There's nothing unpatriotic about challenging Obama on Iran

Yes, Netanyahu supported the Iraq War, but he did not send Americans to fight – nor will his upcoming speech. Kerry, on the other hand, engaged in a cynical voted for/voted against charade driven by his own political ambitions. But there is a bigger falsehood – let’s call it presumption – here. Critics of Netanyahu act as if opposing Obama’s Iranian deal is tantamount to declaring war on Iran. In the long run, allowing Iran to become nuclear power may well mean war. We don’t know.

We do know some other things. Whereas Obama looks to be comfortable with the expansion of Iranian power with proxies in Syria and Lebanon, our allies in Israel may not feel the same way. Obama may be comfortable with idea that Tehran can develop powerful centrifuges that puts them in a position to build a bomb within a year, but the reality is probably unsettling for the Sunnis and Jews in the area. In fact, former CIA deputy director Michael Morell says that potential Iran nuclear agreement would limit Iran to the number of centrifuges needed for a weapon but not enough for the imaginary nuclear power program it wants.

And yes, Iran, which may also have tested sinking aircraft carriers using ballistic missiles, always keeps its word. Obama, though, repeatedly promised that Iran would not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. But yet, reportedly, he is willing to allow a deal to sunset after 10 years. This, in effect, allows Iran to work towards their goal under the protection of the United States. Israel could not attack Iran’s program during this time, even if it had the capability.

So the question is: What does the United States gain from entering a deal like this?