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
(New York Times) Bret Stephens - "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and it is not a signed document," Julia Frifield, then the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote in 2015. The Obama administration refused to submit the nuclear deal with Iran to Congress as a treaty, knowing it would never get 2/3 of the Senate to go along. Just 21% of Americans approved of the deal at the time it went through, against 49% who did not, according to a Pew poll. The agreement "passed" on the strength of a 42-vote filibuster, against bipartisan, majority opposition. The deal weakened UN prohibitions on Iran's testing of ballistic missiles, which cannot be reversed without Russian and Chinese consent. That won't happen. The easing of sanctions also gave Tehran additional financial means with which to fund its depredations in Syria and its militant proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere. Any effort to counter Iran on the ground in these places would mean fighting the very forces we are effectively feeding. Why not just stop the feeding? The goal is to put Iran's rulers to a fundamental choice. They can opt to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, at the price of permanently, verifiably and irreversibly forgoing a nuclear option and abandoning their support for terrorists. Or they can pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war. But they are no longer entitled to a sweetheart deal of getting sanctions lifted first, retaining their nuclear options for later, and sponsoring terrorism throughout. 2018-05-09 00:00:00Full Article
A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal
(New York Times) Bret Stephens - "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and it is not a signed document," Julia Frifield, then the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote in 2015. The Obama administration refused to submit the nuclear deal with Iran to Congress as a treaty, knowing it would never get 2/3 of the Senate to go along. Just 21% of Americans approved of the deal at the time it went through, against 49% who did not, according to a Pew poll. The agreement "passed" on the strength of a 42-vote filibuster, against bipartisan, majority opposition. The deal weakened UN prohibitions on Iran's testing of ballistic missiles, which cannot be reversed without Russian and Chinese consent. That won't happen. The easing of sanctions also gave Tehran additional financial means with which to fund its depredations in Syria and its militant proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere. Any effort to counter Iran on the ground in these places would mean fighting the very forces we are effectively feeding. Why not just stop the feeding? The goal is to put Iran's rulers to a fundamental choice. They can opt to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, at the price of permanently, verifiably and irreversibly forgoing a nuclear option and abandoning their support for terrorists. Or they can pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war. But they are no longer entitled to a sweetheart deal of getting sanctions lifted first, retaining their nuclear options for later, and sponsoring terrorism throughout. 2018-05-09 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|