Readers React: Iran nuclear deal: After 10 years, are all bets off?
To the editor: The position that The Times takes with regard to the Iran nuclear deal is informative and balanced, and it frames the issues succinctly. For that I am thankful. However, it is not persuasive in its endorsement of the deal. (“Weighing the Iran nuclear deal: far from perfect, but the alternatives are worse,” editorial, Aug. 30)
What keeps jumping out is the shortsightedness that prefers a bombless Iran in the short term to an Iran that will be unfettered in its pursuit of the bomb in the long term.
Proponents of ratification argue that failure to ratify would lead to Iran getting the bomb sooner than it would under the agreement. Though that may be true, we should consider the following: We are already at war with Iran. The current version of this war looks more like a cold war, but it is a war nonetheless.
Iran currently has no nuclear bomb. We would be better off dealing with the consequences of not ratifying the agreement than to be dealing with a fully armed Iran in 10 years.
Paul Skophammer, Malibu
To the editor: The Times’ lukewarm support of the nuclear deal misses a few points.
First, regarding the lifting of sanctions, how Iran spends its money is its own business. Iran didn’t bring up how the U.S. spends its money, which includes dropping bombs in Iran’s neighborhood.
Most important, this deal could be the first step toward a long relationship with a country that mistrusts us as much as we mistrust it.
The Times brings up everything that could possibly go wrong. What The Times doesn’t see is that 15 years from now, we might have a completely different world. What we should be thinking about is how we’re going to build on this, as opposed to everything that can go wrong.
Fifteen years ago, no one had flown a plane into the World Trade Center. Fifteen years from now, we might find a completely different Iran that has thrown off the shackles constricting the public and its youth.
This is a moment not to lament that the agreement isn’t perfect but to seize and build on.
Larry Margo, Valley Village
To the editor: There is an alternative to this dangerous deal with Iran: continue and strengthen the sanctions. Why should we negotiate with a country whose people continue to chant “Death to America” and that still holds Americans as hostages?
This deal is the work of an administration that continues to deny the existence of evil in our world. It’s a boon for Iran, which will have more money to use to finance Hamas or Hezbollah.
One more question: What happens when the deal expires? All bets are off.
Lisa Niedenthal, Los Angeles
To the editor: I wish our negotiating team had had the perseverance to negotiate a better deal with Iran, especially regarding inspection. It looks as though the Iranians feel they have the ability to blindside us, and we feel we have the ability to catch them if they try it.
However, to maintain our trustworthiness in the international community, we have to honor what was agreed upon. I just hope we do have the intelligence capabilities to catch the Iranians cheating, the honesty to come forth with our findings, and the courage to take the appropriate action to eliminate the threat.
Bob Berman, Thousand Oaks
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.