Given the facts, Israelis would also support the Iran deal
American Jews are slugging it out over Iran. In every Jewish organization, the pros and cons of the Iran issue are being furiously
(Photo by Reuters)
debated. I recently spoke to an American Jewish activist who said that she dreaded going to her usual meetings because she could barely get past “hello” without finding herself in an argument over Iran.
According to an LA Jewish Journal Survey, 49 percent of American Jews support the Iran deal while 31 percent oppose it. Furthermore, 53 percent want Congress to approve it while 35 percent do not. As the survey notes, liberals (Jewish or not) support the deal far more than conservatives (Jewish or not), and there are more Jewish liberals than Jewish conservatives.
While these are pretty conclusive numbers, the situation in Jewish organizations is a bit different. There, the percentage of liberals and conservatives is closer to equal. In addition, whether liberal or conservative, Jews involved in the community have the highest levels of commitment to Israel, and therefore are most sensitive to what I call the “instinct” factors in the Iran debate.
The “instinct” factors are the two immediate, visceral reactions elicited by the agreement.
The first is the sense that the deal has many holes and should have been better negotiated. And the second is the profound revulsion that Jews feel for Iran, a bad actor of monstrous proportions that will gain money and legitimacy while continuing to support terror and subversion throughout the Middle East.
But then a day or two passed, and I read the agreement and surveyed the political realities. I also talked to American Jews whose opinions I trust. While their initial instincts had been the same as mine, I found many of them slowly shifting, and I found myself shifting with them.
What accounts for this is the pragmatic mindset of American Jews. We are a practical, realistic bunch of people. We have built influence and defended Israel through strategic thinking and careful weighing of risks. We are not governed by our frustrations. We avoid partisan sinkholes, and we do our best to maintain broad consensus.
And we now see that trying to kill the deal is a mistake for many reasons.
In the first place, we are almost certain to lose, and losing has a price. AIPAC and others have argued that waging the battle, even a losing one, will ultimately benefit Israel by highlighting the risks of the deal. But losing a battle at this critical political moment will demonstrate weakness.
And the more ferocious the battle we wage, the greater the loss we sustain. It is always a mistake for the Jewish community to appear weak, especially now when Israel’s needs are so great.
In the second place, the political calculations of those trying to kill the deal are comically out of whack. For example, there is endless talk about convincing Senator Charles Schumer of New York to oppose the agreement. Seriously? The chances that Schumer will oppose the deal are zero. He has spent his entire career working to become the Democratic leader of the Senate, and his dream is 18 months away from fulfillment. He will not jeopardize it by voting against a Democratic president and the certain Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Instead, he will agonize in public, express admiration for AIPAC, vote for the deal, and then write an op-ed for the New York Times, explaining how tortuous the experience was for him.
In the third place, the fundamental premise of the lobbying campaign is flat out wrong. The entire lobbying effort is built on the conviction that when the deal is rejected, American sanctions will continue to squeeze, even if other countries drop their sanctions. Eventually, the theory goes, Iran will have no choice but to agree to new talks, which our allies will then join.
Absent this premise, the rationale for the entire advocacy effort collapses. And there will be no new talks. The Obama administration is not right about everything, but it is right about this. Not a single country in the world supports new talks, including our European allies and Israel’s few remaining friends. And American sanctions alone will be ineffectual. Even the Republicans understand this. In a statement to the Weekly Standard, Jeb Bush affirmed his opposition to the Iran deal while acknowledging that the impact of American sanctions, without support from our allies, would be “limited.”
I have nothing but respect for the AIPAC leaders arriving in Washington this week to lobby against the agreement. Still, I have moved from a “kill the deal” position to the opposite: It is better to leave the deal in place and for Israel to cooperate with the administration in order to limit the damage, receive compensation, and avoid ongoing confrontation that will make things worse.
And what of my Israeli friends who oppose the agreement? The problem is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to insist that the deal can be replaced by a better deal. But let’s assume that Israelis were given a choice between two more realistic options: A. No Iran deal, Iran relieved of almost all sanctions and free to operate its nuclear program without constraints, increased diplomatic isolation for Israel, and continued political tension with the United States; or B. The Iran deal, supervision of Iran’s nuclear program for 10-15 years, close cooperation with the United States, a side agreement with America to assure diplomatic backing and military and financial support for Israel, and significant improvement of Israel’s position in the international community.
Given these choices, I believe that almost all of my Israeli friends would choose B. And given these choices, American Jews need to ask Congress to approve the deal and provide Israel with the support she requires.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie is a writer, lecturer, and internationally-known religious leader. A bold, compelling, and inspiring speaker, he has presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos and has appeared on Fox news, CNN, and many other news outlets. He writes regularly for Time, The Huffington Post, The Jerusalem Post and the Israeli daily Haaretz. He speaks on a 
“The chances that Schumer will oppose the deal are zero.” Rabbi Yoffie was wrong about that. What else was he wrong about? In this case, everything.
I was wrong about Senator Schumer. I stand behind everything else I wrote in the article.
Rabbi i beg to Differ – please review few of the reasons this is a bad deal Reasons the Iran Deal is a bad one – 1. Though the deal was originally being negotiated to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, in its final form the agreement would allow just that when it sunsets in 10-15 years.
2. This deal will accelerate regional nuclear proliferation. Saudi leaders for instance have said that this deal is worse than the nuclear pact former President Bill Clinton made with North Korea. & there are already contract in place by Sunni Countries to build over 20 nuclear facilities 15 of this contracts are with Russia
3. This deal will give Iran “hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military regime.” as acknowledged by Susan Rice
4. Sanctions relief isn’t tied to Iran complying with the deal, meaning Iran gets massive amounts of relief before they’ve demonstrated strict adherence.
5. And the money can’t be taken back once Iran gets it.
6. That relief can be used to expand Iran’s malign and destabilizing influence in the region that has exacerbated sectarian conflict.
7. The money can also be used to further fund Iran’s terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and Houthis in Yemen.
8. In fact, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran will not change its anti-American policy.
9. To enforce the deal, world powers must first know if Iran violated the deal but that is an unclear process that can be delayed first a request has to be done 24 days prior and there is multi layer process that allow iran to reject the request for 3 months without clear violation of the deal while Iran would be able to hide and obfuscate banned activities.
10. Iran doesn’t have to come clean on its past nuclear activity, leaving world powers little ability to verify future illegal advances. Iran does not have to provide access to Parchin facility, and is trusted to collect its own samples for inspectors
11. Iran’s foreign minister interprets the deal very differently than the Obama Administration does.
12. For example, he believes that the scale of foreign investments would effectively prevent the world from re-imposing sanctions on Iran, making the “snapback” provision of the deal effectively meaningless.
13. He also said that Iran could deny inspectors access to nuclear and military sites under the deal.
14. He also said that Iran would not be violating the deal if it broke the UN resolution prohibiting the purchase of conventional arms and missiles because the arms embargo is implicitly out of the scope of the nuclear agreement.
15. Even if Iran adheres to the arms embargo, the embargo is lifted in 5 years, giving Iran access not only to conventional arms to further fuel terrorism and their drive for regional dominancy.
16. In 8 years, the missile ban will be removed, allowing Iran to acquire missiles that could carry nuclear payloads.
17. The Obama Administration pushed for the UN to vote on the deal in an attempt to jam Americans and their elected representatives before they’ve even had a chance to review the deal.
18. Iran will be allowed to conduct advanced research and development that will pave the way for centrifuges that are modern and efficient. They will be able to enrich huge amounts of Uranium that will shorten their breakout time for a bomb.
19. The deal also provides sanctions relief to Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani, leader of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who is a designated terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
20. On top of that, the deal lifts sanctions on two Iranian atomic scientists who worked on Iran’s illegal nuclear program and a nuclear proliferator who has previously helped smuggle nuclear components.
21. The murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called this deal a “great victory” and congratulated Iran on their achievement.
and than we come to the Administration ongoing rhetorical questions … what is the option ? this brings me to also another reason why i take issue with the deal, the many mis-representations of the administration, the cheap shots of stating war as the only alternative and the most bewildering for me is secretary Kerry admission in the congressional hearing that he has not read the side deals nor has his negotiation staff but … he believed Wendy Sherman did … such a casual attitude when you are negotiating with an administration such as Iran’s to me is unacceptable – 1) Reject this very bad deal. 2) Restore the sanctions lifted during negotiations and add additional economic sanctions against Iran forcing them to choose between a Great Depression and Nuclear Weapons. For those that think our allies wouldn’t go along, Russia and China were given a simple choice in 2011. Do business with Iran or the U.S. Not both. They picked us and that’s what brought Iran to the table in the first place. But we lifted sanctions giving them $700MM a month during these negotiations and backed down from every red line we had. 3) Renegotiate a better deal with better leverage. A deal that has Iran dismantle nuclear facilities and allow anytime anywhere IAEA Inspections for a start. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/top-french-official-contradicts-kerry-on-iran-deal
While I do not agree, this is a good summary of the arguments used to oppose the deal.