Even before the negotiations started, President Obama's detractors were saying that his efforts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program would fail. Now that we have an actual plan to review, we can weigh the merits of that plan. I have read the plan and it is my opinion that the plan is a good plan that will work.
Considering that the agreement is practically a done deal, how should Israel act to assure that it's security interests do not suffer? While Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to attack the agreement, I and many in Israel believe that it's time to deal with this worrying and uncertain situation in a sensible manner.
President Obama and the people of Iran have stood throughout as the strong pillars of these negotiations. It is not easy to tell if President Obama is more popular in the U.S. or in Tehran.
People who claim that they have an alternative to the Iran nuclear deal besides war might want to check in with Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, widely judged to be one of the three "serious" Republican candidates for President.
Just three weeks before the historic agreement between Iran and the group of six world powers, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued comprehensive red lines for a possible nuclear deal. The nuclear deal reached on July 14 in Vienna clearly violates the lines almost in their entirety.
On Monday, 60 of America's brightest national security and military leaders, from both parties, released a powerful statement supporting the historic nuclear accord reached between the world powers and Iran last week.
The recent announcement of a nuclear deal between the governments of Iran and other major nations, including the United States, naturally draws our attention to the history of international nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements.
What we must learn from his and Dubya's blunders is that the U.S. should never go to war unless we have absolutely no other choice, when any other course would put our country in real danger. As a country, we must learn to turn away from those who never learn that war must only be a last resort.
When the Iran nuclear deal was reached last week, many around the world hailed it as a breakthrough in Iran's relations with the international community, a diplomatic achievement and a nonproliferation success. But now what?
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict might get an unexpected shot in the arm as a result of the recently concluded Iran nuclear agreement. While the P5+1 talks in Vienna focused only on the issue of Iran's nuclear capability, many are looking for how this agreement will effect regional conflicts.
Any foreign agreement, no matter how good it is, should not be allowed to countenance continued aggrandizement of executive power and further subversion the republic's Constitution.
Most Americans struggle to recognize or understand their country's permanent security state, in which elected politicians seem to run the show, but the CIA and the Pentagon often take the lead -- a state that inherently gravitates toward military, rather than diplomatic, solutions to foreign-policy challenges. Viewed through the lens of history, the main job of U.S. presidents is to be mature and wise enough to stand up to the permanent war machine.
With a nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 in place, both supporters and opponents can agree there is a key lynchpin to its successful implementation: the IAEA. Before any sanctions can be lifted, the very large job of monitoring Iran's compliance falls to the United Nation's nuclear watchdog.
This is one of those moments when there is broad popular frustration, a moment when liberal goals require measures that seem radical by today's standards. If progressives don't articulate those frustrations and propose real solutions, rightwing populists will propose crackpot ones. Token gestures won't fool anybody.
Corn and Cooke debate how to keep Iran from weaponizing its nuclear energy. Obama's tour de force presser argues 'jaw-jaw not war-war'. Critics say that simplifies the issue. But wasn't lifting sanctions for no-nukes the plan? Then: was Scott Walker ready for his close-up? Hillary for her Eco orals?