Squeezed by the sudden reduction of global violence, Halliburton announced yesterday the unexpected lack of war will be hurting their next profit report.
"We're going to push and push until some larger force makes us stop." David Addington, the legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, made that declaration to Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel in the months after September 11, 2001.
The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, nor enough to blunt Iran's increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, yet one of their own -- George W. Bush -- had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place.
U.S. Republicans, Conservatives and the Israeli Government are playing politics with nuclear weapons. This must stop. People forget that diplomacy, not the military, won the Cold War.
Hillary's e-mail controversy is a real nagging problem. Why not just carry two devices, one for the official address and one for the private address? It's a curious unforced error. But the smoke signals haven't amounted to a smoking gun.
The most tragic consequence of Congress killing the deal would be that it would eliminate the prospect for greater U.S.-Iran cooperation in the region on areas of mutual concern. It would lock in continued enmity between the United States and Iran, serving only to exacerbate tension and conflict across the Middle East. To go down this path when such a mutually advantageous alternative exists would truly be a blunder of historic proportions.
Congress will shortly vote on a resolution of disapproval on the Iran nuclear agreement (formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or "JCPOA")....
The prospective Israeli-Hamas truce presents a momentous opportunity, albeit in disguise, for all parties concerned to turn a new page in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and change its geopolitical and security dynamics, which succeeding Israeli and Palestinian governments could build on.
As a potential catalyst for further diplomatic means of conflict resolution, the comprehensive agreement provides a unique opportunity to seriously engage Iran and possibly alleviate these tensions. Given the significant ramifications that these openings may herald for the future of Iran-Arab world ties, it is more important than ever to engage and analyze viewpoints from scholars and analysts based in the region on the future of Iran's role in the Middle East and Arab security.
Since the P5+1 deal with Iran -- the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- was announced on July 14, there has been much discussion and debate about it, with lots more undoubtedly to come.
A number of analysts and regional experts have propagated the idea of the importance of rapprochement between Iran and Kurds in general and Iran and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in particular.
Sanctions are a difficult economic tool to wrangle in the first place, because if they aren't targeted specifically on the people making decisions about policy (in this case, the Iranian nuclear program), they gamble on influencing pressures and internal political dynamics.
The truth is that the rationale for the long march toward the nuclear deal, followed by a diplomatic and economic partnership with the West, cannot be found in strategic alignments or expediency of politics alone. It runs much deeper. For many Iranians, it represents a deep hope for a better future.
In considering this matter, it is instructive to examine both the unspoken assumptions in the situation and the questions that are rarely asked. Let us consider a few of these assumptions, beginning with the most serious: that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace.
World attention focuses on ISIS and Iran, with its half an atomic weapon. But the biggest geopolitical issue is Vladimir Putin, backed by thousands of nuclear weapons, who is gradually conquering Ukraine, a democracy with 45 million people the size of Germany and Poland combined.