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
(New York Times) David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon - Over the past few weeks, Iran has increasingly resisted any kind of formal "framework" agreement to limit its nuclear capability at this stage in the negotiations, preferring a more general statement of "understanding" followed by a final accord in June, according to Western diplomats involved in the talks. Should that position hold, U.S. officials may find themselves describing the accord as they understand it while the Iranians go home to offer their own version. One European diplomat involved in the talks said, "The politics in America demand specificity, and an Iranian commitment. And the politics in Iran demand vagueness....All of us are in agreement that you don't make oral deals with Iran." Many in Congress took the March deadline for a political agreement announced by Secretary of State Kerry on Nov. 24 as a critical milestone for any accord. If the Iranians could not provide specifics by then, it was a sign that Iran was deliberately dragging out the process and needed to be further pressured by new sanctions. 2015-03-25 00:00:00Full Article
In Nuclear Talks, Iran Seeks to Avoid Specifics
(New York Times) David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon - Over the past few weeks, Iran has increasingly resisted any kind of formal "framework" agreement to limit its nuclear capability at this stage in the negotiations, preferring a more general statement of "understanding" followed by a final accord in June, according to Western diplomats involved in the talks. Should that position hold, U.S. officials may find themselves describing the accord as they understand it while the Iranians go home to offer their own version. One European diplomat involved in the talks said, "The politics in America demand specificity, and an Iranian commitment. And the politics in Iran demand vagueness....All of us are in agreement that you don't make oral deals with Iran." Many in Congress took the March deadline for a political agreement announced by Secretary of State Kerry on Nov. 24 as a critical milestone for any accord. If the Iranians could not provide specifics by then, it was a sign that Iran was deliberately dragging out the process and needed to be further pressured by new sanctions. 2015-03-25 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|