To the editor:
In the article "Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran," Julie Hirschfeld Davis reports President Obama accused opponents of the fatally flawed Iran agreement of spreading false claims. He has also said opponents of the deal haven't come up with any viable alternatives.
These claims have also been made by other supporters, yet the former accusation is never accompanied by any examples and the latter is a matter of opinion, with opponents quite reasonably arguing the deal itself is not viable.
Indeed, it is proponents who keep making demonstrably false claims, such as asserting the deal provides for intrusive inspections and closes off all of Iran's pathways to nuclear weapons.
Provisions giving Iran 24 days to clean up the evidence when it objects to inspections of undeclared sites are incompatible with claims of "intrusive inspections."
President Obama's own acknowledgment that Iran's breakout time will shrink to virtually nothing is incompatible with a claim that the agreement closes off all of Iran's pathways to nuclear weapons.
We face a difficult situation regardless of whether Congress is able to override President Obama's promised veto and successfully reject this treaty, but allowing the agreement to stand is clearly a far worse option and one more likely to lead to war.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein