The Iran deal’s cred­i­bil­ity

The Washington Post Sunday - - SUNDAY OPINION -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.