"The Obama administration maintains that the sanctions relief offered in exchange was limited and would not have undermined the basic sanctions regime, which has had a devastating effect on Iran's oil exports and access to the international financial system. It also argues, correctly, that a negotiated deal is preferable to the alternatives and the best outcome for all parties concerned, Israel and Saudi Arabia included."

"Iran is certainly conducting an unprecedented charm offensive—some might say trying to take the international community on a Persian carpet ride—in the hopes of lifting the sanctions, or of shifting the blame to the U.S. and peeling off countries from the existing sanctions regime, in the event of failure. The question remains whether it truly is willing to forgo a military nuclear capability and reach what would be a painful compromise deal for all."

"Israel of 2013 is a strong and secure country, certainly compared to the past. The countries around us are falling apart, and we no longer face existential threats (unless, possibly, if Iran goes nuclear). Hezbollah, Hamas and their ilk can cause us significant damage, but not threaten our fundamental security, and the primary threat they present is to buildings, infrastructure, and the economy, rather than a loss of lives. This is bad enough, but the threat is limited, and we have learned to deter Hezbollah and Hamas and to bring about prolonged cessations of hostilities."

"Amidst all of the uncertainty surrounding the details of the Russian proposal and the chances of it actually being implemented, there are, however, two near-certainties. Syria will do everything possible to delay, prevent, circumvent and minimize the actual transfer of its chemical arsenal to international control, let alone dismantlement, and will enjoy significant Russian and Iranian backing in these efforts."

"Obama has a few primary options. One is to stand firmly behind American values, as advocated by recent editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post and adopt the calls by senators McCain and Graham to suspend all aid. For all the billions in aid over the decades, however, the United States now finds itself with little leverage in Egypt, and by alienating the regime it risks being left with none. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are already rushing in to fill the diplomatic and economic vacuum, and ultimately Russia will provide weapons without any conditions."

"Even Netanyahu appears to have recognized that the window for a two-state solution is rapidly closing and has recently begun speaking of his determination to avoid a one-state reality. This quiet, but dramatic rhetorical change is reminiscent of the transformation Sharon underwent 10 years ago. A premier can only deny reality for so long."

"It is not clear that Egypt has the prerequisites for democracy. But let us recall with humility that it took centuries for democracy to develop in the West, and Egypt's starting point is much more difficult. What is essential is that Egypt be a moderate, stable and peaceful state. Israel too has to do its part. Unable to directly influence events in Egypt, it will be called on to demonstrate restraint in the face of continued attacks from the Sinai Peninsula, as well as from the Gaza Strip."

"A failure to respond to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons would not only encourage him in the belief that he can perhaps get away with an even bigger use next time; it would also undermine U.S. strategic credibility well beyond the Syria case. This begs the obvious question: At what point does the 'red line' really become one?"

"...[E]ven the limited use of chemical weapons violates a fundamental international norm and an American failure to respond would create another North Korea–like precedent that would be a source of deep encouragement for the Assads of the world: WMD buys even a heinous regime immunity from international retaliation. Iran is no doubt watching in the wings, deriving its own conclusions regarding what the U.S. defines as unacceptable behavior."

"The most pressing issue on the agenda is a collapsing Syria and the increasingly realistic danger that it may, in extremis, use chemical weapons against its civilian population, or Israel. Recent indications have created the worrisome impression that the administration is focused on ways of responding to a Syrian use of such weapons, rather than preventing them from being used."