A no-nuke Iran
Re “We need a new Iran, not a new nuclear agreement,” Opinion, July 11
While I share Alireza Nader’s concern about the despotic nature of the current Iranian regime, I am troubled by his condemnation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal. Nader cites the agreement’s failure to address several issues including sunset provisions, Iran’s missile development program and the regime’s alleged bad behavior.
With respect to the sunset provisions, they are the result of a multiparty negotiation that would be subject to renegotiation at a later date. As for the missile program, the agreement was never intended to cover that activity — as a sovereign nation, Iran is entitled to build a missile program of its own.
Finally, we must recognize the fact that Iran is entitled to promote its own self-interests and to support causes that are aligned with those regional interests.
Regrettably, Nader neglects to acknowledge that, prior to the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the agreement achieved its stated purpose: preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Andrew Spathis Los Angeles
The United States is a sovereign nation, as is Iran. How is our siding with Iranian dissidents, as Nader suggests, any different than the Russians acting to affect our elections in favor of the Republican Party?
I’m certain that we all dislike the leadership in Iran, but it’s not our place to be involved in another country’s internal operations. Ron Garber Duarte
Nader compares the Iranian regime with the old Soviet Union.
Fine. We made — and kept — nuclear deals back then, and we encouraged mutual travel and trade. Certainly we need Iran’s oil now more than we needed Soviet vodka back then. Chris Norby Fullerton