President Obama announced that the United States, along with partners, “has reached a historic understanding with Iran which … will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
The framework for an accord, which must be finalized by June 30, calls for strict limitation on Iran’s enrichment of uranium and unprecedented international inspection of its nuclear facilities. In exchange, the crippling sanctions against the country imposed by the U.S., European Union and the United Nations would be lifted.
Is this a breakthrough compact that will help make the world safer, or is it an example of the U.S. timidly conceding to a foreign power that can’t be trusted?
There’s no way at this point to know whether this limits Iran’s capability of developing nuclear weapons and for how long. The American people, through Congress, need to know more of the crucial terms, particularly regarding inspections of their facilities.
Can Iran be trusted to follow the terms of the agreement? I would suggest the Reagan philosophy of trust but verify apply in this case.
— Paula Scoggin, Benbrook
Those who fail to follow history are doomed to repeat it. The foreign policy track record of this administration is abysmal at best. Therefore, I have no hope for this pact with Iran. Our main negotiator once threw his Navy medals over the White House fence, and that’s all I need to know about the quality of any “deal” orchestrated by the likes of John Kerry.
— Jeff Murray, Weatherford
Why is the president so adamant that Congress not be involved in the deal with Iran? I believe it’s because he’s about to make another bad deal and Congress will try to stop him.
— Mike Leinen, Grapevine
Until Iran agrees to international inspectors witnessing the shutdown of the Fordow underground facility, the ending of research work on advanced centrifuges and full disclosure of past military nuclear developments, there should be no signed accord.
Without these actions, it’s extremely difficult to believe Iran would allow inspectors internal access to go anywhere, anytime to verify the keeping of the agreement, once in place.
Accepting these conditions can provide proof that Iran desires cooperation and peace with her neighbors and the West. The ball is in her court. If she fails to concede, John Kerry, President Obama and the American people have been duped by jihadist bullies.
— Donna Fester, Fort Worth
This Iran nuclear deal sounds like another “Peace in Our Time” pact, and we all remember the results of that. This cabal in Iran is just as sinister and untrustworthy as the Nazis of Germany. And the United Nations will be the agent of verification? God help us.
— William W. Schweitzer, Hurst
The Republican Congress apparently takes this position: If Iran will agree to something, it must be a bad deal and should be rejected. This is faulty logic, and any attempt to cheat can be dealt with appropriately.
To those who simply claim that Iran is an enemy and cannot be negotiated with, I refer them to the precedents of the “Iran-contra affair” per Ronald Reagan and the U.S.-China diplomacy under Richard Nixon.
History will show that the decision to go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the Middle East and was the single most decisive element in giving radical Islam its present foothold. In short, the warmongers were wrong.
We are past the point where swagger and bluster will dictate submissive responses from other countries. Men and women of good will on both sides can still carry the day and give peace a chance.
— David Sanderford, Granbury
Never sign a contract with someone you can’t trust. Never sign a contract with someone who says, “Death to America,” if you are America.
Never sign a contract with someone who says, “Israel’s destruction is non-negotiable,” if you are a faithful ally of Israel.
Never sign an unenforceable contract. This one has inspection requirements that cannot be met.
History is on the side of those who hate the treaty. Obama has been wrong on every foreign policy adventure into which he has entered.
The accord is terrible, and we and Israel will pay dearly for it.
— Michael D. Dirmeier, Keller
To honestly answer whether the deal is a “breakthrough,” we have to know the answers to these questions:
When can we have the first inspection? Is that before any relief from sanctions? How much notice must we provide?
Are any areas restricted from inspections? Who does the inspections and who chooses the inspectors?
After inspections are completed each time, who receives the briefing? Is there a time limit in terms of future years to continue the inspections?
We the American people deserve absolutely honest answers.
— Mike Holt, Fort Worth
All Points each Monday features reader responses to a question posed by the Editorial Board. With each week’s responses comes the next week’s question. All Points responses are not counted toward the monthly limit of one letter to the editor from each writer. Readers are welcome to send their own ideas for All Points topics to Editorial Director Mike Norman, email@example.com.