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
(Ynet News) Dan Zamansky - The single dominant idea within Western commentary on the subject of the proper response to Iran's continuing attacks is the danger of escalation and the consequent need to avoid it. The practical implication of this nonsensical approach is that any aggressor, not just Iran, can attack the West, and then be shielded from effective countermeasures by the perceived necessity to avoid a so-called escalatory cycle. In substance, concerns about escalation have become a ready excuse for either complete inaction or insufficient action, in the face of attack on Western interests. The West's de-escalation obsession is part of a larger problem, a desire for a diplomatic solution to resolve security crises as if by magic. Michael Oren has diagnosed the consequences, that "by showing fear, rather than backbone, in the face of Iranian aggression, the U.S. is only inviting defeat." Israel's actions show how Iran can be dealt with. Multiple air strikes in Syria which have killed its military personnel have led Iran to withdraw senior officers from the country, and demonstrate its aversion to being sucked directly into a conflict. To put this more clearly, Iranians do not like to have their officers killed and are afraid that Israel will kill many more if Iran were to attack Israel directly. It is most unfortunate that American policy is currently incapable of following such a course of sustained military pressure, reflecting the West's continuing unwillingness to attack its enemies with sufficient strength and intensity. The futility of the limited strikes so far carried out against Yemen is brought into sharp relief by the fact that since the first strikes on January 11, sailings through the Red Sea have continued to decline. The situation cannot continue as it is. Either the course of Western policy will change, or Iran and others will assume that the West has become completely incapable of defending itself effectively, and all Western and pro-Western forces in the Middle East will come under continuously growing pressure. The writer is a British-Israeli historian. 2024-02-08 00:00:00Full Article
Why the West Can't Deter Iran
(Ynet News) Dan Zamansky - The single dominant idea within Western commentary on the subject of the proper response to Iran's continuing attacks is the danger of escalation and the consequent need to avoid it. The practical implication of this nonsensical approach is that any aggressor, not just Iran, can attack the West, and then be shielded from effective countermeasures by the perceived necessity to avoid a so-called escalatory cycle. In substance, concerns about escalation have become a ready excuse for either complete inaction or insufficient action, in the face of attack on Western interests. The West's de-escalation obsession is part of a larger problem, a desire for a diplomatic solution to resolve security crises as if by magic. Michael Oren has diagnosed the consequences, that "by showing fear, rather than backbone, in the face of Iranian aggression, the U.S. is only inviting defeat." Israel's actions show how Iran can be dealt with. Multiple air strikes in Syria which have killed its military personnel have led Iran to withdraw senior officers from the country, and demonstrate its aversion to being sucked directly into a conflict. To put this more clearly, Iranians do not like to have their officers killed and are afraid that Israel will kill many more if Iran were to attack Israel directly. It is most unfortunate that American policy is currently incapable of following such a course of sustained military pressure, reflecting the West's continuing unwillingness to attack its enemies with sufficient strength and intensity. The futility of the limited strikes so far carried out against Yemen is brought into sharp relief by the fact that since the first strikes on January 11, sailings through the Red Sea have continued to decline. The situation cannot continue as it is. Either the course of Western policy will change, or Iran and others will assume that the West has become completely incapable of defending itself effectively, and all Western and pro-Western forces in the Middle East will come under continuously growing pressure. The writer is a British-Israeli historian. 2024-02-08 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|