All sides deny that the two cases are linked, but there is worry that the fierce Israeli opposition to the U.S. and European framework agreement with Iran could force Washington to make an unethical trade-off.
Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Those who seek to undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.
The current agreement will not prevent Iran from developing an atomic device in the future, nor will it constrain its ability to develop ballistic missile technology. The agreement will significantly slow down Iran's ability to develop an atomic device and, in all likelihood, delay that eventuality for another 10 to 15 years.
Democratic Party leaders had better get their collective talking points agreed upon and distributed to make their message straightforward: Democrats want peace and to get us out of the Middle East mess that the Bush Administration left behind.
Only time will tell as we move into uncertain and dangerous times as authoritarian regimes seek to transform the very nature of regional and global politics.
Alliances of convenience are the staple of foreign policy as any reader of Machiavelli knows. Obama wants a deal over Iranian nuclear capabilities for it would be a major success of US foreign policy.
Tell me again: Whose side are we on this time? ...
Could this latest stunt hint at leadership struggles within the GOP? It's an ironic possibility when you consider that the GOP takeover of both houses in January was supposed to herald an era of strong and responsible Republican leadership, not division.
In looking for more images that tell a story we may find ourselves forced to dig deeper and our writing may get better, too. It may also make news and opinion writing more fulfilling and representative. After all, what haven't we said already?
Academics and political junkies will probably breeze through Is the American Century Over? But the book is so well-written and accessible, general readers are likely to find it engaging and insightful as well.
Winning this debate could be crucial given the recent HuffPost/YouGov poll that found more Americans think the 2016 presidential election will focus on foreign policy issues than domestic issues. Historically speaking, this is unlikely; elections almost always turn on the economy and domestic issues. But if the polls prove prophetic, it gives the GOP the advantage. Maybe.
The BDSP is based on a bedrock belief in how America should work: that the only strength that really matters is military and that a great country is one with the capacity to beat the bejesus out of everyone else.
Reports emerged in the American media Thursday that President Obama may propose a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for the lifting of international sanctions on Iran, if an agreement is reached by the "P5+1" negotiating team over the country's nuclear program.
At the risk of oversimplification, sometimes we just need to focus on the overriding big picture rather than all of the extenuating circumstances. In this case the big picture is clear. Containing Iran's agenda of political Shiism is just as crucial as containing Salafist jihadist violence.
The Iran issue highlights a central dilemma of U.S. foreign policy: will political division undermine U.S. world leadership?
The GOP domestic-policy vacuum is evidence of a deeper problem: Republicans don't have a plan to move America forward.