Put it on paper; make it public

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Iran and and six world powers have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public, officials told The Associated Press Thursday. [Associated Press]

Perhaps there is some overriding principle I haven't considered, but it seems to me that this agreement should be in writing (I've read that it likely won't be) and that every word of it should be made public (I understand that our last agreement with Iran was never made public).

This is a big deal. This agreement may well determine if Iran -- widely acknowledged as the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world -- acquires nuclear weapons. Why on Earth would we not want the terms explicitly laid out in precise language (i.e. in words) to ensure that all parties are crystal clear about what is being agreed to? And so that any violations of the agreement can be judged against a clear and unambiguous document? This is especially important since Iran has a long history of violating such agreements.

As to whether the agreement should be made public, Barack Obama is our elected representative. How do we not have a right to know what he is committing us to? We should be able to examine the agreement. We should be able to discuss and assess it. We should have the option to act on that assessment in the next election if we feel a change in policy is needed to protect our interests and security.

This whole process stinks. Wasn't this supposed to be "the most transparent administration in history?"

Foreign policy, the next four years

Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is talking much about foreign policy these days. This is understandable given the state of the economy. Still, it's important to understand the candidate's foreign policy positions, as back burner issues have an uncanny habit of turning into crises when we're not looking.

Jackson Diehl has put together a helpful summary of what he believes are "big and bright" differences between Obama and Romney on matters abroad. Here are the bullet points:

• Russia: Obama is committed to striking a deal with Putin to reduce nuclear stockpiles and intends to offer compromises on NATO missile defense to bring this about. Romney intends to do the opposite, holding nuclear capabilities where they are and increasing missile defense.
• Afghanistan: Both candidates support plans to withdraw forces by the end of 2014. However, Obama is likely to order a cut in 2013, while Romney will follow the advice of U.S. generals to maintain troop levels through the end of next year.
• Syria: Obama rejects proposals to set up safe zones for civilians or supply weapons to the rebels. Romney is in favor of arming the rebels.
• Iran: Obama will likely use force only after the Iranians start building a bomb. Romney will likely act if Iran gets close to obtaining all the materials for a bomb.
• Israel-Palestine: Obama remains eager for the establishment of a Palestinian state, despite failing in his first-term attempts. Look for him to try again in a second term. Romney is not likely to push on this front.

With these having been documented as the things to watch, look for the real crisis to emerge in North Korea, China, or Latin America.