(Please note that I do not have and have never had any conne c For the record, and according to AIPAC, throughout the Iran negotiations, the administration repeatedly asserted that "no deal is better than a bad deal," because it understood that the consequences of a bad deal were far more dangerous than the consequences of no deal. Because this agreement fails to block Iran's path to a bomb, it is a bad deal. Congress must reject this deal and advance a policy that creates the opportunity for a better deal. No deal is better than a bad deal. The proposed deal does not satisfy the requirements Congress has set for a good deal in the areas of inspections, possible military dimensions, phased sanctions relief, duration, and dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It is a bad deal that will allow Iran to legally achieve a nuclear weapons capability.
No deal avoids locking in the negative consequences of a bad deal. By choosing no deal, the United States would avoid the unacceptable consequences of this deal. We would avoid legitimizing Iran's path to a nuclear weapons capability and providing up to $150 billion within months to the leading state sponsor of terrorism--which will use funds to promote instability and undermine our regional allies. And we would avoid increasing the prospect of war, spurring a nuclear arms race, and further strengthening the Iranian regime. No deal opens the door to a better deal. Insisting on a better deal has historical precedent. Throughout history, Congress has successfully insisted on improvements to agreements negotiated by the executive branch. For instance, almost 200 treaties, including 80 multilateral accords, have been modified by congressional amendments, reservations or conditions before they were approved. Major arms control agreements, including the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, failed to gain initial Senate approval, but ultimately led to new negotiations and improved agreements.
The Obama Administration reaction to the AIPAC position -- a position quite similar to that of many Congressional leaders including New York Senior Senator Chuck Schumer -- is to blast the messenger for bringing to public attention a message the president dislikes. The Obama blast is intemperate and mean-spirited, as if anyone disagreeing on a major policy issue is unpatriotic and, indeed, un-American. Our president seems to have forgotten that this nation was founded on dissent, that our colonists and founders were dissenters from a European strait-jacket of controls. America was founded on tolerance -- a truth which President Barack Obama seems to have forgotten!e funds to promote instability and undermine our regional allies. And we