The following are editorial opinions from newspapers from around the world which may be of interest to

Royal Gazette readers.

The Jerusalem Post –on Iranian 'containment'In his speech before the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu focused on Iran. "Containment will not work," Netanyahu warned, and he called to move beyond sanctions to mounting a "credible military threat" against the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu's comments, coming less than a week after US midterm elections handed a major victory to Republicans, highlighted the growing daylight between Israel and the Republicans on one side, and the Democrats on the other, over Iran's nuclear program. While there is bipartisan support for "crippling sanctions," and while Israel is emphatically publicly supportive of the sanctions effort, the sides are split over the fallback position in the event sanctions don't work. ...

"Containment" is a term borrowed from the Cold War era when the US in the mid-1960s refrained from attacking China's nuclear plants to prevent Mao from getting the bomb. In the Iranian context, containment implies that since it is impossible to stop Iran from attaining nuclear capability, all efforts should now be focused on deterring Iran from using it and preventing nuclear proliferation. ... With Israel on the front lines as a country that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said should be "wiped off the map," a failed containment policy is an existential threat. ... But what happens if these sanctions are exhausted and the Islamic Republic remains undeterred in its hell-bent push for nuclear capability? For Israel, many in the Republican party and some Democrats, and the majority of Americans and French, the answer is clear. The more credible a military threat today, the greater the chance that a resort to force may not prove necessary.

The Dallas Morning News –on Karzai and the Afghan missionOnce again, an ill-considered statement by Afghanistan's mercurial president, Hamid Karzai, has cast a shadow over the US-led military mission. Karzai raised doubts in an interview about why foreign troops are necessary and suggested it's time to curtail Nato operations and start withdrawing. The blowback was swift. Gen. David Petraeus, the coalition military commander, warned that Karzai's criticism makes the general's job "untenable." A scheduled meeting between the two was cancelled. In an interview with The Washington Post, Karzai described relations between the US and Afghanistan as "grudging" and expressed deep scepticism about American policy. From his perspective, these might not be verbal blunders but rather a candid expression of his true feelings. That's exactly the problem.

Respected world leaders rarely speak their minds publicly. Statesmen understand the importance of measuring their words carefully to avoid creating the tensions that Karzai regularly stirs. Few countries have such a high dependence on international military assistance as Afghanistan. When speaking publicly, Karzai must place his country's broader security interests ahead of his personal desire to vent. ... President Barack Obama shares the blame with his flip-flopping on Afghanistan policy, particularly regarding the date to begin US withdrawal. ... Karzai needs to learn the art of keeping his mouth shut. Obama needs to articulate a clear and unambiguous policy that doesn't give Karzai justification for continued outbursts. ...

Policy ambiguities aside, the current US strategy is showing positive results. Karzai's antics must not be allowed to derail America's mission.