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) Kim R. Holmes - Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently suggested that Congress vote "no" and re-adjust the terms of the Iran nuclear deal to correct some of its flaws. Most experts believe it would take until spring 2016 at the earliest for Iran to comply with the terms of the agreement. Since none of the U.S. sanctions will be suspended by then, there would still be time for the U.S. to take remedial measures to strengthen the deal. Among these could be reaching understandings with European partners "on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations." Other actions could include a clearer declaratory policy that military force will not be taken off the table, and ramping up tougher sanctions against Tehran's terrorist and other non-nuclear activities that destabilize the region. Strong sanctions are what forced whatever concessions Iran made. Keeping or strengthening sanctions enhances America's bargaining leverage. Even if Congress disapproves the deal, that leverage will remain. If Tehran responds to a congressional "no" vote by thumbing its nose at everybody, it will only be back where it started, which is not where it wants to be. Sure, the Iranians would bluster and threaten, but they would have no choice but to return to the bargaining table if they want the sanctions eliminated. The secretary of state called the prospects of a better deal a "fantasy." He's got it backwards. The real fantasy is the administration's promise that the current agreement will eliminate Iran's nuclear capability. The writer, a former assistant secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 2015-08-19 00:00:00Full Article
What Happens If Congress Says No to the Iran Deal?
(Washington Times) Kim R. Holmes - Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently suggested that Congress vote "no" and re-adjust the terms of the Iran nuclear deal to correct some of its flaws. Most experts believe it would take until spring 2016 at the earliest for Iran to comply with the terms of the agreement. Since none of the U.S. sanctions will be suspended by then, there would still be time for the U.S. to take remedial measures to strengthen the deal. Among these could be reaching understandings with European partners "on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations." Other actions could include a clearer declaratory policy that military force will not be taken off the table, and ramping up tougher sanctions against Tehran's terrorist and other non-nuclear activities that destabilize the region. Strong sanctions are what forced whatever concessions Iran made. Keeping or strengthening sanctions enhances America's bargaining leverage. Even if Congress disapproves the deal, that leverage will remain. If Tehran responds to a congressional "no" vote by thumbing its nose at everybody, it will only be back where it started, which is not where it wants to be. Sure, the Iranians would bluster and threaten, but they would have no choice but to return to the bargaining table if they want the sanctions eliminated. The secretary of state called the prospects of a better deal a "fantasy." He's got it backwards. The real fantasy is the administration's promise that the current agreement will eliminate Iran's nuclear capability. The writer, a former assistant secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 2015-08-19 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|