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) Michael Singh and Simond de Galbert - The U.S. and its allies refrained from demanding that Iran come clean on its past nuclear efforts for the same reason that they accepted only partial and temporary constraints on Tehran's current nuclear activities: They hoped that defusing tensions on this issue and focusing on the future would build confidence so that a more stable and cooperative relationship prevails between Iran and the West. But Tehran's grudging cooperation with the IAEA and its repeated flouting of the UN ban on missile test launches are ominous signs that even faithful implementation of the deal by all sides may not succeed in building that confidence. By protecting its nuclear secrets, accepting only temporary constraints on fuel-cycle work, and advancing its missile program, Iran is keeping its nuclear options open for the future. In response, the international community must keep in place the tools to challenge Iran should its pursuit of nuclear weapons resume. Rather than closing the investigation of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as Iran has demanded, the IAEA board of governors meeting on Dec. 15 should direct that it continue. The nuclear deal provides tools for the IAEA to carry out such an investigation above and beyond those provided by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its additional protocol. These tools are not as strong as they could be, but they nonetheless should be utilized to their fullest. Continuing to insist on a complete investigation into Iran's nuclear weapons activities is the first test of international determination to strictly implement the nuclear deal. Failing this test would signal to Tehran that the West will allow it to dictate the terms under which the agreement is implemented in the coming years. Michael Singh is managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Simond de Galbert, a French diplomat, is a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.2015-12-15 00:00:00Full Article
The First Strict Implementation Test of the Iran Nuclear Deal
(Wall Street Journal) Michael Singh and Simond de Galbert - The U.S. and its allies refrained from demanding that Iran come clean on its past nuclear efforts for the same reason that they accepted only partial and temporary constraints on Tehran's current nuclear activities: They hoped that defusing tensions on this issue and focusing on the future would build confidence so that a more stable and cooperative relationship prevails between Iran and the West. But Tehran's grudging cooperation with the IAEA and its repeated flouting of the UN ban on missile test launches are ominous signs that even faithful implementation of the deal by all sides may not succeed in building that confidence. By protecting its nuclear secrets, accepting only temporary constraints on fuel-cycle work, and advancing its missile program, Iran is keeping its nuclear options open for the future. In response, the international community must keep in place the tools to challenge Iran should its pursuit of nuclear weapons resume. Rather than closing the investigation of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as Iran has demanded, the IAEA board of governors meeting on Dec. 15 should direct that it continue. The nuclear deal provides tools for the IAEA to carry out such an investigation above and beyond those provided by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its additional protocol. These tools are not as strong as they could be, but they nonetheless should be utilized to their fullest. Continuing to insist on a complete investigation into Iran's nuclear weapons activities is the first test of international determination to strictly implement the nuclear deal. Failing this test would signal to Tehran that the West will allow it to dictate the terms under which the agreement is implemented in the coming years. Michael Singh is managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Simond de Galbert, a French diplomat, is a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.2015-12-15 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|