The U.S. Senate. Photo: WikiCommons.

Public opinion is consistently and increasingly against the Iran deal. In order to stop it, we must muster all available conservative forces. Time is tight.

My recent article in Front Page Magazine demonstrated that the Iran deal must be addressed by Congress as a “treaty.”

To preclude the Democrats’ attempted filibuster, the Senate should change its rules by a simple-majority vote, and then pass a resolution stating that the deal is a treaty by a simple-majority vote. It could then defeat the measure under its advise/consent role, and then enjoin Obama from implementing this capitulation to the mullahs. Such a fight would likely come before the Supreme Court.

I have advocated this approach since May, recognizing the need for the legislative branch to petition the judicial branch to rein in the executive branch. I have demonstrated why this deal is not an executive order [quoting Gibbons v. Ogden] because it has characteristics of a long-term diplomatic agreement rather than of a short-term commercial pact [quoting Professor Alan Dershowitz].

On September 2, Dershowitz amplified this viewpoint, quoting Federalist 64: “The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good.”

When I publicly confronted Dershowitz with the necessity to sue Obama, he initially raised concern that this would be discarded as a “political question,” but his legal wheels then started turning. “Who would sue?” he asked rhetorically. “Senator McConnell!” said I. “Well, it’s a possibility, because he would have standing, representing the Senate.”

Unfortunately, in contrast, former senator Joseph Lieberman failed to cite any realistic alternative approach during a speech the next night in Livingston, New Jersey. Instead, he trotted out meaningless, psychologically soothing measures, such as enacting sanctions on the Federal level (that Obama would veto) or on the State level (which would hardly offset Obama’s $150 billion signing-bonus).

He did not raise the prospect of recognizing this deal as a treaty. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation has claimed it should have been treated as a treaty all along.

Unfortunately, most people share Lieberman’s belief that the deal cannot be defeated.

This contrasts with the resolution of Rep. Louie Gohmert asserting that the deal “has ingredients common to treaties — arms, ICBMs, sanctions.” This point was raised on September 9 in Washington at a rally sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Conservative Union, and Citizens United, among others.

Debunking Obama’s line that the only alternative is war – rather than a better deal – must include citing awareness that he has permitted Iran, by delaying-tactics spanning more than a half-decade, to achieve threshold-status. This disingenuous ploy ignores the ongoing capacity to maintain sanctions until Iran acquiesces, a posture that the Senate should force Obama to assume.

This threat to Western culture cannot be handled as business-as-usual. A tsunami of public pressure must be mounted urgently to unify forces against the Iran deal.

Messaging must differentiate those who placate from those who courageously advocate the need to confront a lawless president.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.