To the editor:
In his op-ed "Mr. Obama, Try These Arguments for Your Iran Deal," Nicholas Kristof writes "this deal is ugly and flawed — and infinitely better than the alternatives." He's right on two out of three. While there are no guarantees, the deal is clearly worse than the alternatives.
It's not a binary choice, deal or not deal or, as so often but falsely insisted by the proponents, deal or war. Over the years, the Senate has insisted on changes in hundreds of treaties; there's no rational reason Congress shouldn't insist on reasonable changes to what Kristof concedes is an "ugly and flawed" deal.
The Obama administration has repeatedly said that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Between the porous inspections regime, the almost instantaneous elimination of sanctions, the estimated $150 billion signing bonus, the provisions giving Iran the right to quickly withdraw under almost any pretext, and other fatal flaws, there's no question but that this deal is far worse even than no deal.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein