What was the real deal with the Benjamin Netanyahu speech this week? It seems that Speaker John Boehner might have been set up by his own party. In f...
So if Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Kimist N. Korea can be deterred from using nuclear weapons by the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction, why couldn't Iran be deterred?
Nestled between apocalyptic references in Netanyahu's speech yesterday was the assertion that "the difficult road is the one less travelled." Ironically enough, in the Middle East, the road to war is well worn while diplomacy is the route everyone seems to miss.
The Obama administration should answer the substance of the Israeli prime minister's concerns if the Jewish State is supposed to live under the ever-expanding shadow of Iran's nuclear umbrella. If the deal is so good, why is Barack Obama moving to block any role for Congress in approving this historic agreement?
March 4th - the day after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's historic belligerent address urging both Houses of Congress to force President Obama away...
To allow an Israeli politician to use the venue of the United States Congress as a platform for political grandstanding in support of his re-election bid is equally demeaning to Americans and Israelis alike.
Netanyahu made one very effective point today. He said, "How can you expect Israel to trust Iran in any way as long as Iran's clearly stated goal about Israel is annihilation?"I think it makes sense for the U.S. to demand that Iran withdraw its clear and public threat to Israel's existence as part of any new nuclear arrangement.
If we want to win on Israel-Palestine, we have to win on Iran diplomacy. This is as much a must-win for people who are focused on justice for Palestinians as it is for people who are focused on Iran diplomacy.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his followers in Congress want you to think they're trying to save the world from the threat of Iran's nuclear program. But their alarmist rhetoric and hardline demands are just a cover for their familiar program of trying to "remake" the Middle East.
Intelligence experts provide explanations for the motivation behind Iran's nuclear weapons program that are deeply rooted in Western concepts, including regime preservation and enhancing Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. In my view, this is a mistaken approach, because it is based solely on speculation from analysts schooled in secular geopolitical theories.
Netanyahu's speech may be evidence of hubris run amok on his part, but it is also a vivid illustration of the pervasive and destructive rise of partisanship in American politics over the last few decades.
The Neo-con argument is simply one more display of the abject naiveté of their logic once again ginning up fear in the public and attempting to define the president as craven and feckless.
It diverts attention from, firstly, the endlessly more important issue of whether the deal that the Obama administration seems close to striking with Iran is one that serves the interests of the United States well, and, secondly, the question of the potential deal's effects on U.S. allies in the region and elsewhere, as well as on peace in the region and even the world.
The neocon crowd -- including Netanyahu -- insist that Iran agree to terms that they know would never be accepted by the Tehran government. That's because they don't want a negotiated deal; they want the U.S. to launch a military strike against Iran that would effect "regime change." This is exactly the same line of argument that led the U.S. into the Iraq quagmire.
For all his protestations that he arrives today in Washington on a grave mission vital to Israel's national security, Benjamin "Mr. Security" Netanyahu has more on his mind than merely scuttling President Obama's incubating nuclear agreement with Iran.