What the Iran “debate” has taught us about our ability to discuss world affairs
In the United States and Israel, a heated debate about whether to accept the nuclear deal with Iran continues. In the rest of the world, Iran’s reintegration is already underway.
Do Iran’s leaders recognize a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? Does it matter? Some readers in Israel weigh in.
“Israel’s fundamental problem is that Iran is inevitably the regional hegemon once freed of the sanctions regime.”
A set of theories for what’s really behind opposition to the Iran deal in Israel and the United States—including that the two nations’ interests may be diverging when it comes to Iran.
If Iran really threatens nuclear Holocaust, one asks, why aren’t opponents of the agreement demanding all-out war to stop it?
“The problem with libs/progressives/dems is that they project their rational mind onto others.” An opponent of the agreement explains what supporters (like me) are getting wrong.
The man bites dog / dog bites man conundrum applied to story-framing
Why is Barack Obama saying, “It’s the deal—or war?” Is it fear-mongering? Or “the dictates of cold, hard logic”? He explains his thinking in a conversation with journalists.
Will the nuclear agreement take effect? Consider who’s supporting and opposing it.
The agreement doesn’t guarantee that Tehran will never produce nuclear weapons—because no agreement could do so.
On the day the nuclear deal was announced, a translator on his first trip to the U.S. explained a surprising cultural connection between America and Iran.
U.S. presidents of both parties have often shown better judgment in knowing when to accept diplomatic solutions than in choosing to go to war.
From his tiny room in Tehran, an Iranian scholar imagined what a classic American scene would look like. Here is what happened when he had a chance to see for himself.
A chickenhawk moment so pure it deserves extra attention
On the bright side, Tom Cotton now seems statesmanlike.
"I take the Iranian threat seriously. But I suspect hysteria is unhelpful—and if that's true, so is raising the specter of the Holocaust, as Netanyahu does every time he discusses this topic. " A historian on the current state of debate.
A powerful speech, received in very different ways by different audiences
If today's world resembles Europe on the eve of invasion, carnage, and the Holocaust, then Netanyahu's warnings are prudent and wise. But what if the analogy is wrong?
At face value, this speech makes no sense. But there may be a deeper logic to the Israeli prime minister's determination to speak to Congress.