Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in 2005 resulted in an emboldened Iranian foreign policy and a heightened international response. A vast majority of Iranians are opposed to foreign sanctions against the country, yet a considerable number of them derive a tacit sense of satisfaction from seeing them imposed as it challenges, and thus might awaken, an establishment they have desperately, but vainly so far, sought to reform.

The threat posed by extreme terrorism to the United Kingdom is both serious and ongoing, specifically since the catastrophic events 9/11 and 7/7. Security and liberty are both essential to modern democracy, but they do not hold equal value. Thus, security should be given greater weight than liberty in order to secure the state and prevent future terrorist attacks.

Freedom of expression is the core of a healthy media, a fundamental human right, and vital for a democratic structure. Lack of information can, at any stage of a conflict, make people desperate, restless and easy to manipulate. The potential of the media in conflict and post-conflict situations remains a net positive, and has been sadly underutilized to this point in time

Many countries use national security as the pretext for violating human rights, but why should Iran single out the Baha’is for this kind of persecution? Since President Ahmadinejad came to power in 2006, the situation has worsened for the Baha’i community in Iran. Recently, more shocking news surfaced about the demolition of houses in the province of Mazandran in the north of Iran. But this was not an isolated event. In 2007, six Baha’i houses were set on fire and more recently, almost 50 houses have been demolished.

There a palpable sense of both exuberance and excitement in recent developments in gender and international politics. Though I use the word gender, this still tends to end up meaning women; I wonder why this is, especially as scholarly texts distinctly and convincingly explain that gender is not just about women. And though this is surely true, the idea doesn’t seem to stick, or at least stick where we want it to.

The international community must accept Iran’s nuclear program. This is not a desirable admission, nor is it a triumph for anyone, lest the Iranians themselves who would better receive the funds spent on their own faltering economy. Yet, it must be seen within the deterrence paradigm, and as such, no realistic threat to anyone. If we are to accept that Iran is a rational actor wishing to survive and prosper, then we must accept that it is aware that using its nuclear arsenal would be suicide.

Glimpses of post-9/11 anti-terrorism machinery are not particularly edifying, whatever one’s views. The real solution to terrorism is more rule of law, not less.

I want to draw attention to a key point that is frequently overlooked—that, in the context of modern pluralism, we must now regard secularism as one of those worldviews that plays a quite significant role in the direction and nature of the modern state. And, further, once we do this, our whole understanding of the role of religion in the modern state is transformed as well.

Five years before Hezbollah, ten years before Al Qaeda and Hamas, and 15 years before the Taliban, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was founded in northern Sri Lanka in 1976, beginning life as one of many militias fighting for Tamil independence from the predominantly Sinhalese Sri Lanka

I always tell my students, when sitting an exam, that they have to answer the question that has been set rather than one that they feel comfortable with. No analogy is ever perfect, but this one sums up pretty neatly the outcome of the deliberations by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).