Dear Friend of Israel:

Opposition to the President's Iran Deal is mounting, and he doesn't like it. In the last week, nine Democratic Representatives (of 44 needed to override a Presidential veto), plus New York's ranking Democratic Senator Charles Schumer (of nine needed to override a veto), came out against the Deal. More are surely in the wings.

In addition, two reputable polls show that a majority of Americans also oppose the Deal—the most recent of which, by Quinnipiac University, shows opposition outnumbering support by two to one.

Mr. Obama clearly finds the taste of defeat bitter, and he's spitting, spitefully mad. The result has been nasty, illogical and un-Presidential.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the President claims that those opposing his "diplomatic triumph" support war in the Middle East—which is, he claims, the only alternative to his Deal. He's also said that the Deal's opponents are the same people who supported the Iraq war (which isn't saying much, since nearly every Senator and Representative except one voted for it).

The President has also lashed out at Israel—and Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically—accusing the Jewish state of "meddling" in U.S. politics. (Of course if Mr. Netanyahu were lobbying Congressional representatives for support of the Deal, we can only imagine Mr. Obama's approval of that sort of meddling.)

In point of fact, the problem with the President's Iran Deal is not the character of its opponents, nor their opinions of past U.S. foreign policy—both fallacious ad hominem attacks. The problem with this Deal is its merits—the glaring deficits of the Deal itself. It's weak and unseemly for the President to argue otherwise.

In truth, Mr. Obama has no one to blame but himself. This Deal is a bait-and-switch swindle. As this week's FLAME Hotline featured article (below) outlines, the President and Secretary of State Kerry forcefully promised an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and ironclad safeguards to prevent cheating. We liked and supported that deal. This Deal, however, does nothing of the kind. We're not bad people, Mr. President, we just don't like broken promises and a deadly dangerous agreement with the world's leading exporter of terrorism, which also threatens "Death to America" (and the annihilation of Israel) the same week it signs your devil's bargain.

This week's article, by New York Times columnist David Brooks, calls the Obama Deal a "surrender" to tyrants—a capitulation that instead of creating a safer world virtually guarantees future war.

Because the next few weeks are critical in the campaign to defeat the Iran Deal, I strongly encourage you to take two actions right now, while you have this urgent issue top of mind:

First, call and write your U.S. Senators and your Representative expressing your opposition to the Iran Deal. Please also thank the Representatives and Senator Schumer, who have already lined up against it. You can reach your elected officials by calling Congress at 202-225-3121. You can email them very easily by going to Contacting the Congress. Tell them you oppose the Iran Deal because it doesn't prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and it makes war more likely. Do this today.

Second, please send a pledge of support to FLAME as we launch a new hasbarah initiative in media nationwide. Our editorial message is titled "A Cheater's Dream—Can't Trust, Can't Verify" and begins next week in media nationwide. This message outlines Iran's long pattern of lying and deceit in the face of nearly every international agreement, especially those related to its nuclear activity. With your help, we will double the media in which we run this ad and we will help convince the American people—and Congress—to reject this deadly deal. Please go to donate now .

In the meantime, I thank you for your support of FLAME and of Israel during this critical time.

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Vice President, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME)

3 U.S. Defeats: Vietnam, Iraq and Now Iran

By David Brooks, The New York Times, August 5, 2015

The purpose of war, military or economic, is to get your enemy to do something it would rather not do. Over the past several years the United States and other Western powers have engaged in an economic, clandestine and political war against Iran to force it to give up its nuclear program.

Over the course of this siege, American policy makers have been very explicit about their goals. Foremost, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Second, as John Kerry has said, to force it to dismantle a large part of its nuclear infrastructure. Third, to take away its power to enrich uranium.

Fourth, as President Obama has said, to close the Fordo enrichment facility. Fifth, as the chief American negotiator, Wendy Sherman, recently testified, to force Iran to come clean on all past nuclear activities by the Iranian military. Sixth, to shut down Iran's ballistic missile program. Seventh, to have "anywhere, anytime 24/7" access to any nuclear facilities Iran retains. Eighth, as Kerry put it, to not phase down sanctions until after Iran ends its nuclear bomb-making capabilities.

As a report from the Foreign Policy Initiative exhaustively details, the U.S. has not fully achieved any of these objectives. The agreement delays but does not end Iran's nuclear program. It legitimizes Iran's status as a nuclear state. Iran will mothball some of its centrifuges, but it will not dismantle or close any of its nuclear facilities. Nuclear research and development will continue.

Iran wins the right to enrich uranium. The agreement does not include "anywhere, anytime" inspections; some inspections would require a 24-day waiting period, giving the Iranians plenty of time to clean things up. After eight years, all restrictions on ballistic missiles are lifted. Sanctions are lifted once Iran has taken its initial actions.

Wars, military or economic, are measured by whether you achieved your stated objectives. By this standard the U.S. and its allies lost the war against Iran, but we were able to negotiate terms that gave only our partial surrender, which forces Iran to at least delay its victory. There have now been three big U.S. strategic defeats over the past several decades: Vietnam, Iraq and now Iran.

The big question is, Why did we lose? Why did the combined powers of the Western world lose to a ragtag regime with a crippled economy and without much popular support?

The first big answer is that the Iranians just wanted victory more than we did. They were willing to withstand the kind of punishment we were prepared to mete out.

Further, the Iranians were confident in their power, while the Obama administration emphasized the limits of America's ability to influence other nations. It's striking how little President Obama thought of the tools at his disposal. He effectively took the military option off the table. He didn't believe much in economic sanctions. "Nothing we know about the Iranian government suggests that it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure," he argued.

The president concluded early on that Iran would simply not budge on fundamental things. As he argued in his highhanded and counterproductive speech Wednesday, Iran was never going to compromise its sovereignty (which is the whole point of military or economic warfare).

The president hoped that a deal would change the moral nature of the regime, so he had an extra incentive to reach a deal. And the Western, Russian and Chinese sanctions regime was fragile while the Iranians were able to hang together.

This administration has given us a choice between two terrible options: accept the partial-surrender agreement that was negotiated or reject it and slide immediately into what is in effect our total surrender—a collapsed sanctions regime and a booming Iranian nuclear program.

Many members of Congress will be tempted to accept the terms of our partial surrender as the least bad option in the wake of our defeat. I get that. But in voting for this deal they may be affixing their names to an arrangement that will increase the chance of more comprehensive war further down the road.

The president hoped that a deal would change the moral nature of the regime, so he had an extra incentive to reach a deal. And the Western, Russian and Chinese sanctions regime was fragile while the Iranians were able to hang together.

This administration has given us a choice between two terrible options: accept the partial-surrender agreement that was negotiated or reject it and slide immediately into what is in effect our total surrender—a collapsed sanctions regime and a booming Iranian nuclear program.

Many members of Congress will be tempted to accept the terms of our partial surrender as the least bad option in the wake of our defeat. I get that. But in voting for this deal they may be affixing their names to an arrangement that will increase the chance of more comprehensive war further down the road.

Iran is a fanatical, hegemonic, hate-filled regime. If you think its radicalism is going to be softened by a few global trade opportunities, you really haven't been paying attention to the Middle East over the past four decades.

Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region and exert its power. It will incrementally but dangerously cheat on the accord. Armed with money, ballistic weapons and an eventual nuclear breakout, it will become more aggressive. As the end of the nuclear delay comes into view, the 45th or 46th president will decide that action must be taken.

Economic and political defeats can be as bad as military ones. Sometimes when you surrender to a tyranny you lay the groundwork for a more cataclysmic conflict to come.