Letter to Senator Claire McCaskill’s field representative in St. Louis, 9/1/15:

Dear  _____

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and my colleague yesterday afternoon.  Please allow me to summarize the main points of our position.

1. To frame the choice between the proposed deal with Iran and no deal at all is misleading because a) the premature relaxation of sanctions put the United States in a position of weakness, b) the administration’s eagerness to achieve a deal resulted in unnecessary concessions that render the deal largely ineffective, and c) as the president himself has said all along, and as Senator McCaskill has said herself, no deal is better than a bad deal.
2. Even if Iran adheres to the conditions of the deal, the Iranian government will be able to achieve nuclear capability within ten years.  This is not our opinion, but the understanding of Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, explained in their April 8 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:  “Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability .”
3. Iran has long demonstrated and continues to demonstrate dishonesty in upholding its own commitments, and should be taken seriously in its unchanging refrain “Death to America.”  Iran’s procurement of ICBMs will put every American in danger.
4. Experts from all quarters express little faith that the verification procedures will be effective.
5. The release of billions into the hands of Iran will certainly be used to continue its sponsorship of international terrorism.
6. The described “snapback” of sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the deal is a fantasy.  Russia and China are far more concerned with the profits available from doing business with Iran than with the security of western nations, and our allies in the west won’t want to forgo their own profits to let Russia and China be the sole beneficiaries of free trade.  If the United States reinstates sanctions now, perhaps it can convince its allies to do the same and restore at least some of the pressure that had been effective until it was unilaterally withdrawn.
7. American credibility around the world will not be diminished by rejecting the deal, since it is already non-existent as a result of failing to support our allies (Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine), failing to stand by our own principles (Syria, Cuba), and failure to show concern for our own people (American hostages held by Iran).
8. In sum, because of a series of ill-advised policy decisions by this administration, the only sane option that remains to us is to deny the deal its legitimacy in hope that a future leader of superior vision and courage will be in a better position to stem the aggression of this terrorist regime.  To endorse a deal that provides no security is the worst possible decision, for it perpetuates the administration’s fantasy of achieving security while making the world a far more dangerous place.

Thank you again for you time.  Please forward these points to Senator McCaskill, as we discussed.  We are eager to hear her responses.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Yonason Goldson