Nuclear Issues

"Many states in the region, especially those that have been vocal in their criticism of Iran's nuclear program, feel threatened not by the prospects of a nuclear Iran, but by Iranian-Western rapprochement. Political and economic isolation have helped states like Saudi Arabia, who fear losing their military, economic, and political ties and privileges with the United States. After all, Tehran and Washington did have close relations prior to 1979 and, given that the two countries have a lot in common, they could develop ties again."

"Moscow...has a history of manipulating energy supplies for political ends. It used the suspension and threat of suspension of gas supplies to put pressure on its neighbors, including Ukraine. That means it is reasonable for Tehran to have concerns about Russia's trustworthiness as a partner on Bushehr. And unlike some other countries, Iran doesn't have the option of turning to multiple foreign providers, and doesn't believe that it is likely anyone will come to its rescue if Russia doesn't deliver.

Russia is violating Ukrainian sovereignty and international law by sending troops to seize communications, transportation, and governmental hubs on the Crimean peninsula. Soldiers violating borders to seize territory in Europe is a grave matter, reminiscent of a darker past that Europe has tried to escape.

What has Barack Obama's administration done to respond?

"...[R]ising regional powers such as Turkey and Brazil can fulfill the role of active partners and help bridge the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the two sides; Iran and 5+1. These actors' perspectives on issues such as international peace and security, comprehensive global disarmament and nuclear monopolies have many supporters in the international community, especially among the Non-Aligned Movement's members, who are fed up with duplicity and self-aggrandizing policies of some of the great powers."

"...Germany has an opportunity at the Washington summit — and thereafter — to step up and lend non-American leadership to the problem. Recognizing that in many of the world's capitals the threat of nuclear terrorism is not yet being taken seriously, and when in some of them the very notion is even considered an American pretext for an entirely different, potentially hostile political agenda, non-American leadership is most urgently needed."

There is much to learn from the British: their reticence about disclosing details, their clear expertise in human intelligence, their non-hysterical reaction to very real threats. But how we deal with our immigrant and domestic populations is certainly not one of them.

In the next week or so, Congress is expected to vote on a bill to renew certain expiring sections of the Patriot Act. The debate over this law is a crucial conversation for our country and for how we protect both the security and privacy of a free citizenry.

Like every other country, the United States has, in the name of security, made mistakes that we admit only later. What separates us from those regimes we abhor isn't that we never act cruelly. It's that we reject, rather than defend, our departures from our ideals and we actively seek to prevent such abuses from happening again.

Contrary to popular view, the Patriot Act did not address many of the toughest legal issues Americans face in trying to balance our concern for our freedoms with worries about our safety in the war on terror. What are needed are new rules for a new era.