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.
What's wrong with using tax-payers' money to make energy more affordable for everyone? The first problem is that not "everyone" benefits equally. In the average developing country, two thirds of gasoline subsidies go to the rich and only 3 percent go to the poor.
At this point it is important to remember that the Russians have veto power at the United Nations and if they had chosen they could have vetoed all UN-imposed sanctions on Iran. They did not do that.
The current impasse leaves the Saudis with two options: either fight the Houthis with local forces or assemble a foreign fighting force and go in through Aden. Both options pose big challenges.
Hard as it may be, the Obama administration should acknowledge the wisdom of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif's proposal for a program of dialogue and international relief aid instead of war.
In selling the new framework agreement reached between Iran and the six world powers known as the P5+1, President Obama has assured an apprehensive American public that if Iran breaches the terms of a final deal, he will "snap back" the sanctions.
In this carnage, both the Damascus dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad, which is supported by the Iranian regime, and the ultra-Wahhabi "Islamic State" that opposes the civil resistance to Bashar, are guilty.
Apparently, for members of Congress, and the entire rightwing, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is of less importance than denying them mutual respect. And, for that, they will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
At the very moment that a nuclear deal with Iran is looking closer to reality, Iran is expanding its influence throughout the Middle East. To the Saudis, the Emirates and Israel -- all of whom see Iran as the greatest threat in the region -- this is a disturbing phenomenon.
Eager to champion anyone who speaks out against gays, blacks, women, Hispanics and especially Muslims, these people will point guns at federal officers, write checks to bigoted restaurant owners and vote in extremist politicians who in turn vote for heinous hate legislation like the kind we saw in Indiana.
In its ardor to reach an agreement as a legacy "achievement," the Obama administration's Middle East foreign policy unfortunately seems to be based more on Lewis Carroll than Santayana.
The Iran agreement may go ahead without their approval, but Republicans are playing a dangerous game: once again, they are favoring war over diplomacy.
The coordination amongst the Arab states, U.S. enablers, and local tribesmen is unprecedented in that it represents the first truly Arab-led sustained combined air-ground campaign in modern history. It has demonstrated that the arena of smart power and force projection no longer exclusively belongs to Western military powers.
Between now and the June 30 deadline, the administration has an opportunity to mitigate the damage by enforcing existing executive orders and creating new ones. Some might argue that such a move would anger the Iranians and complicate the nuclear deal. But such a move is well within the administration's legal authorities
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) asserted that the United States could destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure in a several day bombing campaign. Well, if that is true, then why should he get lathered over the Iran Nuclear Agreement Framework?
Even in the best case interpretation of the newly disagreed JCPOA, it is very likely that the deal will not meet the objective of preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon -- and that's without picking apart all of the technical details of the parameters contained in the recent, questionable framework.