<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>US Policy in a Big World &#187; Iran</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/category/iran/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:06:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Iran Cuts Unexpected Nuke Deal with Brazil and Turkey</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/05/19/iran-cuts-unexpected-nuke-deal-with-brazil-and-turkey/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/05/19/iran-cuts-unexpected-nuke-deal-with-brazil-and-turkey/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 15:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The May 17 nuclear declaration between Iran, Brazil, and Turkey is a positive step but it does not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis since Iran will continue enriching uranium on its own. The declaration might stall UN sanctions against Iran particularly if China or Russia supports it.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/05/19/iran-cuts-unexpected-nuke-deal-with-brazil-and-turkey/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The U.S. Looks to Contain Iran but Avoid Airstrikes</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/16/the-us-looks-to-contain-iran-but-avoid-airstrikes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/16/the-us-looks-to-contain-iran-but-avoid-airstrikes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Competing political and economic interests towards Iran in the international community have weakened US resolve to contain Iran. Today, the focus on containing Iran is to stall Iran’s development of the bomb for as long as possible and then to limit Iran’s ability to make a lot of nuclear weapons later.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/16/the-us-looks-to-contain-iran-but-avoid-airstrikes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuclear Summit Aims to Start Iran&#8217;s Containment</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/12/nuclear-summit-aims-to-start-the-containment-of-iran/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/12/nuclear-summit-aims-to-start-the-containment-of-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit probably signals that President Obama has yielded to Iran’s ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and has shifted his strategy to contain Iran instead. However, this new version of the Containment strategy has a major flaw: it assumes that today’s current Middle East stability will remain intact indefinitely.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/12/nuclear-summit-aims-to-start-the-containment-of-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Nuclear Policy Gamble</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/08/obamas-nuclear-policy-gamble/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/08/obamas-nuclear-policy-gamble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=526</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama knows that he cannot just abolish all US nuclear weapons. Such a policy would endanger America’s national security so long as other states have them. So how can Obama win Middle East support in his effort to keep isolating Iran? He is offering a concession to Arab leaders and others who feel as they do.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/04/08/obamas-nuclear-policy-gamble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is an Iran With Nuclear Weapons a Red Line for America?</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/22/is-an-iran-with-nuclear-weapons-a-red-line/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/22/is-an-iran-with-nuclear-weapons-a-red-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:06:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama needs to decide if Iran’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is a “red line” for America. If it is not, then a softer policy vis-à-vis Iran is possible. If it is a red line, then even extreme measures should be considered.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/22/is-an-iran-with-nuclear-weapons-a-red-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Launches Full Court Diplomatic Press in South Asia and the Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/10/us-launches-full-court-diplomatic-press-in-south-asia-and-the-middle-east/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/10/us-launches-full-court-diplomatic-press-in-south-asia-and-the-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan-Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The January and February breakthroughs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India have extended to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in March. The Obama administration believes correctly that South Asia’s major crises are linked. It also may think that the Iranian nuclear crisis is linked to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/10/us-launches-full-court-diplomatic-press-in-south-asia-and-the-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Iran Get the Bomb?</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/04/should-iran-get-the-bomb/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/04/should-iran-get-the-bomb/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/?p=250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Iran gets the bomb, other Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey would likely respond by getting the bomb too. Venezuela and non-state militant groups could also acquire nuclear weapons with Iran’s assistance.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2010/03/04/should-iran-get-the-bomb/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Bomb and the Shield</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/09/23/russia-and-iran-the-bomb-and-the-shield/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/09/23/russia-and-iran-the-bomb-and-the-shield/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/09/23/russia-and-iran-the-bomb-and-the-shield/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The scrapping of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) system, or missile shield, in Eastern Europe must be put in the proper perspective to see what that decision does and does not affect. On a positive note, US-Russia relations will improve slightly and Russia will be encouraged to conclude the nuclear arms treaty with the US this December (see “US-Russia Summit: Nukes and Interceptors”) now that it thinks its strategic deterrent is safe. On the down side, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons continues and Russia’s political support in this regard is not guaranteed. The actual reasons for why President Obama cancelled the ABM system will be debated for years to come. The likely reasons were Russia’s adamant objection to the missile shield’s location and its threats to destroy it, and that the US was trapped in a losing position from the start (see: “Obama Scraps the ABM System”). Other reasons probably included Obama’s goal to finalize the nuclear weapons treaty with Russia and to improve US-Russia relations in general because the latter can encourage Russian cooperation on other foreign policy issues that are critical to the US. It is also possible that Obama used the ABM dispute to strike a secret deal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/09/23/russia-and-iran-the-bomb-and-the-shield/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran Tests Obama&#8217;s Engagement Strategy</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/06/25/iran-tests-obamas-engagement-strategy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/06/25/iran-tests-obamas-engagement-strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/06/25/iran-tests-obamas-engagement-strategy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to engage America&#8217;s enemies. This essentially meant to approach such states as Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela and restart diplomatic initiatives. Conservatives attacked Obama for this but it must be said that what Obama proposed in theory is what U.S. presidents do all the time: talk to our enemies. The classic example is Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War. Kissinger&#8217;s strategy was to draw close to the Soviets and the Chinese in order to isolate the North Vietnamese. The strategy worked because when Nixon bombed North Vietnam, he was even able to bomb Hanoi without provoking Soviet or Chinese retaliation. Eventually, the North caved and this permitted the U.S. to pull its combat troops out of South Vietnam in 1973. Of course, Kissinger&#8217;s talks were in secret. Maybe that is the big difference. In any case, Obama&#8217;s strategy of diplomatic engagement does look good in theory. Consider what has happened so far. The president gave a key foreign policy speech in Cairo on June 4. The speech extended the proverbial olive branch to the Islamic world, including Iran. More recently, Iranian officials were invited to the U.S. for the July [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.uspolicyinabigworld.com/2009/06/25/iran-tests-obamas-engagement-strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

