Even without nuclear weapons, and free of economic sanctions, a resurgent Iran would pose a serious threat to regional stability.
Historically speaking, pacts of mutual advantage involving dictatorships, like the one between the P5+1 nations and Iran, are not worth the paper they’re written on.
Is the interim agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran binding on any party? It wouldn’t appear so.
We are paying in American prestige to negotiate with Ayatollah Khamenei. Others will pay in blood.
The big question is not how Washington will handle Tehran’s inevitable violations of the nuclear agreement struck over the weekend, but how it will. . .
A military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the region-wide proliferation that will surely follow.
A strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be a risky and complicated military operation, but Israeli ingenuity and determination could lead to a great success.
France’s opposition to a nuclear accord with Iran may have come as a shock to the White House, but it was consistent with the foreign. . .
By refusing to abandon construction of a heavy-water reactor, Iran has laid bare its determination to produce plutonium—and thereby a nuclear bomb.
Washington is in a position to demand the most stringent of nuclear accords and should pay scant attention to Iran’s oft-proclaimed red lines.
In its pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran poses a threat of paramount urgency to global trade, security, and stability; negotiations are doing nothing to. . .
Iran looks set to promise the West that it won’t produce nuclear weapons, but no outsider will be able to know whether it actually. . .
Western sanctions have made it harder than ever for Iran to acquire the means to build a nuclear bomb; and yet it is still acquiring them.
Despite amateurish diplomacy, Iran has successfully enlisted the help of several African countries to acquire uranium, right under the nose of the West.