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
(Algemeiner) Alan M. Dershowitz - The U.S. is leading the noble efforts to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough to prevent Iran from having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Yet the deal offered to Iran - to soften some sanctions in return for a promise by the mullahs to preserve the status quo with regard to their nuclear program - does not serve the interest of peace. The understandable concern, expressed by Israeli, French, and Saudi leaders, is that the Iranian leadership is playing for time - that they want to make insignificant concessions in exchange for significant reductions in the sanctions. These leaders, and many experienced nuclear and diplomatic experts, fear that a bad deal would allow the Iranians to inch closer to nuclear weapons capacity while strengthening their faltering economy. Were Iran to use the current diplomatic efforts as a cover to buy time to make a preventive military attack unrealistic, this would indeed be our "Chamberlain moment," a replication of the time when the idealistic but naive British prime minister made a bad deal with the Nazis in a desperate but futile effort to avoid deploying the military option against Hitler's growing power. To weaken the sanctions regime now, in exchange for a promise to maintain the status quo, would be bad diplomacy, poor negotiation and a show of weakness precisely when a show of strength is called for. The leadership of the pro-Israel community, both in the U.S. and Israel, have shown rare unity around the issue of not weakening the sanctions merely in exchange for the promise of a nuclear standstill from the Iranians. 2013-11-13 00:00:00Full Article
Oppose the Deal on Iran
(Algemeiner) Alan M. Dershowitz - The U.S. is leading the noble efforts to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough to prevent Iran from having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Yet the deal offered to Iran - to soften some sanctions in return for a promise by the mullahs to preserve the status quo with regard to their nuclear program - does not serve the interest of peace. The understandable concern, expressed by Israeli, French, and Saudi leaders, is that the Iranian leadership is playing for time - that they want to make insignificant concessions in exchange for significant reductions in the sanctions. These leaders, and many experienced nuclear and diplomatic experts, fear that a bad deal would allow the Iranians to inch closer to nuclear weapons capacity while strengthening their faltering economy. Were Iran to use the current diplomatic efforts as a cover to buy time to make a preventive military attack unrealistic, this would indeed be our "Chamberlain moment," a replication of the time when the idealistic but naive British prime minister made a bad deal with the Nazis in a desperate but futile effort to avoid deploying the military option against Hitler's growing power. To weaken the sanctions regime now, in exchange for a promise to maintain the status quo, would be bad diplomacy, poor negotiation and a show of weakness precisely when a show of strength is called for. The leadership of the pro-Israel community, both in the U.S. and Israel, have shown rare unity around the issue of not weakening the sanctions merely in exchange for the promise of a nuclear standstill from the Iranians. 2013-11-13 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|