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
(Jerusalem Post) Daniel Pipes - * As the Iranian regime barrels forward, openly calling for the destruction of Israel and overtly breaking the nuclear non-proliferation rules, two distinctly undesirable prospects confront the West. The first is to acquiesce to Teheran and hope for the best. The second consists of the U.S. destroying key Iranian installations. But is there a third option to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities? * Iran is an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of international isolation, not to speak of air strikes. A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Teheran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear. * Deterring Teheran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to U.S. air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus. 2006-05-10 00:00:00Full Article
Deterring Teheran
(Jerusalem Post) Daniel Pipes - * As the Iranian regime barrels forward, openly calling for the destruction of Israel and overtly breaking the nuclear non-proliferation rules, two distinctly undesirable prospects confront the West. The first is to acquiesce to Teheran and hope for the best. The second consists of the U.S. destroying key Iranian installations. But is there a third option to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities? * Iran is an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of international isolation, not to speak of air strikes. A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Teheran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear. * Deterring Teheran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to U.S. air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus. 2006-05-10 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|