The biggest news coming out of last night isn’t the first GOP presidential debate, but the fact New York Senator Chuck Schumer will not support the Iran deal. The soon-to-be top Democrat in the Senate released a very long and thorough statement explaining why he won’t be voting for it. Schumer’s piece is pretty well thought out, even though he spends the first part showering platitudes onto the Obama Administration. It’s possible he’s just trying to soften the blow of why he thinks the deal won’t work. Schumer’s main complaint is inspection time.

First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Schumer also has issues with how the “snapback” provision is put in place because he thinks the U.S. could end up going at it alone (emphasis mine).

While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

He has a point on how Europe, Russia, and China might act and it could happen sooner rather than later. Schumer ends up taking a page out of the Republican playbook by pointing out he doesn’t think Iran will ever moderate. It’s possible Schumer, and the Republicans who oppose the Iran deal, are being shortsighted. Shikha Dalmia over at Reason argues the deal is the only alternative because the international community wasn’t going to go along with sanctions for much longer.

In this case, Western powers, for whom the political upside was arguably greater than the econonmic downside, had to do some major arm-twisting of China and Russia, Iran’s major trading partners, for whom the situation was arguably the exact reverse, to get them to go along. However, with Russia’s relations with America in the toilet after Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, and China eager to boost its wavering economy by obtaining lucrative deals to develop Iran’s oil fields and refinery capacity, America wasn’t going to be able to prevent them from dumping the sanctions for a whole lot longer.

Here’s why a U.S. “no” vote on the Iran agreement might be a futile gesture. Europe is already reaching out to Iran (probably due to the potential $94B bailout of Greece). Italy invited Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to visit in a few weeks to talk trade. The National Iranian Oil Company is reportedly going to reach a deal with European companies on joint ventures. Russia is going to do what Putin wants to do, especially if the FOX report on Qassem Soleimani visiting Russia is true. China is working on its own $1B fighter jet for oil field deal. The Senate might be forced to “accept” the P5(+1) agreement based on how the other parties are acting, even if nothing actually happens between the U.S. and Iran.

For the record, I don’t believe the Senate should approve the agreement. It is a good idea to try get Iran out into the world because of the chance to eventually force change in the Iranian government. It worked with the Soviet Union in the 80’s (which is one reason why Iranian Islamic conservatives are against the agreement). Parts of the April framework were actually pretty good, including the “anywhere, anytime” inspections and the ability for companies to start doing business in Iran. The former would make sure Iran wasn’t developing a bomb, while the latter would encourage more liberty because free markets do equal freedom. But the announced agreement didn’t do any of this, which is why the Senate shouldn’t approve it. It might actually be better for the U.S. to re-establish ties with Iran and try to negotiate its own treaty (after the 2016 election, because I don’t trust John Kerry as far as I can throw him). This way, the U.S. doesn’t have to worry about international partners or “side deals” it has no idea about (which is beyond #headdesk). The question then is whether Iran would even be willing to talk to the U.S. alone. Khamenei enjoys his “death of America” rhetoric, which would die if both sides do talk. But it is something to consider. The other countries involved in the agreement are probably going to do their own thing. The U.S. might want to do the same because it could end up making things better for all sides.

Schumer saying “no” to the Iran deal is a slap towards the Obama Administration and shows how bad the deal actually is. Unfortunately, it might not matter in the end.