Letters, Sept. 2, 2015


What does the deal say?
In “Looking at the facts, Iran deal is a good deal” (Voices, WJW, Aug. 8), Barbara Goldberg Goldman writes “24 days … does not allow for Iran to sweep weapon materials under the rug.” But is it 24 days?  Al Franken says the deal provides “24/7 monitoring of, and unfettered access to, Iran’s nuclear sites” while Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby say in The Wall Street Journal that three or four months could pass before inspectors gain access to some sites. What is the truth?

I looked up the text on the web, and it seems to say that if a violation is uncovered, there could be a 65-day delay before reimposing sanctions.  And Iran could still continue to work on the bomb, as it did under sanctions during the last three years.
​Silver Spring

PA argument in terror case not believable
According to your Aug. 13 news report (“Administration intervenes in PA terror case,” WJW), the Obama administration is claiming that the Palestinian Authority is virtually penniless, and it could “collapse” if it is required to pay court-ordered compensation to terror victims. Maybe the PA should have thought about that before sponsoring all the terrorist attacks for which it is being sued.

If the Palestinian Authority were just a few years old, the “we’re broke” argument might be more persuasive. But the PA was established way back in 1994, and throughout these past 21 years, the United States has given it $500-million annually — a total of more than $1-billion. European and other governments have poured in additional billions. After more than two decades of nonstop international aid, the idea that the PA suddenly has no money is simply not believable, and the attempt by the Obama administration to promote that line — in order to help the PA escape its court-ordered obligations — is shameful.
The writer is the chairman of Philadelphia Religious Zionists.
Partisan analysis of Iran deal unhelpful
In his article “Not in my name: Jewish institutions should stop their criticism of Iran deal”, (WJW, Aug. 6)  Paul Scham cherry-picks two surveys showing American Jews support the Iran nuclear agreement to argue that Jews should support the deal and concludes that those who disagree have no right to express their opinions.


I guess he believes that all Jewish groups should keep silent on issues if they don’t agree with the majority of Jews.

He states that “the willingness of Jewish community leaders to kowtow to official Israeli policy against the wishes of those who they claim as their constituents is outrageous.”  He cannot conceive that Jewish groups recognize the many flaws in this agreement and have come to the conclusion that this is a bad deal for America, Israel and the world.

He states, “The arguments for the deal are well known, and to me and many others, including most retired Israeli security chiefs, overwhelmingly strong.”  They are not.  They are significant, but the opposite side is similarly so.  We need more dialogue on this subject, and it should come from those who are not so partisan that they cannot see the other side.

Personally, I am on the fence about this deal and want to read well-thought-out opinions so that I can decide whether to support or oppose it.  I don’t need advocates for either side to tell those with whom they disagree to shut up.
Falls Church
Iran deal is a bad deal
I could not believe the article I was reading: “The Iran deal is a good deal for America” (Voices, WJW, July 23). Apparently the authors were unaware of the following facts of this agreement:  The United States will not be one of the monitors of Iran’s nuclear sites and therefore cannot verify if Iran is compliant with the terms of the agreement. As an enticement to Iran, sanctions will be lifted and some $150 billion in aid will start flowing to Iran. I’m sure that this money will be put to good use by Iran in funneling funds to its many terrorist proxies around the world. Three days following the signing, Iran’s leader made a public appearance at which he stated that “our policy towards America and Israel has not changed.”  Also, nothing was included in this treaty by the Obama administration about the four Americans that are being held by Iran on trumped-up charges.  Many say that this the worst treaty ever signed by the United States.
Silver Spring


Iran deal was about economics
Two very different interpretations of the Iranian nuclear deal were presented in Voices (“Israeli Ambassador: The four major problems with the Iran deal,” and “The Iran Agreement is a good deal for America,” WJW July 23).

By claiming the Iran deal is good, Dennis Jett and Bradley Harris made the false assumption that the choice was between the agreement and the invasion of Iran. They seem to have overlooked the fact that the only reason Iran agreed to come to the table was the crippling effect of sanctions on their economy. The P5+1 team, no doubt under pressure from China, Russia and to lesser extent Britain and France agreed to ease these sanctions to keep Iran talking. By agreeing to this, America surrendered their traditional leadership allowing the talks to go downhill.

Ambassador Ron Dermer, in his article, outlined the concessions the P5+1 team made as they receded from their originally stated objectives. Any respectable negotiator having recognized the depth of concessions made would have stopped the talks earlier and would certainly have refused to sign a document that now paves a path to an Iranian nuclear warhead.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on July 23, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that “if the Congress votes down the agreement it will be a green light for Iran to double the pace of uranium enrichment,” thereby inadvertently disclosing the type of pressure that was applied during the negotiating.

On the same day of the hearing at an Iran-European Union conference on trade and investment, Iran opened its doors to European countries eager to do business. Companies are lining up to sign agreements with Iran on the assumption that sanctions will be lifted over the coming months. The deal was about economics, not restraining nuclear warheads.

Never miss a story.
Sign up for our newsletter.
Email Address


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here