President Obama speaks to reporters Wednesday about the Iran nuclear agreement. (Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)
Re: “Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program,” July 15 news story.
Déjà vu all over again. In 1994, an agreement was signed with North Korea by the Clinton administration. President Clinton said: “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. … The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons. … The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.” Yet, a decade later, North Korea tested its first nuke.
The CIA says Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Don’t we have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists? But we have the right to inspect their nuclear facilities — with 24 days’ notice! I’m sure in the interim they won’t conceal what they are up to.
I don’t blame Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Middle East allies from being upset over this deal. The world is not safer.
Richard Pearson, Parker
This letter was published in the July 18 edition.Re: “Misplaced trust in Iran will come back to haunt us,” July 16 guest commentary.
Congressman Mike Coffman’s guest commentary about the Iran deal is very disappointing. I expect much more from him given his background and membership on the House Armed Services Committee. He says this is a bad deal but he doesn’t disagree with President Obama’s clear explanation of the alternative, which is war. Recent wars have ended and destroyed lives, destabilized the region, cost us massive amounts of taxpayer money, and made the world more dangerous.
The congressman needs to take a stand so he can contribute constructively to this very important debate. Otherwise, he’s only contributing to the anti-Obama blather machine.
Patricia Cronenberger, Littleton
This letter was published in the July 18 edition.Kudos to Rep. Mike Coffman for his perceptive analysis of President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. For years policymakers looked for ways to accommodate a nuclear Iran. In 2010, Vice President Joe Biden said, “The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period.” Yet the Obama administration’s off-the-record dealings have been nothing short of appeasing a regime that would destabilize the Mideast even more. With sanctions off the table and little possibility of military force, the martyrdom mentality of a nuclear Iran forebodes a toxic scenario.
Coffman asks why Obama thinks he can trust Iran. Perhaps it is because he wants badly to will his legacy as “peacemaker.” How naive to think that the ayatollahs will miraculously change their behavior.
Jenene Stookesberry, Denver
This letter was published in the July 18 edition.Congressman Mike Coffman’s guest commentary is very misleading. No one, at any time, suggested that those negotiating an agreement with Iran is “trusting” that Iran will not continue to build nuclear weapons. In fact, it was explicitly stated that this was an agreement that would depend highly on verification.
Also, this was not “President Obama’s recent nuclear enrichment agreement.” This agreement was negotiated with Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union, as well as the U.S.
I’d like to know what alternative Congressman Coffman will offer, as well as others who are adamantly against this agreement.
Pat Dunn, Aurora
This letter was published in the July 18 edition.Criticizing the international agreement on nuclear arms because it does not solve all problems is like criticizing a cancer drug because it does not cure the common cold. The most serious problem has been solved. Now we can begin working on the lesser ones. The chest beaters will only be satisfied with force, but look where that has got us: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gary Hall, Denver
This letter was published in the July 18 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
