You reported in your Letters to the Editor column (Dec. 21) that you have been receiving a 10-to-1 ratio of letters against President Reagan's Iranian policy. Doesn't that strike you as kind of unusual since the so-called polls show those supporting the President slightly below 50%? Perhaps many have given up on sending letters to The Times.
I, and I am sure many others, hold the most recent publishing of an entire section to the Iranian crisis as a slanted blow-up, and it is utterly disgusting. The intent of all the persons involved, who you so severely criticize, were doing what they thought was best for their country, and under the most difficult of circumstances. If it had to be done in secret, so be it. I would hate to believe that the government's every move had to be approved by the liberal press.
The overwhelming majority of people who voted for the President wanted him to continue his policy of toughness in the Middle East and to stop the communists from controlling Central America and eventually occupying the Panama Canal and Mexico.
If in so doing they find that it would be beneficial to work secretly with the moderate elements in Iran in order to release hostages and to eventually seek peace with the successors of the Ayatollah Khomeini, then it should have been done. Certainly when one starts on such a venture he cannot even guess the consequences. Neither the public or the press has all of the vital information necessary to formulate such a decision.