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
(Wall Street Journal) Aaron David Miller - Much of the Obama administration's efforts to sell the Iran deal have involved shackling the public and congressional debate with the binary choice between a diplomatic solution and war. But is that really the case? A congressional override of the president's veto would make it impossible for the president to waive critical oil and banking sanctions against Iran, but other elements of the deal could kick in, allowing Tehran to benefit enormously. Iran is too clever to walk away from the prospect of trying to divide the P5+1. The Russians and Chinese, and possibly the Germans, are likely to support an Iranian campaign for partial relief from UN sanctions. The theory that conflict with Iran is inevitable rests on several highly arguable contentions. First is the assumption that Iran is willing to accelerate its nuclear program and to either break out or sneak out to a weapon and thus court a military response from Israel or the U.S. The second assumption is that Israel is itching for an opportunity to unilaterally strike Iran with or without Washington's approval. In the wake of a no vote by Congress, neither of these developments are certainties. And why would Iran want to provide justification for such responses as long as it could pocket the political and economic benefits that would flow from being cooperative? For Tehran, the smarter option in the wake of Congress blocking the accord would be to exploit the appetite for international investment and blame the failure of the deal on Washington. That's a more compelling choice for Iran's leadership than a headlong plunge into war. The writer is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. 2015-07-28 00:00:00Full Article
Why War Isn't Inevitable If Congress Rejects the Iran Nuclear Deal
(Wall Street Journal) Aaron David Miller - Much of the Obama administration's efforts to sell the Iran deal have involved shackling the public and congressional debate with the binary choice between a diplomatic solution and war. But is that really the case? A congressional override of the president's veto would make it impossible for the president to waive critical oil and banking sanctions against Iran, but other elements of the deal could kick in, allowing Tehran to benefit enormously. Iran is too clever to walk away from the prospect of trying to divide the P5+1. The Russians and Chinese, and possibly the Germans, are likely to support an Iranian campaign for partial relief from UN sanctions. The theory that conflict with Iran is inevitable rests on several highly arguable contentions. First is the assumption that Iran is willing to accelerate its nuclear program and to either break out or sneak out to a weapon and thus court a military response from Israel or the U.S. The second assumption is that Israel is itching for an opportunity to unilaterally strike Iran with or without Washington's approval. In the wake of a no vote by Congress, neither of these developments are certainties. And why would Iran want to provide justification for such responses as long as it could pocket the political and economic benefits that would flow from being cooperative? For Tehran, the smarter option in the wake of Congress blocking the accord would be to exploit the appetite for international investment and blame the failure of the deal on Washington. That's a more compelling choice for Iran's leadership than a headlong plunge into war. The writer is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. 2015-07-28 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|