Before those opposed to the recent deal with Iran settle on their opposition ("Negotiating with Iran," April 5), I would hope they consider the following.
The former head of the Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin said, among other things, that "one has to think what might have happened if … negotiations had collapsed. Had that happened, Iran could have decided on a breakout … continued to quickly enrich and put together a bomb before anyone could have time to react. With this in mind, it's not a bad agreement."
The United States and it's partners have no ability to inspect Iran save for this agreement. With it, we are now able for the first time to have such inspections. The U.S. and it's partners save for this agreement have no ability to substantially reduce the number of centrifuges Iran will have. We now have that ability.
Can Iran be trusted? No one knows with certainty, but as Mr. Yadlin has said, the Iranians "have adhered to all the conditions of the interim agreement, in letter and spirit, down to the last detail." They can certainly be trusted more when inspections are extensive than without such inspections.
Some opponents have likened President Barack Obama to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Iran to Nazi Germany at Munich. The comparison does not bear scrutiny. Adolf Hitler at Munich agreed to nothing more than keeping his promises. Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpiles of armaments and to do so under close inspection. Hitler at Munich had a superior army. Iran's military strength is very small when compared to that of the U.S. and its allies. Iran's economy without this agreement is a shambles. Germany was powerful at Munich.
Recent polls indicate that most Americans support the treaty. Right wing spokesmen including Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly have spoken positively about it. These are, in and of themselves, not reasons to support it. They are reasons to pause before opposing it. I hope those in Congress will do so.
Stanley L. Rodbell, Columbia