I really appreciated Trudy Rubin’s thoughtful column, “Four rules to judge any deal on Iran nukes” (CDT, Sunday).
Opponents of the current negotiations with Iran have strong convictions. But they don’t seem to have a workable alternative solution.
We could add more sanctions, but Iran is already under heavy international sanctions, and the best that sanctions could do is drive Iran to the bargaining table — which is where they and we are now.
We could invade Iran, but this would be insanely dangerous and destructive. Iran is the size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and most Americans do not want to send our troops back into yet another foreign country for yet another decade of suffering.
We could launch airstrikes, but this would only postpone the nuclear program — at the cost of inevitably killing innocent civilians and giving ordinary Middle Eastern Muslims more reasons to believe that America is their enemy.
What is so tragic is that Iran is so much more than ayatollahs. It is 80 million people, 40 percent of them under the age of 24. Many have moderate views and want to live ordinary lives like we do.
An attack on Iran would only give more credibility to the extremist voices there and drown out the hopes of ordinary people.
By definition, a deal between two sides is never perfect. But an imperfect deal is better than the perfect storm of destruction that another war would unleash.