The prevailing wisdom in politics for much of my voting adult life was that Democrats were better with domestic policy, and Republicans were better with foreign policy. This was during the time that Reagan supposedly single-handedly brought an end to communism and the demise of the USSR, and Clinton over saw the tech explosion of the 90s and eliminated the budget deficit.

Of course - that was before President Bush (the younger) created the foreign policy disaster that was Iraq, and managed to irritate and alienate most of our allies (British prime minister Tony Blair excepted). He also managed to destroy the economy with massive tax cuts early in his administration combined with lax regulation that created the unsustainable balloons which popped right before President Obama came into office.

Where Bush proved himself incapabible in both foreign and domestic policy, Obama has proved himself worthy in both regards. He brought the country back from the brink of economic disaster with stimulus spending, and has managed to maintain a slow steady growth in the economy while still managing to shrink the budget deficits left to him by Bush. He has also (eventually) wound down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, got rid of Osama bin Laden, repaired relations with allies, and worked with NATO and the UN to help bring about change in several Middle Eastern countries without committing ourselves to an expensive and deadly conventional war.

It was just such an approach of strength backed by options that led to the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, and has now led to a deal with Iran to ratchet down their nuclear program. It reminds me of Jimmy Carter's deft approach, where you talk and treat the other person with respect, while the strength of the US is quietly there under the hum, and give the other side the ability to come to an agreement without losing face.

The Republicans and Israeli hardliners, on the other hand, want to rub their faces in it. The similarity of the reactions are disgustingly similar and have the same familiar schoolyard bully quality to it. In their minds, it's no fun if you can't make them say "uncle".

In Israel, Netanyahu is facing a double-sided whammy. The right-wingers (Israel's version of the neocons) wanted Israel under their boot heel. Netanyahu is losing face because this NATO deal happened with (or perhaps despite) his opposition to it. This makes him seem to be ineffectual, which is somewhat deserved. Like Republicans here at home, if you are not willing to sit down and hammer out a deal that is mutually beneficial, then you will be left to look like a hack.

Republicans here at home are opposed to the deal because, well - to be frank: because President Obama is behind it. The Constitution is a little fuzzy on this sort of thing. Article II, Section 2 says (regarding the president) "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Article I, Section 8 says that "The Congress shall have power to [...] regulate commerce with foreign nations". So it would seem that Congress (in particular the Senate) holds the cards on whether the United States can and/or will comply with this deal.

However, it seems that the sanctions themselves have some "trojan horses" that the White House can exploit:

There are other options as well - check out the link...

Like the ACA, the Republicans in Congress are desperate not to let President Obama have yet another accomplishment on his record. Like the president's previous accomplishments, they will not be successful in killing this one either. It's hard to believe that he is able to work a deal more easily with the Iranian government than he is with Republicans in this country. Imagine how far along we'd be if the Republicans in Congress were as willing to work with him as the Iranians are?