Postgame With The Clock Still Running, and Other Silver Linings

Even with the announcement from Rep. Maloney that she will oppose the Iran deal, the failure to overcome the veto still seems likely, and there is now the possibility that Sen. Reid will engage in a filibuster to make sure the vote against the deal that would trigger the vote never comes to pass in the first place.

But there is no reason for the opponents of the deal to stop protesting, even [or especially] after the possible veto and subsequent failure to override.  Au contraire: the pressure needs to ratcheted up more than a few notches even after Sept. 17.

One only actually needs to conjure up the spectre of the ostensibly failed Iraq War which the cabal in this White House and State Dept. wields so deftly to scare deal opponents [and supporters] and turn it on its head.  All one has to do is remind the Democrats that they once were for the war before they were against it, and they can be for this deal before they were against it as well.  [This flip flop is unlikely to happen with any GOPer.  Maybe it's in the DemNA.]

The reason that gambit might work is simple: maintaining this principled and fierce opposition to the deal even if it "passes" will put all of its supporters on notice that they will be electorally vulnerable in the next round.  In which case those who even voted to allow the deal to be implemented might work to either undermine its gifts to Iran--especially since, as a distinct non-treaty, its enforcement is shady as it is, and we already know that the WH/DOS cabal will likely already be trying to undermine any type of enforcement that makes the Mullahs uncomfortable.

Aside from making a mess of this deal, the other positive side effect is that it will completely isolate the President and force him to do everything to shore up his legacy project via executive order, which will further highlight just how the deal was cemented against the wishes of the majority of Americans.  Additionally, an implemented and failed deal can redound to the ill electoral effects of the 2016 Dem Presidential candidate, whomever s/he is, because the burden of proof cred vis-a-vis national security will always be on the Dems rather than the GOP.

Additionally, as Aaron David Miller pointed out--the reason the deal itself didn't give away more than it has was partially due to the unceasing opposition, which thankfully won't stop.  So--even though it will take 15 years to accurately gauge the possiblity--if this deal does "work", there's no reason the GOP and certain "lobbies" shouldn't have the chutzpah to take credit for making sure that it had any teeth, rather than becoming the Iran reclamation/rehabilitation project the President all but alluded to around the time of his 2009 Grovel in Cairo.

Finally, the President's singular pursuit of this deal as his legacy even if it leaves his party in tatters is of a piece with their reluctance to campaign on Obamacare in the 2014 midterms: it reveals that there is a possibility that eventually his personal agenda and his parties can be forced to diverge, and he could be compelled to sell them out for his own personal prestige.  Which hopefully can only hurt all of them across the board at the polls while he attempts to become the next Jimmy Carter.