While there is precedent for congressional rejection of presidential treaties - entry to the League of Nations for unfortunate example - the likely outcome of all of the negative criticism is simply political posturing. Because, for all its shortcomings - and there are several flaws in the terms already known - it's probably the best deal the negotiators on both sides could get.
I have not yet read the 159 pages but the outline of the deal is known. In exchange for Iran destroying 90 per cent of its fissile materials and permitting the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its nuclear sites, the signatory countries will begin gradually to lift the sanctions which have crippled the Iranian economy.
Yes, there are weaknesses in the inspection provisions and the whole deal doesn't really stop Iran making a bomb, merely seriously delays for at least 10 years. The US and its partners didn't get everything they wanted; neither did Iran.
In every complex negotiation between adversaries, the ideal outcome is one where no one walks away the clear winner. If nothing else, a one-sided outcome gives the losing party fodder for grievances with resultant political ill-will. The Versailles Treaty after World War I is the best example, providing Hitler with all the excuses he needed for an eventual war.
The argument that most supports this treaty is that all the alternatives are worse. To prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon by military means, as the extremists in the US and Israel posit, is madness.
Ordinary Americans will be treated to much political posturing in this pre-electoral season but after the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars there will be little stomach for yet another pre-emptive one over Iran's nuclear potential.
To walk away from the deal now is tantamount to encouraging Iran to build a weapon. Without the carrot of diminished sanctions, Iran, which may well have been pursuing a nuclear weapon, would have little incentive to slow that pursuit.
The US, alone, instituted some sanctions in 1979. But the extensive sanctions which effectively block trade with Iran were put in place in 2006 by the UN in response to the Iran nuclear programme.
Those sanctions have been central to the negotiations. Their burdensome effect on the average Iranian's ability to buy the goods, including medicines - necessities of life - now carry a limited shelf-life. Were the US to walk away, its negotiating partners - especially Russia and China - would no longer support those trade restrictions for their own self-interest. China has been eager to buy Iranian oil and its patience would soon wear thin.
The deal buys everyone time - time to reflect and to back away from brinkmanship. This is the best that could be gotten.
Jay Kuten is an American-trained forensic psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand for the fly fishing. He spent 40 years comforting the afflicted and intends to spend the rest afflicting the comfortable.
