  I purport to show why old and new claims on the role of counterfactual
reasoning for the EPR argument and the Bell theorem are unjustified: once the
logical relation between locality and counterfactual reasoning is clarified,
the use of the latter does no harm and the nonlocality result can well follow
from the EPR premises. To show why, I critically review (i) incompleteness
arguments that Einstein developed before the EPR paper, and (ii) more recent
claims that equate the use of counterfactual reasoning with the assumption of a
strong form of realism.
