Last month we wondered how much influence Joe Lieberman and numerous other prominent voices in the Jewish community (particularly in New York City, which has the largest Jewish population after Tel Aviv) might have on Empire State Senator Chuck Schumer regarding the Iran deal. As we discussed at the time, Schumer has been on something of a knife’s edge, but he’s apparently made his choice. Last night Schumer came out in opposition to the deal.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval…

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In drawing his conclusion, Schumer sounds remarkably similar to many conservatives who have opined on the subject.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

So the sides in the battle have been drawn. Schumer is tentatively in line to replace Harry Reid as the Democrat leader in the Senate and he has now broken ranks with the President on one of his signature, legacy maneuvers. In doing so, he has given unspoken permission for any other Democrats to follow suit if they are either keeping an eye on their future prospects in the chamber or listening to the voting public who oppose the deal by a two to one margin. How many of them will uncomfortably shuffle through the door that Schumer has opened remains to be seen, but given how things operate inside the beltway there are some seriously awkward conversations taking place this morning.

So who remains lined up on the other side? Interestingly enough, Schumer’s New York counterpart, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, came out at essentially the same time and planted her flag on Obama’s hill. But it came with a lot of disclaimers.

There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years. Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region. While all of these issues are important, no issue matters more than ensuring that the Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

If we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Without a deal, and without inspectors on the ground, we will be left in the dark as Iran resumes its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, with only months to go before it could enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. Without a deal, our options will be limited to insufficient unilateral sanctions, an invasion with yet another massive and costly land war in the Middle East, or a bombing campaign that offers nothing more than short-term gain under the best-case scenario.

If you read her full statement of “support” she actually spends more time talking about how bad the deal is than what its merits might be. The only “positive” points she brings up are essentially carbon copies of segments taken from Barack Obama’s recent speeches. But in the end she’s going to throw her support to the current power structure in her party. Unfortunately for her, the clock is ticking on that leadership team and Chuck Schumer is well known for having a long memory.

Will this seal the fate of the deal in the Senate? Too soon to say. Overriding a veto is a big deal which requires significant arm twisting and we may be forgetting one option which Schumer still has in his pocket. He could vote to disapprove the agreement, wait for Obama to veto it, and then start talking about why overriding the veto would be the wrong approach. He would have made his statement in support of Israel with his vote and then might be able to fall back on the need for a cordial environment in later statements. Alternatively, he could do his own informal whip count and identify others who might want to stop the override and privately assure them that he’s okay with that and they wouldn’t be making an enemy of him if they did so.

We’ve seen more Machiavellian maneuvers than that before, and Schumer has been playing this game for a long time.