In Washington DC, panelists at the Middle East Institute’s annual conference clashed on the topic of a US-Iran rapprochement. Dr. Mohsen Milani of the University of South Florida remarked that a US-Iran rapprochement would more profoundly influence the Middle East in the future than either the Syrian conflict or sectarianism, but Dr. F. Gregory Gause of the Brookings Doha Center countered that Dr. Milani and others were “getting ahead of themselves.”
As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad's regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.
Renewing U.S. support for the difficult "work of generations," President Barack Obama assured Israel that his administration would pursue a Mideast peace that would allow residents of the Jewish state to live free from the threat of terror.
The majority of Iranians (63%) said that Iran should continue to develop its nuclear program, even given the scale of sanctions.
The manner in which talk of going to war with Iran is being bandied about this election cycle, might lead an observer to conclude such an act would have consequences no more serious than a family squabble over the Holiday dinner table. As Pat Buchanan noted in his column here at Townhall.com yesterday, some war advocates, such as David Rothkopf, suggest that a so-called “surgical strike” against Iranian nuclear facilities and its consequences, would last no longer than “a day or two at most” and would be without any “civilian casualties.”
In diplomacy, always leave your adversary an honorable avenue of retreat.
With the focus of the presidential race turning sharply toward foreign policy, the topic of Iran and competing visions for what to do about the rogue regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons are likely to take center stage in the coming days.
Rubio Ran Into Some Granite, Had Shaky Defense Against Christie in New Hampshire Debate | Matt Vespa