Different approach needed  to end Iran’s nuclear program 

Two former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, commented on the many problems with President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, from a historical perspective.  For example, they state that for 20 years three presidents of both major political parties strongly held that for Iran to have nuclear weapons would be contrary to American and global security.  Kissinger and Shultz said when negotiations began (12 years ago), Iran had about 100 centrifuges to create nuclear weapons, yet now they have around 20,000. Everyone worries about how to verify and enforce suspected Iranian violations.  Verification takes months.  Re-imposing sanctions for violations will be politically/commercially almost impossible. Kissinger and Shultz identified numerous other problems with Obama’s pending deal — too many for this letter.

Most experts foresee that other Middle East countries will develop their own nuclear ability. They fear Iranian hegemony. Many people in the United States and our European friends/allies believe Obama is weak.  Many experts believe military action means many years of Middle East warfare.  

My opinion is that joint American/Israeli strikes can be brief — no long war, just a few weeks.  Israel can inflict much damage on Iran with a military strike. It also has one “second strike” ability, but no more. Therefore, my idea is that Israel destroy the Revolutionary Guard, the Supreme Leader and clerics, leaving Iran headless. Simultaneously, America can easily breach Iran’s anti-aircraft defenses, and then destroy their nuclear facilities, including below-ground installations with our “bunker-busting” bombs.

The end result of our weak commander-in-chief Barack Obama is to change the fundamental and historic policy of America vis-à-vis the Middle East.  

Harvey J. Schramm, Brentwood

I couldn’t agree more with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the framework agreement the U.S. and its P5 +1 coalition partners recently negotiated with Iran over that country’s nuclear program is so deeply flawed that it paves the way for Iran to unequivocally develop a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future.

 I seriously have to question President Barack Obama’s common sense to undertake negotiations with Iran in the first place without first insisting on stringent pre-conditions. 

How the president in good conscience can negotiate with Iran — the largest purveyor of state sponsored terrorism in the world — without initially demanding an immediate end to Iran’s bellicose, inflammatory, rhetoric toward Israel and the U.S. defies logic. Obama should have insisted that Iran stop imposing its brand of hegemony in the Middle East by its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, and also made it perfectly clear that all American hostages must be released immediately. 

The president lacks the necessary and basic negotiating skills and insight in formulating this country’s foreign policy. Given the choice of “no deal” or a “bad deal,” unfortunately, he has opted for the latter. One can only hope and pray that Congress will pass legislation to thwart and abrogate the president’s misguided actions, thus helping to restore rationality and credence to our nation’s foreign policy. 

Gene Carton, Olivette