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 Post] Daniel R. Coats and Charles S. Robb - The first and most pressing national security issue the next president will face is the growing prospect of a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran. After co-chairing a recently concluded, high-level task force on Iranian nuclear development, we have come to believe that five principles must serve as the foundation of any reasonable, bipartisan and comprehensive Iranian policy. An Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons capability would be strategically untenable. It would threaten U.S. national security, regional peace and stability, energy security, the efficacy of multilateralism, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. Simply obtaining the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent and drastically multiply its influence in the region. Allowing the Middle East to fall under the dominance of a radical clerical regime that supports terrorism should not be considered a viable option. We believe the only acceptable end state is the complete cessation of enrichment activities inside Iran. We foresee no combination of international inspections or co-ownership of enrichment facilities that would provide sufficient assurances that Iran is not producing weapons-grade fissile material. Indeed, the enrichment facility at Natanz is already technically capable - once Iran has a sufficient stockpile of low-enriched uranium - of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear device in four weeks, more than fast enough to elude detection by international inspectors. While a diplomatic resolution is still possible, it can succeed only if we negotiate from a position of strength. This will require better coordination with our international partners and much stricter sanctions. Negotiations with Iran would probably be ineffective unless our European allies sever commercial relations with Tehran. So that Israel does not feel compelled to take unilateral action, the next president must credibly convince Jerusalem that the U.S. will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability. While military action against Iran is feasible, it must remain an option of last resort. The U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure - probably with more decisive results than the Iranian leadership realizes. Time may be shorter than many imagine, and failure could carry a catastrophic cost to the national interest. Former Senators Daniel R. Coats (R-IN) and Charles S. Robb (D-VA) are co-chairmen of the Bipartisan Policy Center's national security task force on Iran. 2008-10-23 01:00:00Full Article
Stopping a Nuclear Tehran
[Washington Post] Daniel R. Coats and Charles S. Robb - The first and most pressing national security issue the next president will face is the growing prospect of a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran. After co-chairing a recently concluded, high-level task force on Iranian nuclear development, we have come to believe that five principles must serve as the foundation of any reasonable, bipartisan and comprehensive Iranian policy. An Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons capability would be strategically untenable. It would threaten U.S. national security, regional peace and stability, energy security, the efficacy of multilateralism, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. Simply obtaining the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent and drastically multiply its influence in the region. Allowing the Middle East to fall under the dominance of a radical clerical regime that supports terrorism should not be considered a viable option. We believe the only acceptable end state is the complete cessation of enrichment activities inside Iran. We foresee no combination of international inspections or co-ownership of enrichment facilities that would provide sufficient assurances that Iran is not producing weapons-grade fissile material. Indeed, the enrichment facility at Natanz is already technically capable - once Iran has a sufficient stockpile of low-enriched uranium - of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear device in four weeks, more than fast enough to elude detection by international inspectors. While a diplomatic resolution is still possible, it can succeed only if we negotiate from a position of strength. This will require better coordination with our international partners and much stricter sanctions. Negotiations with Iran would probably be ineffective unless our European allies sever commercial relations with Tehran. So that Israel does not feel compelled to take unilateral action, the next president must credibly convince Jerusalem that the U.S. will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability. While military action against Iran is feasible, it must remain an option of last resort. The U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure - probably with more decisive results than the Iranian leadership realizes. Time may be shorter than many imagine, and failure could carry a catastrophic cost to the national interest. Former Senators Daniel R. Coats (R-IN) and Charles S. Robb (D-VA) are co-chairmen of the Bipartisan Policy Center's national security task force on Iran. 2008-10-23 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|