Good Evening
Good Evening

Letters: Iran nuclear deal's inadequate

The "Delight", a Hong Kong-flagged vessel. operated by

The "Delight", a Hong Kong-flagged vessel. operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines is seen on the river Trave, near Herrenwyk, Germany. An Iranian-led shipping venture with India that predates the 1979 Islamic Revolution is unraveling under pressures from international sanctions and U.S.-driven efforts to drive wedges between Tehran and its key trading partners. (Oct. 13, 2008) Credit: AP

If the president wishes to criticize those who oppose his Iran nuclear deal as being "ridiculous, if it weren't so sad," then he should consider how "ridiculous, if it weren't so sad" it is that he should have entered into any kind of an agreement with a nation that historically -- and currently -- is anything but trustworthy ["Obama rebukes GOP candidates' Iran rhetoric," News, July 28].

To this day, some of Iran's leaders still profess hatred for America and a goal of destroying Israel.

Elgin Alexander, Smithtown

The Obama administration says that regarding Iran, there are only two options: a weak agreement or war. There is the Ronald Reagan option: American strength and resolve.

The third option is more sanctions, to the point of the government falling. That's what brought Iran to the table.

Clyde W. Smith, Belle Terre

In the wake of the signing of the Iran nuclear accord, I was reminded of these wise words: "Sanctions and negotiations can be very ineffective, and indeed foolish, unless the people you are talking with and negotiating with and trying to reach agreements with are people who can be trusted to keep their word." That's a quote from former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Peace at any cost does not lead to peace but to war. One has only to look at Israel's land concession to Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat on the West Bank.

As an American and a Jew, I am profoundly concerned by this blasphemy of an agreement that took seven nations almost two years to negotiate, due to postponements that sent shivers throughout much of the civilized world.

Does the original stated purpose prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability or merely delay the process? Will inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities be unfettered or again thwarted? How will the theocratic Iranian government use its access to unfrozen assets, reportedly at least $100 billion? Will it be used for education, health care -- or rather, to finance worldwide terrorism? I think we know.

This Democratic administration has done nothing to assuage the well-founded fears of much of the American public. Spin over substance has become the mantra of our current leadership in Washington.

Ann Salpeter Schockett, Woodmere

Editor's note: The writer is the president of the New York State Federation of Republican Women.