I appreciated the inclusion of opposing viewpoints on the Iran issue in the April 17 issue. However, I feel that I must take issue with Edith Everett’s blind support for Obama’s framework (“Why The Iran Deal Makes Sense,” Opinion).
She starts by invoking the unrelated issue of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call to take out Saddam Hussein in 2002, yet one could say the same about Obama’s call for an Arab Spring in 2009, or Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea for that matter. It must also be pointed out that to radical Muslims’ interpretation of the Koran, deals made with non-Muslims are non-binding and can be rejected at will.
Factual error: Contrary to Ms. Everett’s assertion, Mr. Netanyahu did agree to a cessation of settlement activity for a period of almost a year, during which time the Palestinian Authority stalled and avoided any negotiating. On one thing we agree: it is ludicrous for the coalition against Iran to include Russia and China. Let us remember that [to Iran], the U.S. is the great Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan. Russia loses nothing if Iran succeeds, as it will not be aiming its weapons against them. They are already trade partners and Russia is supplying Iran with weapons. After our experience with Putin in the Ukraine, what cooperation can we expect from him on Iran?
China could care less unless it hurts their pocketbook. So the answer is not a choice between “Obama’s deal” and war. The third option is to work with all our “allies” (those whose interests lie with ours in this particular situation) in the fight against Iran to intensify the sanctions. Let the U.S. encourage the rest of the Western world and the more stable Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) to join the sanctions because they, too, are afraid of a nuclear Iran.