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
(Ynet News) Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin - "A good agreement would keep Iran at least two years away from nuclear bombs," writes former IDF Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, who now heads the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, in an essay titled "A Conceptual Framework and Decision-Making Model for Israel about Iran." But without a credible threat of military action, diplomacy and other strategies to block or delay Iranian nuclearization would be ineffective, he states. "It is also important to build up maximal legitimacy for a future strike should diplomacy fail....It is incumbent to ensure that the entire world is prepared to participate in the ongoing effort to stop Iran the day and the decade after the attack." "Demonstrating the scope of losses to Iran from maintaining its military nuclear program, continuing the sanctions, blocking critical technologies and materials, threatening repeated attacks, and continuing diplomatic pressure are all part of a necessary next stage campaign in which Israel cannot succeed on its own." "This manifests the importance of gaining legitimacy for an Israeli strike and international - or at least American - recognition that Israel acted only after all other attempts had failed." "Without legitimacy allowing an international campaign over the subsequent decade, Israel faces the risk of finding itself opting for bombing and bearing its full cost, and still ending up with the Iranian bomb and its attendant dangers." "The Iranians have neither the capability nor the interest in setting fire to the entire Middle East. It is almost certain that there would be an Iranian response after an attack, but calculated Iranian interests suggest that it would be measured and tolerable, especially in light of the achievement of stopping Iran's nuclear program." 2012-08-16 00:00:00Full Article
Decision-Making about Iran
(Ynet News) Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin - "A good agreement would keep Iran at least two years away from nuclear bombs," writes former IDF Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, who now heads the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, in an essay titled "A Conceptual Framework and Decision-Making Model for Israel about Iran." But without a credible threat of military action, diplomacy and other strategies to block or delay Iranian nuclearization would be ineffective, he states. "It is also important to build up maximal legitimacy for a future strike should diplomacy fail....It is incumbent to ensure that the entire world is prepared to participate in the ongoing effort to stop Iran the day and the decade after the attack." "Demonstrating the scope of losses to Iran from maintaining its military nuclear program, continuing the sanctions, blocking critical technologies and materials, threatening repeated attacks, and continuing diplomatic pressure are all part of a necessary next stage campaign in which Israel cannot succeed on its own." "This manifests the importance of gaining legitimacy for an Israeli strike and international - or at least American - recognition that Israel acted only after all other attempts had failed." "Without legitimacy allowing an international campaign over the subsequent decade, Israel faces the risk of finding itself opting for bombing and bearing its full cost, and still ending up with the Iranian bomb and its attendant dangers." "The Iranians have neither the capability nor the interest in setting fire to the entire Middle East. It is almost certain that there would be an Iranian response after an attack, but calculated Iranian interests suggest that it would be measured and tolerable, especially in light of the achievement of stopping Iran's nuclear program." 2012-08-16 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|