Mar 6, 2015 4 min read

Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad as compiled by the Associated Press:

When Benjamin Netanyahu accepted an invitation from House Republicans to address Congress on Iran, some expected the Israeli prime minister to offer damning new details about the nuclear agreement that appears to be taking shape. In fact, his speech focused less on the specific shortcomings of what he called “a very bad deal” than on the fact it would empower an unsavory regime of religious zealots.

Netanyahu was right to point to Iran’s repression of dissidents, journalists and gays, its alliance with Syria’s Bashar Assad and its sponsorship of militants in Lebanon and Yemen. But it’s possible to condemn Iran’s violations of human rights, its meddling in other countries, its anti-Semitic, anti-Israel rants and still take advantage of the current Iranian leadership’s apparent willingness to negotiate restrictions on its nuclear program – restrictions that can also serve Israel’s interests.

The details of the emerging deal have not been made public, so it’s impossible at this point for us to support or oppose them. But Netanyahu’s speech made it clear his differences with President Obama are not primarily about the fine print. The real difference is Netanyahu believes Iran is implacably evil and fundamentally untrustworthy, while Obama and his negotiating partners believe Iran is a rational country that responds to incentives and disincentives.

To trust Iran is a gamble. But in our view, it is a risk worth taking – as long as that country’s assertions of good faith are balanced by serious and verifiable restrictions on its behavior and backed by a robust regime of monitoring and inspections.

Given the alternative – military action that many believe would slow Iran’s nuclear progress for a few years at best – diplomacy still seems the wiser course.

The president’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline project was as predictable as it is nettlesome.

The project, which would have added about 1,000 miles to the nation’s existing network of 330,000 miles of pipelines, would have made it easier to move oil from the Midwest to Gulf Coast refineries. What made the project so extraordinary as the basis for an enduring partisan brouhaha was the fact that, in itself, it is so very ordinary.

Obama’s veto will not stop the extraction of oil from Alberta sands, not one bit. That will continue unabated. It will not stop Canadian oil from reaching the Gulf Coast – eventually – because it will likely come by rail, which may present greater safety risks than pipelines. Nowadays, about 1 million barrels of oil a day move by rail, and trains almost always reach their destination. But sometimes – and only sometimes – they end up in derailments or fiery crashes.

The Keystone XL is not dead, not by any stretch. The pipeline plan is probably sound enough and its pieces enough in place that it will endure another two years until another president takes office.

One way or another, Russian President Vladimir Putin has Boris Nemtsov’s blood on his hands. If Putin didn’t order the opposition leader’s murder under the Kremlin’s very shadow, he fanned the lethal atmosphere of hysteria and hatred that tars his critics as traitors. However loath most Russians may be to admit it, their country is slipping into political depravity.

By now, the list of Putin’s murdered foes is sickeningly long. Like the others, Nemtsov was a brave figure who spoke truth to power. He deserves better than to have Putin take the murder probe under his “personal control.” If anyone is held accountable, it won’t be Putin or those close to him. Already, Kremlin apologists are spreading smoke, speculating the murder may be anything from a common crime to a crime of passion, Islamist terrorism or a conspiracy to discredit the presidency.

The truth is uglier, as the newspaper Novaya Gazeta wrote. Russia is at the “point of no return, of radical destabilization.” Every critic is now a traitor. And no one knows where this will end.