Next Score View the next score

    letters | holding the line on iran

    We must stand firm against nuclear threat

    Regarding the dueling Oct. 9 op-eds under the overline “Should Israel have a red line on Iran?”: The headline should have been “Should the civilized world have a red line on Iran?,” and the answer is a resounding yes.

    Contrary to the arguments of Seyed Hossein Mousavian (“No, here are Netanyahu’s real objectives”), former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators, the world does not agree that “Tehran . . . has not decided to build” a nuclear bomb; knowledgeable people understand that the Iranians have indeed decided to build a nuclear bomb, but have not yet finalized their timetable, as they try to lull the world until they can present the bomb as a fait accompli.

    In the news pages of the same edition, the article “Iran said to near goal on uranium” reported on the Institute for Science and International Security’s determination that Iran is much closer to stockpiling sufficient weapons-grade uranium than previously believed.


    This further demonstrates the unreliability of our intelligence, and how dangerous it would be to depend on it to save the world from catastrophe.

    Get Arguable in your inbox:
    Jeff Jacoby on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day.
    Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s real objective is to do for the world regarding the Iranian nuclear program what Winston Churchill tried, but failed to do, when Hitler was building toward World War II.

    Alan Stein


    The writer is president emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting).