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
(Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv) Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Ya'alon - The U.S. administration's decision to play a reactive rather than a proactive role in the Middle East created a vacuum in the region that was filled by elements that worked against the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies. U.S. policy, which was perceived in the region as an abandonment of allies (Egypt and the Gulf states), coupled with its closer ties with Iran, created a crisis of trust with the Sunni regimes. There is no doubt that President Obama's decision to refrain from striking the chemical weapons stockpiles and manufacturing plants in Syria, despite the fact that the Assad regime had crossed the declared American red line, substantially eroded U.S. deterrence, as did its nuclear agreement with Iran. Furthermore, the American response to Iranian provocations, as well as to the missile tests, the seizure of U.S. Navy ships, the harassment of American ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the firing by Houthis in Yemen of Iranian-supplied missiles at a U.S. naval ship exacerbated the erosion of U.S. deterrence. Russia took advantage of the American weakness to seize a leading stance. Most of the region's leaders visited Moscow more times last year than they did Washington and began purchasing weapons from Russia. I believe the U.S. will have no other choice but to take a grand proactive strategy in the region - both in order to regain its standing as a world power and in order to distance the Middle East threats from America, Europe, and elsewhere. Such a strategy will require a change in policy toward Iran. The Iranian regime is the most significant destabilizing factor in the Middle East, and therefore should not be seen as if it were a key element in stabilizing the region, since it is not part of the solution, but rather is the essence of the problem. The writer is a former Israeli defense minister and IDF chief of staff.2016-12-15 00:00:00Full Article
Policy Recommendations on the Middle East for the Trump Administration
(Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv) Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Ya'alon - The U.S. administration's decision to play a reactive rather than a proactive role in the Middle East created a vacuum in the region that was filled by elements that worked against the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies. U.S. policy, which was perceived in the region as an abandonment of allies (Egypt and the Gulf states), coupled with its closer ties with Iran, created a crisis of trust with the Sunni regimes. There is no doubt that President Obama's decision to refrain from striking the chemical weapons stockpiles and manufacturing plants in Syria, despite the fact that the Assad regime had crossed the declared American red line, substantially eroded U.S. deterrence, as did its nuclear agreement with Iran. Furthermore, the American response to Iranian provocations, as well as to the missile tests, the seizure of U.S. Navy ships, the harassment of American ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the firing by Houthis in Yemen of Iranian-supplied missiles at a U.S. naval ship exacerbated the erosion of U.S. deterrence. Russia took advantage of the American weakness to seize a leading stance. Most of the region's leaders visited Moscow more times last year than they did Washington and began purchasing weapons from Russia. I believe the U.S. will have no other choice but to take a grand proactive strategy in the region - both in order to regain its standing as a world power and in order to distance the Middle East threats from America, Europe, and elsewhere. Such a strategy will require a change in policy toward Iran. The Iranian regime is the most significant destabilizing factor in the Middle East, and therefore should not be seen as if it were a key element in stabilizing the region, since it is not part of the solution, but rather is the essence of the problem. The writer is a former Israeli defense minister and IDF chief of staff.2016-12-15 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|