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
(Foreign Policy) Robert Satloff - Washington, together with other maritime powers, is the ultimate guarantor of freedom of navigation in the world's oceans - a vital U.S. interest. It would be unwise to delink Iran's drone attack on the Mercer Street in international waters from the ongoing negotiations over a possible return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. decision to identify Iran as the culprit and promise, in the words of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, "an appropriate response," reflects an important stage in the debate over how Washington should act. Far from derailing a possible deal, a U.S. response to the attack would remove one of the main reasons the talks are stuck. Tehran and its proxies have been aggressively testing the White House and are likely to continue ratcheting up attacks. An effective U.S. response would affect Iran's calculus. Such a response might include targeting Revolutionary Guard naval bases, factories assembling or producing parts for military drones, or facilities supporting the export of weaponry to Iranian proxies. This would be a far cry from pinprick action against proxy groups and mere public declarations, both of which only invite further Iranian testing. Such a response would signal to U.S. regional allies that shrinking the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East does not mean Washington is shirking its role as a guarantor of international norms, including freedom of maritime navigation. The writer is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.2021-08-12 00:00:00Full Article
How Iran's Deadly Tanker Attack Is Linked to the Nuclear Deal
(Foreign Policy) Robert Satloff - Washington, together with other maritime powers, is the ultimate guarantor of freedom of navigation in the world's oceans - a vital U.S. interest. It would be unwise to delink Iran's drone attack on the Mercer Street in international waters from the ongoing negotiations over a possible return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. decision to identify Iran as the culprit and promise, in the words of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, "an appropriate response," reflects an important stage in the debate over how Washington should act. Far from derailing a possible deal, a U.S. response to the attack would remove one of the main reasons the talks are stuck. Tehran and its proxies have been aggressively testing the White House and are likely to continue ratcheting up attacks. An effective U.S. response would affect Iran's calculus. Such a response might include targeting Revolutionary Guard naval bases, factories assembling or producing parts for military drones, or facilities supporting the export of weaponry to Iranian proxies. This would be a far cry from pinprick action against proxy groups and mere public declarations, both of which only invite further Iranian testing. Such a response would signal to U.S. regional allies that shrinking the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East does not mean Washington is shirking its role as a guarantor of international norms, including freedom of maritime navigation. The writer is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.2021-08-12 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|