Team Obama Playing the Dual Loyalty Card against Jews?

 In an effort to intimidate some of the Jewish senators and congressmen thinking of voting against Obama's Iran deal, there are murmurs from Team Obama about "dual loyalty" and not caving into "Jewish donors."  These are old anti-Semitic canards.  Some have called those planning to vote against the deal "traitors."

Truth is, voting for a moral cause on behalf of one's people has never been considered an act of dual loyalty, as evidenced, for example, when the entire Congressional Black Caucus voted to place sanctions on South Africa during its apartheid years.  This was rightly considered the moral thing to do and brought with it many votes from non-black congressmen.  Surely Mr. Obama, who found such acts of conscience admirable, should not now reverse himself when it comes to a Jewish act of conscience.  If the living conditions and equality needs of blacks in South Africa were worthy causes, then certainly the actual saving of Jewish lives from a nuclear inferno constitutes a moral act.

Make no mistake about it: a deal that quickly provides Iran with $150 billion to purchase conventional weapons and soldiers to immediately invade Israel, allows for the continuation and build-up of spinning centrifuges, pledges to defend Iran from any defensive acts coming from Israel, and insists on teaching Tehran and implementing for it the latest nuclear technology is an undeniable threat to Israel's people and her children.  Iran has not changed from its stated number-one goal of destroying Israel…with one bomb.  It remains a monstrous regime.

Would Mr. Obama have signed a nuclear and trade deal with a country if its most infamous and consistent pronouncement was the annihilation of blacks and the destruction of a black African country?  No way!

The most important reality is that this deal is bad for America, disastrous and threatening.  All senators can fall back on this fact.  Iran considers itself at war with America.  For Iran, the "negotiations" are simply one form of warfare.  When actual victory through battle is not yet feasible, Islamic sharia uses temporary negotiations to get a deal that can eventuate in later military victory – either total victory or victory through a slower, day-by-day attrition.

This deal allows for immediate cash and trade for Iran, which will tomorrow begin purchasing intercontinental ballistic missiles from Russia that can reach America.  The deal will provide Iran with the billions needed to finance terrorist installations in nearby Latin and South America and enhance its program of sneaking jihadists across the border into U.S. territory.  It will soon threaten a direct confrontation from a newly built Iranian military poised to challenge our fleet in the Persian Gulf.

In humiliating fashion, Obama has agreed to pay billions in "protection" money to Iran, which has declared war on us, the Great Satan.  Obama has allowed Iran to "shake down" America.  We will be giving this warring entity the money and means to destroy us.  This arrangement is bad for America.

Beyond that, the deal is an affront to and betrayal of Congress due to its side deals hidden from Congress and beyond its oversight.  By bypassing Congress and first going to the U.N. for ratification, Obama has demoted Congress from its constitutional position and defied the power granted it by the Constitution.  Senator Charles Schumer, for example, who wishes to be selected the Senate minority leader (a highly symbolic Senate position), should find his nay vote that much easier.  The integrity of the Senate and security of America should make it easy for him to do what history and the Constitution expect of him.

This is a horrendous deal for the world.  Even Neville Chamberlain did not provide Hitler with $150 billion to strengthen his army.  The Obama deal supplies Iran with the rope to hang us.  The charge of dual loyalty is, therefore, malicious.  How can one charge "dual loyalty" when the majority of America's congressional members (all not Jewish) are voting against this deal?  How can Team Obama/Kerry invoke the specter of dual loyalty when Americans are 2-1 against this deal, seeing it as a betrayal of American interests?

In fact, a president who (1) transforms NASA into a vehicle for Muslim outreach; (2) refuses to acknowledge the Islamism behind jihadist killings of Americans in America; (3) forbids, under anti-"profiling" mantras, the FBI to do surveillance of young Muslims tilting toward domestic terrorism; (4) spends taxpayer money refurbishing and rebuilding mosques across the world; (5) fabricates a "great Muslim contribution to America since our founding"; (6) signs a deal empowering Iran with the nuclear bomb; and (7) opts for them receiving billions that they, the Iranians, can use against their "Death to America" enemy is someone who should think about dual loyalty regarding his own self.

Hopefully, our congressmen will act like statesmen as opposed to politicians.  In fact, Jewish Senate Democrats recently did defy Obama when it came to a trade bill their union supporters opposed.  Evidently, they will go against Mr. Obama when their donors demand it and their financial support is at stake.

Last week, Obama singled out Israel as the only country against the deal.  The week before, Kerry stated that Israel will (should) be blamed if the deal falls through.  The onus is on the Jews.  Sometimes, a self-respecting member of a religious/ethnic group should stand up for his people when his people are being specifically scapegoated and bullied by an all-powerful man.

Tehran will use the billions Obama is sending to promote worldwide Jew-hatred.  At this moment, I wish I were a senator so I could do the principled thing and act the way history and morality demands.  Alas, too often statesmanship is wasted on self-centered, career politicians.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is author of Push Back as well as Why Israel Matters to You and is president of Caucus for America.