Good Afternoon
Good Afternoon

Letters: Sizing up the Iran deal

FILE - This file satellite image shows the

FILE - This file satellite image shows the military complex at Parchin, Iran, 30 km (about 19 miles) southeast of Tehran. (Aug. 13, 2004) Credit: AP

President Barack Obama, his administration and many supporters have portrayed their proposal as a choice between two options: a deal that leads to peace, or the United States possibly going to war with Iran ["Give Iran deal serious debate," Editorial, July 15]. This premise lacks gravitas. There are many substantive issues the proposed deal with Iran fails to address.

The deal only kicks Tehran down the road for 10 to 15 years, when Obama will no longer be president, leaving the responsibilities of enforcement and verification to another president.

The incongruity of the proposal can be best observed in that the United States would release more than $140 billion to Iran, under the empty threat of "snapback" sanctions should Iran fail to keep its end of the deal. With Russia and China standing to gain economically, they will be incentivized to ignore any future sanctions.

Also, am I the only American who finds it objectionable that the United States failed to ensure that Iran release four American hostages in exchange for this deal? Even more inexplicable is how the United States agreed to lift sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years and ballistic missiles in eight years.

Michael P. Mulhall, Rockville Centre

The psychology of nations is not so different from the psychology of humans. Whenever there is hostile opposition in a human relationship, the opposition is demonized -- be it spouse, friend, co-worker or boss -- and the opponent's rationale for his or her point of view is totally disregarded. Discussions become exercises in domination.

Superficial attempts at diplomatic discussions between warring nations -- whether it is a hot war or a cold war -- ordinarily follow the same pattern. Diplomatic negotiations seem weak and futile. Reliance on power and domination is pursued instead of true communication, understanding and cooperation. Ineffective and nonconstructive ways of communicating remain. If it were a marriage, it would end in divorce.

But President Barack Obama and the supporting nations engaged in the diplomatic arrangements leading to Iran's acceptance of a nuclear agreement have demonstrated unwavering dedication toward true communication and the real possibility of living together in peace. The world owes him a debt of gratitude.

Robert N. Shorin, Syosset

Editor's note: The writer is a psychoanalyst and vice president of the Karen Horney Clinic in New York City.

Look in the mirror, Uncle Sam! You will see the same confused person who made a regrettable, significant error in the North Korean debacle.

Clear your mind and make certain that this deal will be favorable to the world, and not just to a government that killed many of our soldiers in Iraq.

John Herman, North Babylon

History books should now be rewritten, casting Neville Chamberlain as a total hawk for his role in appeasing Nazi Germany. Compared with the total capitulation of Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama to a tyrannical Iran, that is.

Marty Orenstein, New Hyde Park

Those who support this deal with Iran should reflect back on the last century.

In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned from Munich after negotiating with Adolf Hitler to prevent war with Nazi Germany -- an ambitious, racist, tyrannical regime. Hitler was thrilled, and Chamberlain crowed.

On July 14, President Barack Obama produced a triumphant deal with the leaders of an ambitious, racist, tyrannical regime. The Iranian leadership is thrilled, and Obama crowed.

Barbara Clerkin, Glen Head