You may not remember this, but back when Barack Obama was in the White House and pushing his nuclear deal with Iran as the defining foreign policy achievement of his presidency, he had a hard time convincing his own party that the deal was even a good idea. That was a key factor in Obama’s decision to violate the Constitution by skipping Senate ratification of the treaty and unilaterally signing the Iran nuclear deal.
The nuclear treaty was so bad that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer opposed it and publicly broke with Obama over it. I remember having a smidgeon of respect for Schumer because of this.
The big problem for Schumer today is that the internet is forever, and we have video of him explaining in detail his opposition to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Back then, Schumer tried to present himself as a sober analyst. “I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of the deal,” he said. He framed his decision as pragmatic. “I didn’t ask what is the ideal agreement. We’re not in that world. I asked, are we better off with the agreement that we have before us or without?”
Then he got into the substance, and the tone shifted quickly. “In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement.”
He zeroed in on inspections, which supporters of the deal insisted were airtight. Schumer clearly wasn’t buying it. “First, inspections are not anywhere, anytime. The potential delay of as many as twenty-four days before we can inspect undeclared suspicious sites is troubling.” He acknowledged one upside, saying, “It is true that declared sites will be monitored. That is one of the positives of this deal.” Then he delivered the obvious reality that defenders often glossed over: “But if Iran is going to cheat, it will not be at a declared site with the eyes of the world watching.”
He didn’t stop there. “It will be at a non-designated site. And if Iran is trying to cheat, it will certainly delay the inspection process as long as possible.” That sounds a lot like the argument critics of Iran have been making for years, including right now.
Schumer also warned about the structural weakness of the inspection regime. “Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally.” He laid out the bureaucratic mess required to act. “We require … a majority of the eight-member joint commission. Assuming that China, Russia, Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1, as well as the EU representative.” Then came a prediction that aged remarkably well. “It is a reasonable fear. Once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may not want to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.”
He even pointed out the legitimizing effect of the deal. “And unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program would be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations.”
Recommended: This Is the Best Thing You’ve Heard an EPA Administrator Say
“Finally, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause.” He reminded everyone what Iran had been doing for years. “For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza.”
Then came the money, and how Iran would get “at least 50 billion dollars in the future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to create even more trouble in the Middle East and perhaps beyond.” Schumer knew then that the deal’s limited short-term benefits failed to outweigh the long-term risks. Iran wanted nuclear weapons and wasn’t going to stop pursuing them.
“Ultimately, in my view, whether one opposes or supports the resolution of disapproval depends on what, on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement,” he explained. “To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great. Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement.”
2015. Chuck Schumer explains why he is not supporting Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
Schumer detailed how the deal would not only fail to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it would in many ways advance Iran’s nuclear program.
It’s worth noting that as soon as Trump announced in 2018… pic.twitter.com/ZWSr6DyPpu
— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 8, 2026
He, of course, was right. Iran never truly complied with the nuclear deal. But here’s the bigger problem. Schumer himself flip-flopped. A few years later, when Donald Trump withdrew from that very deal in 2018, Schumer opposed the move. The same deal he warned would empower Iran, enrich hardliners, weaken inspections, and pave a patient path to a nuclear weapon suddenly became something worth preserving, despite all the evidence that Iran was violating the deal.
This video proves that Schumer’s position on Iran has nothing to do with principles. He did take a principled stand against Barack Obama, but when he found himself on the same side as Trump, he flip-flopped.
Schumer is facing a lot of criticism from inside his party, and here we have a video of him sounding a lot more like Trump on Iran than anything today’s Democratic Party would dare say. It would be a shame for him if more people saw this video.
Want to support fearless journalism that exposes the left and tells the stories the media won’t? PJ Media delivers the truth and holds the powerful accountable. Become a VIP member today—your support fuels our mission and unlocks exclusive content, podcasts, an ad-free experience, and more.
Use code FIGHT for 60% off. It’s a great time to join our movement. Join now and stand for America-first journalism!
