Iran deal opponents living a fantasy


Story highlights

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson: Some in Congress confused about their role in Iran deal, as if they can go to a plan B. It doesn't work like that

He says scuttling Iran deal will have huge consequences for U.S. power in the world; will alienate allies and foreclose on U.S. options

Editor’s Note: Tyler Wigg-Stevenson is chairman of the Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons for the World Evangelical Alliance. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

CNN —  

It appears that many members of the Senate are fundamentally confused about their role in the international agreement that has been negotiated to block any possible pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Some senators are acting like the possibilities are wide open: No, not this deal, but perhaps some other deal. But they are missing the point entirely. In fact, what the Senate thinks about the deal by itself is almost irrelevant.

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson
Phot by Natalie Wigg-Stevenson
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson

The only question the Senate has to ask and answer is: Now that this deal has been agreed to, is it better than what happens if it is rejected?

Harry Reid weighs in on Iran nuclear deal

Deal opponents, of course, want to hold open the possibility of a rosy, nondeal future. They insist that President Obama’s stark dichotomy of deal versus war is a false choice. Not war, they say, but more sanctions! More sanctions will drive Iran to the negotiating table! More sanctions will drive Iran to its knees! Then we will get a deal that we can approve. Wasn’t it the President himself, they say, who said that no deal is better than a bad deal?

Forget a veto override; Democrats hope to prevent a ‘no’ vote on the Iran deal

Maybe this scenario works in the “Iran: Choose Your Own Adventure!” book the GOP caucus appears to be crowdsourcing in its closed-door sessions. In the real world, however, there is precisely zero chance of additional sanctions or new negotiations.