Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Iran questions you were embarrassed to ask" (12/1/13), The Washington Post should be embarrassed with its answers. The Post whitewashes the existential threat posed by Iran on Israel by saying that "the dislike is mutual." There is nothing mutual here. I haven't heard Israel saying that Iran should be wiped off the map. The equivalence drawn is abhorrent! The Washington Post even defends Iran's motivations saying that Iran is "so insistent" on a nuclear program because there is a "huge symbolic importance for Iran, allowing it to affirm, to itself and to the world, that it is an advanced and sovereign nation." The Simon Wiesenthal Center sees Iran's motivations another way: "If Iran's only goal was to develop a nuclear ability for civilians use, as it claims, then it has no need for centrifuges and heavy water - these are only needed to create a nuclear weapon. There are 19 countries in the world from Canada to Indonesia that produce nuclear energy for civilian use without enrichment, centrifuges and heavy water." Lastly, The Washington Post says that "setting off a nuclear bomb in Israel would guarantee the Iranian regime's immediate and total destruction." My question to the Post is, by whose hand? The United States, under the current administration, has backed away from many a confrontation and in regards to Iran, they just arguably took a position of strength and turned it into a position of weakness, just to make a deal. Not exactly the sign of a side that would respond decisively in a military fashion. Michael Berenhaus cc: Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center