https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/08/12/desperate-chuck-schumer-iran/Desperate Schumer Gives Us His Real Answer
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 08.12.2015 - 5:30 PM
Senator Chuck Schumer has heard from the White House and its left-wing cheerleaders for the nuclear deal with Iran. Last week he announced his opposition to the pact in terms that make clear how dangerous it is because there is no sign that Iran is changing and the U.S. “would be better off” without it. Refusing President Obama’s demand that he back the deal was no easy thing for a highly partisan Democrat slated to become his party’s Senate leader in 2017. But, as Politico reports, Schumer is covering all his bases. The furious pushback from the administration against him is sending a strong signal not only about the current Iran vote but to intimidate pro-Israel Democrats from dissenting from what will follow against Israel as Obama pursues an Iran-centric policy in the Middle East. But instead of showing real courage — and perhaps risking his chance to succeed Harry Reid – Schumer is assuring other senators that he has no intention of trying to influence their votes. What might have been a Profiles in Courage moment for Schumer is turning into an undignified humiliation.
As I wrote yesterday, given that Schumer’s vote isn’t likely to make a difference in voting the deal down, the over-the-top nature of the attacks on the New York Senator seems disproportionate. But it makes sense, since the motivation for that anger is partly the result of Obama’s intolerant nature and partly his desire to send a message to pro-Israel Democrats that any further dissent from his Iran détente policies won’t be tolerated.
The pitch to Democrats from the administration on Iran has been clear: the deal is good, but whether you agree or not, voting against it is an insult to the president that will be treated as an act of rank disloyalty. Thus, part of the reason for the nasty nature of the attacks on Schumer has been just the reflex instinct of the president to exact revenge on all those who challenge him. As even a supporter of the deal like Ruth Marcus wrote today in the Washington Post, the scorched earth approach reflects the way Obama has become an angry and embittered man during his years in the White House.
But the subtext to that anger is the way the president has escalated what seemed to begin as a feud with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu into one that embraced the entire pro-Israel community. Obama hasn’t hesitated to use incendiary language that seeks to delegitimize AIPAC and others seeking to influence members of the House and the Senate to stick to their principles and their campaign promises about Iran and vote no on the deal. The notion that the debate on the Iran is between Israel and its friends on one side and the whole world is not only false since most of the Arab world agrees it is terrible. It is also part of an administration pivot away from the Jewish state in the Middle East as part of an attempt to create détente with Iran. Thus winning the vote on the deal isn’t just about the nuclear issue. It is also the start of a fight about the future of American foreign policy.
But in attacking Schumer for what they claim is opposing the deal on strictly political grounds, the White House may not be entirely wrong. If he really believed everything he said in his statement about voting no, he would be going all out to rally other pro-Israel Democrats to join him. Having the current number three Senate Democrat lead the charge against the deal would have provided cover for other members of his party. Had he not been forced to resign as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, New Jersey’s Robert Menendez might have played that role. But after the Justice Department indicted Menendez on corruption charges, no Democrat has stepped up to fill the void he left on Iran.
But by going to ground and then quietly assuring the other members of his caucus that he won’t be active on the issue, Schumer is signalling that the only reason he is voting no is to avoid the criticism that would have rained down on his head from his constituents had he gone along with the president. He can now said he voted no and even suffered abuse for doing so. But he is also showing that he is more worried about liberals depriving him of the post of Democratic Senate leader than he is about an Iranian bomb or support for terrorism.
Far from demonstrating independence, Schumer’s quiet “no” is also showing that pro-Israel Democrats can be intimidated. That will encourage the president to get even tougher on Israel once he wins the Iran vote.
Announcing his opposition to the deal might have been the moment when Schumer could have revived the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. Instead, he is showing us that singling out the Jewish state and appeasing Iran is no longer something pro-Israel Democrats are willing to fight about.
