The U.S. government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has operated a foreign policy that is akin to the stereotype of a musclebound bodybuilder with very little upstairs.
Iran's negotiating terms are bad news for Syria. It reportedly offered to end the assault on Zabadani on two conditions: that its fighters be allowed to evacuate Fu'a and Kefraya, and that Zabadani's largely Sunni population leave the city.
Assad is not only an individual who can be replaced by someone else, but he is an indispensable part of the Syrian state; he embodies the domination of Alawite in the political establishment. The removal of Assad from power will be a strong blow to the Syrian government, and a moral boost to the oppositional and rebel groups.
This week, summer vacation ended for millions of Americans, as did the wait for two long-anticipated events. First, in Washington, the Iran nuclear agreement cleared its biggest hurdle, as opponents lost a key procedural vote in the Senate. Maybe former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose strong opposition to the deal is among the best arguments for it, provided the winning margin. To drive the point home, the White House released a cutting video montage of Cheney's wildly wrong assessments of Iraq, showing he was "wrong then, wrong now." Meanwhile, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert finally debuted, with a literally biting bit about the media's Trump addiction, and an interview featuring a suave Jeb Bush and a stilted Colbert (actually, switch that). As Colbert said, "I used to play a narcissistic, conservative pundit -- now, I'm just a narcissist." But still very, very funny. And, given his poignant interview with Joe Biden, very, very human.
I propose Constitution Day be used to examine crucial current events issues that raise important constitutional questions. Given heated debate taking place in the United States over the power of the Presidency and the Iran nuclear accord, it is an ideal topic for secondary school classrooms on Constitution Day.
Republicans are playing politics with the nuclear safety of the nation and deserve the highest level of disdain and condemnation to reflect the great shame and discredit they bring upon their party, the Senate and America.
Fourteen years ago a terrible thing happened to our country, to our city, when terrorists attacked us on September 11. Then there were no Republicans, there were no Democrats; there were only Americans who said we have to come together.
Let's get this straight. Europe is not responsible for the mayhem in Syria and the resultant chaos. It's the Assad regime and his Iranian backers who are responsible for the crimes against humanity.
Now that a Senate minority has blocked the bipartisan majority from an up-or-down vote on arguably the most significant foreign policy measure in a generation, some in the media are rushing to judgment about winners and losers.
Saudi Arabia and other U.S. Gulf allies are concerned that Iran, despite crippling economic sanctions, has been engaged in aggressively funding, plotting and backing terrorist groups across the region.
More than a dozen GOP governors wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, vowing to keep state-level sanctions on Iran despite the nuclear deal. But can a state really circumvent the U.S. President's policy on sanctions? A U.S. Supreme Court case from several years ago could block that plan.
What U.S. policymakers have been clear about for decades — both Democrats and Republicans alike — is that there are few greater threats to our global security than a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why the U.S. and our international partners spent nearly two years working out the best possible diplomatic solution to eliminate that threat.
In terms of its relationship to other nations, this nuclear deal represents Iran being forced to subjugate itself just as Germany did after the World Wars, even though they haven't been involved in any such conflict. Iran is literally kneeling before the West in the face of credible threats to destroy them if they do not.
July's Iran nuclear deal stands as one of the most significant foreign policy achievements of this or any recent administration. It rejects a Munich replication and builds on the lessons of Versailles while eliminating many of its pitfalls.
If GCC officials slowly pivot toward the perception that their long-term interests reside in an improved relationship toward Iran, such a strategic shift would be seen in Riyadh as an erosion of GCC unity against an emboldened Iran.
What is really happening in the Middle East, and why are its conflicts spilling over to Europe and other continents? Is it just a couple of civil wars that should be resolved politically and then the good old days will come back?