For what it’s worth, here’s Schumer’s published statement against the Iran Deal, and here are President Obama’s remarks at the American University. I’m coming to think that the important points that Schumer is right and has every constitutional right to raise, are addressed by Obama with considerable robustness. The main critical concern was what happens after the 10-15 years term to the Deal runs out. Obama suggests it’s back to square one with military options, but on better terms for the U.S. and its allies in the region. A more credible U.S. policy in the region, particularly in relation to Syria and Iraq and Iranian influence in both countries, might have done a lot to assuage fair-minded critics of the Iranian Deal.
In the meantime, there has been more than enough demagoguery to go around, and its worth mentioning here that much of the response against Iran Deal opponents has come to an ugly head in response to Schumer’s principled opposition to the Iran Deal, for which he has taken enormous flak and at considerable risk to his political career. You’re going down a treacherous rabbit hole if you need to defend the Iran Deal by flagging “the Israel Lobby,” rather than defend the Deal on the merits and take skeptical criticism seriously. In this instance, we’re talking about up front and blatant anti-Semitism. In the NYT comments section, which you can read it here, the key terms are: cynicism, dual loyalty, money, cabal, lobbies, warmonger, kowtow, Joe Lieberman, Netanyahu, Adelson, Wall Street, AIPAC, Israel, Jewish, blood, fitness, betrayal, shame, treason, and disgust.