I'd like to respond to Charles Krauthammer's dismissal of the Iran nuclear agreement. He states that two out of three Americans oppose the deal, as support for his position. Let's just note that in March 2003, nearly two in three supported going to war in Iraq. The wisdom of the masses seems easily swayed by propaganda and fear mongering, the realm of the punditocracy.
Recently, three dozen retired generals and admirals wrote to the Washington Post. They write that the agreement is "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons." The Israeli Defense Forces just released an overview of its strategic doctrine that barely mentions Iran. They're certainly not on the same page as Prime Minister Netanyahu. Many in Israeli intelligence reportedly feel the agreement will do what it's designed to do: keep Iran from nuclear weapons for at least a decade.
In any case, if the accord is rejected by Congress, what are the effects? It already has the blessing of our partners: England, France, Germany, Russia and China, plus the U.N. They're not going back to the table; they've already made moves to resume trade. Are unilateral sanctions going to hurt anyone other than U.S. manufacturers and farmers?
As one of three voices crying in the wilderness, I'd urge Congresswoman Stefanik to "listen to the generals" and not to AIPAC.