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 Jewish Week) Dennis Ross - Israel and many Arab countries have expressed great concern that the current U.S. administration is giving Iran a pass and seems ready to treat the Islamic Republic as a future regional partner. In the meantime, Tehran is actively trying to change the regional balance of power while transferring increasingly accurate missiles to Hizbullah. The U.S. and Israel hold conceptually different perspectives on the nuclear issue. What Israelis fear is an agreement that eventually permits Iran to have an industrial-size nuclear program - one capable of breaking out to a nuclear weapons capability at a time of its choosing. The U.S. position seems to hold that Iran would technically be permitted to have an industrial-size program down the road. The U.S. seems to believe it has no better alternative, and that deferring the Iranians for 10 to 15 years could produce favorable changes in the interim. Interestingly, this basic conceptual difference with Israel may be moot because Tehran is unwilling to concede much at the moment, greatly diluting the prospects of a comprehensive deal, though Israel fears that Washington might continue making concessions to Iran. Another difference could emerge if the U.S. does not achieve a comprehensive agreement, but instead settles for the Joint Plan of Action interim agreement as the "new normal." This arrangement could leave Iran three months away from achieving a nuclear weapons capability and put Israel in an untenable situation. The writer, a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as a special assistant to President Obama for the Middle East and South Asia from 2009 to 2011. This is a summary of his remarks given Jan. 29 at a Washington Institute Policy Forum. 2015-02-13 00:00:00Full Article
The "New Normal"? Parsing Iran Policy in the U.S. and Israel
(Washington Jewish Week) Dennis Ross - Israel and many Arab countries have expressed great concern that the current U.S. administration is giving Iran a pass and seems ready to treat the Islamic Republic as a future regional partner. In the meantime, Tehran is actively trying to change the regional balance of power while transferring increasingly accurate missiles to Hizbullah. The U.S. and Israel hold conceptually different perspectives on the nuclear issue. What Israelis fear is an agreement that eventually permits Iran to have an industrial-size nuclear program - one capable of breaking out to a nuclear weapons capability at a time of its choosing. The U.S. position seems to hold that Iran would technically be permitted to have an industrial-size program down the road. The U.S. seems to believe it has no better alternative, and that deferring the Iranians for 10 to 15 years could produce favorable changes in the interim. Interestingly, this basic conceptual difference with Israel may be moot because Tehran is unwilling to concede much at the moment, greatly diluting the prospects of a comprehensive deal, though Israel fears that Washington might continue making concessions to Iran. Another difference could emerge if the U.S. does not achieve a comprehensive agreement, but instead settles for the Joint Plan of Action interim agreement as the "new normal." This arrangement could leave Iran three months away from achieving a nuclear weapons capability and put Israel in an untenable situation. The writer, a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as a special assistant to President Obama for the Middle East and South Asia from 2009 to 2011. This is a summary of his remarks given Jan. 29 at a Washington Institute Policy Forum. 2015-02-13 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|