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
(National Interest) Michael Rubin - American Enterprise Institute expert Kori Schake wrote that the U.S. "maximum pressure" campaign with Iran "has not succeeded. None of the twelve demands that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined as preconditions for new negotiations with Iran have been met." However, to write off "maximum pressure" as ineffective or a mistake is wrong, even if it is true that the Islamic Republic has increased its uranium enrichment and its support for proxy militias. It is a mistake to assume that effective strategies must conform to the U.S. political calendar. Put aside the fact that Pompeo's twelve demands are common-sense policy: an end to terrorism, nuclear weapons work, missile proliferation, sponsorship of militias fighting governments across the region, and threats to eradicate Israel. To suggest any of these are not realistic or attainable goals is to normalize the Islamic Republic's rogue behavior. There is historical precedent to Tehran reversing course in the face of overwhelming economic duress and isolation. The economic wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls up to 40% of the Iranian economy. To lift sanctions would be to enrich them further. While critics suggest that the policy undercuts so-called reformers, this too projects a misunderstanding of Iranian politics, as reformers have no influence over security and military issues, nor are their ideological disputes with hardliners significant. Sanctions have failed to prevent North Korea's nuclear program, so would greater aid be in order? It is a logical fallacy to say just because strategy A is slow-working or seemingly ineffective, that strategy B is a panacea. Sometimes the opposite of an imperfect strategy can actually be much worse. It was the inability of the Soviet Union to economically weather the Cold War that led to its demise, and precedent suggests even Iran's Supreme Leader will sacrifice declared principles in order to survive. The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.2020-12-10 00:00:00Full Article
Iran: Why Now Is Not the Time to Abandon Maximum Pressure
(National Interest) Michael Rubin - American Enterprise Institute expert Kori Schake wrote that the U.S. "maximum pressure" campaign with Iran "has not succeeded. None of the twelve demands that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined as preconditions for new negotiations with Iran have been met." However, to write off "maximum pressure" as ineffective or a mistake is wrong, even if it is true that the Islamic Republic has increased its uranium enrichment and its support for proxy militias. It is a mistake to assume that effective strategies must conform to the U.S. political calendar. Put aside the fact that Pompeo's twelve demands are common-sense policy: an end to terrorism, nuclear weapons work, missile proliferation, sponsorship of militias fighting governments across the region, and threats to eradicate Israel. To suggest any of these are not realistic or attainable goals is to normalize the Islamic Republic's rogue behavior. There is historical precedent to Tehran reversing course in the face of overwhelming economic duress and isolation. The economic wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls up to 40% of the Iranian economy. To lift sanctions would be to enrich them further. While critics suggest that the policy undercuts so-called reformers, this too projects a misunderstanding of Iranian politics, as reformers have no influence over security and military issues, nor are their ideological disputes with hardliners significant. Sanctions have failed to prevent North Korea's nuclear program, so would greater aid be in order? It is a logical fallacy to say just because strategy A is slow-working or seemingly ineffective, that strategy B is a panacea. Sometimes the opposite of an imperfect strategy can actually be much worse. It was the inability of the Soviet Union to economically weather the Cold War that led to its demise, and precedent suggests even Iran's Supreme Leader will sacrifice declared principles in order to survive. The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.2020-12-10 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|