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 Times) Michael Hayden - The U.S. is fast closing in on a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeing the handwriting on the wall, has hurried to Washington to make an eleventh-hour appeal to Congress. Netanyahu's haste is understandable. The draft agreement represents what has fairly been described as massive and irreversible concessions to Iran. This agreement will legitimate Iran as a nuclear state. The agreement's impact on future counterproliferation efforts will be profound as a struggling, isolated regional power has just challenged the world and clearly won. There's a lot not to like here, and it will be pretty easy to shoot holes in the agreement. Congress should certainly be offered the chance. Codifying a deal of this magnitude on executive prerogative alone would be unconscionable. And what of the talk of an overall American-Iranian rapprochement once the nuclear issue is behind us? The president himself has spoken of a better-behaving Iran as a "very successful regional power" and of an "equilibrium" between Tehran and the Sunni states of the region. The New York Times' David Brooks even suggests that the president's big plan is that "Iran would re-emerge as America's natural partner in the region." I will be skeptical too that, after an agreement is reached, Iran won't be the duplicitous, autocratic, terrorist-backing, Hizbullah-supporting, Hamas-funding, region-destabilizing, hegemony-seeking theocracy that it is today. But if you reject this, then what are the options? There was a reason we thought this was the problem from hell while I was in government. It still is. Gen. Michael V. Hayden is a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency.2015-03-04 00:00:00Full Article
Iranian Nukes: The Problem from Hell
(Washington Times) Michael Hayden - The U.S. is fast closing in on a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeing the handwriting on the wall, has hurried to Washington to make an eleventh-hour appeal to Congress. Netanyahu's haste is understandable. The draft agreement represents what has fairly been described as massive and irreversible concessions to Iran. This agreement will legitimate Iran as a nuclear state. The agreement's impact on future counterproliferation efforts will be profound as a struggling, isolated regional power has just challenged the world and clearly won. There's a lot not to like here, and it will be pretty easy to shoot holes in the agreement. Congress should certainly be offered the chance. Codifying a deal of this magnitude on executive prerogative alone would be unconscionable. And what of the talk of an overall American-Iranian rapprochement once the nuclear issue is behind us? The president himself has spoken of a better-behaving Iran as a "very successful regional power" and of an "equilibrium" between Tehran and the Sunni states of the region. The New York Times' David Brooks even suggests that the president's big plan is that "Iran would re-emerge as America's natural partner in the region." I will be skeptical too that, after an agreement is reached, Iran won't be the duplicitous, autocratic, terrorist-backing, Hizbullah-supporting, Hamas-funding, region-destabilizing, hegemony-seeking theocracy that it is today. But if you reject this, then what are the options? There was a reason we thought this was the problem from hell while I was in government. It still is. Gen. Michael V. Hayden is a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency.2015-03-04 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|