One might have thought — for a second — that President Obama would oppose any filibuster regarding the Iran deal, as a matter of principle. Here is what he said on November 21, 2013, regarding filibusters on an issue (his appointments) somewhat less important than the most important foreign policy debate in more than a decade:

[I]f there are differences in the Senate, then debates should be had. People should vote their conscience. They should vote on behalf of their constituents — but they should vote. That’s what they’re there to do. And ultimately, if you’ve got a majority of folks who believe in something, then it should be able to pass.

Within hours of gaining a 41-senator minority in favor of the deal, however, the White House put out the word that it wants Democrats to filibuster the vote “to prevent Congress from undermining the agreement.” The Washington Post reported that:

Supporters “should take the necessary steps in Congress to prevent Congress from undermining the agreement,” [Press Secretary Josh] Earnest said. He noted that Republicans often filibustered legislation when the GOP was in the minority in the Senate.

Yes, but they didn’t filibuster after passing legislation 99-1 to insure a vote.

All of the 41 Democrats voted for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which permitted a Congressional vote in exchange for Congress agreeing the president would need only 34 votes to prevail. So their filibuster, if it comes, would be particularly egregious. As for the 53 Republicans who voted for the Act (everyone but Sen. Tom Cotton), they probably consoled themselves that — while they had bargained away the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote for treaties — at least the president had agreed they could keep their right to vote if they liked their right to vote. Live and learn.

Omri Ceren of The Israel Project emailed yesterday that a filibuster will carry significant political risks for the Democrats, particularly if Senate Majority Leader McConnell requires them to conduct an actual filibuster, featuring Democratic senators droning on for days, on television, trying to protect the president from a law he signed and a conclusion that is already obvious: a large bipartisan majority of both the Congress and the country oppose the deal.

So perhaps the better response to the president’s encouragement of his party to block folks who believe in something, and who want to vote their conscience or express the views of their constituents, might be this: bring it on.