Natalie Nougayrède highlights the most prevalent manifestation of the debasement of democracy through the ages, namely that of the invariably male, loud, rude and hectoring voice which threatens to destroy truth and silence others (As the Iran crisis looms, prepare for a battle over facts, 9 May). Little wonder the effect of angry male barracking was to “intimidate other people in the room” at Nougayrède’s conference, supporting the observation that “Dialogue was not what those angry men … wanted”.

From Donald Trump shouting down Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, Nigel Farage flooding the EU debate with twisted hysteria, to Sebastian Gorka on Newsnight blustering against legitimate rational questions and Jordan Peterson’s scorn in the interview by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News, these are voices that must be challenged.

In response to Trump cancelling US participation in the Iran deal, Obama has reminded us “Debates in our country should be informed by facts”. This is what the blusterers hate the most and will always seek to silence should we fail to vigilently defend democratic debate at all times.

Nick Mayer

Southampton

• The collapse of the Iran nuclear deal means the US will now press ahead with the full imposition of sanctions on Iran. Such sanctions, if implemented, will not only hurt Iran; they will also hurt countries that import Iranian oil.

Last time, India, for example, was forced to reduce Iranian oil imports from 12% to 9%. The cumulative effect of this sizeable cutback, coupled with the increase in the international oil price, was to push India’s GDP growth downward.

While the US may be right to inflict sufficient economic pain on average Iranians for them to threaten the current regime’s survival, what moral principle, if any, is served by punishing citizens of India, who are not even remotely connected to the Iranian regime?

Randhir Singh Bains

Gants Hill, Essex

• Has Natalie Nougayrède ever considered the possibility that it is not “totalitarian systems” but western governments and corporations that deploy the most expensive, sophisticated and successful propaganda campaigns?

As the “father of public relations” Edward Bernays explained in his 1928 PR manual: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.”

For example, last year Chatham House’s Micah Zenko estimated that the Pentagon spends “nearly $600m annually on public relations” in an attempt “to shape public opinion”, while David Miller, professor of sociology at the University of Bath, recently estimated there are likely over 5,000 people working on propaganda for the British government.

Indeed Nougayrède herself seems to have fallen victim to the western propaganda machine when she asserted that President Obama has “refrained from getting involved in Syria” (Opinion, 11 August 2015) , noting “the US has this year found only 60 rebels it could vet for a train-and-equip programme”. In the real world a June 2015 Washington Post report explained that the CIA’s Timber Sycamore programme in Syria – “one of the agency’s largest covert operations” – was spending $1bn a year and had trained and equipped 10,000 rebels.

Ian Sinclair

London

• This action by Trump could have only been written by George Orwell. Who is the enemy now?

Linda Karlsen

Whitstable, Kent

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters