Published August 12, 2015
Associated Press
Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:

The Tampa (Florida) Tribune on President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran:
Those who dismiss Republican opposition to President Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal as partisan posturing should consider the stance of Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, expected to replace Harry Reid as the Democratic Senate leader and a reliable defender of the president.
After “deep study, careful thought and considerable soul searching,” even this liberal stalwart found Obama’s concessions to Iran too much to stomach.
Among Schumer’s objections: the treaty’s flimsy inspection requirements. U.N. inspectors can request visits to Iranian military sites, but access can be delayed or denied. As he wrote, “… inspections are not ’anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.”
He also doubted that penalties would be effective should Iran cheat on the treaty. The only way the “snap-back” of international sanctions could be achieved is through the U.N. Security Council, which Schumer recognizes can hardly be counted on to protect the United States’ interest, much less Israel’s.
Moreover, as Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has reported, a treaty provision apparently grandfathers any contracts signed with Iran after the sanctions come to an end. So these new contracts may not be affected should the sanctions be re-imposed, diminishing any fears Iran would have of violating the accord.
Further, as Satloff points out, the accord commits the United States and its treaty partners to assist Iran in the development of energy, finance, technology and trade — essentially requiring the United States to help our longtime foe, a nation that has threatened the existence of Israel, to become more powerful.
So Schumer has good reason to conclude that, at best, the treaty would strengthen an unrepentant Iran and position it to become a nuclear power, even if it is after 10 years.
Congress will vote on the treaty in the coming weeks, and is expected to reject it. But the president can veto that vote, and the treaty will go into effect unless two-thirds of Congress vote to override the veto.
So far, only a handful of Democrats in Congress have joined Schumer and come out against the deal. They include Rep. Ted Deutch of Broward, who wrote in a Sun-Sentinel op-ed, “There are different predictions about what will happen if Congress rejects this deal. But the consequences of approving it aren’t up for debate. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money for Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter in Syria, and more violence worldwide.”
Indeed, ending the sanctions is expected to boost Iran’s economy by 7 percent or more. And this will be done without evidence that Iran is keeping its promises.
All this would empower a nation that calls the United States the Great Satan to spread more terrorism and turmoil around the globe.
And as the Iranian-American writer Hooman Bakhtiar points out in The Wall Street Journal, the agreement will remove the names of disreputable characters from Western sanctions, among them a murderous thug who once tried to assassinate Bakhtiar’s uncle, an Iranian freedom fighter. Bakhtiar writes, “Joining him (the assassin) will be numerous other Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders responsible for the deaths of many Iranian dissidents, U.S. servicemen in Iraq and civilians in Syria and elsewhere.”
Obama maintains that the alternative to his flawed treaty is war. But the world is likely to be far less safe if the United States, with the most powerful military in the world, plays the patsy to an oppressive, terrorist regime intent on annihilating Israel and violently opposed to Western culture. This deal should be soundly rejected.