Jeffrey Lewis notes that critics of the nuclear deal are now reduced to using the agreement’s strengths as reasons to oppose it:

Some of us might think it good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections.

The Iran hawks’ predicament is that they are generally dead-set against successful diplomacy with Iran, but they have to make it seem as if their objections are against flaws in the deal rather than the deal itself. Thus we are treated to the the hawks’ empty claims that they want a “better deal” that was never forthcoming and their insistence on “tougher” inspections standards as a way to justify opposing the agreement that makes those inspections possible. The absurdity of this position is clear enough, but it is one that Iran hawks feel compelled to take so that they can pretend to be for a diplomatic solution other than the only realistic one available.

The objections hawks make to the deal are typically spurious, but then one would expect them to be when the design of the deal is not the real reason for their opposition. As we saw with Brooks last week, Iran hawks are against a deal that includes any compromise with Iran, and so they are against any deal that might be reached. However, they have to go through the motions of arguing that this or that provision is inadequate because they know that flatly rejecting a diplomatic solution will go over badly. So they claim to have a problem with this particular product of diplomacy despite the fact that they have made clear in their arguments that they would similarly reject anything that might have come out of these talks.

This is what hawks will often do: feign support for a generic diplomatic option so as not to be perceived as excessively aggressive, then denounce the specific diplomatic agreement that is reached for being too “weak,” and then if successful in derailing diplomacy they will then declare that diplomacy “has been tried and failed.” If hawks are unsuccessful in derailing diplomacy at first, they will usually then try to find some other excuse later to tear up the agreement or make use of any violation on the other side as a pretext for increased hostility and even conflict. Lately Iran hawks have been complaining that they are being cast as supporters of another war (which many of them have openly supported against Iran at one time or another), but there is no question that they are united in their loathing for diplomacy and the compromise that it requires.