Me, Too

The hot topic at the moment seems to be Iran, so I though I'd comment on it as well. I oppose the treaty for a wide variety of reasons – it's a bad deal, parts of it are being kept secret from those who have to evaluate it, the President has termed it an “agreement” rather than a treaty to evade the Constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent – but they're not really the point. What I've really been mulling over is the reaction to the treaty. On two levels. What are the feelings of Americans and how will our representatives vote, and what are the reactions of other nations and why?

It seems clear that the American public opposes the pact – in part, perhaps, because of Israel but moreso because of mistrust of Iran. The agreement is viewed as a defeat for us, and it is with a country that calls for our destruction and doesn't hesitate to brag of accomplishments that seem to us to be in violation of the published agreement. And some Americans are concerned that Iran may not even adhere to its terms. Taquia and all that.

It is equally clear that the President is not concerned about the people's opposition. Only that in Congress. He continues to maintain the position that the agreement is good and its implementation is warranted irrespective of any concerns. It is crucial to his prestige and his “heritage,” and any faults will be the problem of one of his successors (and all of us).

From the perspective of the Representatives and Senators, the conditions of the treaty are important, but not as important as several other considerations. Perhaps the most important of these is party loyalty. It may be blind loyalty to the party and the President, or it may be forced loyalty based on future campaign support, projects, vote trading, misinformation, or other forms of pressure. Members of Congress are also responsive to the preferences of their constituents because they want to be re-elected. And, of course, they are human like the rest of us and have their own biases. For better or worse, antisemitism remains in our country.

It has certainly regained its strength around Europe, as “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism) is gaining in power there, and elsewhere. Increase in the numbers of Muslim immigrants around the world is contributing to a political response which caters to their prejudices, those of the media, and the various governments as well. Add to that the interest they have in gaining the favor of the Arab bloc in the United Nations, as well as their craving for oil and economic opportunities, and the perceived benefits are numerous.

What seems to be lacking, however, as they all fall in line is, to a degree, the same situation we see in our own country, and that is a consideration of the long-term effects of the treaty. What will be the results of Iran having nuclear weapons and the missiles required to deliver them anywhere in the world? Short-term effects should not be permitted to blind our eyes to the predictable results of a surrender to Iran. Adopting the attitude that the situation will be different by the time the treaty expires is a struthious response to an ongoing threat.

In short, it seems likely that one way or another the treaty will be put into effect in the United States as it has already been in some other countries. The Satans, great and small, will be repudiated by the rest of the world. And our country will contribute to its own humiliation. We're our biggest enemies. It's the American way.