Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
[Wall Street Journal] Alexander Benard - * The United States should propose a conversation with Iran about human rights. Since the rigged presidential election, Tehran has continued its ruthless crackdown on political dissent. The regime initiated mass trials against more than 100 people associated with the post-election protests. Other members of the opposition have already been imprisoned, tortured and forced to provide false confessions that they were acting as foreign spies. * In this context, negotiations about Iran's nuclear program would not only be inappropriate, they would also be counterproductive. Nuclear talks would allow Ahmadinejad to divert attention away from the serious fault lines in Iran that events have revealed in the last few months - both within the regime, as well as between the regime and the opposition. * While a conversation about Iran's right to nuclear power would in large part rally Iranians behind Ahmadinejad, a conversation on human rights would do just the opposite. The idea is similar in principle to Sen. Henry ("Scoop") Jackson's push for introducing human rights as a component of our negotiations with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. * Ahmadinejad would face a clear choice: Accept the framework and risk providing Iranians with the very freedoms that could undermine his totalitarian regime; or, more likely, reject the framework and incur the wrath of Iran's democrats. A majority of the Iranian people want greater protection for human rights and better relations with the West. Here would be an opportunity for them to have both. * Ironically, by declining to talk about nuclear weapons, the U.S. actually stands a better chance of resolving that very issue. The regime will never voluntarily give up its nuclear program, no matter how many carrots Mr. Obama offers. * The nuclear issue will go away only when this regime does. Shifting the focus to human rights is helpful in that respect, since it weakens the mullahs and accelerates real democratic change. The writer has worked at the Department of Defense and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2009-08-18 06:00:00Full Article
Engaging Iran on Human Rights
[Wall Street Journal] Alexander Benard - * The United States should propose a conversation with Iran about human rights. Since the rigged presidential election, Tehran has continued its ruthless crackdown on political dissent. The regime initiated mass trials against more than 100 people associated with the post-election protests. Other members of the opposition have already been imprisoned, tortured and forced to provide false confessions that they were acting as foreign spies. * In this context, negotiations about Iran's nuclear program would not only be inappropriate, they would also be counterproductive. Nuclear talks would allow Ahmadinejad to divert attention away from the serious fault lines in Iran that events have revealed in the last few months - both within the regime, as well as between the regime and the opposition. * While a conversation about Iran's right to nuclear power would in large part rally Iranians behind Ahmadinejad, a conversation on human rights would do just the opposite. The idea is similar in principle to Sen. Henry ("Scoop") Jackson's push for introducing human rights as a component of our negotiations with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. * Ahmadinejad would face a clear choice: Accept the framework and risk providing Iranians with the very freedoms that could undermine his totalitarian regime; or, more likely, reject the framework and incur the wrath of Iran's democrats. A majority of the Iranian people want greater protection for human rights and better relations with the West. Here would be an opportunity for them to have both. * Ironically, by declining to talk about nuclear weapons, the U.S. actually stands a better chance of resolving that very issue. The regime will never voluntarily give up its nuclear program, no matter how many carrots Mr. Obama offers. * The nuclear issue will go away only when this regime does. Shifting the focus to human rights is helpful in that respect, since it weakens the mullahs and accelerates real democratic change. The writer has worked at the Department of Defense and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2009-08-18 06:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|