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
(Times of Israel) Emily B. Landau - This negotiation is fundamentally a game of compellence, in which Iran is being forced to comply or else face punishment. Iran is trying to hold onto its option of becoming a nuclear weapons state, in violation of the NPT, and the international negotiators are tasked with stopping it. The interests of the two sides are zero sum, and only one side will win. Iran's interest in coming back to the table in 2013 was only to lift sanctions - nothing changed regarding its nuclear interest. The P5+1 made a huge mistake by projecting an eagerness for a deal. By taking the U.S. threat of military consequences virtually off the table, Iran knows it has seen the worst that the international community can do to it in terms of pressure, and this is a major boost to its leverage. In fact, the P5+1 have boxed themselves in: they have projected to Iran that this crisis can only be resolved through negotiations, so all Iran has to do is sit tight. P5+1 concessions are already rolling in. The writer heads the arms control program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.2015-07-13 00:00:00Full Article
A Moment before the Iran Deal
(Times of Israel) Emily B. Landau - This negotiation is fundamentally a game of compellence, in which Iran is being forced to comply or else face punishment. Iran is trying to hold onto its option of becoming a nuclear weapons state, in violation of the NPT, and the international negotiators are tasked with stopping it. The interests of the two sides are zero sum, and only one side will win. Iran's interest in coming back to the table in 2013 was only to lift sanctions - nothing changed regarding its nuclear interest. The P5+1 made a huge mistake by projecting an eagerness for a deal. By taking the U.S. threat of military consequences virtually off the table, Iran knows it has seen the worst that the international community can do to it in terms of pressure, and this is a major boost to its leverage. In fact, the P5+1 have boxed themselves in: they have projected to Iran that this crisis can only be resolved through negotiations, so all Iran has to do is sit tight. P5+1 concessions are already rolling in. The writer heads the arms control program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.2015-07-13 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|