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
[New York Post] Amir Taheri - As Tehran sees it, the U.S. administration has already accepted a nuclear-armed Iran as a fait accompli and is only trying to secure some concessions from the Khomeinist regime. According to an editorial Sunday in the newspaper Kayhan, which reflects the views of the leadership in Tehran, the U.S. is "in a state of strategic desperation" in the Middle East and has no stomach for a serious confrontation with Iran. The editorial claims: "They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran....Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them." "America's strategic needs in the region are so intense that the Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran," the editorial said. It claimed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already informed allies in the region of that "acceptance." "In her speech last week, Clinton accepted the assumption of a nuclear-armed Iran. She only tried to show that the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran has been exaggerated and that the classical doctrine of deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction could work with Iran as it did with other nuclear powers." In this theory, President Obama is trying to establish a linkage, whereby Israel would accept a nuclear-armed Iran while Iran would withdraw its opposition to a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem. Yet even a tacit acceptance by America and Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran may not be enough to persuade Tehran to accept a two-state solution that would allow Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Abandoning that position wouldn't be easy for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who've built their reputations as radical Islamists in part on their insistence that no Jewish state should exist in "the heart of the Muslim world." Of course, the regime might simply opt to use dissimulation, a technique sanctioned under Shiite Islam for deceiving the "infidel." The Islamic Republic could withdraw its opposition to the two-state solution in exchange for America's accepting Iran as a nuclear power; then, after the world has learned to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, Tehran could revive its goal of wiping the Jewish state off the map. 2009-07-29 06:00:00Full Article
Tehran Believes the U.S. Has Already Accepted a Nuclear-Armed Iran
[New York Post] Amir Taheri - As Tehran sees it, the U.S. administration has already accepted a nuclear-armed Iran as a fait accompli and is only trying to secure some concessions from the Khomeinist regime. According to an editorial Sunday in the newspaper Kayhan, which reflects the views of the leadership in Tehran, the U.S. is "in a state of strategic desperation" in the Middle East and has no stomach for a serious confrontation with Iran. The editorial claims: "They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran....Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them." "America's strategic needs in the region are so intense that the Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran," the editorial said. It claimed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already informed allies in the region of that "acceptance." "In her speech last week, Clinton accepted the assumption of a nuclear-armed Iran. She only tried to show that the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran has been exaggerated and that the classical doctrine of deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction could work with Iran as it did with other nuclear powers." In this theory, President Obama is trying to establish a linkage, whereby Israel would accept a nuclear-armed Iran while Iran would withdraw its opposition to a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem. Yet even a tacit acceptance by America and Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran may not be enough to persuade Tehran to accept a two-state solution that would allow Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Abandoning that position wouldn't be easy for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who've built their reputations as radical Islamists in part on their insistence that no Jewish state should exist in "the heart of the Muslim world." Of course, the regime might simply opt to use dissimulation, a technique sanctioned under Shiite Islam for deceiving the "infidel." The Islamic Republic could withdraw its opposition to the two-state solution in exchange for America's accepting Iran as a nuclear power; then, after the world has learned to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, Tehran could revive its goal of wiping the Jewish state off the map. 2009-07-29 06:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|