In a recent Washington Post column, E.J. Dionne assesses the state of play in Congress regarding the Iran agreement, and expresses the view that Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine might support the deal were it not that opposition to it has become a major test of party loyalty.

Is this what Americans elect their senators for, and why Susan Collins has been re-elected several times?

I hope Dionne is wrong in his assessment, and that Sen. Collins will exercise that independent judgment she has often been noted for in the past.

It’s especially important that she do so regarding the Iran agreement. How the congressional vote goes could determine the tenor and thrust of American foreign policy for years to come.

At an Aug. 19 University of Southern Maine discussion with Sen. Angus King and former Sen. George Mitchell, former Ambassador Nicholas Burns – no pushover for Iran – lamented both the lack of debate within the Republican Party, and the insistence of the deal’s mostly Republican critics on demanding the perfect at the expense of the good.

More is lamentable. Dionne sees the discussion as framed in terms of pro- and anti-Israel. This has much been the work of Republicans motivated by lust for the votes and contributions of Jewish constituents made more fearful than they need to be by overstated assessments of Iran’s capacities and malign intentions.

Much Iranian rhetoric has been despicable, but whether statements about Israel disappearing from the map amount to threats to attack Israel militarily is questionable.

The Iranians have denied such intent, as well as a desire for nuclear weapons. Why such positive expressions are dismissed, while their unfortunate utterances are incessantly invoked, is worth pondering.

A great Republican senator once said that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” I hope Sen. Collins has that in mind.

Ed McCarthy

New England coordinator, Churches for Middle East Peace

Vienna

Copy the Story Link