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
(Jerusalem Post) Herb Keinon - The Prime Minister's Office on Sunday responded to the question of whether the deal makes it less likely that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. It said the opposite is true and that the deal provides Iran with two paths to the bomb. Either the Iranians will violate the deal, as they have done in the past, and develop a bomb by cheating, or they will abide by the accord and then, in about a decade, "carry out unlimited enrichment of uranium with full international legitimacy....Iran's breakout time at that point will be close to zero, as the U.S. president himself has said." As to the argument that the only alternative to the deal is war, Israel has consistently promoted two different alternatives. "First, Israel supported the policy of 'dismantle for dismantle,' whereby the sanctions regime would be dismantled only when Iran's military nuclear program is dismantled. This policy was based on successive UN Security Council resolutions and was U.S. policy until 2013. Its implementation would have genuinely closed the Iranian nuclear file." In the absence of a complete roll-back of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, there should at least be a significant roll-back, with severe restrictions on Iran lifted only when it stopped its regional aggression, support of global terrorism and efforts to destroy Israel. The deal makes war more - not less - likely because Iran will be able to fill its coffers to fund its subversion, and because other countries in the Middle East, expecting Iran to become a nuclear power, will begin their own nuclear programs.2015-07-28 00:00:00Full Article
Does the Deal Makes It Less Likely that Iran Will Get a Nuclear Weapon?
(Jerusalem Post) Herb Keinon - The Prime Minister's Office on Sunday responded to the question of whether the deal makes it less likely that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. It said the opposite is true and that the deal provides Iran with two paths to the bomb. Either the Iranians will violate the deal, as they have done in the past, and develop a bomb by cheating, or they will abide by the accord and then, in about a decade, "carry out unlimited enrichment of uranium with full international legitimacy....Iran's breakout time at that point will be close to zero, as the U.S. president himself has said." As to the argument that the only alternative to the deal is war, Israel has consistently promoted two different alternatives. "First, Israel supported the policy of 'dismantle for dismantle,' whereby the sanctions regime would be dismantled only when Iran's military nuclear program is dismantled. This policy was based on successive UN Security Council resolutions and was U.S. policy until 2013. Its implementation would have genuinely closed the Iranian nuclear file." In the absence of a complete roll-back of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, there should at least be a significant roll-back, with severe restrictions on Iran lifted only when it stopped its regional aggression, support of global terrorism and efforts to destroy Israel. The deal makes war more - not less - likely because Iran will be able to fill its coffers to fund its subversion, and because other countries in the Middle East, expecting Iran to become a nuclear power, will begin their own nuclear programs.2015-07-28 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|