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
(Bloomberg) Jeffrey Goldberg - It would be a mistake to assume that just because the president is hesitant on Syria, he will be hesitant on Iran. Why? Because the president has defined the nuclear program of Iran as a core threat to U.S. national security. He has stated repeatedly that it is unacceptable for Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, and his administration has worked assiduously to sanction Iran in the most punishing of ways. In contrast, he has never argued that the continued existence of the Assad regime represents a dire threat to U.S. national security. Not all red lines are created equal. Not all national security challenges are equally dire. It is not analytically sound to assume that the hesitancy of Obama in one area equals hesitancy in another. It would be a mistake for the Iranian regime to believe that the president will not strike their nuclear facilities if he judges them to be near the nuclear threshold.2013-09-09 00:00:00Full Article
Syria Is not the Litmus Test of Obama on Iran
(Bloomberg) Jeffrey Goldberg - It would be a mistake to assume that just because the president is hesitant on Syria, he will be hesitant on Iran. Why? Because the president has defined the nuclear program of Iran as a core threat to U.S. national security. He has stated repeatedly that it is unacceptable for Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, and his administration has worked assiduously to sanction Iran in the most punishing of ways. In contrast, he has never argued that the continued existence of the Assad regime represents a dire threat to U.S. national security. Not all red lines are created equal. Not all national security challenges are equally dire. It is not analytically sound to assume that the hesitancy of Obama in one area equals hesitancy in another. It would be a mistake for the Iranian regime to believe that the president will not strike their nuclear facilities if he judges them to be near the nuclear threshold.2013-09-09 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|