Letters
search

Letters

Iran deal is ‘perfidy’

I take the opposite position from Stu Kaplan about the Iran deal (“In favor of the Iran deal,” November 6.) I take issue with Representative Bill Pascrell for supporting the deal and condemn Senator Cory Booker for coming out in favor of it and assisting to make sure that it was not discussed in our Senate. We do not hear that it was a “good” deal. We do hear that “it was the best one under the circumstances.” What were the circumstances, a president not willing or able to press for a better deal?

Mr. Kaplan states the usual mantra — that military action might be the only alternative, and that would postpone an Iranian nuclear weapon only for a “few years.” The deal actually only stops Iran from developing a nuclear weapon until it decides to put one together. It does not stop research and development. Cutting back on centrifuges does not call for their destruction, but only that they must be taken off line. Site inspections are little more than a joke. Parchin, the military site, at first was off limits but then to be examined only with Iranian permission, under Iranian control, and any samples would be taken by the Iranians. When IAEA inspectors were allowed into one of the buildings on the site, they found it empty — and they found evidence that work was done to clean it up. Inspections of other known sites can be stalled. Inspections of secret sites can happen only after the Iranians are told what the IAEA wants to see. With this information, the Iranians are likely to find the sources of IAEA intelligence and perhaps to clean things up before inspections.

The agreement does not contain any snap-back provisions for sanctions. In fact, it allows Iran to cancel the agreement if any sanctions are instituted for any reason, including Iranian violations. The deal also obligates the parties to assist the Iranians in combating any attempts to set back any parts of its nuclear program via actual or cyber generated assaults.

President Barack Obama did not press the Iranians or our so-called allies for a stronger deal, with more power and a wider scope. There is nothing in it that will roll back Iranian support for terrorism or terrorists. Nothing about the continued development of long-range missiles or other weapon systems. Nothing about toning down or eliminating Iran’s calls for the destruction of other nations. President Obama believes that with ending sanctions and signing the deal, Iran will become a regional power and a beneficial asset. He has only strengthened its march to becoming a stronger power.

For over a half a year, President Obama kept his negotiations with Iran secret from Israel, the nation with the most to lose. He was able to keep Israel from taking any action against Iranian nuclear weapon programs until now — when it may be too late.

President Obama will no longer be in office when the chickens come home to roost, but his perfidy — and the perfidy of those who supported the “best deal possible” — will live on.

Howard J. Cohn

New Milford

NATO must take action

I urge President Barack Obama to call for an emergency meeting of NATO in order to invoke Article 5, which states that an attack on any member state constitutes an attack on all. The atrocity in Paris is an act of war. Both France and ISIS acknowledge that.

All NATO’s member states are bound by this clause to come to the aid of their aggrieved ally. They must form a coalition to strike at and destroy the aggressor with all necessary forces.

I strongly believe that the United States should take the lead in this action since France is the oldest and most loyal ally in our history.

Isis must be destroyed now, before it swallows Syria and (possibly) Iraq. It will then have access to huge amounts of armaments. Its stated goal is to overcome the entire western world, as well as all others who oppose its seventh-century ideology.

Jerrold Terdiman, M.D.

Woodcliff Lake

read more:
comments