Jewish Congressman Nadler supports the very bad deal

Michael L.

Erica Werner and Julie Pace, writing in the Times of Israel, tell us:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York announced Friday he is backing President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

"I bring to my analysis the full weight of my responsibilities as a member of Congress, and my perspective as an American Jew who is both a Democrat and a strong supporter of Israel,” Nadler said in a statement. He said that the agreement “gives us the best chance of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

So, Nadler's view as-a-Jew is that the only way to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry is to free it up to gain nuclear weaponry, if not in two years then maybe ten.  Yes, how comforting.

This Iran deal could very easily turn into an international disaster as the rest of the Middle East race to get their own nuclear weapons.  Barack Obama just a few years ago told the world that it was US policy to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry.  Period.  End of story.

And then Obama marches right in to negotiations and capitulates on pretty much everything.

David Horovitz, editor-in-chief of the TOI, says that it is actually a terrific deal.  Not for the United States or the West, and certainly not for Israel, but for the Iranian regime it is toot-sweet.

Horovitz writes:

But one question can be answered with increasing confidence: Is this, as President Obama claims, the best possible deal?

Yes, indeed, it is. The best possible deal for the Iranians.

They continue enriching. They maintain their R&D to enable a speedier breakout to the bomb when they so choose. They can keep the inspectors at bay. They never have to come clean on past nuclear weapons work. They can continue missile development. They get their sanctions relief. Their coffers are swelled. The prospect of the regime being ousted by domestic reformers, already small, is reduced still further; they can now throw money at any domestic problems. They can merrily orchestrate terrorism and intimidate regional foes.

And if none of that particularly concerns you, what about this?

The editors over at Investor's Business Daily in an article entitled, Iran Is Serious About Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse Warfare, are a bit concerned about Iran's potential plans:

The American Foreign Policy Council's Amanda Azinheira wrote of the risks in Defense News on Wednesday: "A nuclear warhead detonated 18 miles off the ground anywhere over the eastern seaboard could collapse the whole eastern grid, which generates 75% of the country's electricity. The recovery time from a nationwide EMP event might be anywhere from one to 10 years. In the meantime, tens of millions of Americans would likely die from starvation and/or societal collapse."

Can you imagine what the United States would look like after losing the electric grid for ten years?

And does it make the slightest bit of sense to gamble on the question?

In his letter to Nadler, Obama emphasized US support for Israel, saying he views the country’s security as sacrosanct. 

That is a lie and Nadler is a fool.  No one who has been following this administration's attitude toward the Jewish State of Israel could possibly believe that for Barack Obama Israeli security is "sacrosanct."

The deal, however, is not just bad for Israel, it's bad for all of humanity.

And the consequences could easily be dire.