Parsi provided valuable lessons in contemporary diplomacy, and reminded the UN audience why the threat of war can no longer be accepted as the "continuation of policy by other means" in the 21st century.
As the United States is militarily moving away from the Middle East, it needs a long-term strategy to stabilize the region and for institution building. And as Iran is geopolitically central to the region, they both need to end the deadlock and find a way out of this crisis.
Conflict over Iran's nuclear program is driven by two different approaches to interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These approaches, in turn, are rooted in different conceptions of world order.
To better resist Iran's nuclear ambitions, powerful nations like the United States should employ methods that will not perpetuate conflict, hinder the global economy or violate state sovereignty. Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will do all of the above.
It is no secret that Iran is developing its nuclear capacity in a clandestine and deceptive manner. Yet ironically it is our reaction to Iranian intransigence that is more likely to lead to an Iranian bomb. And it's not for the reasons that many have cited.
Iran's masses showed the world their disdain for their current rulers in 2009 when they took to the streets in droves to protest. They were met with very little global support, and were brutally quelled by a regime that refuses to relinquish power.
How unseemly for New York Times executive editor Bill Keller to look down so disdainfully at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, with a nasty ad hominem portrayal in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine.