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
(Mosaic) Michael Doran - The American presence in Syria had formed the primary obstacle in the way of Iran's completing an unbroken corridor of political influence from Tehran to Beirut on the Mediterranean shore. With only 2,000 soldiers, the U.S. was controlling, indirectly, about a third of the country, yet this small force was still large enough to overwhelm any potential combination of adversaries, as it proved last February when it annihilated some 200 Russian mercenaries in a matter of hours, with no losses on the American side. No question, the American withdrawal will create a vacuum in the region that Iran and Russia will inevitably seek to fill. As America withdraws from the Middle East, the choice is between, on the one hand, a withdrawal of American power based on the conviction not just that the situation has become hopeless but that over the decades the U.S. choice of allies, including Israel, has made it worse - the Obama position - and, on the other hand, a withdrawal of direct American military engagement while ensuring that the U.S. will continue reliably to support those same historic allies and others drawn to its and their side, thereby enhancing the possibility of a stabilized Middle East in the next decade. In the Trump administration's conception, three key obstacles stand in the way of American interests in the Middle East. The first is jihadistans, zones of chaos defined by failed states like Syria and Yemen. The jihadistans are problems that must be managed. The second is the problem posed by Sunni terror groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, which take root and prosper in the jihadistans. The third is the rise of Iran, which, abetted by Russia, is training and equipping Shiite militias based on the Hizbullah model; these it deploys to project its power into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. If the Israelis have any hope of preventing Syria from becoming a permanent Iranian military base, they must act alone. Only independent military action can solve their problem. Israel is more powerful militarily than at any time in its history, and it is not at all isolated. The U.S. fervently desires to see Israel succeed in curtailing Iranian power. Trump and his foreign-policy advisers, led by Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will likely be eager to provide Israel with any weapons and intelligence it may lack to do the job. The writer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and a former senior director of the U.S. National Security Council. 2019-01-07 00:00:00Full Article
Israel Will Continue to Act Against Iran in Syria with U.S. Support
(Mosaic) Michael Doran - The American presence in Syria had formed the primary obstacle in the way of Iran's completing an unbroken corridor of political influence from Tehran to Beirut on the Mediterranean shore. With only 2,000 soldiers, the U.S. was controlling, indirectly, about a third of the country, yet this small force was still large enough to overwhelm any potential combination of adversaries, as it proved last February when it annihilated some 200 Russian mercenaries in a matter of hours, with no losses on the American side. No question, the American withdrawal will create a vacuum in the region that Iran and Russia will inevitably seek to fill. As America withdraws from the Middle East, the choice is between, on the one hand, a withdrawal of American power based on the conviction not just that the situation has become hopeless but that over the decades the U.S. choice of allies, including Israel, has made it worse - the Obama position - and, on the other hand, a withdrawal of direct American military engagement while ensuring that the U.S. will continue reliably to support those same historic allies and others drawn to its and their side, thereby enhancing the possibility of a stabilized Middle East in the next decade. In the Trump administration's conception, three key obstacles stand in the way of American interests in the Middle East. The first is jihadistans, zones of chaos defined by failed states like Syria and Yemen. The jihadistans are problems that must be managed. The second is the problem posed by Sunni terror groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, which take root and prosper in the jihadistans. The third is the rise of Iran, which, abetted by Russia, is training and equipping Shiite militias based on the Hizbullah model; these it deploys to project its power into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. If the Israelis have any hope of preventing Syria from becoming a permanent Iranian military base, they must act alone. Only independent military action can solve their problem. Israel is more powerful militarily than at any time in its history, and it is not at all isolated. The U.S. fervently desires to see Israel succeed in curtailing Iranian power. Trump and his foreign-policy advisers, led by Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will likely be eager to provide Israel with any weapons and intelligence it may lack to do the job. The writer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and a former senior director of the U.S. National Security Council. 2019-01-07 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|