Saturday, April 4, 2015

To the editor of The Boston Globe:

Reading in Nicholas Burns' commentary, "Will Congress torpedo Obama's Iran deal?," that "Congress will have every right to ask tough questions of the administration when a final deal is reached," one wonders why he opposes the legislation being put before Congress, with overwhelming and bipartisan support, that calls for just that.

Contrary to Burns' implication that congressional leaders are cooking up "schemes to block him [President Obama]," one measure calls for the congressional oversight Burns and the Constitution agree is appropriate while the other puts in place a contingency plan in case the negotiations fail.

It's hard to understand why anyone would oppose either measure unless he feared the proposal being negotiated wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. But isn't that why our government is supposed to have checks and balances?

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 19, 2015. Never published.
To the editor of The Boston Globe:

All the editorials, columns and letters in The Boston Globe about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's invited address to a joint session of Congress and the more recent open letter by Republican Senators to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran ignore the most rational explanation for these events.

With President Obama negotiating with Iran as if he has a very weak hand and on the verge of making a disastrous deal, the strong bipartisan support for Netanyahu's message and the Republican letter greatly increases his leverage. Whereas he has said it would be unrealistic to expect the Iranian mullahs to accept an agreement meeting what he had earlier said were his red lines, the Congressional opposition to what seems to be on the table enables him to point out that this deal, which would likely lead to a nuclear nightmare, won't cut it with his own government.

Is it not possible that our president, recognizing that he's almost blown it, has secretly conspired with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Congressional leadership, both Democratic and Republican, to pull his bacon out of the fire?

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 11, 2015. Never published.
To the editor of The Boston Globe:

Michael Cohen writes "Democrats owe it to their party to boycott Netanyahu's speech."

He's wrong.

Most Democrats, along with most other Americans and our friends and allies in the Middle East, understand that when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the Israeli prime minister is correct and our president is wrong.

Our Democratic senators and representatives in Congress owe it to their party, to our country and to the rest of the world to be present when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a joint session of Congress about the most critical problem facing the world today.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 1, 2015. Never published.