The nuclear conundrum

Re: The Case For The Iran Deal, John Kerry and Ernest Moniz, July 24. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s robust denouncement of the Iranian nuclear deal certainly has not curried favour with Washington, but when the only democracy in the Middle East is surrounded on all sides by Arab countries bent on wiping it off the face of the earth, his defeat over the Iranian nuclear deal is perplexing and troubling. If Western countries do not pony up in their defence of Israel, future headlines may read, “So goes Israel — so goes the world.”

Paul Stevens, Milton, Ont.

The U.S. secretaries of state and energy admit the temporary nature of the restrictions this agreement places on the Iranian pursuit of nuclear arms. They tout the safeguards of “snap-back” sanctions in preventing breaches of the agreement, while knowing full well once China, Russia and Europe resume profiting from business with the ayatollahs, there can be no effective reinstatement of sanctions.

President Barack Obama has argued the necessity for this agreement as a choice between war and peace. He intentionally omits the fact sanctions were having an immense effect on the power of the Iranian regime. Their removal and the release of billions of dollars have thrown a lifeline to the Iranian regime and will enable the ayatollahs to fund global terror.

The bottom line is this. An agreement is only worth the willingness of its signatories to adhere to it. Iran has shown numerous times it does not keep its words, and more so, after the agreement was signed, its leaders have already declared their intentions to avoid compliance with its salient safeguards.

Steve Samuel, Toronto.

If I hadn’t seen the name of the author, Secretary of State John Kerry, I would have thought this article had been written by the leader of the Iranian negotiating group or by George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

Harold Reiter, Thornhill, Ont.