« Previous |
1 - 50 of 113
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Strategic Survival in Syria
- Author:
- Omar Abu Layla
- Publication Date:
- 01-2023
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- How Russia and Iran maintain their grip in Syria under the shadows of the Ukraine war
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Conflict, Strategic Stability, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Iran, Ukraine, Middle East, and Syria
3. The Foreign Policy of Post-Revolutionary Iran: Expediency at the Crossroad of Suprra-Nationalism and Soverignty
- Author:
- Hamoon Khelghat-Doost
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
- Institution:
- Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
- Abstract:
- The direction of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policy has been a source of argument among scholars since the establishment of the revolutionary regime in 1979. Iran’s foreign policy just like its revolution is still a mystery to many researchers as it is difficult to find an appropriate theoretical framework for it. Revolution and how revolutionary states such as China and Cuba view the world and build their foreign relations with other nations have been long discussed in the works of prominent scholars including Leng (1972), Armstrong (1993), Walt (1996), Halliday (2002), and Doma-Nguez & Domínguez (2009). However, what makes the foreign policy of revolutionary Iran different from other revolutionary states (mostly Marxist revolutions) and, therefore, more confusing to study, is the Shi’a Islamic nature of it.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
4. Time to Recalibrate America’s Middle East Policy
- Author:
- Raphael BenLevi and Michael Doran
- Publication Date:
- 01-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Hudson Institute
- Abstract:
- Our understanding of reality in the Middle East has changed significantly in the last seven years. At a conference on US-Israel relations in 2016, then Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted, now famously, the impossibility of Israel making peace with the Gulf states. In an obvious reference to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his associates, Kerry said, “I’ve heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, ‘Well, the Arab world is in a different place now. We just have to reach out to them. We can work some things with the Arab world, and we’ll deal with the Palestinians.’” Kerry dismissed Netanyahu’s thesis with total certainty: “No. No, no, and no. I can tell you that I’ve talked to the leaders of the Arab community. There will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality.” Just two years later, Netanyahu refuted Kerry’s view of reality by, with the help of President Donald Trump, signing the Abraham Accords with Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani and Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan. But the flaws that Trump and Netanyahu revealed were not Kerry’s alone. Nor were the flaws limited to thinking about Arab-Israeli relations. Trump and Netanyahu were attacking the entire strategic belief system of the Obama administration, which had identified reconciling with Iran and brokering a Palestinian-Israeli peace as the two top priorities of the United States in the Middle East. In the Trump-Netanyahu conception, the Abraham Accords were the cornerstone of a regional alliance that aimed not just to improve relations between Israel and its neighbors but also to contain Iran militarily and to prevent it, through the application of hard power, from acquiring a nuclear weapon. With a Middle East staff consisting almost entirely of veterans of the Obama administration, the Biden administration intended to prove the utility of Obama’s effort to reconcile with Iran. It therefore rejected the Trump-Netanyahu view of the accords as a key component of an Iran-containment strategy. However, the accords have fashioned a new “hard reality” of Arab-Israeli coordination that the administration cannot ignore. That reality includes formal Israeli representation at US Central Command, the military’s combatant operations command responsible for, among other things, deterring Iran. In other words, beneath the umbrella of the United States military, the Israeli military and its Arab counterparts are now liaising daily. Weren’t Trump and Netanyahu pursuing this outcome? The simple answer is no. To prevent trilateral military cooperation among the Arab states, Israel, and the United States from turning into a coalition designed to pressure Iran regarding the aggression of its proxy forces and the expansion of its nuclear weapons program, the Biden administration instructed CENTCOM to focus exclusively on defensive measures and integrated missile defense, and to avoid any offensive countermeasures against Iran. But defending against an aggressor with only a shield is impossible. Arming oneself with a sword is also necessary. Enter Raphael BenLevi, the director of the Churchill Program for Strategy, Statesmanship and National Security at the Argaman Institute of Tikvah Fund Israel. BenLevi is at the forefront of a new generation of foreign policy strategists in Israel who have come of age in an era when what seemed like a “hard reality” to the generation of John Kerry is now obviously history. In this article, he lays out a strong case for the potential of the kind of trilateral cooperation to which the Biden administration, under the weight of stale ideas, has turned a blind eye.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, North America, and United States of America
5. The System Is Blinking Red over Iran
- Author:
- Jonathan Schachter
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Hudson Institute
- Abstract:
- In his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, then-CIA Director George Tenet described the harrowing intelligence picture that had emerged in the summer of 2001. “The system was blinking red,” he famously recalled. What followed, of course, was the well-documented, multi-agency failure to prevent an avoidable disaster that changed the course of history. The system is blinking red again, and the American response appears frighteningly familiar. Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that its inspectors in Iran had discovered uranium particles enriched to about 84 percent purity. Most reports have noted that this is just shy of the 90 percent level generally considered to be “weapons grade.” Others correctly point out that uranium enriched to around 80 percent fueled the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Almost no one mentions that Iran has no civilian need to enrich uranium in the first place. During the nearly four years leading up to the IAEA’s finding, Iran has engaged in increasingly grave violations of its international nuclear obligations, only some of which derive from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran still refuses to cooperate with at least three separate IAEA investigations of undeclared nuclear materials, activities, and sites, in violation of its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. With Iran’s long history of nuclear lawbreaking, the discovery of undeclared, highly enriched uranium is unsurprising. Iran does not have a peaceful uranium enrichment program. Uranium enrichment remains part and parcel of the regime’s effort to develop and maintain the ability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons on demand. Rather than dismantling Iran’s illegally built military enrichment program, the JCPOA decriminalized it. Even if the US had not withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018, the deal’s limited and temporary terms explicitly permit Iran to expand its enrichment capability and capacity and increase its stockpile of enriched uranium, legally and without limitation, by the end of this decade. In a February 24 interview with CBS News, the current CIA director, William Burns, downplayed the danger. He reaffirmed that “we don’t believe that the Supreme Leader in Iran has yet made a decision to resume the weaponization program that we judge that they suspended or stopped at the end of 2003.” The materials Israeli intelligence spirited out of a Tehran warehouse (the “Atomic Archive”) in 2018, which Israel shared with the United States, raise disturbing questions about the assessment Burns presented and its persistence. The archive materials showed that the regime did not stop or suspend its weaponization program in 2003, but, in the Iranians’ own words, modified it. What had been a crash program geared toward testing a nuclear device on a short timeline became a dispersed, long-term effort—part clandestine, part under the cover of civilian research—to develop and maintain capabilities relevant to the production of nuclear weapons. The program went from sprint to marathon, though both have a nuclear weapons finish line. More broadly, the archive showed that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was more advanced and comprehensive than previously understood. Israel and the United States became aware of how much so 15 years after the fact and only thanks to one of the most stunning intelligence coups in modern history. Despite this long lag and the long odds of repeating such an intelligence feat, Burns seems to believe that we will know in near-real time if and when Iran’s leader decides to switch the program back to an even shorter nuclear sprint. This belief seems to reflect, as the saying goes, the triumph of hope over experience. Perhaps this too is unsurprising. The JCPOA was always built on little more than hope. The largely unspoken logic behind the agreement was that an engaged, wealthier Iran would lose interest in nuclear weapons before the deal’s restrictions expired. Iran quickly proved the optimists wrong. In the years immediately after striking the deal, Tehran increased defense spending by more than 30 percent; offered substantially more support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis; and intensified its aggression across the region. Iran continues to develop missiles and, as Burns pointed out, the associated ability to deliver a nuclear warhead. Now Iran is using the same uranium enrichment infrastructure guaranteed by the JCPOA to violate its terms. The Biden administration’s policy toward Iran reflects a clear and consistent preference for diplomacy over the use of force, and understandably so. But the White House treats the two as contradictory, rather than complementary. For over two years, the administration has demonstrated its reticence to use, or even credibly threaten to use, force against Iran. Manifestly undeterred, Iran has continued and accelerated its drive toward the nuclear threshold. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine and Iran’s provision of weapons to Russia mean that even if the IAEA Board of Governors were to refer Iran’s nuclear crimes to the United Nations Security Council, Russia surely would veto any punitive measure toward the Islamic Republic. In other words, America’s soft-handed approach and global events are making a diplomatic solution less likely. If Washington continues on its current path, the world almost certainly will face a nuclear-armed Iran, a war to prevent that eventuality, or both. It is not too late to act. First, the United States can press its European partners to activate the JCPOA’s snap-back mechanism, which is not subject to a Russian (or Chinese) veto. Doing so would reimpose international sanctions and the UN arms embargo on Iran that the deal lifted in 2020. It also would prevent the planned lifting of the UN missile embargo on Iran in October of this year. Second, the president, his administration, and Congress can make clear that the United States and its allies can and will use force to prevent Iran from violating its nuclear obligations. The United States would not be moving its red lines, but rather enforcing them. Doing so would send a powerful message to Iranian leaders that they have already crossed America’s red lines and need to back down. Such a threat might not be effective. But without a credible American commitment to use force, no diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem is possible. This moment could be America’s last chance to change course on Iran. If it does not, one wonders what Director Burns and his colleagues in the administration might say in their future testimony about why they failed to act when the system was blinking red on their watch.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
6. Preserving U.S. Military Advantages in the Middle East
- Author:
- Nathan P. Olsen
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) calls on the U.S. military to sustain enduring advantages and build new ones for the future fight. According to the NDS, building and maintaining advantages to advance U.S. national interests will allow the military to deter attacks against the United States and its allies and partners, while fostering a resilient military force and defense ecosystem. In the Middle East, this challenge is especially relevant. The United States has several enduring advantages that could eventually disappear if the U.S. government does not make significant changes in how it operates in this part of the world.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Strategic Competition, and Military
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
7. Ending the use of child soldiers
- Author:
- Alistair Taylor, Mick Mulroy, and Eric Oehlerich
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- Middle East Institute (MEI)
- Abstract:
- On this week's episode Alistair Taylor, MEI's editor-in-chief, is joined by Mick Mulroy and Eric Oehlerich, Senior Fellows with MEI’s Defense & Security Program and the Co-founders of the Lobo Institute and End Child Soldiering, to discuss efforts to stop the recruitment and use of children in combat and rehabilitate former child soldiers. The use of child soliders is a widespread global problem that has a disproportionate impact on the broader Middle East, especially in Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Rehabilitation, and Child Soldiers
- Political Geography:
- Sudan, Middle East, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia
8. Turkey's Response to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis
- Author:
- Aaron Stein
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Abstract:
- On October 26, 2021, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense released video of a TB2 unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) striking a separatist D-30 howitzer in Russian-occupied Donbas. The strike was Ukraine’s first confirmed use of the now ubiquitous TB2, the Bayraktar-manufactured drone that the Turkish military has used to great tactical effect in Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Turkish-Ukrainian defense relationship is understudied, but it could become an important factor in how Russian elites view North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) support for non-member Ukraine, and be used to justify an invasion to assuage Moscow’s concerns about a US-allied military presence along its borders. The Turkish support for Ukraine is not the main driver of Russian discomfort about the future of Ukraine. The TB2 is also not a decisive game changer, and the use of UCAVs is almost certain to have little impact on how Russian leadership weighs risk during debates about the efficacy of armed conflict in a neighboring state. Nevertheless, Turkish-Ukrainian defense ties are worthy of deeper study, precisely because Ankara’s relationships with Kyiv and Moscow have a secondary impact on American interests in Eastern Europe. The Turkish-Russian relationship is marred by bureaucratic distrust, which is papered over by a very functional leader-to-leader dynamic that enables the two Black Sea neighbors to cooperate and manage numerous regional conflicts. The Turkish-Ukrainian dynamic, in turn, is part of a broader Turkish effort to establish itself as an independent actor, committed to pursuing a foreign policy that often clashes with much of the NATO alliance. This paper will explore Turkish-Russian and Turkish-Ukrainian relations; the reasons for Turkey’s efforts to “fence sit” and establish itself as a neutral political actor in the Black Sea; and what these efforts portend for US interests in the region.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, and Crisis Management
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, and Middle East
9. Bases, Logistics, and the Problem of Temptation in the Middle East
- Author:
- Benjamin Denison
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- The wisdom of making wars easier depends on the wisdom of the wars. Rapid military response to all global trouble may sound good, but it can tempt policymakers to intervene even for non-vital interests. U.S. military bases and logistics hubs in and near the Middle East are the primary examples—they make foolish wars too easy to start. Maintaining the ability to use rapid military force in the region has become an end unto itself, unmoored from any clear vital strategic interest. Closing bases will make wars more challenging to start, which will help spur public debate about potential interventions due to the transparent upfront costs required. This will give diplomacy an opportunity to return as the primary policy option in the region. This recommendation is consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s logic. Democracy’s benefit for foreign policymaking is its ability to consider many options and give more time to think through various proposals.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Affairs, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and United States of America
10. Seven Myths about the Iran Nuclear Deal
- Author:
- Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Hudson Institute
- Abstract:
- In 2015, President Barack Obama worked with three European powers, the European Union, Iran, China, and Russia to conclude the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In 2018, President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from the deal. Instituting his policy of “maximum pressure,” Trump imposed crippling economic sanctions that punished Iran not just for its ongoing nuclear weapons program but also for, among other things, its regional aggression and support for terrorism worldwide. Earlier in 2018, Israeli agents conducted a dramatic operation in Tehran, breaking into a secret warehouse and capturing a trove of Iranian nuclear files. These documents revealed a more advanced and comprehensive nuclear weapons program than had been previously known. The nuclear archive also showed Iranian officials’ plan for concealing nuclear weapons efforts under the guise of civilian research and development, and how Iranian officials systematically deceived the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is required to cooperate with IAEA inspectors to verify the peaceful nature of its program. After the Israelis shared the nuclear archive with the IAEA, its inspectors found traces of uranium at several undeclared sites. Despite being obligated to do so, Tehran has refused to explain the presence of the uranium or reveal its current location. Iran’s requirements under the NPT are wholly separate from the JCPOA, but Tehran is using the Biden administration’s profound desire to return to the nuclear deal to bring political pressure on the IAEA to close the book on Iran’s violations. A fair-minded observer of Iran’s relations with the IAEA cannot but conclude that Tehran has never wavered from its intention to build a nuclear weapons capability and that its publicly declared “civilian” nuclear activities are an effort to hide its nuclear bomb program in plain sight. From the very inception of the JCPOA, however, the deal’s supporters have spun myths that disguise these self-evident truths. After Trump left the deal, those same supporters continued to recite the old myths while adding some new ones about the purported comparative advantage of the JCPOA over maximum pressure. As President Biden prepares to bring the United States back into the JCPOA, and as the public, the press, and Congress consider the deal's terms, we identify the seven most pernicious myths and explain the reality that they seek to conceal.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
11. Risk and Responsibility: Managing Future Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction Threats
- Author:
- Becca Wasser and Jennie Matuschak
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- Washington is reimagining its global role, leading the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to make difficult choices about priorities, resources, and risk to better address the long-term “pacing challenge” posed by China. To do so, the United States plans to accept risks in the Middle East and against future Iran threats. Iran’s possession and potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)—specifically, its nuclear program, chemical weapons, and biological agents—pose the greatest threat to U.S. interests and Washington’s ability to accept risk in the region. But how Iran might leverage WMDs to threaten U.S. interests and upend Washington’s plans to make trade-offs in global responsibilities is unclear, while the risks of failing to address these challenges remain high. As a result, the DoD and its component organizations, such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), must enhance their understanding of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities and the escalation dynamics surrounding Iranian WMDs during crisis and conflict. By doing so, the United States can better accept risk in the Middle East and revise its global priorities while still protecting core U.S. interests. To improve the DoD’s understanding of future Iranian WMD-related threats and escalation dynamics, the Gaming Lab at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) conducted a series of three virtual strategic-operational tabletop exercises (TTXs) exploring future Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons use. The TTXs indicated that even if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the likelihood the regime will use it is low. Instead, the regime may be more likely to use chemical and biological weapons to escalate conflict. Moreover, there are significant asymmetries between American and Iranian views of conflict timelines, escalation redlines, and risk tolerance, all of which make it difficult to offer and signal credible ways to de-escalate a crisis. Differences between Washington’s risk acceptance and that of its regional partners—Israel, in particular—further complicate U.S.-Iran interactions. The TTXs aimed to enable the United States to identify where and how it might mitigate the risk it must accept to better marshal resources in support of the department’s strategic guidance. Accepting greater risk against Iran and in the Middle East more broadly means shifting U.S. strategic priorities in the region. This shift has the potential to unsettle allies and partners, and may possibly embolden Iran in the near term, but such tough choices must be made if the United States wishes to prioritize other long-term threats that may be of greater impact to U.S. security, such as China.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons, and Risk
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, and United States of America
12. How Will a Revival of the JCPOA Affect Regional Politics and Iranian Militias?
- Author:
- Munqith Dagher
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The news about the imminent revival of the nuclear deal between the United States and Iran is heightening concerns, especially across the Middle East. The deal would involve the lifting of economic sanctions, resulting in Iran enjoying a significant flow of income. This analysis attempts to address two important questions: First, free of the U.S. sanctions, will Iran indeed decide to increase its regional influence by funding its regional militias? And second, how will Iran’s strategic direction and regional politics change in the near future? This analysis reveals that the geostrategic threats currently facing Iran as a result of its adopted hostile regional policy outweigh the gains from continuing in its current trajectory. In general, despite the long history of conflict, dispute, and mistrust, the region seems to be gearing toward an era of de-escalation. For the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to justify its continued presence, there is a need for its involvement in continuous conflicts, especially since it currently controls more than two-thirds of the Iranian economy. However, this buckling economy itself is now in dire need of renewal and revival to continue Iran’s ability to prop up the regime and all its components.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
13. Policy Paper: Considerations of condemnation and balance of Palestine’s position on the war in Ukraine
- Author:
- Palthink
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Pal-Think For Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- In classic wars, we waited for the military result, and then we formed a political response. In new wars, there is not a final resolution; there is only the stronger party imposing its conditions. Additionally, there is also geographical control, regime projection, or behavior modification goals. Russia is seeking to maintain its national security and enhance its regional and international position. It has a deep fear that NATO will expand, bringing weapons to its border with Ukraine. Now that the first shock of the war has receded, the world realizes that the war will not exceed Ukraine’s borders. Russia has given indications that it will limit itself to the minimum that preserves its national security by preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Global concern about the consequences of war is high. People are wondering if it will continue or stop. Additionally, sanctions have been announced. In this context, developing and poor countries are affected by conflict because they depend on foreign aid. Their positions on the war will determine where they are positioned, and how the political, economic and security consequences will affect them. Trying to show a neutral position would not endear them to the great powers. On the face of it, it may seem to be a war fought on Ukrainian lands only, but it is a world war of influence. The survival of developing nations depends on the strength of the international community and the extent to which it supports these nations in the light of political realism, not because of their strength and resources. Many places cannot survive without traditional international support.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Ukraine, Middle East, and Palestine
14. Forecasting Iranian Government Responses to Cyberattacks
- Author:
- Austen Givens, Nikki Sanders, and Corye J. Douglas
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Advanced Military Studies
- Institution:
- Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
- Abstract:
- Extant scholarship on Iranian cyber warfare emphasizes the ways in which Tehran’s cyber capabilities might be employed offensively to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Comparatively little attention, however, has been given to the ways in which Iran might leverage these same cyber assets in retaliatory strikes. This article argues that because of the unique combination of endogenous and exogenous variables affecting contemporary Iran, including diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, as well as Iran’s historical track record of carrying out its foreign policy through proxies, Iranian cyber retaliation is likely to be executed through third parties, mostly symbolic in nature, and proportionate in scale.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Sanctions, Cybersecurity, Cryptocurrencies, and Retaliation
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
15. The Implications of the Ukraine War for Israel
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- For Israel, this is evidence that its self-reliance doctrine must be nourished with no illusions about foreign support in times of crisis. Moreover, Turkey probably sees NATO more positively since it borders Russia, pushing Ankara toward the West.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, Middle East, and Israel
16. Vienna: A return to Ben-Gurion’s WW2 Dual Strategy?
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- It is time to revive the spirit of Ben-Gurion’s famous dictum from the days of WWII regarding the stance toward the British: “We will fight the war as if there were no White Paper, and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war.” This makes sense concerning Israel’s dilemma towards the US in the context of the renewal of the JCPOA.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, and Israel
17. Ukraine could have Repercussions for Syrian Regime, Israel
- Author:
- Marta Furlan
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The movement of Syrian fighters to Ukraine will significantly impact Syria’s internal dynamics, and Israel needs to monitor the situation closely.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
18. Israel Must Adjust its Ukraine Policy
- Author:
- Daniel Rakov
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The difficulties of the Russian military on the battlefield increase the possibility that in the coming weeks, Moscow will expand the fighting as part of preparations for a long-term military campaign.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
19. A New Global Order? Israel’s Relations with China and Russia in Light of the War in Ukraine
- Author:
- Tuvia Gering and Daniel Rakov
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Despite their mutual support throughout the first hundred days of the war, Russia and China continue to have competing interests. Whereas Israel needs to be more responsive to Washington’s concerns about its two global competitors, it must also be mindful of populist calls to destabilize relations with Moscow and Beijing.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
20. Latest Killings in Iran May Indicate a Notable Shift in Israeli Strategy
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- A notable change of the rules of engagement has taken place, in which the totality of Iranian actions will now be opposed, also on Iranian soil. The strike on the UAV fleet at Kermanshah and the assassination of Colonel Khodai in Tehran were the first manifestations of this new approach.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, and Israel
21. The US Defense Establishment’s Role in Shaping American Regional Strategy
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Israel offers the US military and, even more so, the intelligence community critical support. For example, the US Army has gained through the acquisition of the Iron Dome missile defense system, tank technology such as reactive armor, solutions to the challenge of terrorist improvised explosive devices, mine-clearing devices, and much more. In turn, the US defense establishment –specifically CENTCOM, now that Israel is in its area of responsibility – increasingly reflects Israeli perspectives in Washington policy debates. This has recently been the case on Iran.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
22. Egypt as the Cornerstone of the New Regional Security Architecture
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The stability and orientation of the region’s most populous country, Egypt, remain crucial components of the newly emerging regional security architecture and its new strategic alignments.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Regional Cooperation
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Middle East, Egypt, and MENA
23. To What Extent is Israel Prepared for the Growing Threat of UAVs?
- Author:
- Eden Kaduri, Liran Antebi, and Meir Elran
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- The threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has recently figured in the headlines, following UAVs launched by Hezbollah in July 2022 aimed at the Israel natural gas platform in the Karish field, reports of a Hamas project to develop UAVs, a UAV attack against the American al-Tanf base in Syria, and reports that Russia has purchased Iranian UAVs. Such an arsenal in hostile hands constitutes a mounting threat to Israel. Assuming that UAVs, especially offensive ones, will join any high-trajectory fire against Israel, new thinking about the ways of dealing with the threat in the spheres of doctrine, development, and operations is needed. Technological and operational solutions for both the more conventional threat and a scenario of massive UAV attacks in combination with high-trajectory barrages are required. Inter alia, there should be greater reliance on lasers as a cheap solution with much higher output than the current solutions. In addition, preparations should be made for handling extreme scenarios, however unlikely.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Drones
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
24. Tehran Heightens the Pressure as it Strives to Thwart a Regional Air Defense System
- Author:
- Tamir Hayman and Sima Shine
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- The heightened discussion of a “regional air defense alliance” was met by increased Iranian activity to block any such measure, including explicit threats that in turn prompted rejection of the idea by senior Gulf figures. It appears that at this stage, relations between Israel and the Gulf states that remain below the radar are preferable to grandiose public statements that do match the reality on the ground
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Missile Defense, Air Force, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
25. Resolving the Gas Dispute with Lebanon: First Exhaust Diplomatic Efforts
- Author:
- Orna Mizrahi and Yoram Schweitzer
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- Hezbollah’s launch of UAVs at the Karish gas field was a cognitive action directed at Israel and the Lebanese, and sparked much public criticism in the Lebanese political establishment, which is eager to reach an arrangement on the gas issue. At this stage, Israel is right not to react to the UAVs militarily, and should continue to try to exhaust the diplomatic route with its northern neighbor to demarcate the maritime border, while recognizing that the Shiite organization will attempt again to challenge the balance of deterrence
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Hezbollah
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon
26. Hezbollah Challenges Israel: Time to Rethink the Policy of Restraint
- Author:
- Udi Dekel
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- Israel is deterred, and as long as it does not respond to Hezbollah’s launch of UAVS at the drilling rig in the Karish gas field, Nasrallah, backed by Iran, will continue to test the limits of Israel’s restraint. Sometimes it is necessary to play different, surprising cards in order to return to previous rules of the game. Therefore, Israel should respond in the air campaign and attack the Hezbollah-operated air defense systems in Lebanon, even at the risk of escalation, which at the present time is likely to be limited
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Violence, and Hezbollah
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
27. A Rising and Falling Alarm: A Strategy for a Joint Exercise in the Home Front Command
- Author:
- Liron Donnell
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- The incoming chief of staff of the Home Front Command responds to an article by INSS researcher Meir Elran. She contends that contrary to the claim that the national home front exercise held this past November realized only part of its potential, the exercise in fact met all of its goals and saw many solid achievements. Moreover, the criticism of the event addressed issues that cannot be resolved in a single exercise
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
28. Hezbollah's Efforts to Restore its Domestic Standing: The Israeli Card
- Author:
- Orna Mizrahi and Yoram Schweitzer
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- The launch of a drone into Israeli territory this past February was yet another offensive cognitive activity by Hezbollah, intended to mask its deteriorating situation – in the domestic arena, stemming from the growing criticism of the organization in advance of the coming elections, scheduled for May, and vis-à-vis Israel, given its difficulty to maintain the “deterrence equation” that it defined. Jerusalem should expect additional acts of this sort, while preparing for a future situation in which the attacks become a security threat
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Hezbollah
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
29. Iran's Nuclear Policy: Nature, Ambition, and Strategy
- Author:
- Violet B. Eneyo, Jihad Talib, Frank Mbeh Attah, and Eric Etim Offiong
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
- Institution:
- Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
- Abstract:
- Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons represent the biggest danger to humanity. During the Cold War, the US and USSR provided ‘umbrella protection’ to convince allies not to acquire nuclear weapons. Most ‘newly’ independent nations never had such security during the Cold War since they were not part of a power bloc. During the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980-1988), the Islamic Republic of Iran was attacked with chemical weapons. Since Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian exile organization, exposed Iran's hidden nuclear program in 2002, the topic has gained worldwide attention. Iran's nuclear agenda has produced a worldwide catastrophe despite its NPT membership. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and respects Islamic values. Most US politicians and academics consider Iran a rough nation with political and strategic concerns, including regional hegemony, human rights, terrorism, WMD proliferation, and military operations beyond the border. This study examines Iran's nuclear policies to demonstrate its essence, goal, and strategy.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Chemical Weapons, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
30. Blocking the Gateways to Nuclear Disorder in the Middle East
- Author:
- John Spacapan
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
- Abstract:
- This study will explain how the United States and like-minded states can still stop, or at least significantly slow down, the bomb’s spread in the Middle East. The historical record as well as the current intentions of potential proliferators in the region suggests this is possible, but Washington will need to start planning now. The three case countries of this monograph – Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia – are all taking aggressive steps toward nuclearization.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Middle East
31. Looking beyond the Biden Visit to the Middle East and the “Fist Bump”
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- If one looks back on media coverage of Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia – and far too many of the analyses of the visit that have followed – it is amazing to see how much of that coverage focused on the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, the President’s “fist bump,” and on short term issues and trends. The key strategic challenges the U.S. faces in the Middle East are longer term and they go far beyond most of the reporting and discussion of the Biden visit.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, North America, and United States of America
32. What Strategic Posture Should France Adopt in the Middle East?
- Author:
- Héloïse Fayet
- Publication Date:
- 11-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
- Abstract:
- France has a historical presence in the Middle East, where it has many interests to defend: the fight against terrorism, the promotion of the arms industry, the dissemination of humanitarian values, etc. To this end, it has a number of resources at its disposal, notably military: French forces are deployed in Iraq, Syria and Jordan as part of Operation Chammal, in Lebanon for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and in the United Arab Emirates. This strategic posture, inherited from the history and "Arab policy" of the 20th century, is now being called into question by the geopolitical upheavals in the region. The resizing of the American presence in the Middle East, initiated by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, is accompanied by a growing assumption of responsibility for their own security by local actors. This evolution is embodied, for example, in the signing of the Abraham Accords, which redefine the place of Israel. The American pulling out also allows extra-regional powers such as China and Russia to become progressively involved in the area. These transformations require an adaptation of the French posture in order to position itself as a credible actor in the strategic competition. It is therefore necessary to move away from the sole focus on counterterrorism, which no longer gathers partners, and more broadly to redefine the partnership strategy and the mechanism deployed on the ground. A strengthened interministerial, or even European, dynamic also seems essential in order to mobilize all the levers available to France.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Armed Forces, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, France, and Syria
33. Hackers, Hoodies, and Helmets: Technology and the changing face of Russian private military contractors
- Author:
- Emma Schroeder, Gavin Wilde, Justin Sherman, and Trey Herr
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- The first time Russia invaded Ukraine in the twenty-first century, the Wagner Group was born. The now widely profiled private military company (PMC) played an important role in exercising Russian national power over the Crimea and portions of the Donbas—while giving Moscow a semblance of plausible deniability. In the near decade since, the Russian PMC sector has grown considerably, and is active in more than a dozen countries around the world. PMCs are paramilitary organizations established and run as private companies—though they often operate in contract with one or more states. They are profit-motivated, expeditionary groups that make a business of the conduct of war.1 PMCs are in no way a uniquely Russian phenomenon, yet the expanding footprint of Russian PMCs and their links to state interests call for a particularly Russian-focused analysis of the industry. The growth of these firms and their direct links to the Kremlin’s oligarch network as well as Moscow’s foreign media, industrial, and cyber activities present a challenge to the United States and its allies as they seek to counter Russian malicious activities abroad. As signals intelligence and offensive cyber capabilities, drones and counter-drone systems, and encrypted communications become more accessible, these technologies will prove ever more decisive to both battlefield outcomes and statecraft. More exhaustive research on these issues is necessary. The ongoing conflict resulting from Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in this young century seems likely to shape the conduct of Russian foreign policy and security behavior for years to come—and these firms will play a part. The activities of these PMCs include high-intensity combat operations, as evidenced in Syria in 2018 and Ukraine in 2022, and a mix of population control, escort and close protection, and local direct-action activities, as seen in Libya, Mali, and elsewhere.2 Given the sourcing and dependence of Russian PMCs on Russian military service personnel and no small influence of Russian doctrine, the questions to reasonably ask include: How do changes in the Russian conduct of war and adoption of new technologies influence these PMCs? Moreover, how might these technological changes influence the role these PMCs play in Russian strategic goals and activity abroad?
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Innovation, Wagner Group, Russia-Ukraine War, and Private Military Companies (PMCs)
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Eurasia, Ukraine, Middle East, and Africa
34. Don’t Fear Vacuums: It’s Safe To Go Home
- Author:
- Benjamin H. Friedman
- Publication Date:
- 12-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Defense Priorities
- Abstract:
- “We will not walk away and leave a vacuum to be filled by China, Russia, or Iran,” President Biden said this July in defense of his administration’s continued commitment to the Middle East.1 His comments reflect a widely held misconception: that a U.S. military exit from the Middle East would empower U.S. adversaries, and thus somehow make Americans less secure.2 U.S. leaders and pundits have expressed similar fears about the danger of creating vacuums by leaving Syria, Afghanistan (before U.S. exit of course), and even Africa, where only smatterings of U.S. troops are stationed.3 Vacuum fears also fuel more general warnings against surrendering influence in the developing world. Chinese investments via its Belt and Road Initiative—a massive set of infrastructure-development loans—for example, are said to exploit a vacuum the United States should compete to fill. Chinese trade in South America, or Russian port calls there, are said to reflect a failure to exert U.S. influence.4 The burgeoning idea behind these claims is that “great power competition,” which once seemed a useful rationale for exiting conflicts and lingering endeavors of the global war on terror, demands winning an open-ended, ill-defined contest for influence with Russia and China in the greater Middle East and developing world, or what is now sometimes called the global south.5 Vacuums that could be said to follow a U.S. exit—not the terrorists or insurgents U.S. forces were deployed to fight—are the new justification for staying.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- China, Middle East, and United States of America
35. Putin Prioritizes Syria. Biden Should Too.
- Author:
- Anna Borshchevskaya
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- Moscow is in Syria for the long haul and will continue to undermine American efforts there. In recent months, Moscow intensified its activities in Syria against the backdrop of a changing US administration. The Kremlin sent additional military policy units to eastern Syria, and continued diplomatic engagement through the Astana format, a process that superficially has international backing but in practice excludes the United States and boosts Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, Moscow also unveiled at its airbase in Syria a statue to the patron saint of the Russian army, Prince Alexander Nevsky. A growing Russian presence in Syria will further hurt Western interests.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Conflict, and Syrian War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America
36. Open-source analysis of Iran’s missile and UAV capabilities and proliferation
- Author:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Iran’s ballistic missile systems, supplemented by cruise missiles and UAVs, are intended not only for deterrence, but for battle, including by Iran’s regional partners. In a new report, the IISS provides a detailed assessment of Iran’s missiles, and the manner and purposes for which it has been proliferating them. Nuclear issues are the exclusive focus of the negotiations on the restoration of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which have taken place in Vienna. The Western powers are keen, however, to engage in follow-on talks to address Iran’s missiles and activities in the region. To inform the public policy debate on the latter matters, the IISS has produced a fact-rich technical assessment of Iran’s current missile and uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities and its proliferation of these technologies to Iran’s regional partners.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Military Strategy, Nonproliferation, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
37. Missile multinational: Iran’s new approach to missile proliferation
- Author:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- How does Iran equip its proxies and allies with increasingly sophisticated and longer-range ballistic missiles and artillery rockets? Fabian Hinz considers Iran’s new missile-proliferation strategy. The proliferation of ballistic missiles and artillery rockets to non-state actors by the Islamic Republic of Iran is a constant source of tension in the Middle East. Yemen’s Houthi rebels conduct ballistic-missile strikes on Saudi Arabian cities, airports and oil installations; Hizbullah’s ever-growing rocket and missile arsenal sparks Israeli consideration of military options; and Iranian proxies rocket the United States’ installations in Iraq on an almost weekly basis. But how does Iran equip its proxies and allies with increasingly sophisticated and longer-range ballistic missiles and artillery rockets? For years, the answer has been through smuggling. In one example, on 19 March 2021 Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir claimed that all Houthi missiles fired at the Kingdom were ‘made in Iran’, and there is ample evidence that Houthis were the recipients of weapons such as Iran’s short-range Qiam ballistic missile. Iran doubtlessly continues to directly transfer missiles outside its borders to some degree. However, in recent years smuggling has been augmented by two other transfer methods: the provision of guidance kits to modify existing stockpiles of artillery rockets, and the wholescale provision of manufacturing capabilities. Iranian support for enabling local rocket production is not new. Reports about the rocket arsenals of Palestinian factions in Gaza regularly cite Iranian assistance for domestic manufacturing, and Hizbullah’s alleged missile factory in the Beqaa Valley became the topic of competing accusations in the Israeli–Hizbullah relationship. However, closer examination of Iranian sources, documents likely leaked by Israeli intelligence and the missiles unveiled by the Houthis reveal a strategy of empowering Iranian proxies that is more comprehensive than previously thought. In cooperation with Iran’s missile industry, the Quds Force (QF) of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) appears intent on enabling all its main proxies to be able to autonomously manufacture artillery rockets and precision-guided missiles. Also, a special development effort seems to be aimed at creating simple artillery rockets and short-range-missile systems and production units custom-tailored for local production.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
38. Cruise missiles in the Middle East
- Author:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- While both the proliferation and combat use of ballistic missiles in the Middle East have attracted a lot of attention, cruise missiles remain an often-overlooked regional proliferation challenge. Once the exclusive realm of the Middle East’s sole nuclear power, Israel, the proliferation of cruise-missile systems has steadily picked up pace in the last two decades. Iran and Turkey have joined Israel in the club of nations developing and producing their own cruise missiles, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) appearing to take first steps in this direction. Other countries, such as Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have already purchased cruise missiles from abroad or appear intent on doing so in the near future. This trend is not limited to state actors, however. With strong technical and material support from Iran, Yemen’s Houthi rebels have employed cruise missiles in their ongoing missile and uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) campaign against the Saudi-led coalition. The drivers of cruise-missile proliferation in the region are as diverse as the systems themselves. Their ability to evade or overcome defensive systems makes them an attractive option in a region experiencing a proliferation of increasingly advanced surface-to-air missiles as well as ballistic-missile-defence systems. Cruise missiles also give actors that lack modern air forces the ability to strike targets deep inside the territory of better-equipped adversaries. They are therefore well suited to serve as tools of asymmetric warfare as well as asymmetric deterrence. At the same time, however, they have also become an essential piece of weaponry for advanced modern fighter jets and therefore a logical choice for countries already operating highly capable air forces. Naval-based cruise missiles offer a long-range strike capability for expeditionary warfare and serve as a tool for regional power projection. In the case of Israel, submarine-launched cruise missiles also serve as the primary pillar of the country’s nuclear second-strike capability. However, the drivers of cruise-missile proliferation go beyond narrow military needs and considerations. Several Middle Eastern states are engaged in ambitious efforts to develop local arms industries, with precision-guided munitions, aerial stand-off weaponry and UAVs being a particular focus. Benefiting from the existing technological overlap with these systems, cruise missiles represent both an attractive and realistic option for ambitious military-development projects. They are also an advanced weapons system whose production and development was for a long time limited to a small number of highly developed countries, thus lending their producers considerable prestige. There is little doubt that cruise missiles have an impact on regional stability. As with other uninhabited systems, cruise missiles do not entail the risk of human losses for their users, and this factor potentially lowers the threshold for their use. Cruise missiles’ ability to evade detection and interception, and their effectiveness in conducting long-range precision strikes, might also provide incentives for the adoption of pre-emptive strategies, thus lending another element of instability to local crises. Most importantly, however, cruise missiles – like ballistic missiles and, to some extent, UAVs – defy traditional air superiority and by extension the military hierarchies associated with it. They can therefore serve as powerful tools for actors seeking to upend existing military balances, and they incentivise attempts to so.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Middle East
39. National Security Policy Recommendations for Israel’s 36th Government
- Author:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Eleven policy prescriptions for Israel’s new government, reflecting the insights of JISS fellows who jointly surveyed the challenges Israel’s leaders are facing and crafted these diplomatic and defense policy emphases.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
40. There is No Clear-Cut Solution for Gaza
- Author:
- Yaakov Amidror
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- There are plenty of nice plans for Gaza, but none that will change the core truth: Hamas will continue to seek Israel’s destruction, and Israel will continue to defend itself.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
41. Neither a Conscript Army nor an All-Volunteer Force: An Emergent IDF Model
- Author:
- Eyal Ben-Ari
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The IDF has chosen to enjoy the advantages of both a volunteer military and a conscript “people’s army,” by piecemeal combination of elements of both
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Army
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and Israel
42. Providing security in Iraq - what do Iraqis think?
- Author:
- Maria-Louise Clausen
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
- Abstract:
- Denmark assumed leadership of NATO Mission Iraq in late 2020. The Iraqi people’s perceptions of their personal security and of those who provide it can impact the success of this mission. A recent survey provides new insights. At a time of political turmoil and insecurity in Iraq, NATO has vowed to step up its commitment in the region. This happens at a time of increased resistance to the US presence in Iraq, and a deteriorating security situation due to the escalation of the conflict between the US and Iran taking place on Iraqi soil, as well as signs of an Islamic State resurgence. Security is a major concern in Iraq. When respondents were asked to select their most important concern for the Iraqi government to address, the most common choice was ‘maintaining security and stability’ (30.5%), closely followed by the job situation (27.5%), and corruption (26.2%). This should be read in conjunction with the fact that 71.7% of respondents stated that they experience their personal security as currently either only partially or not at all ensured. This was most pronounced among the surveyed Shias, with only 18.8% indicating that they feel fully or partly secure in contrast to 46.7% of Sunni respondents.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Democratization, Diplomacy, International Organization, Non State Actors, Fragile States, Violence, Peace, Police, and Justice
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Europe, Middle East, and Denmark
43. Making women count, not just counting women: Creating a more effective security sector in Iraq requires increased inclusiveness
- Author:
- Maria-Louise Clausen and Ekatherina Zhukova
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
- Abstract:
- A priority for NATO Mission Iraq is to further the Women, Peace and Security agenda as one of the mission’s activities. This effort should focus on raising awareness of the operational benefits of equal opportunities and diversity and not just counting the number of women involved. RECOMMENDATIONS: Formulate a clear mandate for WPS functions in the mission that positions the WPS agenda as an integral element of NMI’s other activities. Support awareness-raising programmes and initiatives to transform social norms, including patriarchal gender norms and institutional socio-political constraints on female participation. Support the transparent qualifications-based recruitment and employment of women and prioritize the focus on inclusive work environments, both mentally and physically. Incorporate intersectional and masculinity perspectives in the work on WPS to avoid creating an image of WPS as a foreign-backed agenda that is only of, by and for elite women.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Democratization, Diplomacy, International Organization, Non State Actors, Women, Fragile States, Violence, Peace, Police, and Justice
- Political Geography:
- Iraq and Middle East
44. Solving the Nuclear Stalemate between Iran and the United States
- Author:
- Gawdat Bahgat
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- To reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and provide an effective security apparatus across the region, all Middle Eastern countries need to move beyond a zero-sum mentality.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Regionalism
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
45. This Watershed Moment for the Land(s) between the River and the Sea
- Author:
- Richard Silverstein
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- The recent war between Israel and Hamas has transformed the moral calculus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Hamas, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
46. Starr Forum: US, Afghanistan, 9/11: Finished or Unfinished Business?
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Chair: Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT. He studies US grand strategy and national security policy. His most recent book is Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy. Panelists: Juan Cole, Richard P Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan. He is an expert on the modern Middle East, Muslim South Asia, and social and intellectual history. His most recent book is Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. Carol Saivetz, Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. She is an expert on Soviet and now Russian foreign policy issues; and on topics ranging from energy politics in the Caspian and Black Sea regions, questions of stability in Central Asia, to Russian policy toward Iran. Vanda Felbab-Brown, Senior Fellow, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings. She is the director of the Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors and the co-director of the Africa Security Initiative. She recently co-authored The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan. She received her PhD from MIT.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, State Building, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
47. Responses to 9-11: The United States, Europe, and the Middle East
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Reflections on the One-Year Anniversary of 9/11
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
48. Ukraine’s Policy Towards Turkey
- Author:
- Maria Piechowska
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Polish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The current revival of Ukrainian-Turkish contacts stems from Ukraine’s efforts to win over Turkey as an economic and defence partner in the face of Russian aggression. Both countries share the common goal of limiting Russian domination in the Black Sea. Turkey supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity and stands up for the Crimean Tatars, persecuted by Russia. Close bilateral relations may make Turkey—after the EU and the U.S.—one of Ukraine’s most important partners. However, the intensity of the political dialogue will depend on the state of Russian-Turkish relations.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Bilateral Relations, European Union, and Economy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, and Middle East
49. The Forecast of the Number of Soldiers in the Saudi Arabian Army in Terms of Military Security
- Author:
- Bartosz Kozicki, Jaroslaw Zelkowski, Szymon Mitkow, and Mariusz Gointarczyk
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Polish Political Science Yearbook
- Institution:
- Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
- Abstract:
- The study concerns forecasting the number of soldiers in the Saudi Arabian army based on information obtained from the website: https://data.worldbank.org (The World Bank, 9.03.2020). The research began with a comparative analysis of the number of soldiers in the armies of Saudi Arabia and Russia. The idea for a comparative analysis of the number of armies of Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation arises from Russian policy in the region of the Middle East countries, including the impact on world oil prices. The comparative analysis showed the similarities and differences in the dynamics of changes in the number of both armies dynamically. Subsequently, the primary time series data analysis on the number of Saudi Arabian troops was performed. The study selected methods for predicting raw data: Holt’s exponential smoothing and Klein’s model for the future. The next stage of the research was forecasting and the analysis and evaluation of the obtained forecasts. Klein’s model was the best forecasting model. The forecast of the number of soldiers in the Saudi Arabian army for 2020 is 251454, and for 2021, it has increased to 251006. The study ends with a summary and conclusions.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf Nations
50. Cooperation or Coercion? The Views of US Opinion Leaders on Foreign Policy Approaches
- Author:
- Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua W. Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, and Jonathan Monten
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs
- Abstract:
- Following four years of former President Donald Trump’s “America first” foreign policy, President Joe Biden is seeking to reorient the US approach to world affairs, placing much greater emphasis on international cooperation. This reorientation has already been evident in Biden’s decisions to return the United States to the Paris climate agreement, extend the New START arms control treaty with Russia, remain in the World Health Organization, reengage with the United Nations Human Rights Council, and commit to rejoining the Iran nuclear deal if Iran returns to complying with it. To what extent do Democratic, Republican, and Independent foreign policy professionals support Biden’s international agenda? The results of the 2020 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-University of Texas at Austin survey of more than 900 US executive branch officials, congressional staff, think tank scholars, university professors, journalists, and interest group representatives indicates there is substantial support among leaders of different political persuasions for a greater emphasis on cooperation and less reliance on coercion in foreign policy. However, this consensus also has a partisan tilt: Democrats and Independents are far more likely to agree on cooperative foreign policy approaches the United States should use, while Republicans are more comfortable with coercive measures. Taken together, these findings suggest that Biden should be able to attract strong support for his foreign policy from Democratic and Independent members of the foreign 2 policy community but will find it much more difficult to gain Republican backing for many of his international initiatives.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Politics, Economy, Business, Trade, and Survey
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, North Africa, and North America
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3