Opposes Iran Deal


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

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.