In his June 14 op-ed, “Is the Iran-U. S. tinderbox about to ignite?,” David Ignatius played a dangerous game. He misstated Iran’s public stance, suggesting it rejected all talks when it only rejected talks with a promise-breaking U.S. regime. Mr. Ignatius claimed Iran is moving to escape provisions of the 2015 nuclear agreement, but it’s not obvious an agreement remains to be broken. He repeatedly implied Iran had attacked Japanese tankers, relying on a U.S. administration with an acute lying habit and less evidence than we had for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Do we need thousands to die to protect access to oil we already know we have to quit?

Jacob Dorn, Chevy Chase

AD

Regarding the June 17 front-page article “Allies wary of U.S. on Iran”:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has informed us that U.S. intelligence has determined attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were orchestrated by Iran. It would be helpful if he could clarify. Are these reports from the deep-state operatives the Trump administration accuses of fabricating hoaxes — or are we supposed to believe them this time?

AD

I have been waiting for this day. I’ve always figured that President Trump would eventually find himself eager to start a war to distract us from investigations of his conduct, but by the time he did, his credibility would be completely shot. It is. What are we supposed to do now? If we really are facing an international crisis, a good first step would be to impeach and remove the president posthaste and replace him with someone competent and credible.

David Simpson, Vienna

AD
AD