Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

What will it take before President Obama stands up to the mullahs in Tehran?

The muted communication from a spokesperson for the Navy's Fifth Fleet that it won't tolerate an Iranian attempt to close to Strait of Hormuz and shut off much of the world's oil supply is not an adequate response to the threat. It comes off as another sign of an apathetic, apologetic U.S. foreign policy ("Iran warns U.S. over Strait of Hormuz," Dec. 29).

Why does it always seem that President Obama is out of town when we need him? We see him getting ice cream with his family, which is very touching. However, there is a world going on out there.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to lose face as well as the trust of its allies. We need to be a major player in the Gulf Region for both economic and national security reasons.

The president has already let down our best ally, Israel. Iraq, too, seems to be heading down the tubes. Yet, Mr. Obama's extreme passivity only emboldens our enemies and postpones the inevitable.

He should take a lesson from history. When Ronald Reagan replaced a similarly weak president, Jimmy Carter, the American hostages held by Iran were immediately released. The Reagan doctrine of "peace through strength" was and should always be the model we follow.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan stood up to our enemies. He addressed them directly, not through intermediaries or some other form of indirect communication. He put his face on his foreign policy, and it brought major, positive change to the world.

We know President Obama can take his case to the American people because we see him do it for political reasons all the time. Yet here we are on the brink of war with Iran over its nuclear weapons program; now is the time for our president to show some backbone.

Richard LaCourse, Forest Hill

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    If we believe that Iran will cease its nuclear program and its support for international terrorism after the agreement is signed, we are living in a fool's paradise ("Sen. Ben Cardin says U.S. negotiators got 'awful lot' in Iran deal," July 23). The argument that Iran will no longer develop nuclear...

  • Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Regarding Ray McGovern's commentary "Is the 'military option' on Iran off the table?" (July 20), much as we'd like to believe this is a good deal for the U.S., the facts suggest otherwise.

  • Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    In 1938, the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and France signed a agreement called the Munich Pact with Adolph Hitler. This act effectively sealed the fate of portions of Czechoslovakia.

  • Don't trust Iran deal

    Don't trust Iran deal

    In response to KAL's cartoon of July 19 depicting Republican hawks not trusting a peace dove brought by President Barack Obama under the guise of the Iran Nuke Deal, I have a two word response: Neville Chamberlain.

  • Is the 'military option' on Iran off the table?

    Is the 'military option' on Iran off the table?

    If, as seems likely, President Barack Obama retains enough support to complete the nuclear deal with Iran, it will be largely because enough members of the House and Senate are persuaded by his argument that the only other real option is war.

  • Dubious benefits of Iran deal

    Dubious benefits of Iran deal

    Words matter. Because of this, I tend not to blindly accept what others say (especially those with political ambitions) but choose to verify and often do so by reading source documents. This week, there has been much travail with regards to a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, its nuclear...

Comments
Loading

81°