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 Post) Editorial - If Tehran again refuses to make concessions, and continues to press ahead with uranium enrichment at a new underground facility, military action by Israel or the U.S. may become inevitable. Hardly anyone, however, thinks it likely that the U.S. and its partners will be able to strike a deal that ends the Iranian nuclear threat or satisfies UN resolutions on the issue. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears firmly opposed to any lasting accord. The Obama administration has spelled out what it thinks is necessary: an Iranian agreement to cease its higher-level enrichment of uranium to the level of 20%; to export the 100 kg. of fuel already processed to that level; and to close down the new facility buried under a mountain near the city of Qom. A deal along those lines would offend Israel and many in Congress. Like them, we have taken the position that Iran should stop all enrichment, as required by the UN resolutions, in order to obtain sanctions relief. But Iranian compliance with the administration's terms could greatly reduce tensions, and it could prevent the program from moving into what Israel describes as a "zone of immunity," in which it could be invulnerable to a conventional Israeli air attack. The risk is that it would be counterproductive in the medium term, because it would ease what is now mounting economic pressure on Iran and allow the regime breathing space. It could leave the nuclear program in a stronger position than it was - with more centrifuges and enough low-enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs with further processing. If the regime refused a more comprehensive deal, or cheated, it might be difficult to restore sanctions that only now finally appear to be biting. 2012-04-12 00:00:00Full Article
A Last Chance for a Deal with Iran on Nuclear Weapons?
(Washington Post) Editorial - If Tehran again refuses to make concessions, and continues to press ahead with uranium enrichment at a new underground facility, military action by Israel or the U.S. may become inevitable. Hardly anyone, however, thinks it likely that the U.S. and its partners will be able to strike a deal that ends the Iranian nuclear threat or satisfies UN resolutions on the issue. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears firmly opposed to any lasting accord. The Obama administration has spelled out what it thinks is necessary: an Iranian agreement to cease its higher-level enrichment of uranium to the level of 20%; to export the 100 kg. of fuel already processed to that level; and to close down the new facility buried under a mountain near the city of Qom. A deal along those lines would offend Israel and many in Congress. Like them, we have taken the position that Iran should stop all enrichment, as required by the UN resolutions, in order to obtain sanctions relief. But Iranian compliance with the administration's terms could greatly reduce tensions, and it could prevent the program from moving into what Israel describes as a "zone of immunity," in which it could be invulnerable to a conventional Israeli air attack. The risk is that it would be counterproductive in the medium term, because it would ease what is now mounting economic pressure on Iran and allow the regime breathing space. It could leave the nuclear program in a stronger position than it was - with more centrifuges and enough low-enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs with further processing. If the regime refused a more comprehensive deal, or cheated, it might be difficult to restore sanctions that only now finally appear to be biting. 2012-04-12 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|