The Iran deal’s credibility
The July 23 op-ed by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, “The case for the nuclear deal with Iran,” though somewhat interpretative, was intended to reassure readers about the Iran nuclear agreement. In view of Iran’s past behavior with respect to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its supreme leader’s recent statements expressing his views about the United States and its support of terrorist groups around the world, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Moniz may perhaps have been more convincing had the op-ed been also cosigned by Mr. Kerry’s Iranian counterpart in the negotiations.
Jerome Ackerman, Chevy Chase
Doesn’t the nuclear agreement with Iran just kick the can down the road 10 years? The proposed agreement is not an indefinite plan to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The idea of another country with nuclear weapons, especially one in the Middle East and one that supports Hezbollah, does not inspire confidence for reduced global tension, but what happens in 10 years when the handcuffs come off of Iran? Won’t the world again face the same situation as now, but without the international agreement as drafted?
Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons, but that has not destabilized the Middle East or the planet. Is there any credible sense that a nuclear-armed Iran would use such weapons? Is a nuclear-weaponized Iran more dangerous than Israel? Other nations have nuclear arsenals. The United States has suffered if not allowed each such entry into the nuclear club, the world has not gone to war and none of these nuclear weaponized nations — some totalitarian — has used nuclear arms in anger. Only the United States has.
M. Wesley Clark, Fairfax