Newsday's editorial is accurate in accepting certain "obvious" points: Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, commitment to destruction of Israel, and the threat it would pose as a nuclear power ["Netanyahu plays to crowd," March 4].

However, the remainder of the editorial is filled with inconsistencies and illogical arguments.

advertisement | advertise on newsday

It urges that "we shouldn't pass up the opportunity for a deal" but fails to address Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's powerful arguments why this is a bad deal. It argues that the United States has "little choice but to gamble that insisting on more concessions from Iran won't blow up the talks altogether." Thus, Newsday's editorial board is willing to accept a deal even if it's a bad deal?

The reported parameters of a deal ignore prior Security Council resolutions sanctioning Iran because of its installation of centrifuges, which aren't needed for nonmilitary purposes. The reported parameters likewise fail to address Iran's continued development of long-range missiles, which serve only military purposes. Most important, a deal would reportedly contain a sunset provision, which makes no sense in light of history.

Netanyahu's points deserve serious consideration. The burden is on the Obama administration to provide a cogent explanation of the value of a deal. Americans deserve more than a fait accompli, unchallenged and unsupported.

Les Bennett, Merrick