Two upcoming special elections, in Illinois and Delaware, may offer Senate Republicans the power to oppose a lame-duck session and block the controversial measures that Democrats may try to enact with the votes of defeated or retiring politicians.

With the threat of a veto hanging over its head, the National Defense Authorization bill heads to the House floor today for debate. Among the provisions are several dealing with the question of a nuclear weapons armed Iran, and what the United States should do to avert a crisis, prepare to handle the threat, or eliminate the threat altogether.

Ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed, and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is fast approaching reality. What are the real diplomatic, strategic and military costs and challenges?

After a post I did earlier this week on Congress caving on Central Bank of Iran sanctions, I got a grumpy call from my buds at AIPAC. No, they had not “sided with the Obama administration” as I claimed, except in the case of a couple of technical changes to the Menendez-Kirk amendment and one substantial change.

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post entitled Romney’s wrong-headed assertions about Iran. The piece is so… Amazing, one hardly knows where to begin.

Tomorrow, AEI will release a report, “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran,” which I co-authored with my colleagues Tom Donnelly and Maseh Zarif. (It will be live here tomorrow at 9 a.m.) We’ll talk about it at an event on the Hill with Senator Mark Kirk at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

George H. Nash will deliver the September 2010 Bradley Lecture at AEI.

Hill conferees filed the National Defense Authorization bill last night, which means the conference agreed upon final language. The bill has enjoyed its share of controversy over a detainee provision, but another viciously fought battle included a provision to sanction the Central Bank of Iran. You remember the Central Bank?