Former Obama administration secretary of defense Leon Panetta writes in an oped about the Iran nuclear deal in the Los Angeles Times:
In itself, the Iran deal would appear to reward Tehran for defying the world, make funds available for its extremist activities and generally make it stronger militarily and economically. Although the agreement provides for a temporary delay in Iran's nuclear enrichment capability, it allows Tehran to retain its nuclear infrastructure and obtain sanctions relief. The risk is that Iran could become an even bigger threat to the region.
So with an assessment like this, Panetta urges that the deal be rejected, right?
Panetta somehow argues further that the deal will allow the U.S. to "define a policy of strength, not ambivalence in the Middle East." How? Panetta says that the US must "enforce the deal" and punish any infraction immediately (he doesn't address how we would know about an infraction at Iran's self-inspected Parchin site) and maintain a strong military presence in the Middle East.
Intelligence capacities should be beefed up, too. And finally, Panetta argues that the U.S. should "make it clear that force is an option."
Like President Obama is going to take any of these actions?
Like Panetta, other Democrats are lining up behind the deal. DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz was on the brink of sentimental tears when she finally announced her support. The DNC chair wrote an oped explaining her position that touts her "Jewish heart" and status as a "Jewish mother." Other Jewish voters, concerned that the deal poses an existential threat to Israel, are moved to tears for that reason.
In commenting on Panetta's article, Joel B. Pollak at Breitbart says:
Panetta’s argument is really for a tougher president.
What President Obama has done is create a mess for the future–just as he did with his signature health system overhaul.