The real test of the Geneva agreement will be whether it does mark a move away from the old failed model of military conflict and towards building long-term peace instead. Ultimately, though, this requires full transparency of all nuclear programmes by all countries, full international cooperation for the immediate elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and an end to future reliance on nuclear energy. Only then can we be sure that our hopes of a secure deal for the planet will be realized.
The real-politik of the region is that Israel has never posed a threat to Islam or Arab nationalism. It's the possible spread of democracy from Israel that Arab leaders have long feared. Shiite Iran, on the other hand, sees itself as leader of the mainly Sunni Islamic world and wants to take that honour away from the Saudis. Israel now seems a much lesser of two evils to the Saudi Royal Family...one that could help them curb Iran's ambitions.
Is it possible that inducing a psychological state of fear and paranoia is not just a side-effect, but indeed part of the tactical purpose behind deploying drones? What would be the longer term mental impact on us, if drones constantly circled overhead where we live, arbitrarily and randomly striking out people we knew, every now and then?
I can't help wondering what six Kurdish men currently facing execution in Ghezel Hesar Prison near Tehran might think of the praise being heaped on Rouhani? Like numerous other condemned prisoners in Iran, they face the gallows after being convicted of vaguely-worded offences, including "enmity against God" and "corruption on earth".
On Tuesday, the Liberal Democrat Conference will debate and vote on the future of Britain's nuclear weapons system. Putting this controversial issue out for open debate is much to the party's credit and its record on challenging the status quo on Trident is streets ahead of the two main Westminster parties, which remain mired in Cold war thinking.
Once again renewing Trident is in the news, so some time soon we can expect to hear politicians or commentators explain that Trident is necessary because off the threats from Iran or North Korea, or some other rogue regime. Unfortunately, this is a complete red herring of an argument as long as you've thought about the issue for a couple of minutes. And now I'm going to explain why.
By leading through example, President Obama and the Senate would be demonstrating political strength while opening the door for the other remaining states to ratify. In the end, ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty would demonstrate the United States' commitment to global leadership and strategic foresight. Ultimately, ratification would bolster US national security and make its citizens safer.
The UK is currently at a crossroads: we can choose to become a world leader in disarmament, non-proliferation and the verification systems necessary to realise the eradication of nuclear weapons worldwide, or we can choose to contribute to global insecurity, nuclear proliferation, and increase the risk of nuclear terrorism through the modernising of our nuclear arsenal.
Today the Iranian people go to the polls for the first time since 2009's controversial reelection of President Ahmadinejad... Unfortunately, with hundreds of candidates disqualified and all the current Presidential hopefuls part of the ruling establishment and links with Ayatollah Khamenei, it is unlikely that there will be any reforms.
The dangers involved are now on clear display in the escalating crisis in North Korea as the United States seeks to strike a delicate balance between deterring an unknown adversary and reassuring a nervous ally. What's more, the drama plays out in full view of an international audience, some of whom are watching for clues about the utility of nuclear weapons in the 21st Century.