Regions / Iran
Common sense says that Washington wont attack Tehran. But columnist Michael Klare questions whether common sense is guiding Bush administration policy.
Washington's uncompromising tactics with both Tehran and Pyongyang have failed to achieve anything but the most radioactive results.
Is Washington planning to attack Iran or just bluffing? Columnist Frida Berrigan reads between the lines of the latest U.S. preparations.
While September was a hopeful month for those interested in the de-escalation of tensions between the Unites States and Iran, neither country has yet developed the desire or will to resolve the outstanding issues that exist between them.
The Nobel Women's Initiative is trying to reduce the risk of war with Iran.
If the U.S. attacks Iran - with nuclear or "conventional" bombs - it is virtually certain that Iranian retaliation will be swift and lethal.
Nuclear proliferation can at best only be slowed down through a process of sanctions and double standards. The use of force shall serve to make other states believe that if only they had the bomb they would be safe. This way leads to catastrophe. The alternative, non-proliferation by cooperation and consent, cannot succeed as long as the United States is insistent on retaining and improving its nuclear arsenal and allowing its allies to have these weapons.
Iran is not the only major challenge to the NPT regime.
With the U.S. military under siege in Iraq, and polls running heavily against the White House's Middle East version of Vietnam, are military strike plans on Iran just bluster and so much talk?
A one-stop shop for understanding the current crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions: the international players, the fuel cycle and major proposals for regulating it, and a policy to steer us to "calmer waters."