While I believe that, on the whole, the news media err on the side of excessive negativism, there is one area where journalists do too little to hold people accountable for error. Politicians, commentators, public officials and others usually escape criticism for having made wildly inaccurate predictions that a particular policy choice will result in disaster.

Understandably, those writing about public affairs are focused on current issues as opposed to revisiting the past. But the past is relevant to the present in two ways. One is the credibility of the participants, where there is an ongoing argument between two sides. The best example of this is the debate over the role the federal government should play in the economy. As Paul Krugman has documented in the New York Times, the consistent conservative warnings that government activism would cripple economic growth have been consistently wrong. Their attacks on increased spending to reduce unemployment; the Federal Reserve’s holding down of interest rates and providing liquidity to stimulate growth; the regulation of derivative trading; and the Clinton-Obama success in raising the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent on the grounds that they would drive us back into recession are not simply individual bad guesses. They reflect a pattern of error rooted in a flawed economic analysis.

The second problem with the failure to measure previous dire warnings of disaster against current reality is that it contributes to the view that our efforts to improve our lives through collective action – i.e., government – never succeed, even when they clearly do. Here the example is the very effective work of the Obama administration in response to Ebola. Both domestically and internationally, our government achieved much better results in containing this peril than was generally expected. I am still waiting for the articles revisiting the wildly inaccurate, inflammatory predictions made by those who were demanding a ban on immigration from Africa and much harsher restrictions on people at home.

While I have lamented this phenomenon of the uncorrected doom-saying that plagues our politics for some time, I am particularly troubled by one consequence of it that is having a decidedly negative effect today. There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether the deal with Iran is the best that could have been achieved, and a related one over whether there should be any agreement that touches only nuclear weapons. (The arguments made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters clearly say no to that question.)

But those arguments are being drowned out by wholly irresponsible, grotesquely exaggerated, factually false assertions that the deal, if approved, will leave Israel in imminent peril, accompanied by the suggestion that the president is indifferent to that fact.

And I believe that those making this case feel safe in doing so because given the pattern I have described, they will never be called upon to explain why, as I am confident will be the case, five years and more after the agreement takes effect, Israel’s physical security will be as strong as it is today.

As to the president, he will preside for the rest of his term to run a government that will be Israel’s strongest – and sometimes only – defender in the UN and other diplomatic forums. Israel will continue to receive more foreign assistance – in absolute terms and by a very wide margin– per capita than any nation where we are not engaged in military operations. And military and intelligence co-operation between Israel and an Obama-led U.S. will be among the strongest in the world.

I do have one fear about Israel’s future. It is that the focus of Netanyahu on his domestic political need to strengthen his support from the most right-wing elements in Israel will take an increasing toll internationally. The difficult but necessary job for people who share my support of a safe, independent, Jewish democratic Israel is to demonstrate that it is not only possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Netanyahu, but that convincing people of that is very much in Israel’s best interests.

Barney Frank is a retired congressman and the author of landmark legislation. He divides his time between Maine and Massachusetts.

Twitter: BarneyFrank