News emerged Thursday that the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would apply new sanctions to Iran if the nuclear deal falls through, had stalled in the Senate. President Barack Obama vowed in his State of the Union address that he would veto the bill, even though it had 59 co-sponsors and was rumored to have some 77 votes–a veto-proof majority–lined up. Democrats began getting cold feet, and Majority Leader Harry Reid is blocking a vote.
The Huffington Post could barely contain its glee. The article by Jennifer Bendery and Luke Johnson led the site under the headline: “Saboteurs ‘On Ice’.” The term “saboteurs” implies that those who support a more assertive approach actually want to destroy the prospects for peace. Those “saboteurs” include such globalists as Fareed Zakaria, who called the Iran deal a “train wreck.” Those “saboteurs” include 59% of the American people.
To refer to tougher sanctions as “sabotage” is to misunderstand, and misrepresent, the nature of negotiations. Having those sanctions in reserve would actually strengthen the President’s hand in negotiations, helping to ensure that whatever deal emerges is a real one, not a false peace that will invite aggression or miscalculation. The president claims he will seek new sanctions if the deal fails; is it not better to have them ready to roll?
Note, too, how little regard the Huffington Post has for the opinion of the majority, or for true bipartisanship. Remember that when they roll out the predictable rants about how Speaker John Boehner should allow a vote on immigration reform despite opposition from his own caucus, just because he might find a majority in the House as a whole. Remember that when they claim that Republicans refuse to work together with Democrats.
It is possible–though highly unlikely–that the interim nuclear deal will lead to a final deal that will prevent Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power. Would you really want to take the other side of that bet–and so smugly? What is ultimately so remarkable about the Huffington Post’s “sabotage” charge is that the editors and writers seem to have given little thought to the possibility that they might be wrong–and what the costs would be.