The news came that New York’s Senate delegation is split on the Iran deal: Senator Schumer opposes it, and Senator Gillibrand plans to vote for it. 

I called Senator Gillibrand's office to find out her reasoning and was directed to a document that she penned to explain her decision.

What's remarkable in it is not the positives that she sees in the deal, but the negatives she ignores.

With this deal, she tells us, "Iran has signed on to a sufficiently verifiable and enforceable deal that cuts off all paths to a bomb and has its entire nuclear supply chain closely monitored for years to come."  What she forgets to mention is the duration, the number of those "years to come."  Senator Gillibrand, "the years to come" are not 15 billion years, and not even a paltry 15 million years, but just 15 years, which is merely the blink of an eye.

Senator Gillibrand, you should have simply ignored all the agreed-to goings-on during this 15-year hiatus – monitoring, inspections, shipping out of uranium, etc.  They are irrelevant, being agreed to simply for the show, simply to pretend that Iran gave something back, simply to give senators and congressmen something to sink their teeth into, and to discuss in committee meetings.  Think about it this way, Senator Gillibrand: if the arrangements that obtain according to the deal 15 years from now came into effect tomorrow – Iran allowed to operate as many centrifuges as it wishes, Iran having a full-blown ballistic missile program, Iran allowed to purchase any advanced weaponry it wants to (and having the means to take its pick because it is flush with money), would that be a good deal?  If your answer, Senator Gillibrand, is a "no," then the actual deal brokered by President Obama is no good, either.  Iran traded an intangible 15 years' worth of time – over which no one has control, and which will pass anyway – for complete legitimacy of its nuclear program.  Today's 20-year-old will, when he is 35, have to confront the same problem that a today's 35-year-old would have had to confront if all the concessions came into effect tomorrow.  So how relevant are all those protocols you so carefully read, Senator Gillibrand, open or secret, that are to control Iranian behavior within the next 15 years?  Not relevant at all.  Ignore them, Senator Gillibrand; open your eyes to the time limit that renders those measures meaningless.

"If we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," Senator Gillibrand tells us.  Why do you say that, Senator Gillibrand, given that if the deal is approved, after 15 years Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon anyway?  Doesn't the deal remove the viable alternatives by legitimizing Iran's nuclear program?  Please open your eyes to that aspect of the deal, which completely invalidates your argument, Senator Gillibrand.

Without a deal, our options will be limited to insufficient unilateral sanctions, an invasion with yet another massive and costly land war in the Middle East, or a bombing campaign that offers nothing more than short-term gain under the best-case scenario.

When saying this, you are ignoring the lessons of history, Senator Gillibrand.  In 1936, world powers refused to go to war against Germany when it tore up the Versailles treaty by re-militarizing the Rhineland.  Their reason?  The powers were afraid of a new war.  And what did they get – peace?  No, they got a far more terrible war, a war in which 60 million people perished.  You do not avoid a war by accepting this deal, Senator Gillibrand; your just invite a much more terrible war, because the deal makes the enemy, Iran and its proxies, so much stronger – infinitely stronger, in fact, when Iran becomes a nuclear-threshold state in 15 short years.

"In a meeting earlier this week when I questioned the ambassadors of our P5+1 allies, it also became clear that if we reject this deal, going back to the negotiation table is not an option," Senator Gillibrand tells us.

So what, Senator Gillibrand?  Why did you even talk to them?  The opinion of P5+1 allies is irrelevant; those countries don't see the nuclear-armed Iran as a strategic threat to their safety.  All they want from the Iran deal is to remove the sanctions; all they want is to trade with Iran.  The nuclear aspect of the deal, that should be of relevance for you, is of no relevance for them.  P5+1's approval of the deal signifies nothing positive insofar as the nuclear aspect of the deal is concerned.  What they say is irrelevant.

(And do keep this in mind, Senator Gillibrand: Obama's strategic goal from the onset of his presidency was to re-orient American policy vis-à-vis Iran, to "extend the hand to Iran."  So, Senator Gillibrand, please do not ignore the fact that behind this deal may be a very different motivation then ridding Iran of nuclear weapons capability – but simply a cynical attempt to "not waste a crisis" to obtain the goal of switching America's Mid-East orientation from Israel/Sunni Arab nations to the alliance with Iran.)

"No issue matters more than ensuring that the Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal," you tell us, Senator Gillibrand, yet you choose to close your eyes to the fact that the deal you plans to support not only does not achieve that goal, but all but guarantees guarantees exactly the opposite – "ensuring that the Iranian regime has a nuclear weapon."

Please open your eyes, Senator Gillibrand; don't stick your head in the sand.  The fact that you close your eyes to what's in that deal is extremely troublesome.  We – your constituents – do not want the senator who represents us to hide her head in the sand as the danger approaches, refusing to face it.  Pull your head out, and open your eyes to face what's actually in that deal.

What you'll see – rather then what Obama and Kerry and foreign diplomats want you to see – is scary, but, with a measure of courage, it can be dealt with.  Master your courage, Senator Gillibrand.  Change your vote to a "no."

Senator Gillibrand, deny Iran a nuclear bomb.