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
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Michael Herzog - The March 5 summit between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu helped clarify positions and narrow gaps, yet significant differences remain. Israelis are pleased that the Iranian nuclear file has moved to the top of the U.S. and global agenda, with the international community adopting sharp sanctions for the first time. They also appreciate Obama's strong public statements rejecting containment, depicting a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to U.S. national security, pledging to keep all options on the table - including the military one - and, above all, respecting Israel's sovereign right to protect its vital national security interests. Yet the White House apparently reiterated its negative attitude toward a premature strike during the summit, urging Israel to allow sufficient time for sanctions and diplomacy to work first. Looming over the meeting was a growing sense of urgency in Israel, driven by the fact that Iran has begun to immunize critical components of its advancing nuclear capabilities against military strikes. Israel and Washington part ways when defining triggers for military action and, therefore, when determining the critical timeframe for stopping Iran's drive toward dangerous nuclear capabilities. From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program undoubtedly carries a military dimension, even if Tehran has not yet made a concrete decision to produce a bomb. This fact, along with the regime's nature and ideology, validates a military option once Iran acquires the essential capabilities to overtly or covertly weaponize. Waiting until Iran actually makes that dash is too risky. Notwithstanding their differing perspectives, the less daylight seen between Washington and Israel, the better. Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog (ret.) is The Washington Institute's Milton Fine international fellow, based in Israel. Previously, he served as head of the IDF Strategic Planning Division and chief of staff to the minister of defense. 2012-03-19 00:00:00Full Article
Washington and Israel on Iran: Unresolved Differences
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Michael Herzog - The March 5 summit between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu helped clarify positions and narrow gaps, yet significant differences remain. Israelis are pleased that the Iranian nuclear file has moved to the top of the U.S. and global agenda, with the international community adopting sharp sanctions for the first time. They also appreciate Obama's strong public statements rejecting containment, depicting a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to U.S. national security, pledging to keep all options on the table - including the military one - and, above all, respecting Israel's sovereign right to protect its vital national security interests. Yet the White House apparently reiterated its negative attitude toward a premature strike during the summit, urging Israel to allow sufficient time for sanctions and diplomacy to work first. Looming over the meeting was a growing sense of urgency in Israel, driven by the fact that Iran has begun to immunize critical components of its advancing nuclear capabilities against military strikes. Israel and Washington part ways when defining triggers for military action and, therefore, when determining the critical timeframe for stopping Iran's drive toward dangerous nuclear capabilities. From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program undoubtedly carries a military dimension, even if Tehran has not yet made a concrete decision to produce a bomb. This fact, along with the regime's nature and ideology, validates a military option once Iran acquires the essential capabilities to overtly or covertly weaponize. Waiting until Iran actually makes that dash is too risky. Notwithstanding their differing perspectives, the less daylight seen between Washington and Israel, the better. Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog (ret.) is The Washington Institute's Milton Fine international fellow, based in Israel. Previously, he served as head of the IDF Strategic Planning Division and chief of staff to the minister of defense. 2012-03-19 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|