And Today:Guest Letter Writers

Since Wayne Judge and Richard Dudley do such fines jobs in their letters to the editor in today's Post Star, I feel no need to respond to Mr. Wang's letter myself. It really makes me feel like a crank and I'm actually just a gadfly. Judge and Dudley don't address him specifically, but just express support for the agreement overall. It looks as though Congress is going to be unable to override the veto anyway. Of course, we knew that when Schumer came out with his stance.

Wayne Judge:

If I were a resident of Israel, I would rather have a poor Iran deal than face the immediate prospect of another major war where Iran will try to carry out all of its threats to Israel’s existence. If there is no deal, greed will impel our five-nation negotiating partners to drop their sanctions and encourage other UN members to do so as well. Iran will continue its unsupervised nuclear research, and the future of Israel will be at greater immediate risk.

Contrary to Michael Blumberg’s recent commentary in this paper, the unanimous Republican opposition to the deal does not reflect identical pangs of conscience by all their members. The Republican Party was unanimously opposed to an Iran deal before any deal was even reached and the motivation was, and is, blatantly political. If Sen. Schumer’s “conscience” was swayed by his knowledge of the “secret side deals” implied by Blumberg, he should disclose those side deals to the whole nation now. The implication is nonsense. Deep pocket Schumer’s decision was very obviously purely political.

Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal now and the missiles to deliver them. The leaders of Iran can talk all they want about wiping out Israel, but they must be smart enough to realize that, if the security of Israel is compromised, a war with Israel and the United States will follow and Iran’s existence, not Israel’s, will be at risk.

And Richard Dudley:

A recent letter would have all of us believe that most are against the Iran nuclear deal. Scarcely. In Israel, Efraim Halevy, ex-head of Israel's national intelligence agency, the Mossad, appointed by Netanyahu in 1998, and Ami Ayalon, former director of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service, both support the deal. Amram Mitzna, former major general, former head of Israeli army planning, says: "This agreement is better than no agreement and must not be rejected. If implemented, it will block all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon."

Shlomo Ben-Ami, former minister of Israeli Foreign Affairs and Internal Security, says: “It creates a solid framework to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons for the next 10 to 15 years – and that is a very positive development.”

Chuck Freilich, former deputy Israeli national security adviser, says: “This is the agreement that was reached – and despite its faults, it is not a bad one. Crucially, it will contribute to Israel’s security.”

The list could go on and on long, long past my 300 word limit. 

In this country, Sander M. Levin, the longest serving Jewish member of the House and five Jewish senators support the deal. Hawk John Brennan CIA head has said, “I for one am pleasantly surprised that the Iranians have agreed to so much here. Those that say this deal provides a pathway to Iran developing a nuclear bomb are being wholly disingenuous."

Sen. Gillibrand, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and has the inside track, supports the deal. 

The same people who lied us into the Iraq War are against this agreement and are for war; the same people eager to send other peoples’ children to die in yet another stupid, pointless, needless, trillion dollar war. Don’t let it happen.

Thanks fellas! That's an easy post. That's OK, tho. It's cool today and I got yard work to do.