To quote this site:
'The greatest danger the world faces in the twenty-first century is an Iranian nuclear arsenal. That is why decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear program may be the most important of our time. The negotiations that led to this bad deal were deeply flawed. But it doesn’t follow that the deal should be rejected by Congress. If the President is right that rejecting this deal will be worse than accepting, then he has put us in the terrible position of choosing between bad and worse.
In The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz evaluates the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear agreement. He asks the fundamental questions about what the deal means, how it will be implemented, and whether we now have the capacity to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
As a lawyer with decades of negotiation experience, and a regular commentator on Middle Eastern politics, Dershowitz explains how we could have gotten a better deal, and offers a unique analysis of the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran and the implications of a deal for Israel, the Middle East, and the global community. It is a call for both intelligent reflection and for determined action to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
The clock is ticking. We must find ways to repair the damage this deal threatens to do. This book proposes solutions along with constructive criticism.'it's not only the Israeli Right that opposes the Deal.
Nor only Israelis, as Iran's proxy in Lebanon knows all too well.
Here's Dore Gold's take, and here
But Obama, dismissing Israel's objections, is digging his heels in.
Meanwhile, an Iran bigwig has accused the West of fostering conditions that will lead to a Third World War ...