New York Times: Netanyahu Speech Makes Iran Deal A Tougher Sell For Obama

The left-wing New York Times opined on Tuesday that President Obama will have a much tougher time selling the case for a nuclear deal with Iran to the American people following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s powerful speech to a joint session of Congress. In his speech, the Israeli leader warned about the grave threat to the world posed by a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.

“President Obama’s task of selling a potential nuclear agreement with Iran to a skeptical Congress became far harder on Tuesday after an impassioned speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to lawmakers already nervous about the deal,” write Julie Davis and Michael Shear in the New York Times.

The article cites a handful of lawmakers and subject matter experts, most of whom agree that Netanyahu’s speech was a game-changer for two reasons. The first, largely because it may force President Obama to become more transparent in the ongoing P5+1 negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The speech will likely also create pressure upon the White House not succumb to a bad deal with the regime in Tehran, they analyzed.

The New York Times reporters write, “But as [President Obama] makes that crucial sales job — which will involve persuading lawmakers to go along with the easing of a complex set of sanctions against Iran, some put in place by Congress — Mr. Obama must now overcome not only the animosity of Republicans but also the words of the leader of Israel, whose powerful speech will serve as the counterpoint to a president they already distrust.”

The report reveals that while Conservatives have been given a replenishment of “live” intellectual “ammo” when it comes to combating the President’s narrative on his impending deal with Iran, even some Democrats have begun to openly question the wisdom of the White House.

Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) told the Times: “Many members of Congress are still hoping to give the president the benefit of the doubt. I certainly think that the prime minister raised some valid points. The question to me is: Are we safer because of the deal? Do we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon because of the deal, or is there a better alternative?”