investment in any one country. We need to re-orient – indeed, re-invent – global politics, so that countries can cooperate far more effectively in creating a better world."
Feb 23rd 2021
EXTRACT: "So, notwithstanding the predictable release of pent-up demand for consumer durables, face-to-face services show clear evidence – in terms of both consumer demand and employment – of permanent scarring. Consequently, with the snapback of pent-up demand for durables nearing its point of exhaustion, the recovery of the post-pandemic US economy is likely to fall well short of vaccine development’s “warp speed.” "
Feb 20th 2021
EXTRACT: "Human rights abuses under Erdogan are beyond the pale of inhumanity and moral decadence. The list of Erdogan’s violations and cruelty is too long to numerate. The detention and horrifying torture of thousands of innocent people for months and at times for years, without being charged, is hard to fathom. Many prisoners are left languishing in dark cells, often in solitary confinement. The detention of tens of thousands of men and hundreds of women, many with their children, especially following the 2016 failed coup, has become common. It is calculated to inflict horrendous pain and suffering to bring the prisoners to the breaking point, so that they confess to crimes they have never committed."
Feb 20th 2021
Courtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, circa 1670, (Job Adriaenszoon Berckheyde).
Feb 12th 2021
EXTRACT: "Global regulators will no doubt be concerned about a potential volatility spillover from digital asset prices into traditional capital markets. They may not permit what could quickly amount to effective proxy approval by the back door for companies holding large proportions of a volatile asset on their balance sheets."
Feb 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "Since Russians began protesting opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s imprisonment, the security forces have apparently had carte blanche to arrest demonstrators – and they have done so by the thousands. If Russians so much as honk their car horns in solidarity with the protesters, they risk personal repercussions. The official response to the protests goes beyond the Kremlin’s past repression. It is war."
Feb 6th 2021
EXTRACT: ".......like Biden, Roosevelt was certainly no revolutionary. His task was to save American capitalism. He was a repairer, a fixer. The New Deal was achieved not because of Roosevelt’s genius or heroism, but because enough people trusted him to act in good faith. That is precisely what people are expecting from Biden, too. He must save US democracy from the ravages of a political crisis. To do so, he must reestablish trust in the system. He has promised to make his country less polarized, and to restore civility and truth to political discourse. In this endeavor, his lack of charisma may turn out to be his greatest strength. For all that he lacks in grandeur, he makes up for by exuding an air of decency."
Feb 2nd 2021
EXTRACT: "Europe must not lose sight of the long game, which inevitably will center on China, not Russia or relations with post-Brexit Britain. China is already establishing a presence in Iran, and demonstrating that it has the capital, know-how, and technology to project power and influence beyond its borders. Should it succeed in turning the Belt and Road Initiative into a line of geopolitical stepping-stones, it might soon emerge at Europe’s southeastern border in a form that no one in the EU foresaw."
Jan 29th 2021
EXTRACT: "One sign of this change is that, unlike all recent Democratic administrations, Biden’s hasn’t paid obeisance to Wall Street by giving bankers top jobs. The new Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, is a former Federal Reserve chair and academic who has made it clear that she understands the country’s pressing social needs. Moreover, Biden consulted Warren on her economic views, and has named a former Warren adviser as Yellen’s deputy. Yellen’s appointment demonstrates that Biden shares the insight that enabled Trump’s rise: that too many Americans feel that they cannot get a fair share. "