-Andrew Lachman makes the case that “Progressives should join Jews on Iran strategy,� while acknowledging that the Jewish position on Iran is somewhat at odds with the general Jewish rejection of the neo-Con agenda. (Jewish Journal)
-Seeing little hope for preventative sanctions, Zvi Bar’el predicts, “Within three years the international community will need a new kind of diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran – one whose goal is to dismantle existing weapons and eliminate the motivation to use them. (Haaretz)
-Barry Rubin makes the case that there are specific threats from Iran, in the diplomatic and economic areas, entirely apart from the nuclear threat. (The Jerusalem Post)
-A look at efforts to press the United Arab Emirates, and other courtiers, into taking a tougher economic stand against Iran. (Haaretz)
-The threat from Iran is now seen as topping the agenda of American Jews. (The Jewish Week)
-Aluf Benn reports that the US is telling Israel that it ought to simply get used to the idea of Iran with a nuclear bomb. (Haaretz)
-And similarly, Martin van Creveld says that a nuclear Iran cannot be prevented, but should instead be prepared for. (Forward)
-Efraim Halevy, a long time intelligence officer and former Mossad director makes the case that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel and that a conciliatory approach to Iran would be more effective. (The Washington Post)
-Michael Freund makes the case that either US or Israel should attack Iran militarily “soon.� (The Jerusalem Post)
-Murray Polner sees the danger of a sharp retaliation from Iran, against Israel, if it is attacked. (The Jewish Week)
Avi Issacharoff argues that “the Annapolis summit … will perpetuate the rift …. between the extremist camp lead by Iran, and the more moderate Sunni camp lead by Saudi Arabia.” The Saudis attended because “they hate the Iranians more” than they hate the Israelis. (Haaretz)
