Paul Pillar wants accountability for opponents of the nuclear deal:

And those who argue or vote against the agreement should be held to account for what they in effect are arguing or voting for. They should be made to explain to the rest of the country why, whatever may be the true reasons for their opposition, they are supporting a step that would not only kill the best chance for ensuring the Iranian nuclear program remains peaceful but also would remove the special restrictions and scrutiny to which that program is subject now.

Iran hawks very much want to maintain the illusion that they are fighting against Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon by fighting strenuously against a deal with Iran, but that is simply false. In their opposition to striking a deal with Iran, these hawks have been working hard at trying to wreck the best chance of limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and they have misrepresented every major gain in imposing restrictions on that program as a huge giveaway to Tehran. At each step, Iran hawks have tried to mislead the public into thinking that major Iranian concessions were instead substantial Iranian gains.

The reality is that Iran has been the one to yield many times in exchange for what amount to very minimal concessions on the part of the P5+1. The Post editorialized against the deal and asserted that it was “costly” for the U.S., but the truth is that it costs the U.S. nothing. By striking a deal with Iran on this issue now, the U.S. is making conflict with Iran less likely (thereby avoiding the enormous costs a war would involve), and in doing so it gives up nothing except punitive measures against Iran that were supposedly imposed to achieve the very result that has now been produced.

When the interim agreement was reached, Iran hawks decried it as “worse than Munich,” but then when it seemed that a comprehensive deal was within reach they suddenly changed their tune and decided that the interim agreement should continue forever. The interim agreement was advantageous to the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1, and even Iran hawks had to acknowledge this when they were presented with the prospect of a final agreement. Now the same people want to tell us that the final agreement is unacceptable, and their reasoning is just as slippery and disingenuous as it was when they attacked the interim agreement as “appeasement.”