To the editor: Joseph Cirincione's Op-Ed article relies on specious arguments, including his statement that the nuclear deal with Iran "has the backing of nearly the entire American security establishment, current and retired, [and] it enjoys the overwhelming support of nuclear scientists and policy experts." ("What happens if the Senate rejects the Iran deal?," Op-Ed, Aug. 23)
This is questionable. Michael Hayden, former CIA director; Dennis Ross, longtime Mideast negotiator; Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; David Albright, former nuclear weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security; and Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's former deputy director general for safeguards, have all expressed reservations about the deal.
Cirincione's argument amounts to this: Congress must approve the deal and not worry about the 5-year-old who, when he's 15, will be faced with the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Kick the ball down the block for a decade and let others worry about it.
We must have the political courage to say no to this deal because of its flaws.
Jack Salem, Los Angeles
To the editor: History may regard ratifying the Iran deal as the time humanity chose either to continue the status quo of killing one another out of fear or to take a chance on diplomacy, opting for a more enlightened, hopeful belief in who we all can be as people who choose peace.
Such a choice of love over fear takes courage, so it's interesting that for all the countries that followed America's leadership on this deal, our Congress is the only possible holdout for the status quo of fear and violence.
With our belief in the democratic principal of majority rule, it would seem that the other countries have the majority. So what's the problem?
Joanne Tatham, Irvine