As American pundits are discussing the Clinton Cash affair and worrying about possible undue foreign influence on U.S. foreign policy via donations to...
While Realpolitik arguments, in particular the argument for the need to co-opt Iran into a stable balance-of-power system in the Middle East, have been central to Obama's diplomatic opening to Tehran, he has also integrated an element of idealism into his approach, proposing that American "engagement" with Iran would bring about political and economic changes in that country.
Goodbye, Azerbajian. It would be dishonest to say that we Europeans will miss you; few people over here will even notice that you've left. But it's sad to see you leaving the family nonetheless.
The need is to reexamine what the clear, compelling U.S. vital interests are in the Arab World. These countries will have instability, violence and bad actors no matter what we do, and there's no end in sight.
Absent a credible military threat, there is no reason to believe that Iran will come clean regarding its nuclear program if Washington surrenders its remaining leverage. Nor is it reasonable to hang one's hat on the belief that Iran will moderate its behavior if both its diplomatic and financial isolation is ended.
As commander-in-chief, there's no reason to believe Hillary would be any less a hawk than she was as the senator who backed George W. Bush's war in Iraq, or the Secretary of State who encouraged Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Since taking office in 2012, Shinzo Abe has been trying to repudiate Article Nine of his country's constitution. But the more he tries, the less the public is convinced. Yet Abe refuses to give up, and is coming to Washington next week to enlist America's support. President Obama and Congress should reject the invitation.
No doubt there has been much for the U.S. to focus on elsewhere in the world recently, from Russia to Iran. But in past weeks, it seems that the movie in Asia has been on fast-forward around global development and financing. And once again, the U.S. is scrambling to catch up.
The meeting between President Obama and Raul Castro can be seen as emblematic of a new philosophy governing relations among nations of the Americas, and provides an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the challenges ahead if we seize the moment.
Perhaps nothing epitomizes the state of affairs in the Republican Party today more than the estrangement of James Baker from the Republican establishment. Nothing because, for what seems like decades, James Baker was the Republican establishment.
President Obama has nearly two years to make the rapprochements with Iran and Cuba irreversible. If he can do that, and bring about a ceasefire in Syria to boot, then his diplomatic legacy will be secure -- no matter what his successor does to reassert the worst kind of dumb power.
The recent changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba have produced plenty of U.S. media coverage examining the things Cuba is lacking: freedom of the press, new paint on buildings, leaders less than 80 years old. But our media have failed to document the many other things Cuba is lacking.
The main hurdle to restoring full diplomatic relations in Cuba centers on how much freedom U.S. diplomats will have to travel around Cuba and what the U.S. embassy will be allowed to bring into the country. While these may seem like mundane issues of every-day operations that should be easy to settle, they are not.
The acquisition of energy has become a dominant influence in China's foreign policy orientation generally, and has been a driving force in its relationship with Myanmar in recent years.
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.