There is a fundamental absurdity hanging over negotiations with Iran, and I fear it could doom the whole enterprise. It is the position of AIPAC as adopted by the Congress of the United States.
Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the cheerleaders for war are trying to change the rules.
What is President Obama going to do if he and the allies reach an agreement with Iran? It's easy to know what he will do if it turns out that the Islamic Republic has no interest in a deal.
I have been fighting to help achieve a secure Israel, at peace with its neighbors, for more than 43 years. I continue to do that by fighting against a war that could eradicate Israel and endanger Jewish security in the United States and throughout the world.
Whether he meant to or not, in his latest version of Iran war policy President Obama has built on the Bush precedent. His represents, however, an even more extreme version, which should perhaps be labeled the 0% Doctrine.
Republicans candidates see Iran as an issue that can be exploited, especially among their conservative base. But recent polls show a majority of Americans are not interested in another war.
WASHINGTON -- In his most direct attack to date on the Republicans vying for his job, President Barack Obama on Tuesday knocked his GOP challengers fo...
Barack Obama has tried and largely failed to rein in Israel's aggression against the Palestinians while he has been in office. But the president is finding that Israel's belligerence toward Iran is a far more serious problem that may require a much firmer hand.
WASHINGTON -- Israel's prime minister told a massive pro-Israel gathering Monday night that time was running out to prevent Iran from acquiring a nucl...
The United States is on the brink of war with Iran with no more understanding -- or discussion -- than why we are fighting an all-out war in Afghanistan. What has become a national habit of acting without public deliberation is a clear and present danger to the country's well-being.
Although the U.S. is a large and mighty country and Israel as small and vulnerable one, it is Netanyahu who has the leverage.
If Netanyahu decides to strike, Iranians and Americans (and Israelis) will not only be dragged into an unwanted and bloody war but Iranians may have to protect themselves from clouds of nuclear radioactive material with grave short-term, not to mention long-term, effects.
While expressing his sympathy and friendship with Israel, Obama did not yield his red line at AIPAC. With the backing of the U.S. military, he has stood firm behind weaponization rather than weapons capability as the red line.
Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, seems to want to drive a dynamic in which it demonstrates its power by compelling the president to attack Iran on its behalf. This is neither in Israel's real interests -- nor America's.
Contrary to the accusations leveled by Obama's critics, bilateral defense cooperation is both broader and deeper today than at any time in history.
The idea of another Middle East war is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.
News on the Iran front gets more and more complicated. I am not referring to the situation on the ground, but in Washington where Congress, deep into election year fundraising with the AIPAC conference looming, is about to pass another sanctions bill.
Nothing I wrote above is anti-Israel. On the contrary, it is precisely because I want Israel to exist in peace and security that I oppose the occupation.
Yes, the Palestinians are turning to the United Nations to achieve statehood, but Netanyahu has ignored repeated demands by the Obama administration to take action to facilitate negotiations.
The "pro-Israel" forces in this country are wrongly labelled. They are not pro-Israel. They are anti-Palestinian. They believe that so long as the Palestinians are losing, Israel is winning. They have it precisely backwards.
While one could quibble with aspects of Obama's state department speech and his remarks before AIPAC, I was struck by some things he said that didn't register in the U.S. press or in the Arab World's media.
AIPAC is the only lobby that both Democrats and Republics fear challenging. There is no other lobby in Washington, not one, that has that kind of power.
Obama's temerity was the functional equivalent of a wife saying to her husband, "I love you, but could you please take out the garbage once in a while?" Netanyahu, the domineering husband, blows up when he hears a "but."
Jews and Christian supporters of Israel in the U.S. and the Israeli people and their leaders trusted President Bush. They do not have confidence in President Obama's commitment to Israel's security.
We can no longer afford to confuse supporting the State of Israel with supporting the policies of the leaders who control the Israeli government at a particular time.
