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
(Strategic Assessment-Institute for National Security Studies) Amos Yadlin and Avner Golov - The main Iranian military threat in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a volley of conventional missiles and rockets launched at Israel's cities and nuclear installations by Iran and Hizbullah, along with the threat of terrorist attacks against military and civilian targets. A review of Iranian capabilities indicates that Israel can successfully deal with Iranian responses to an attack. These scenarios are far from large-scale war, which is highly improbable. Nevertheless, the risks of escalation must be minimized through pinpoint strikes on the infrastructures that support Iran's military nuclear program that leave Tehran with all the other assets that are important to the Iranian economy and the survival of the regime. In such a situation, the regime would have a great deal to lose from escalation. Many experts argue correctly that an attack, no matter how successful, cannot stop Iran's military nuclear program forever. Nonetheless, this does not justify inaction and passivity. If Iran does not agree to an acceptable settlement that will ensure that its breakout time to a bomb allows for detection and response in time, use of the military option could buy time until there is regime change. It could also send a very clear message to the Iranians that their attempts to arm themselves with nuclear military capabilities will be thwarted in the future as well. Correct preparation and Western cooperation can significantly reduce the chances of a regional war in the wake of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin is the Director of INSS, where Avner Golov is his research assistant. 2013-11-18 00:00:00Full Article
If Attacked, How Would Iran Respond?
(Strategic Assessment-Institute for National Security Studies) Amos Yadlin and Avner Golov - The main Iranian military threat in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a volley of conventional missiles and rockets launched at Israel's cities and nuclear installations by Iran and Hizbullah, along with the threat of terrorist attacks against military and civilian targets. A review of Iranian capabilities indicates that Israel can successfully deal with Iranian responses to an attack. These scenarios are far from large-scale war, which is highly improbable. Nevertheless, the risks of escalation must be minimized through pinpoint strikes on the infrastructures that support Iran's military nuclear program that leave Tehran with all the other assets that are important to the Iranian economy and the survival of the regime. In such a situation, the regime would have a great deal to lose from escalation. Many experts argue correctly that an attack, no matter how successful, cannot stop Iran's military nuclear program forever. Nonetheless, this does not justify inaction and passivity. If Iran does not agree to an acceptable settlement that will ensure that its breakout time to a bomb allows for detection and response in time, use of the military option could buy time until there is regime change. It could also send a very clear message to the Iranians that their attempts to arm themselves with nuclear military capabilities will be thwarted in the future as well. Correct preparation and Western cooperation can significantly reduce the chances of a regional war in the wake of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin is the Director of INSS, where Avner Golov is his research assistant. 2013-11-18 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|