In the effort to convince the American Congress to approve the agreement with Iran, President Obama has marshaled a series of claims. Some of them are groundless (all the paths to a bomb are blocked, the alternative is war or an Iranian breakout to the bomb, a military action will have only limited effect), some are strange (the Iranian government will moderate in the wake of the deal), and some are intentionally misleading, on the assumption that no one will check the facts (the experts sharply criticize the agreement).
Given the details of the deal, Iran will need only six months to obtain enough material for a bomb during the first ten years, since the centrifuges are being preserved in the facility at Natanz, where they can be reactivated quickly. In addition, there is nothing to prevent Iranian nuclear cooperation with North Korea.
Moreover, the deal does nothing to block Iran from achieving regional hegemony. Nuclear weapons are just a tool to achieve this goal. The agreement paves the way for Iran to achieve its strategic goal without the bomb, as it shows how weak Western opposition is to the transfer of control of the region into the hands of Iran.
In the eyes of the West, conflict with Iran is a disaster that must be prevented by every means, including through surrender (which arises from the entire agreement).
Thus, the struggle against the agreement is necessary. If the effort ends in failure, we will know that we did everything to prevent it, and if in the future we are required to use force to defend ourselves, everyone will know that we tried every other possibility. The struggle will also make it clear to our neighbors that Israel has not lost its willingness to defend itself.
* * *