in your editorial <u+201c> mike pompeo<u+2019>s iran file <u+201d> (nov. 22) about mike pompeo<u+2019>s nomination to lead the cia and the iranian nuclear deal, you raise <u+201c>the larger question of how the incoming administration should treat the nuclear deal.<u+201d> the answer is simple: present it to the senate for a ratification vote. this would restore the senate<u+2019>s constitutional role in treaty-making and force democrats, including sen. chuck schumer, to go on record. when the vote fails, president trump can withdraw with broad and bipartisan senate backing. separately, iran<u+2019>s serial violations warrant the onerous <u+201c>snapback<u+201d> sanctions that president obama famously and deceitfully claimed would ensue. congress can impose new sanctions, and countries around the world can be put on notice that they can trade with iran or with the u.s., but not both. if a nuclear iran is truly among the most dangerous threats globally, and if we mean to take all nonmilitary measures to prevent it, there should be no qualms about this tough approach. our security demands it. jonathan rothenberg scarsdale, n.y. your editorial makes the classic mistake that has plagued the democratic party for years. you take note of the pervasive iranian failure to honor critical provisions of president obama<u+2019>s iranian nuclear deal, and then you suggest that, along with enhanced monitoring, we <u+201c>honor the deal<u+201d> and <u+201c>resume enforcement of current u.s. sanctions on iran.<u+201d> if you really believe that well-meaning policies resulting in unintended adverse consequences are a good idea, we need to look no further than north korea to reflect on the negligible results of u.s. sanctions. instead of encouraging policies that have repeatedly failed, shouldn<u+2019>t president-elect trump initiate new pathways which have a higher chance of success in preventing the iranians from ever developing nuclear weapons? this potential for a fresh perspective is one of the prime reasons donald trump was elected<u+2014>america will never be <u+201c>great again<u+201d> if iran begins to threaten its neighbors and the world with a nuclear armageddon. the recycling of failing policies from the past isn<u+2019>t the answer. roger c. dunham santa barbara, calif. you mention aspects of the iranian nuclear deal that, due to president obama<u+2019>s penchant for secrecy, the american public knows nothing about. one of them is the <u+201c>economic snapback<u+201d> of sanctions in the event of any iranian violations. mr. obama has always presented that option as all inclusive, when in reality it appears that the agreement calls for previous sanctions to apply only to any new contracts scheduled to begin after the verification of any iranian violations. that is far different from the impression the obama administration has tried to convey. any contracts in place before the violations would be unaffected. there is no way the european nations involved in the nuclear agreement would ever cooperate to allow an interruption of the flow of money now coming to them from iranian business contacts. lynn parana los angeles
submit the iran deal for senate confirmation - wsj
noauthor