Re "The answer on Iran? Yes.," Opinion, Nov. 6
Doyle McManus is right that we should be willing to take "yes" for an answer when it comes to negotiating with Iran.
Members of Congress such as Sens. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) who advocate more sanctions must face the real choice they are foisting on the American public: If they push through unnecessary, punitive policies that could torpedo talks with Iran, they are saying yes to another military intervention.
With Iran at the negotiating table, offering new tone and substance, there is no good reason to pass additional sanctions. Still, hawks in the Senate might try to attach the new sanctions to a bill coming to the floor this month.
California's Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein must step up and push the leadership to block this vote and make sure we don't squander the best opportunity we've had in years for a peaceful solution.
The writer is the political director for Peace Action West.
There is every reason to believe that the new Iranian president was elected because of his commitment to negotiations that would help lift economic sanctions.
Our disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East started in the 1950s, when the CIA helped to depose a democratically elected Iranian prime minister who nationalized oil resources that were previously drained by the British. There are good reasons why hard-liners exist in Iran.
An even more important point is the reason why we have our own hard-liners in Congress: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has tremendous influence and is actively lobbying to increase sanctions, which could lead to a military confrontation with Iran.
Congress is being urged toward another war that in no way helps the United States.