Iran has taken five U.S. scholars prisoner on charges of espionage. The story has gotten too little play in American opinion pages, but here are a few pundits and advocates who have decided to speak up on their behalf.

Michael Ledeen wonders why more pundits aren’t talking about Iran’s new “hostage” crisis. Five Americans have been imprisoned and the press isn’t talking about it much.

Trudy Rubin is coming to the defense of Esfandiari: “her jailing flies in the face of common interests shared by sane people in the United States and Iran. So it is crucial that academics and prominent figures around the world tell Ahmadinejad he must release her.”

The Education for Peace in Iraq Center has released a statement on their blog defending the Iranian prisoners.

The Open Society Institute issues a response to the detention of OSI fellow Kian Tajbakhsh.

The Washington Times says that “It should now be obvious to even the most relentless engagement advocates that Tehran simply does not want engagement. Its history of hostage-taking is the record of a hostile regime, one whose character is unchanged over the years in its contempt for the West -- including its own defenders. That it would throw these congenial people in jail as a sideshow during the U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq is a telling indicator of that fact.”

The New Republic says that the case of Haleh Esfandiari may be evidence of Iran's “veiled contempt” for her work on behalf of Iranian women.

From war hawks to honey bees, the opinion journalists weigh in on a potpourri of issues.

The Energy Crisis

The LA Times says it’s time to tax carbon. We have to get our emissions under control and a cap and trade system just won’t cut it.

Daniel Taylor wonders why the Democrats would pass a bill against gas “price gouging” while they are trying to rally to stop global warming. Are they serious or just cynical?

The Disappearing Bees

Salon provides a run down of opinions on why bees are disappearing. However it is, the consequences could be serious.

Political Debate

Peter Berkowitz argues that if you want to see the kind of debate that makes democracy possible one should look at the conservatives. Progressives should follow suit: “Conservatives, facing uncertainty about George W. Bush's legacy, and the reality of their own errors and excesses, have good reason just now to read and ponder Kirk, Hayek and Strauss. Progressives, too prone these days to perceive difficult moral and political questions as one-sided and too keen to characterize their allies at home in the defense of liberty as enemies, have good reason to do so themselves.”

National Security

Gary Hart looks at what it means for us to be secure. Hint: it isn’t war.

The Senate's immigration bill, a bipartisan compromise, has not made the partisans on either side happy. Many on both the left and right are displeased with the legislation and they are ready to tell us why.

Peggy Noonan asks us to stop, sit, and contemplate immigration for awhile. In the meantime we should close our borders and tell the American story to the immigrants already here. “We don't round up and remove. Nor should we, tomorrow, on one of our whims, grant full legal status and a Cadillac car,” Noonan says, “We take it a day at a time. We wait and see what's happening. We do the small discrete things a nation can do to make the overall situation better. For instance: ‘You commit a violent crime? You are so out of here.’ And, ‘Here, let me help you learn English.’”

Clive Crook isn’t satisfied by the Senate’s immigration bill. “Plainly, the flow of new arrivals has to be restricted and regulated,” he argues, “But the right strategy has to recognize the practical limits in a free country to securing the border, and balance efforts in that direction with a visa regime that meets the country's economic needs while lessening the incentives to migrate illegally. It is not an easy balance to strike, but the Senate bill isn't even close.”

John O’Sullivan channels Machiavelli to send a memo to Karl Rove on immigration: “If this bill goes through, it will result in citizenship down the road for between 12 and 20 million Hispanics, mainly poor, mainly low-skilled, and so mainly Democratic voters. That represents a net gain of between four and seven million votes for the Democrats at the very least. That’s why the Democrats are supporting this bill…Of course, what a fool I’ve been! That explains everything. Karl, you’re working for the Democrats. I am, as ever, in awe.Your friend and pupil, Nick”

Tomas Jimenez thinks that we need to reform much more than immigration laws to make the American dream achievable for new comers: “If we are going to take on the formidable challenge of further integrating 12 million mostly poor immigrants, we have to provide better public schools, a more affordable college education, healthcare and jobs that offer a decent wage and benefits so that they and their children are able to rejuvenate the American dream. The real threat is not that immigrants will fail to buy into what's essential to American identity, but that we will fall short in providing them the tools to do so.”