Your editorial "Negotiating with Iran" (April 3) would have been more appropriately titled "Capitulating to Iran" or "Neville Chamberlain reincarnated."
How can any country negotiate with another country that proclaims "death" to its so-called negotiating partner?
How can a country negotiate with another country that routinely argues one of its negotiating partner's closest allies must be destroyed — and that the ally's destruction is "non-negotiable"?
How can any country trust the word of a regime that, since coming to power, has been breaking promises, hiding forbidden activities and caught lying on numerous occasions?
Why are we negotiating with a country that the entire civilized world believes has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for over 30 years? Why are we treating this country as though it has the same ethical and moral base as we do?
We, the Israelis and many other countries have compiled tons of evidence clearly demonstrating the existence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, so why are we negotiating with an entity whose stated goal is to gain hegemony over its region?
Why are we negotiating with a country that is well along in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the only possible use of which is to deliver nuclear warheads to distant targets? Why are we negotiating with a country where the sanctions that have been in place have seriously damaged its economy and brought it to the negotiating table in the first place?
Most importantly, why have we appeased this country by acquiescing to many of its demands, which would leave it a clear path to a nuclear weapon?
My answer to all of these questions is this administration's belief that it should negotiate from a position of weakness. It is desperate to make a deal at any cost.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in 2014 that the U.S. and Iran are locked in a collision of evil and evil ways on one side and the path of religious obedience and devotion on the other.
The politics of Iran are based first and foremost on religious fundamentalism. Indeed, Ayatollah Khamenei has said that his country has a "divine calling" to lead Muslims away from the West. This, as well as not having a particularly strong conventional military, explains the importance of nuclear weapons for Iran's strategy.
When one looks back at President Obama's originally stated goals vis a vis Iran and its nuclear ambitions and then views the deal that's now on the table, the only possible conclusion is that we have in large measure capitulated to Iran. And in capitulating, Mr. Obama has become the Neville Chamberlain of our time.