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
(Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv University) Ephraim Kam - During July, a few voices in the U.S., including former CIA head Gen. Michael Hayden, called for a reassessment of a military option against Iran. It appears that a certain change is emerging among certain elements in the American security establishment regarding the military option. The change of tone stems primarily from growing skepticism concerning the effectiveness of sanctions, and that at the end of the day, sanctions alone will not stop Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. Do these sentiments reflect a change in the American administration's stance regarding the military option? Not yet. As long as the administration believes that political moves, including the most recent round of sanctions, have not yet been exhausted, it will not tap a military option. But even if the administration continues to disapprove of military measures at this juncture, it apparently feels the need to draw attention to a military option in order to beef up the pressure of the sanctions on Iran. A second objective is to increase the pressure on other governments, specifically Russia and China, to cooperate with the implementation of the sanctions, with the implicit message that if they do not achieve the desired results, the administration will have no choice but to resort to military action. 2010-08-11 09:19:41Full Article
Is the Military Option Back on the Table?
(Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv University) Ephraim Kam - During July, a few voices in the U.S., including former CIA head Gen. Michael Hayden, called for a reassessment of a military option against Iran. It appears that a certain change is emerging among certain elements in the American security establishment regarding the military option. The change of tone stems primarily from growing skepticism concerning the effectiveness of sanctions, and that at the end of the day, sanctions alone will not stop Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. Do these sentiments reflect a change in the American administration's stance regarding the military option? Not yet. As long as the administration believes that political moves, including the most recent round of sanctions, have not yet been exhausted, it will not tap a military option. But even if the administration continues to disapprove of military measures at this juncture, it apparently feels the need to draw attention to a military option in order to beef up the pressure of the sanctions on Iran. A second objective is to increase the pressure on other governments, specifically Russia and China, to cooperate with the implementation of the sanctions, with the implicit message that if they do not achieve the desired results, the administration will have no choice but to resort to military action. 2010-08-11 09:19:41Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|