Science, Technology, and Public Policy

"The key to a solution to both — the quagmire that has unfolded in Syria and the threat posed by Islamic terrorism — is to deprive the terrorist groups of their main propaganda tools and to form a new Syrian government that excludes Assad (and his foreign Shiite allies) but includes representatives from all of the non-fundamentalist groups involved in the civil war."

"This isolation has left Tehran no option but to turn to Moscow. And, as relations between the US and Russia have deteriorated, the Middle Eastern state has the scope to become an evermore decisive and divisive factor."

"The United States and several key regional states, including Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey may have very different interests, but they all have a shared interest in better understanding and working together to stop groups that dislike Americans as much as Jews, Persians, Shi’as, secular Muslims, and the Saudi monarchy. They should refrain from empowering and expressing blind support for a group or entity without fully understanding it first."

"...[T]o understand the origins of anti-Americanism in pre-revolutionary Iran, look no further. The MEK was responsible for the assassination and failed attempts to kidnap and assassinate Americans in Iran in the 1970s. It was also the MEK that pressured the Islamic revolutionaries to take a stronger stance against the United States. The MEK further supported the 1979 U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran."

"Like the Taliban’s Afghanistan before 9/11, the Islamic State may become a safe haven for people from other groups and countries to train and plot complex attacks."

"Critics of the role of universities in economic transformation argue that higher education takes too long to show results and that its focus is usually too academic. However, the evidence suggests that practically oriented universities offer the fastest and most durable ways to incubate new states. With the right vision, universities can confer their attributes to a new state."

The United States' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to come to an end, even after the death of Osama Bin Laden. These wars which were initiated and continued based on the sacred and ideological aim of the complete destruction of world terrorism (Al Qaeda) will simultaneously provide the grounds for local and opposing forces to justify their resistance in the form of a sacred ideological war against foreign occupiers. In the case of a bilateral ideological war, with no possible winner, therefore the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have mostly local and regional roots, will not come to end in the near future.

"The weakening of the EU's role as an independent and mediatory player in the nuclear talks, however, beyond economic losses, could bring negative strategic and political consequences for the EU's status in the entire Middle East, which could in turn damage the region's interests. The new economic sanctions will preclude the opportunity of investment by the EU in Iran's gas and oil sectors, thus decreasing trade and commerce between the two—a shift of policy that provoked a sharp rise in China's activities in those sectors."

"Following the parliamentary elections of Iraq in March 2010 and the long-time deadlock which had stalled formation of the coalition government for nearly 8 months and the West's disappointing efforts to talk with the Taliban, it is now crystal-clear that the United States cannot tackle these crises single-handedly and needs Iran's cooperation as the main regional actor in settling the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, either during the presence and even after the withdrawal of American troops from both countries. The importance of this issue becomes manifest as one realizes that curbing terrorist activities in this region is directly connected to the establishment of security and stability in the region after the withdrawal of foreign troops. In such circumstances, Iran's role for the establishment and preservation of stability becomes crucial."

"Non-binding agreements, such as the Nuclear Summit's communiqué ... have the benefit of being developed and implemented quickly. Countries can more easily reach agreement, in the knowledge that an inability to comply will not result in harsh sanction. Yet, these agreements are not toothless, as opponents would claim. By publicly committing to adhere to the communiqué's principles, countries signal their intentions, and can damage their reputation if they fail to deliver. Many countries made national commitments in addition to the communiqué, to which they can be held accountable. For example, Ukraine committed to removing all highly enriched uranium from its territory by the next Summit in 2012. Ukraine's progress can be monitored and pressure brought to bear if its commitment is not met."