One of the signs that our future may turn out to be OK after all for me is watching the upward trend on the types of films that secure distribution in the U.S.
I have come to realize that my discomfort stems from a profound question: Are my accomplishments in the real world not good enough unless they are advertised to and "liked" by the virtual world?
As long as there are civilian nuclear programs in the region there is the danger of nuclear proliferation. But a comprehensive agreement that effectively and verifiably constrains Iran's nuclear programs could have a positive effect on neighboring countries
BERLIN -- The only realistic option to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region is international supervision -- as far-reaching and as comprehensive as possible. But this goal, even if achieved, would satisfy neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia, both of which fear that any agreement would support Iran in its effort to establish its regional dominance. So the end result could be a de facto change of regional strategic partners by the U.S. -- a development that in fact is already becoming apparent in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq.
It is very bewildering, albeit horrifyingly fascinating, to watch American politicians jockey and posture for war with Iran.
Our back-of-the-envelope reasoning typically proceeds as follows: Iran can buy reactor fuel on the international market for cheaper than what it costs to enrich it. Thus, the only reason for Iran to enrich is to produce fuel for a bomb.
PARMA, Italy -- Step by step, the European approach has been vindicated. Critical to that outcome, of course, was the U.S. intelligence community's reports that all the evidence pointed to Iran having long ago -- in 2003 -- abandoned concrete plans to develop a nuclear weapon.
BEIRUT -- Amidst all this flexing of muscles, America is effectively disempowered by its stand-off policy, but also from its political investment in the war on ISIS, with its many contradictions and tensions.
Today the Iran Project released a statement signed by a bipartisan group of over 50 retired military officials, U.S. foreign policy leaders, ambassadors, and leading national security experts, applauding the announcement of the framework agreement reached by the P5+1 and Iran.
What do George W. Bush administration official John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and a whole host of others in Washington opposing the Iran deal have in common? They were passionate supporters of the Iraq war and continue to hold that view today.
There are many similarities between the concerns in Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 2015. Fear of both countries pursuing a nuclear weapons program were and have been omnipresent, respectively.
Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Those who seek to undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.
I believe now is the time -- actually, it has been the time for decades now -- to consider new forms of leadership, not only in the Middle East, but around the world. We need to get away from the leaders who demonize the other, who use fear, threat, and actual engagement in war as tools for their own maintenance of power.
Why not return to the days of real cultural exchange with Iran and other countries of the region, a time when beauty trumped bombs?
NEW YORK -- The agreement constitutes an important political and diplomatic milestone, and it contains more detail and is broader in scope than many anticipated. But, for all that, the text leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it resolves. In reality, major issues have yet to be settled. It is closer to the truth to say the real debate about the Iran nuclear accord is just beginning.
Leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with any of this criticism (I think the Republican critiques thus far have been vague so far), the administration must realize that there is a very intense sentiment swirling around that Washington not only got swindled, but swindled in a way that will add more tension to its foreign relations.