Media reports abound these days with the looming possibility that a majority of Democrats in the United States Senate may choose to side with President Obama, rather than an overwhelming majority of Americans, and support his agreement with Iran.

It is a sobering thought.

Equally disconcerting is the possibility that not only will that majority of Senate Democrats oppose the will of the majority of the American people they may attempt to filibuster an actual vote in the Senate on the Iran nuclear agreement.

I remain an optimist even in the midst of what seems to be darkening odds of preventing implementation of the Iranian nuclear agreement.

The remaining Democrats who are contemplating the choice between giving the President a “victory” in allowing this broken and dangerous agreement to go forward or finding another way forward that will protect America have the benefit of seeing, hearing and reading the words of the Iranian government since this agreement was announced.

Words that reject any notion that there will be “anytime, anywhere” inspection of a single Iranian nuclear facility.

Words that reject any U.S. inspectors being allowed anywhere near Iranian nuclear facilities, despite the fact that the United States remains the primary target of Iran’s enmity.

Words that reject any legal obligation of Iran to live up to any aspect of this agreement.

But, they also have the words of their fellow Democrats as evidence that this agreement is a failure of diplomacy.

It may be touted as a victory for President Obama’s legacy but there can be no credible argument that the future of the world is safer because of this agreement.

When the majority of those embracing the President’s agreement readily point to its imperfections yet dismiss those same imperfections as reasons for rejecting the agreement the American people have every reason to be concerned.

In spite of its imperfections and failure to achieve a single declared objective promised to the American people they still argue that this agreement is the best choice America has to protect itself from an Iranian regime that continues to seek our destruction.

A regime that has killed and murdered Americans.

Words have been written and said by advocates of this agreement that there is no other choice.  They assure us that all options have been tried and that every pathway to Iran’s ability to build a bomb have been cut off.

Yet, they provide no evidence that this is true other than the assurances of the President that it is.

The same President, incidentally, who promised the world that under no circumstances would he be party to an agreement that allowed Iran to keep its capabilities to build a nuclear weapon – or that did not have the strongest most robust inspection regime – or that would permit the nation to continue to threaten its neighbors and self-declared enemies.

None of the things the President promised came to pass in this nuclear agreement.

I have long been uncomfortable with the growing partisan divide when it comes to our nation’s foreign policy.  There’s enough blame to go around when it comes to determining culpability in an arena of public policy that was consistently thought to be bipartisan.

The choice between whether or not the agreement presented to the world by President Obama is not a choice between being a loyal Democrat or loyal Republican.

Nor can it be a choice between loyalty or disloyalty to the President.

When all is said and done what Russia, China, India, Great Britain or any other nation will or will not do if America rejects this agreement is not the issue before Congress.

For each of these nations will pursue its own self-interest as America must as well.  

Our nation’s self-interest is keeping Iran from becoming more powerful and more dangerous a year from now – and fifteen years from now.

If other nations party to this agreement feel that it is the best choice for their national security that is their right.

America has rights, too.  

And it has a choice.

It can choose to reject this agreement because it bears no resemblance to the agreement policymakers were promised by the President.

Because there is nothing in this agreement that that can be counted on to protect America from Iran and its proven willingness to invest in terror and unflinching commitment to killing Americans.

Or, it can choose to follow a path of hoping that Iran will change by allowing this agreement to be implemented.

America has seen enough of hope as a strategy for the future.

It’s time we choose reality as the path forward for our security.