President Obama delivers remarks on the nuclear deal reached with Iran at American University in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 5 (Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images)
Re: “A cautious ‘yes’ on the Iran deal,” Aug. 30 editorial.
Your editorial wrongly suggests the administration’s deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons “for at least 15 years.” There is nothing in the deal to prevent Iran from first pocketing its economic and military benefits, and then going forward with converting an intact nuclear program from peaceful to military uses. Those benefits include: billions in sanctions relief at the beginning of the deal; an end to an arms embargo in five years; and an end to ballistic missile restrictions in eight years. “Snapback” sanctions are the deal’s only deterrent, and they are toothless. They would not affect prior sanctions relief or post-deal transactions entered into before a dispute arises, and if imposed, the deal states: “Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments.” The deal creates a stronger and more dangerous Iran while merely delaying, not preventing, its developing a nuclear bomb in the near future.
Seymour Joseph, Denver
This letter was published in the Sept. 6 edition.It may be a bad deal, but the United States has no other choice but to sign the Iran agreement. Refusing to sign the multilateral agreement will not nullify the deal for the other signatories. The sanctions and monetary controls will still be lifted, but the U.S. will no longer be at the table to oversee, inspect or monitor Iran’s compliance. Not signing the agreement does not kill the deal. It simply excludes the U.S. from the ongoing and future proceedings.
I believe the big mistake made by the U.S. was our inability to convince or pressure our European allies (Britain, France and Germany) to partner with us to get a more open and restrictive agreement. That didn’t happen. Now our only alternative is to sign the agreement so our voice will be heard and the U.S. continues to be involved with the inspections and related events.
Carl Miller, Leadville
Congressional rejection of the nuclear agreement would be a fabulous deal for Iran. They would get relief from all sanctions not controlled by the U.S. and not have to do a thing. Their pathway to a bomb would be completely unencumbered by any restrictions or inspections whatsoever. No, even for hawks who believe military action is required, first giving peace a chance is the only smart choice, strategically. To launch attacks after rejecting the world’s peaceful solution could bring us into conflict with other world powers and devastate our economy. It would certainly make any military action much more costly and much less likely to succeed.
Steve Levin, Denver
This letter was published in the Sept. 6 edition.
