Advertisement
HomeCollectionsIran
IN THE NEWS

Iran

NEWS
December 25, 2013
The article, "Bipartisan group backs new Iran sanction threat" (Dec. 20), describes how some U.S. senators are trying to destroy the nuclear peace deal with Iran. Those senators mentioned, Charles Schumer, Robert Menendez and Mark Kirk, are all known Israel-firsters, always willing to put the interests of Israel ahead of America's. Senator Kirk even admitted that he has been getting his information on Iran from the Israeli government and not from U.S. intelligence. Even worse, the proposed legislation calls for the U.S. to "stand with Israel" if Israel "is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Advertisement
NEWS
By David M. Anderson and David G. Alpher | December 24, 2013
The recent nuclear deal with Iran has generated a great deal of discussion about the concept of leverage. What does this give the U.S. - and what do we lose? Many observers believe that the United States and the P5 +1 members (UK, France, China, Russia and Germany) have surrendered leverage over Iran through the deal, as it removes some of the sanctions that had served to constrain the Iranian government. But this discussion, framed in black and white, neglects to recognize that there are two different concepts of leverage that are relevant to the Iran deal.
NEWS
December 17, 2013
Columnist Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s commentary on President Barack Obama's foreign policy was concise and right on target ( "Obama's miserable foreign policy record," Dec. 10). What we have in this president is an unprepared, vacillating man with a poor grasp of history and precedent when it comes to the Middle East. If the Israelis can't stop the Iranian threat by themselves, Mr. Obama will be long gone from office when Israel is attacked or a nuclear suitcase bomb is detonated in a New York subway.
NEWS
By Robert C. Koehler | December 15, 2013
Iran! So long our enemy-in-waiting, it's just asking for it, y'know? No wonder Americans are confused about the idea of maybe not going to war with that country one of these days, at least according to USA Today, which reported: "The White House and Ira nface an uphill selling job to convince Americans to embrace the interim nuclear pact negotiated with Tehran last month. " Two out of three Americans who have actually heard something about the accord don't trust it, the paper explains, because, in essence, Iran took American hostages that one time (for no reason)
NEWS
December 11, 2013
Should we trust the Iranian government? No - nor should we totally trust any other government. I always remember President Reagan's statement about Russia when he said "trust but verify" ( "The nuclear deal with Iran," Nov. 25). I was born in Iran and lived there until I was 18 years old. I moved to the U.S. in 1978, and I have been an American citizen since 1987. Should the current Iranian government be allowed to possess nuclear bombs? Should we abandon our ally Israel?
NEWS
December 2, 2013
I fully support diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear programs, especially if it eliminates their efforts to produce an atomic bomb ("The nuclear deal with Iran," Nov. 25). However, I doubt that we can trust the word of Iran on this issue. What seems to be missing here is an additional effort to stop Iran from funding and helping terrorist groups. I think that changing their policy of wishing harm on Israel and other countries should be part of any agreement. This encouragement of terrorists is just as harmful to world peace.
NEWS
November 30, 2013
We provided North Korea with the technology and materials to build nuclear plants for energy only, they promised not to build a bomb. They have tested seven bombs and have more. Now they are building ICBMs. Now, Iran says if we lift some sanctions, they will talk to the U.N. about not trying to make bombs. After top secret talks between the U.S. and Iran, the Obama administration went public with planned talks with the U.N. and Iran. The reason our talks were secret is we haven't had normal relations since they stormed our embassy and held our citizens hostage for 444 days.
NEWS
November 28, 2013
If the leaders of Iran consider that the current agreement allows that nation to continue its uranium enrichment program, then it will do so despite any protests by the U.S. ("Kerry defends Iran deal," Nov. 25). In the meantime, Iran has broken the back of sanctions that have been imposed on that nation with the probability that funds will be used to support its faltering economy and military program. Is our president sufficiently naive enough to think that this deal has caused Iran to abandon its nuclear bomb program?
NEWS
By Cal Thomas | November 26, 2013
Seeking to create an analogy with the deal the United States negotiated with Iran to supposedly limit further production of its centrifuges, Secretary of State John Kerry chose to recall disarmament agreements between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A better analogy would be the 1938 Munich Pact, which gave Hitler part of Czechoslovakia in the vain hope that war could be avoided. It is worth noting that several of the nations that were signatories in Munich - namely Germany, France and Britain - are also part of the current deal with Iran.
NEWS
November 25, 2013
Since the Iran nuclear deal was announced late Saturday, the criticism has been predictable. Israel's leadership isn't happy; neither is Saudi Arabia's. And there's a customary skepticism in Congress, particularly from Republicans, the most outlandish of whom see it as part of a grand scheme to keep their attacks on Obamacare off the front page. But at its heart, the accord is historic not because it ensures Iran won't develop nuclear weapons but because it starts a process by which that goal might be accomplished.
Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.