Number of results to display per page
Search Results
942. Iran, the New Iraq, and the Political–Security System in the Persian Gulf (Book Review)
- Author:
- Zahra Tavakkoli
- Publication Date:
- 06-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic Research (CSR)
- Abstract:
- The author's main hypothesis in the book Iran, the New Iraq, and the Political-Security System in the Persian Gulf is that the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq and the subsequent emergence of a Shi'ite-dominated government has created a favorable situation for Iran and significantly increased its potential for a much stronger role in the Persian Gulf, and on a larger scale in the entire Middle East. In his analysis, such a potential is much facilitated by the enhanced possibility of a strategic cooperation between the New Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, hence providing greater opportunities for a more activist regional and international foreign policy. The crux of the author's argument in the book revolves around the necessity of adoption of new approaches in the Iranian foreign policy towards the New Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, and Middle East
943. Roles at Odds: The Roots of Increased Iran-U.S. Tension in the Post-9/11 Middle East
- Author:
- Kayhan Barzegar
- Publication Date:
- 09-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic Research (CSR)
- Abstract:
- This article investigates the main roots of tension between Iran and the United States in the post-9/11 Middle East. Since 9/11 and especially after the 2003 Iraqi crisis, Iran's role has sharply risen in the region. The evolution of Iran's role and power in the regional system has led Iran to seek a bigger weight and role more in tune with its acquired stature and capabilities. The conflict between Iran and the United States has been generally attributed to either a political-ideological clash and mutual hatred, or to a simple aggregation of a number of distinct policy disputes including: Iran's nuclear program, Iran's state support for organizations that Washington regards as terrorist groups, human rights issues, and Iranian involvement in the new Iraq, the Levant, and Afghanistan. While accepting these explanations, the author takes a step further and argues that the conflict, especially since 2003, has been essentially focused on a dispute over the growth of the two sides' role in Middle Eastern politics which both regard against each other's national interests and security. The author concludes that complex and interdependent nature of regional security necessitates, on the one hand, Iran's cooperation in the wake of the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq in Summer 2010, and on the other, that the United States recognize and respect Iran's legitimate security concerns and accept the evolution of Iran's role in the region.
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, Iran, Washington, and Middle East
944. Whither Deleuze and Guattari: a critical introduction
- Author:
- Earl Gammon and Julian Reid
- Publication Date:
- 12-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of International Relations and Development
- Institution:
- Central and East European International Studies Association
- Abstract:
- Years ago at a workshop one of our colleagues, whose name we shall keep anonymous, claimed — to the amusement of the participants — that International Relations (IR) is where theory goes to die. Given the vicissitudes of intellectual fads that sweep through IR, one could, perhaps, be forgiven for condemning what appears to be the superficiality of the theoretical engagements within the field. From another perspective, though, this judgement could be considered unfair, and that the convergence of so many disparate theoretical interventions in IR is actually a testament to its growing vitality. Though many scholars now label themselves constructivists, this is quite a polyglot category that seems to indicate a movement beyond the contrived inter-school debates rather than the rise of a new intellectual hegemony.
- Topic:
- International Relations
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan and Iraq
945. Learning Not to Kick with our Achilles Heel: The Case against a Counterinsurgency-Focused Military.
- Author:
- Seth McCormick Lynn
- Publication Date:
- 05-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
- Institution:
- School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
- Abstract:
- Within the defense community, a debate is emerging over the wisdom of “balancing” the military by shifting focus toward irregular warfare. This paper argues that balance would only be prudent if the military is likely to continue primarily facing irregular conflicts, if current counterinsurgency doctrine can lead to success in future contingencies, and if increased focus on counterinsurgency will improve national security. Although the military will likely face future insurgencies, such contingencies threaten national security less than conventional wars, and there is little evidence that the military's counterinsurgency doctrine will lead to future success. Moreover, balancing the military would degrade its conventional deterrence capabilities, thereby increasing the likelihood of conventional warfare. Therefore, while Iraq and Afghanistan should be the military's immediate priority, reconstituting degraded conventional capabilities should be its next concern. The paper concludes by suggesting several measures that would improve the military's irregular warfare capabilities without sacrificing conventional deterrence.
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, and Iraq
946. The U.S. Senate and Iraq: Who Changed their Views, and Why?
- Author:
- Andrew Bennet and Andrew Loomis
- Publication Date:
- 10-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Focusing on the evolving views of the 77 U.S. Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, we seek to explain why some political leaders changed their views markedly from 2002 to 2008 and others did not. We argue that in view of the great preponderance of evidence that the initial premises of U.S. intervention in Iraq were not fulfilled, Bayesian updating cannot by itself explain the persistence of divergent views on Iraq. It is also puzzling that a half-dozen senators persisted in their support of Bush's position on Iraq even though this may have contributed to their electoral defeat. We use a combination of political and psychological variables, including ideology, party affiliation, safety of the senator's seat, military service, cognitive style, and presidential aspirations to explain why some senators changed their public positions on Iraq within a year, others did so by 2006, still others in 2007, and some changed very little in more than five years. We combine these variables into a typological theory and test it against a qualitative analysis of 20 senators' views on Iraq. We conclude that our model is relatively successful in predicting not only when senators' views changed but what rationales they gave for why their initial expectations were not borne out. We also note several senators who prove important anomalies for our model, including Senators Lieberman, who was the only Democrat who did not move toward opposing Bush's policies, and McCain, who thus far has not moved toward the political center on Iraq despite having effectively secured his party's nomination.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, and Arabia
947. Taming the Revisionist State: The Effects of Military Defeats on the War-Proneness of Germany vs. Iraq
- Author:
- Benjamin Miller and Moran Mandalbaum
- Publication Date:
- 09-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Following the post - 2003 US intervention in Iraq, and with a potential US use of force against Iran, one key analytical question stands out, which has major policy implications: Does military defeat by the great powers have stabilizing or de - stabilizing effects on the aggressive behavior of revisionist states? Somewhat similarly to the pre - 2003 Iraq invasion debate, the great powers have a number of options for dealing with the potential Iranian nuclear threat: diplomatic engagement, deterrence, or resort to military power -- either to bring about a regime change, or to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Taking into account the possibility of resorting to force against Iran, an intriguing question emerges: what does IR theory lead us to expect -- and what does the historical record show -- with regard to the effects of military defeats on the war - propensity of revisionist states? In other words, why do some militarily defeated states become war - like, while others peaceful?
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Regime Change
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Germany
948. NATO's Lisbon Summit: New Strategic Doctrine and the Missile Defence
- Author:
- Yalım Eralp
- Publication Date:
- 12-2010
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Global Research in International Affairs Center, Interdisciplinary Center
- Abstract:
- The Lisbon Summit was important for two reasons. Firstly, the acceptance of a new strategic concept, the seventh since NATO was founded. The new concept comes after the Al Kaide attacks, the Afghan and Iraq wars and a greater threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, relations with Russia were reset, making them of strategic importance. The second important aspect is the acceptance of a missile defence system whereby all populations, territory and forces will be protected.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Terrorism, and War
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Iraq
949. Parliamentary War Powers: A Survey of 25 European Parliaments
- Author:
- Sandra Dieterich, Hartwig Hummel, and Stefan Marschall
- Publication Date:
- 12-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
- Abstract:
- This paper presents a survey of parliamentary 'war powers' based on a comprehensive and detailed review of the degrees and institutional forms of parliamentary involvement in military security policy-making. As our original research project focused on the involvement of European Union (EU) states in the recent Iraq war, we present data for the then 25 member and accession states of the EU as of early 2003. This survey of parliamentary war powers covers the legislative, budgetary, control, communicationrelated and dismissal powers of the respective parliaments relating to the use of military force. Referring to this data, we distinguish five classes of democratic nation-states, ranging from those with 'very strong' to those with only 'very weak' war powers of the respective national parliament.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Democratization, Governance, and Law
- Political Geography:
- Iraq and Europe
950. Bush, Blair, and the War in Iraq: Alliance Politics and the Limits of Influence
- Author:
- Kelly McHugh
- Publication Date:
- 09-2010
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Political Science Quarterly
- Institution:
- Academy of Political Science
- Abstract:
- KELLY McHUGH describes Tony Blair's failed attempts to use his friendship with George W. Bush to influence U.S. foreign policy in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. She finds that although Blair was often successful in persuading Bush in private meetings, he was outmaneuvered by Vice President Dick Cheney, who opposed Blair's advocacy of multilateralism and diplomacy.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and War
- Political Geography:
- Iraq