First off, it it was up to me, I would have never even cared enough to negotiate this deal, because I don’t care about the underlying politics either way. But now that the die is about to be cast, I guess I better throw my chips somewhere on the table. If I was in the United States Senate, I would vote against it for one reason and one reason only: The lack of inspections in the deal. Otherwise, I would vote for it. Of course, the reason it doesn’t have inspections is because having them would have delayed finalization of the deal, and Obama wanted something ASAP just to have a major foreign relations accomplishment before January 20, 2017. The only reason why, even in the inexplicably inverted ratification process per the Corker bill, this agreement has a chance of being ratified is because old time pro-Israel Senate Democrats, like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, are stuck in the gravity wells between political party loyalty and tribal loyalty, and in the case of non-Jewish pro-Israel Senate Democrats, stuck between party loyalty and foreign policy loyalty.
But that makes me wonder: Which PR war room would I rather run? The pro or the anti?
Maybe looking at the matrix of positives and negatives will help.
Positives: With sanctions lifted, the international oil market is dropping like a rock
Negatives: Lots of secret deals with untrustworthy people, no inspections, legitimizing a religious fanatic regime, quasi-countenancing their getting nuclear ordnance, (even though I don’t think they’re that close to an actual nuclear weapon), no assurances that Russia and others won’t help Tehran along
Positives: The more people come to know about it, the less they like it. Support is dropping like a rock. The pro-deal negatives are anti-deal positives.
Negatives: Doing PR work against the deal is going to come off as being a shill of the Lob-bee, there has been a lot of irresponsible paranoid rhetoric coming from both the Israeli and American right about impending nuclear holocaust should Iran actually finish a bomb.
Yes, I’d rather run the anti-deal PR war room.
Here’s the catch.
The anti-deal crowd shouldn’t get cocky. Yes, the big mo is swinging their way, but by the same token a lot of people, including people who you wouldn’t think, are experiencing Israel fatigue. I’d advise them not to kvetch about Obama’s supposed anti-Semitism in his complaining about the Lob-bee, no gloating, no arrogance, no spiking the football. In fact, kinda sorta portray the notion that they think it’s a fundamentally good deal with some flaws that need to be addressed, such as the lack of inspections. Therefore, lobby the Senate to cast a vote to delay consideration of the deal, not a vote to reject the deal outright. That way, it would give wavering Democrats who are stuck between party and either tribe or politics to vote against Obama and his deal, but not seem like they’re kneecapping him. Of course, the vote to delay consideration would be for outward consumption only; in reality, it would be a de facto rejection, because we know that the person of Baraq Obama is the only kind of person who could become President who would ever make such a deal, because of his life history and upbringing and his sympathetic bleeding heart toward Muslims. He is a one-off as far as modern American Presidents go. We know that not a one of the major declared Presidential candidates of either party would make this deal, and they’ll take whatever Obama came up with and send it straight to File 13 by January 20, 2017 at 12:01 PM. So, the Senate will vote to delay the treaty, then drag their heels and hem-haw for the next 536 days, waiting for the clock to run out on the Obama Presidency.
However, being too pushy or arrogant in opposing the deal could swing public sympathy back to Obama’s side.