by Derek Davison As Iran and six world powers scramble to reach a deal over Iran’s nuclear program by the deadline of Nov. 24 in Vienna, Washington is seeing a flurry of last-minute events focused on the pros and cons of pursuing diplomacy with Tehran. While advocates from both sides made their arguments on Capitol
via Lobe Log
The neoconservative hawk and deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens, has once again figured it all out. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, and no US president since then, including Ronald Reagan and George [...]
via Lobe Log
Meir Dagan, the former director of Israel’s Mossad, has received a liver transplant in Belarus. Reports from the Israeli press that have now made their way into western media sources state that Belarus’ president, Alexander Lukashenko, announced at a press conference on Oct. 16 that the operation had taken place [...]
via Lobe Log
Having pulled all the stops to avert an Israeli attack against Iran last spring that never happened, has the Obama administration given all that it has to Israel’s hawkish leaders, only to learn that it has been played? If so, how might this affect the US response to Israeli warnings that [...]
via Lobe Log
Lobe Log publishes Hawks on Iran every Friday. Our posts highlight militaristic commentary and confrontational policy recommendations about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal: For months the Journal’s editorial board published hawkish articles about Iran on [...]
via Think Progress
A growing number of current and former Israeli officials are voicing concern that attacking Iran may prove counterproductive in deterring Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Last week, former Israeli internal security chief Yuval Diskin warned that attacking Iran may “encourage them to develop a bomb.”
In response to a worrying trend in U.S. politics, Lobe Log publishes “Hawks on Iran” every Friday. Our posts highlight militaristic commentary and confrontational policy recommendations about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Is Israel actually capable of successfully carrying out its winner-take-all high tech attack on Iran that could destroy or (more likely) might delay the development of Iran’s budding nuclear program, at minimal cost–financial, environmental or in casualties–to itself or anyone else except Iran? Could the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran that didn’t succeed be almost as bad–or even worse–than one that did?
Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress
Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin asserted in a blog post that Texas governor and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry did not write a Friday pro-Israel op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal and Israel’s Jerusalem Post. The op-ed, in which Perry [...]
- Zero-Leprosy in Pandemic: Experts, Advocates Discuss New Strategies
- Social Distance, Science and Fantasy
- Act to Save Children Living Precarious Lives in Cameroon’s Forgotten and Neglected Conflict
- Partnering with Persons with Disabilities Toward an Inclusive, Accessible and Sustainable Post-COVID-19 World
- Big Tobacco Industry Rides COVID-19 Pandemic as Countries Grapple for a Response
- Building a Disability-Friendly Workplace: Why Includability Matters
- Clean Energy Alone Won’t Uplift Impoverished Nations — We Must Invest in People
- Volunteerism: Central to the Creation of a New Social Contract
- African Network Fosters Unity, Fights Gender Discrimination & Advances Sustainable Development
- What Will it Take to Turn Farmers Toward Climate-Resilient Superfood Millet?