The last month has been dismaying for anyone concerned about the US-Israel relationship. While the United States and five other powers worked to re...
Finally, Barack Obama may prove deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize by joining with England, France, China, Russia and Germany in negotiating an eminently sensible rapprochement with Iran on its nuclear program.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants negotiations with the Palestinians to continue for decades to come. But the Palestinian leadership would be foolish to go along with this charade.
A recent AP report revealed that the United States and Iran had secret high-level, face-to-face talks for over the past year, which paved the way for the nuclear deal that was settled between Washington and Tehran this past weekend in Geneva.
US-Iranian leaders could draw inspiration from the humility of Prophet Muhammad in negotiations. Yes, all sides are not completely happy but I like to believe that "a good compromise is a compromise in which both sides are equally unhappy."
This deal raises the question as to whether it can truly be viewed as a deal as good as both sides project it to be. Who actually comes out of this deal as a winner? And is there a loser?
What should be the Israeli response to the emerging deal with Iran? In the opinion of this writer, Israel must sit back and let the U.S. take the lead.
The deal that was struck in Geneva between Iran and the P5+ 1 represents an important first step in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Regardless of the multiple flaws it contains, it offers a chance to end Iran's nuclear impasse peacefully.
More than ever, Israel is isolated from world opinion and the squishy entity known as "the international community." The Israeli government keeps condemning the Iran nuclear deal, by any rational standard a positive step away from the threat of catastrophic war.
While the deal may still be unproven in curbing an Iranian nuclear bomb, will it prove more effective in bringing closer a new Iranian revolution or at least evolution?
It is hard to understand what all the celebrating in the West is about. Simply that there is an agreement where there had been none? The Iranians should be doing the celebrating -- and they are.
The profound symbolism of the moment more than outweighs the lighter substantive elements of the temporary agreement. The United States and its partners appeared tough and got very little. Iran appeared tough and gave up very little. Both sides saved face.
Israel has consistently said that, precisely to stop Iran's nuclear program without a military strike, two elements are essential -- tough sanctions and a credible threat of the use of force. As it watches the sanctions being somewhat relaxed post-Geneva, that remains Israel's position
Netanyahu has always liked to think of himself as a daring leader a la Churchill. He is about to find out that it takes more than cigars and grand rhetoric to actually become a great leader.
A realignment of Middle East politics? That remains to be seen, but it is more likely than before with the signing of the agreement, and one with potential effects that could go beyond the immediate Iranian connection.
I wish the non-violent movement in Syria had succeeded in displacing Assad. I wish that this struggle against a dictator had not devolved into a bloody civil war and a transnational conflict. I have my doubts about what will come out of the current struggle. But I also resist the narrative of the Syrian war as simply a magnet for extremists.