Editor,
I appreciate Mr. Huffaker’s thoughtful response to my recent opinion article. Honest debate is healthy, but I believe several important facts deserve clarification.
First, the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was signed in 2015, not 2025, as stated in his letter.
Second, we agree on one important point: every modern president has recognized that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. Where we differ is not over the goal, but whether the JCPOA would have ultimately achieve it.
It is true that the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran was meeting many of its obligations while the agreement remained in force. It is also true that the agreement contained sunset provisions, allowed uranium enrichment to continue under specified limits, did not permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its continued support for proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Those concerns were expressed not only by President Trump but by many national security experts and America’s closest ally in the region, Israel. Policymakers on both sided concluded that while the agreement delayed, it did not permanently eliminate, Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Thus, Trump’s concern for future generations.
The historical record since 2018 is more complicated than Mr. Huffaker suggests. Iran’s nuclear program expanded significantly after the U.S. withdrawal, but that does not prove the agreement would have permanently prevented a nuclear weapon had it remained in place.
Neither side can prove that counterfactual. However, it can be shown that Iran concealed parts of its nuclear program and the IAEA has repeatedly investigated undeclared nuclear material and sites.
President Thomas Jefferson understood that peace is not always preserved by yielding to those who use intimidation and violence. When the Barbary rulers demanded ever-increasing tribute and attacked American shipping, Jefferson refused to buy temporary peace at the expense of long-term security.
Instead, he defended America’s interests, giving rise to the Marines’ proud remembrance of the “Shores of Tripoli.” History often presents similar choices: whether to confront growing threats early or hope that concessions will satisfy those who have shown little interest in lasting peace.
One of the greatest challenges in negotiating with a theocratic regime is that its leaders often see themselves as accountable not merely to political institutions, but to divine authority. This alone causes skepticism toward Iran’s commitments and rests on documented history over many years in which Iran concealed elements of its nuclear activities and under limited transparency.
My article did not argue that diplomacy is never appropriate. It should always be attempted first.
My point was that after decades of negotiations, sanctions, inspections and repeated warnings by Presidents Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons, President Trump was ultimately willing to use military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities when he concluded diplomacy had reached its limits.
Reasonable people may disagree with that decision. They should not, however, characterize differing conclusions as “lies.”
History will ultimately judge whether diplomacy alone would have permanently stopped Iran’s nuclear ambitions or whether stronger action became necessary. Until then, I believe it is fair to ask not only what military action costs, but also what the cost of inaction might have been.
JoAnn Melton
Mariposa
Responses (0)