As Netanyahu pointed out in Washington, the conclusion of the nuclear negotiations must be that Iran stops attacking other countries, renounces terror and ceases threatening the Jewish state of Israel with annihilation. If all three conditions are not met, there can be no deal. Because no deal is better than a bad deal.
Netanyahu has legitimate cause to sound the alarm about the threat Iran poses. His speech, however, will do little to improve the substance of any agreement. What is more injurious is his insinuation that Obama will accede to a "bad deal" even though it will be to Israel's detriment.
Nestled between apocalyptic references in Netanyahu's speech yesterday was the assertion that "the difficult road is the one less travelled." Ironically enough, in the Middle East, the road to war is well worn while diplomacy is the route everyone seems to miss.
We expect Congress to do everything in its power to avoid another war. Yet that is the path we will be on if members of Congress insist on disrupting and undermining the diplomatic process with Iran.
Mainstream society, especially on the Internet, has taken an enormous amount from the culture of espionage. We now routinely use multiple passwords, aliases, and disguises. We also employ a vast arsenal of techniques for both identification and deception
President Barack Obama made some progress on his agenda in his passage to India. But events in the Middle East and Washington demonstrated again how hamstrung his administration continues to be.
On Jan. 22, 2015 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, in consultation with 17 Nobel Prize laureates adjusted the Doomsday Clock to three minutes to midnight.
A quarter century after the end of the Cold War and decades after the signing of landmark nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements, are the U.S. and Russian governments once more engaged in a potentially disastrous nuclear arms race with one another?
While "a New Cold War" has not yet been adopted as an official framework for US foreign and military policy, there are among foreign and military policy-makers many who will be tempted by its appeal. We should be circumspect about following them down this path.
Speaker Boehner is now using the policy debate on Iran as a crass political attack on the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. In the process, he does great damage to our national institutions, our efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and the U.S.-Israeli alliance.
A new military reform bill would provide an excellent opportunity for our elected legislators to ponder their own responsibility for the growing mound of waste we cannot afford.
It sounded like a good idea back in 2000. Two decades after the Cold War ended, the United States and Russia each agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium -- enough for about 20,000 warheads -- by combining most of it with uranium to create mixed-oxide fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
In order to provide a clear picture of the impact China's nuclear upgrade might have on the global balance of power, it is imperative to explore what this upgrade entails.
Does hacking into a private entertainment corporation's computer files constitute an act of war? Against whom, exactly?
Today, many of America's most prominent foundations support institutions or programs abroad, but few have been active on the global stage for as long as Carnegie Corporation of New York.
As bad as Sony's cave-in, though, is the ridiculously false "shock" at the hackers' success in exposing the emails. There is incredible naiveté from everyone involved.