I take exception to several points raised by Nomi Colton-Max and Avi Lyon in their support of the Iran deal (“What’s the realistic alternative to the deal?” Aug. 13).

There may be selected “policymakers as well as members of the intelligence and military communities in Israel” that support the deal. However, both the current government as well as all of the key opposition leaders in Israel oppose the deal. The authors also note that this “is an agreement to limit the nuclear capability of Iran. It is not and never was supposed to limit Iran’s nefarious activity as a state sponsor of terrorism.” This might be true, however, the deal was also not supposed to lift restrictions or sanctions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, both of which were considered separate to the nuclear issue. Yet the deal did just that. You can’t claim one to be off-limits, but not the other.

Also, in agreeing that the United States (and Canada too) not be allowed to participate in inspections is a dangerous precedent. Obama and Kerry have repeatedly said that this deal is based on verification and not trust. How are we supposed to verify compliance when Iran is allowed to pick and choose which countries are allowed to conduct inspections? That would be akin to having an accused defendant choose who gets to investigate the crime scene.

David Twersky

read more: