Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
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 Institute for Near East Policy) Michael Eisenstadt - If the U.S. opts to act militarily in response to the latest use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Assad regime, its policy should be guided by several considerations. First, Washington should seek to divide Assad's coalition with Iran and Russia. Any U.S. strikes should focus on regime assets while avoiding targets with higher risk of Russian casualties. Second, this problem will not end with a single set of strikes. Deterrence has a limited shelf life, and Assad will likely continue defying the international community. Additional strikes may be necessary. Third, while U.S. strikes should target CW infrastructure when collateral damage can be minimized, they should focus primarily on the regime's conventional military capabilities. It should hit assets that the regime truly values. This would hinder the regime's war effort much more than strikes focusing solely on CW capabilities. The writer is director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute. 2018-04-11 00:00:00Full Article
Military Strikes on Syria: Critical Considerations
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Michael Eisenstadt - If the U.S. opts to act militarily in response to the latest use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Assad regime, its policy should be guided by several considerations. First, Washington should seek to divide Assad's coalition with Iran and Russia. Any U.S. strikes should focus on regime assets while avoiding targets with higher risk of Russian casualties. Second, this problem will not end with a single set of strikes. Deterrence has a limited shelf life, and Assad will likely continue defying the international community. Additional strikes may be necessary. Third, while U.S. strikes should target CW infrastructure when collateral damage can be minimized, they should focus primarily on the regime's conventional military capabilities. It should hit assets that the regime truly values. This would hinder the regime's war effort much more than strikes focusing solely on CW capabilities. The writer is director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute. 2018-04-11 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|