A recent partisan blog appearing in the Hill suggests that when it comes to the issue of national security and, by default, the security of Israel, that Congressman Bob Dold and Democratic candidate Brad Schneider are equals. The writer’s opinion is based largely on the fact that Brad Schneider, during the intense primary battle, broke with the President and his party, and after a period of careful deliberation, came out against the disastrous Iran deal. I publicly commended Brad Schneider for throwing his weight behind this wise choice. Putting the security of Americans and Israelis, above partisan politics is after all what the job should be about if he were to be re- elected.

But then as you go through the “replay” of the tortuously long process of consideration of the Iran deal which occurred over the summer of 2015, you recall the pain and irritation of having to wait while Democratic members “diligently studied” the almost indecipherable contents of the deal. To this day, significant parts of the deal remain veiled in secrecy. Even Jewish members like Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer had to be shoe-horned into voting against the deal. From there however, they squandered their leadership roles by failing to lead their colleagues to opposition.

Circling back, Congressman Bob Dold’s opposition to the deal was instinctive. Congressman Bob Dold did not need a great deal of time to ponder the question of Iran’s integrity. Rather, Congressman Bob Dold, looking at Iran’s heinous track record of terror and an aggressive campaign of expansionism within the region and in South America, was reflexively repulsed at the thought of giving Iran a possible pathway to become a nuclear menace. Bob Dold looked at Iran’s vile continuation of openly executed human rights violations and the ongoing racist doctrine of Islamism that Iran continues to force-feed the world. Like the 2-1 majority of Americans who oppose the Iran deal, Congressman Dold voted against it.

While Brad Schneider should be commended on his decision to have eventually chosen a position that put the security of Americans before political gain, this does not translate into a position on national security that is equal to Dold’s position. Don’t we deserve representation that is focused exclusively on the obligation of keeping American’s safe? Having to ponder the decision of whether or not to trust an unrepentant adversary like Iran or to serve the whims of unfocussed party bosses should not ever have to be on the menu. In the final analysis it should be remembered that Brad’s ability to act in our best interests on national security will ultimately be tethered to the doctrine of a party whose worldview has led to a complete collapse of the Middle East and the export of chaos and terror world-wide.