Iran

By demonstrating firmness at the negotiating table, Washington can make plain the alternatives and force Tehran to confront, rather than evade, the consequences of its choices.

On October 15, James Dorsey, a syndicated columnist and author of the blog (and forthcoming book) The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer , addressed a Washington Institute Policy Forum. The following is a rapporteur's summary of his remarks. Over the past several years, soccer fields across the Middle East

In recent months, optimism has replaced malaise in the Iran nuclear talks. This shift is usually attributed to the election of the more pragmatic Hassan Rouhani as president and the impact of U.S. sanctions on Iran's economy. Yet a third, equally important factor is also at work: namely, the United

Institute managing director Michael Singh joined Matthew Duss of the Center for American Progress for a Bloggingheads.tv discussion of Iranian president Rouhani's UN address and the choices facing U.S. policymakers as they explore diplomatic solutions to the nuclear impasse.

More than any previous Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani is an open book. In addition to his own copious Persian-language writings, he has engaged the domestic and international press throughout his three-decade political career, including as former chief nuclear negotiator. Analyzing these writings, speeches, and interviews can help clarify fundamental questions

More Iranians are turning to Salafism out of disenchantment with the Islamic Republic's Shiite creeds, creating a clear threat to the regime's rule.

Although President Obama should head down the diplomatic road toward a nuclear deal with Iran, he must make exceedingly clear what he will not abide.

On September 26, 2013, the Islamic Republic of Iran submitted an "explanatory note" to the IAEA responding to that agency's report on the implementation of nuclear safeguards in Iran. To read the full text of the Iranian letter, download the PDF.

President Rouhani's track record shows that he is deeply committed to preserving the regime's longstanding interests, and frequently at odds with the principles of international law.