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) Patrick Clawson and David Makovsky - The U.S. has apparently been unable to convince Israel that it would be able to both identify an Iranian dash to the nuclear weapons threshold and then act militarily in short enough order. At least a few Israeli leaders are concerned that despite its best intentions, the U.S. will not be able to act in time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. To show its determination to stop Iranian nuclear progress rather than allow interminable, unproductive discussions, Washington must establish benchmarks to be met in order for diplomatic negotiations to continue. Benchmarks offer a more effective alternative to a deadline, which would allow Tehran to stall until the last minute and then set out proposals that may seem attractive at first glance but are really unhelpful. The benchmark model is based on results, not the calendar, taking away Iran's ability to run down the clock. When diplomacy fails because Iran fails to meet the established benchmarks, more forceful measures will follow. The best way to improve the chances for a negotiated settlement is for the West to keep increasing the pressure on Iran. There is much wisdom in the quip that Iran does not respond to pressure; it only responds to great pressure. Tehran does not believe the U.S. and Israel will use all means available to prevent Iran from getting close to having a nuclear weapon. As a result, Washington and Israel must find better ways to demonstrate that they are prepared to take military action if needed. The U.S. and P5+1 focus should always be on stopping Iran's nuclear progress, not on preventing an Israeli strike. Patrick Clawson is director of research at the Washington Institute. David Makovsky is director of the Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process. 2012-09-27 00:00:00Full Article
Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout: U.S.-Israel Coordination
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Patrick Clawson and David Makovsky - The U.S. has apparently been unable to convince Israel that it would be able to both identify an Iranian dash to the nuclear weapons threshold and then act militarily in short enough order. At least a few Israeli leaders are concerned that despite its best intentions, the U.S. will not be able to act in time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. To show its determination to stop Iranian nuclear progress rather than allow interminable, unproductive discussions, Washington must establish benchmarks to be met in order for diplomatic negotiations to continue. Benchmarks offer a more effective alternative to a deadline, which would allow Tehran to stall until the last minute and then set out proposals that may seem attractive at first glance but are really unhelpful. The benchmark model is based on results, not the calendar, taking away Iran's ability to run down the clock. When diplomacy fails because Iran fails to meet the established benchmarks, more forceful measures will follow. The best way to improve the chances for a negotiated settlement is for the West to keep increasing the pressure on Iran. There is much wisdom in the quip that Iran does not respond to pressure; it only responds to great pressure. Tehran does not believe the U.S. and Israel will use all means available to prevent Iran from getting close to having a nuclear weapon. As a result, Washington and Israel must find better ways to demonstrate that they are prepared to take military action if needed. The U.S. and P5+1 focus should always be on stopping Iran's nuclear progress, not on preventing an Israeli strike. Patrick Clawson is director of research at the Washington Institute. David Makovsky is director of the Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process. 2012-09-27 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|