Number of results to display per page
Search Results
862. PolicyWatch #1422: Win, Lose, or Draw: Iraq Decisions Await President-Elect
- Author:
- Michael Knights
- Publication Date:
- 11-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- When Barack Obama assumes office on January 20, 2009, the president-elect will face many pressing issues. The strategic case for careful and active management of Iraq policy, however, remains strong. Iraq has at least 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (9.3 percent of the world total) and borders Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. This vital Middle Eastern country could become a terrorist thoroughfare and the scene of future regional wars or it could become a stable and prosperous U.S. ally. What matters now is not how U.S. presence in Iraq started, but how it will change in the next four years. It may be far more economical to finish stabilizing Iraq under the relatively favorable present conditions compared to the unknown and potentially unfavorable situation of the future. Iraq retains the potential to contribute to U.S. policy objectives in the Persian Gulf region and the broader Islamic world. It could yet emerge as a strong democratic state at the center of the Middle East.
- Topic:
- War
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria
863. PolicyWatch #1426: The Problems of Engaging with Iran's Supreme Leader
- Author:
- Mehdi Khalaji
- Publication Date:
- 11-2008
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad's congratulatory letter to U.S. president-elect Barack Obama was the first of its kind in the history of the Islamic Republic. In his letter, Ahmadinezhad expressed his hope for fundamental change in U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Although some observers speculate that the letter suggests a transformation in the mindset of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about normalizing relations between Iran and the United States, this is unlikely. Majlis speaker Ali Larijani expressed the widespread attitude of Iranian leaders on November 9, saying, "Whoever thinks that Obama will change the U.S. foreign policy is naive."
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Islam
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Middle East
864. A Strong Diplomacy for a Strong Country
- Author:
- K. Kosachev
- Publication Date:
- 04-2008
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- OUR LINE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS is coming under strong pressure for several reasons at once. Number one reason is Russia's comeback to the world arena that Vladimir V. Putin declared in a most easy-to-understand way in Munich. Number two reason is that Russia, as seen by the West, is containing the creation of a new world order where international law will be subordinated to expedience (some countries can have nuclear programs, others not, etc.) and ideological criteria (countries acknowledged as democratic enjoy more extensive rights than the rest, including the right for violations of democracy itself), or, in effect, to the arbitrary division into "friends" and "foes." Russia clearly stands in the way, in the first place over Kosovo, but also Iran, Middle East, U.S. antimissile defenses in Europe, and much else.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and Kosovo
865. Iranian Strategy in Iraq: Politics and "Other Means"
- Author:
- Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman
- Publication Date:
- 10-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
- Abstract:
- Iran has a robust program to exert influence in Iraq in order to limit American power-projection capability in the Middle East, ensure the Iraqi government does not pose a threat to Iran, and build a reliable platform for projecting influence further abroad. Iran has two primary modes of influence. First, and most importantly, it projects political influence by leveraging close historical relationships with several Shi'a organizations in Iraq: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), the Badr organization, and the Dawah political party. Second, Iran uses the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Qods Force (QF) to provide aid in the form of paramilitary training, weapons, and equipment to various Iraqi militant groups, including Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) and the Special Group Criminals (SGCs). Iran also projects influence through economic initiatives and various religious programs. Iranian influence in Iraq is inevitable, and some of it is legal and constructive. Nonetheless, Iranian policy in Iraq is also duplicitous. Iran publicly calls for stability while subverting Iraq's government and illegally sponsoring anti‐government militias.
- Topic:
- International Political Economy and War
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, and Middle East
866. Online Exclusive, Response TO "Missile Defense Malfunction": Setting the Record Straight
- Author:
- Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III
- Publication Date:
- 03-2008
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Institution:
- Carnegie Council
- Abstract:
- In the Spring 2008 Ethics International Affairs article, "Missile Defense Malfunction," Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson systematically misrepresent or ignore key facts to bolster their arguments against deploying defenses in Europe to protect our allies and forces in that region against an emerging intermediate and long-range Iranian ballistic missile threat. I want to set the record straight.
- Topic:
- Government
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Iran
867. Dealing with Iran: Confrontation or Negotiation?
- Author:
- Mahmood Monshipouri and Banafsheh Keynoush
- Publication Date:
- 09-2008
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Insight Turkey
- Institution:
- SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
- Abstract:
- Conflicting dynamics and power calculations within the Bush administration have given rise to contradictory signals coming from Washington regarding how best to deal with the Iranian puzzle. The situation indicates a lack of strategic coherence that could tip the balance toward a military showdown with Iran. If anything, the 2001 and 2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have essentially altered the balance of power to Iran's advantage, represent a total disregard for the ensuing negative consequences for the region. Under such circumstances, the absence of serious, direct talks with Iran have the potential to lead to greater momentum for war. In this paper, we set out to examine the internal and regional consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran, while asserting that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs of military confrontation. Negotiating with Iran is the only reasonable solution to the crisis confronting these two powers, and U.S.-Iran rapprochement can have a stabilizing impact on the entire region. Conversely, the implications of confrontation will be horrendously costly and profound.
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, and Iran
868. Turkey's Middle East Policies: Between Neo-Ottomanism and Kemalism
- Author:
- Ömer Taspinar
- Publication Date:
- 09-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- In what represents a remarkable departure from its policy of non-involvement, Turkey is once again becoming an important player in the Middle East. In recent years, Ankara has shown a growing willingness to mediate in the Arab– Israeli conflict; attended Arab League conferences; contributed to UN forces in Lebanon and NATO forces in Afghanistan; assumed a leadership position in the Organization of Islamic Conference and established closer ties with Syria, Iran, and Iraq.
- Topic:
- International Political Economy, Islam, Nationalism, and Religion
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, and Syria
869. Negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran: Raising the Chances for Successs—Fifteen Points to Remember
- Author:
- John W. Limbert
- Publication Date:
- 01-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- United States Institute of Peace
- Abstract:
- Both Iranian and American sides come to the negotiating table burdened with years of accumulated grievances and suspicions. Their recent history has led both sides to assume the worst about the other and to see it as infinitely devious, hostile, and duplicitous. Yet, while talking to Iran may sometimes be difficult and unpleasant, it is also worth doing and may help both sides to find common interests lurking behind walls of hostility and distrust. To enhance the prospects of a fruitful encounter, American officials should pay attention to a variety of traits that their Iranian counterparts are likely to demonstrate. Although some of these characteristics might make productive negotiation difficult, American negotiators should remain patient and focused on the issues under discussion. Iranian negotiators may base their arguments on an abstract ideal of “justice” instead of defined legal obligations. This distrust of legalistic argument springs from the belief held by many Iranians that the great powers have long manipulated international law and the international system to take advantage of weaker countries. The American negotiator should, therefore, look for unambiguous, mutually agreeable criteria that both define ideals of justice and avoid legal jargon. The combination of Iran's great imperial past and its weakness in the last three hundred years has created a gap between rhetoric and reality. Yet, while history certainly matters to Iranians, they will on occasion bury the past to reach an agreement, especially if that agreement serves a larger interest. There are parallel governing structures within the Islamic Republic, making it difficult but also important for American negotiators to be sure they are talking to the right people. The factionalization of the Iranian political system can make Iranian negotiators reluctant to reach an agreement lest they become vulnerable to charges of “selling out” to foreigners. Grand gestures may overshadow the substance of issues under negotiation, and American negotiators need to be able to distinguish substance from political theater. Iranians feel that they have often been treated as fools in political contacts, and they will be very sensitive to American attitudes. If they sense that the American side considers them irrational and unreasonable, they are likely to react in exactly that way. American negotiators should thus treat their Iranian counterparts with professional respect and not lecture them on what is in Iran's national interest. The Islamic Republic believes itself surrounded by hostile American, Arab, Turkish, and Sunni forces, all determined to bring about its downfall. Conspiracy theories are very popular, and events such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War are often considered the outcome of great power plots. If an American negotiator senses that that the Iranians are overplaying a hand and pushing a momentary advantage beyond its value, the best response is to ask, “On what basis are you asking for that?” and to insist that the Iranian side come up with some understandable basis for its position. Mediation or arbitration by an impartial body can sometimes help to counter what appear to be unreasonable demands. What works in any negotiation—preparation, knowing each side's best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), building relationships, and understanding underlying interests—will work in negotiations with Iranians. What can undermine any negotiation—such as ill-advised public statements—can also compromise negotiations with Iranians.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, Iran, and Middle East
870. "Lebanon 2006: Unfinished War"
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 03-2008
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Middle East Review of International Affairs
- Institution:
- Global Research in International Affairs Center, Interdisciplinary Center
- Abstract:
- The 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese Hizballah organization, known in Israel as the “Second Lebanon War,” and in Lebanon as “the July War,” formed part of a larger strategic confrontation taking place in the Middle East. This confrontation places the United States and its allies in opposition to Iran and its allies and client organizations. Israel is part of the former camp, while Hizballah is part of the latter. The 2006 war was complicated by the fact that the Lebanese government, which acted as an unwilling host to Hizballah, is also an important U.S. regional ally.
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon