Seth Lipsky

Seth Lipsky

Opinion

Will Schumer blink on Iran deal?

It looks like Sen. Charles Schumer is going to be at the center of the next drama in the showdown over Iran. He may aspire to the leadership of the Senate majority. But, despite the bland assurances of President Obama, he says he is disappointed by the Geneva pact.

This puts New York’s senior senator in a position to have an impact in the maneuvering in Congress over what to do about a deal that Obama sprang on the Israelis and on Congress after a year of secret negotiations. The question is whether Sen. Schumer means what he says.

Although I hope so, I have my doubts. These go all the way back to the 1990s, when Schumer was making all kinds of public statements in support of legislation that would force the Clinton administration to move the US embassy in Israel to the country’s capital at Jerusalem.

At the last minute, Schumer and other Democrats caved, including a “waiver” that allowed the president to say he didn’t want to move the embassy. That’s how the Jerusalem Embassy Act went into law with no teeth. It was gutted by Schumer and his fellow Democrats to avoid putting the president in a corner.

The issue of Jerusalem surfaced again in the 2012 presidential campaign, when the Democrats published a draft platform that was missing a plank affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This was such a contrast with the previous platform that it came up in an appearance by Schumer on a broadcast with Charlie Rose on CBS.

The senator tried to claim that he didn’t know what President Obama’s position was on Jerusalem. Schumer twice dodged the question, saying, at one point, that Obama was for a “very, very strong” Israel. A tough Charlie Rose was sputtering with incredulity at Schumer’s non-answers.

Fast forward to the fight over whether to elevate Chuck Hagel to secretary of defense. At first it looked like Schumer would lead the pro-Israel faction that was just appalled by the choice of Hagel, who, when it came to the Jewish state, had one of the worst records in the Senate. But after one 90-minute meeting with Hagel, Schumer turned into a confirmation aide-de-camp.

“I know some will question whether Sen. Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post,” Schumer said. “But I don’t think so. Sen. Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago.”

Hagel, though, hasn’t raised a peep of public protest against the pact Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have hatched with the mullahs and that Schumer finds so disappointing. Hagel wants to pivot to Asia and, in the Middle East, is prepared to let the Devil take the hindmost. So all eyes will be on the Senate to see whether Chuck Schumer stands up

Most of the action is around legislation being advanced by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). The measure would put the president on a short leash, requiring his administration to certify every 30 days that Iran is adhering to the deal — or the sanctions the deal lifts would be put back in and even tightened. They should have had something like that for Obama’s pledge that if you like your insurance you can keep it.

No wonder there is such a substantial faction of the Jewish leadership that doubts Obama’s deal and reckons, as Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America puts it, “it’s too late for sanctions.”

The Post wants Congress to do two things in advance. One is to authorize Obama “to use military force if the US concludes nothing else will stop Iran from getting a bomb.” The other is to “pass a resolution expressing support for an Israeli strike if Tehran crosses the nuclear point of no return.” Now that’s a way for Schumer to both stand up and strengthen the president’s hand.