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
(Israel Hayom) Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror - During my visit to the U.S. two weeks ago I heard from several people that senior State Department officials were trying to sell Washington on the idea that a nuclear agreement with Iran will contribute to regional stability in the Middle East, and that future relations between Iran and the U.S. will advance U.S. interests; an American U-turn, heading toward a special relationship with Iran. If this relationship materializes, it is clear the U.S. would be jeopardizing Israel's security for the sake of a sudden experimental partnership with a country that openly declares its intention to harm and even destroy Israel. None of the people I spoke with mentioned the White House or the president as the ones promoting the idea. If the rumor is indeed true, this perception is based on a misunderstanding of Iran's intentions and its way of thinking about the Muslim world and its place in it. This misunderstanding stems from ignoring the Islamic republic's political culture, its negotiation methods and its willingness to peddle illusions to its adversary (as a religious imperative). This miscalculation is compounded by the inexplicable and historically unfounded optimism over the ability of any type of deal to change the Iranian attitude. There are quite a few people in the U.S. who think a deal, in and of itself, is more important than its substance. This is a completely illogical approach. The decision to alter the course with Iran means that America is effectively choosing a side in favor of the Shiite minority, scaring the Sunni majority. By doing so, the Americans are encouraging the Shiites, the most dynamically negative force in the Middle East, a force which reaches far and wide via its terrorist group proxies. If the rumor about the new U.S. approach toward Iran is true, then just as Henry Kissinger predicted recently, the important Sunni states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) will begin a nuclear arms race because they do not believe in stability predicated upon a Shiite country that, with America's support, will become the most influential power in the region. The writer is a former Israeli national security advisor.2015-02-23 00:00:00Full Article
An American About-Face, into the Arms of Iran
(Israel Hayom) Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror - During my visit to the U.S. two weeks ago I heard from several people that senior State Department officials were trying to sell Washington on the idea that a nuclear agreement with Iran will contribute to regional stability in the Middle East, and that future relations between Iran and the U.S. will advance U.S. interests; an American U-turn, heading toward a special relationship with Iran. If this relationship materializes, it is clear the U.S. would be jeopardizing Israel's security for the sake of a sudden experimental partnership with a country that openly declares its intention to harm and even destroy Israel. None of the people I spoke with mentioned the White House or the president as the ones promoting the idea. If the rumor is indeed true, this perception is based on a misunderstanding of Iran's intentions and its way of thinking about the Muslim world and its place in it. This misunderstanding stems from ignoring the Islamic republic's political culture, its negotiation methods and its willingness to peddle illusions to its adversary (as a religious imperative). This miscalculation is compounded by the inexplicable and historically unfounded optimism over the ability of any type of deal to change the Iranian attitude. There are quite a few people in the U.S. who think a deal, in and of itself, is more important than its substance. This is a completely illogical approach. The decision to alter the course with Iran means that America is effectively choosing a side in favor of the Shiite minority, scaring the Sunni majority. By doing so, the Americans are encouraging the Shiites, the most dynamically negative force in the Middle East, a force which reaches far and wide via its terrorist group proxies. If the rumor about the new U.S. approach toward Iran is true, then just as Henry Kissinger predicted recently, the important Sunni states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) will begin a nuclear arms race because they do not believe in stability predicated upon a Shiite country that, with America's support, will become the most influential power in the region. The writer is a former Israeli national security advisor.2015-02-23 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|