Michael Bloomberg puts on a display of hang-wringing “centrism”:

I have deep reservations about the Iranian nuclear agreement, but I — like many Americans — am still weighing the evidence for and against it. This is one of the most important debates of our time, one with huge implications for our future and security and the stability of the world. Yet instead of attempting to persuade Americans on the merits [bold mine-DL], supporters of the deal are resorting to intimidation and demonization, while also grossly overstating their case.

Bloomberg’s complaint here is not only false, but it also overlooks the sustained campaign of “intimidation and demonization” that critics of diplomacy with Iran have been engaged in for at least the last two years. Opponents of the deal have frequently accused Obama and the deal’s supporters of enabling terrorism, appeasement, and abetting future genocide, and those are just the most recent charges that opponents have made. Iran hawks have been lobbing these false and outrageous charges for years and then suddenly feign shock and horror about fear-mongering the moment that they are subjected to serious criticism. Hard-liners indulge in fear-mongering as a matter of course, so they are no position to complain if it were being used against them, but on the whole the so-called “fear-mongering” in question involves thinking through the implications of Iran hawks’ arguments against the deal and taking seriously their pattern of advocating for military intervention. Iran hawks want a much more confrontational and aggressive Iran policy, and they object to the deal in large part because they fear that it makes that kind of Iran policy less politically viable. They fear that the deal will make it harder to engage in their own fear-mongering about Iran, and so they now cry foul over tactics that are at least ten times milder than their regular behavior.

Bloomberg is wrong that there have been no attempts to persuade on the merits. The president’s speech last week at American University was a very clear effort to present the merits of the deal, and I think it was a successful one for those that were interested in listening to what he said. However, Obama didn’t make the mistake that he has often made in his public rhetoric of pretending that the people who were implacably opposed to the deal could somehow be won over through good-faith discussion. These are the critics that rejected the deal sight unseen, and would have rejected it no matter how much conciliatory rhetoric Obama and his officials used to sell it.

As for the “smearing” charge, it cannot be “smearing” to draw attention to the record of the critics’ past foreign policy judgments. If the most vocal opponents of the deal also happen to have been among the loudest proponents of a disastrous and unnecessary war, surely that is something that the public should be made aware of if they aren’t already. That may not tell the public which side of the debate is right this time, but it is a very healthy reminder of the enormous costs that can follow from heeding the side that advocates for more aggressive policies. It is no accident that the leading advocates of a reckless war are also the most vehement opponents of a diplomatic solution in this case. Their opposition reflects their basic distrust and loathing of diplomacy, their overconfidence in the efficacy of hard power, and their disregard for unforeseen and unintended consequences. The hawks terrible judgment on Iraq isn’t the main reason to ignore their shoddy arguments against the nuclear deal, but it is a good reason to approach their arguments with extra caution and skepticism.