Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Political Geography Middle East

441. 6 Steps the Trump Administration Should Take in Iraq

Author:
Andrew Kim, Daniel Benaim, and Hardin Lang
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The ongoing battle to retake Iraq from the Islamic State, or IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is one of the most dynamic foreign policy challenges that the Trump administration confronts as it takes office. A fierce fight is underway to recapture Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, with American soldiers operating near the frontlines of a bewilderingly complicated battle space. Major questions remain regarding how Mosul will be stabilized and governed once the city is liberated, and how a still-fractured Iraq can approach the enduring challenge of national reconciliation. President Donald Trump has issued a new executive order requesting an anti-IS strategy in 30 days.1 But the new president has already undercut America’s position in Iraq through his words and deeds. He has repeated his campaign calls for the United States to take Iraq’s oil as spoils of war, including in front of a memorial to fallen Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, officers.2 And his first major action related to Iraq—an executive order restricting Iraqis’ travel to America—insults the nation’s Iraqi partners who have been at the frontline of the fight against IS and weakens U.S. influence in Iraq.3 The Trump administration’s reckless rhetoric on Iran, including Trump’s accusation that Iran is “taking over more and more of Iraq,” undercuts the anti-IS campaign and undermines broader efforts to counter Iran’s malign regional influence.4 The 2003 Iraq war ended a U.S. policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq, and the fallout from the Iraq war contributed to Iran’s rising influence across the region. More than a decade later, however, Iraqi nationalism remains strong, and the recent enhanced U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in countering IS has helped reaffirm Iraq as an independent actor not beholden to any other regional forces, including Iran. Trump’s saber-rattling against Iran risks making Iraq a battleground for the United States and Iran. It heightens the chances of conflict between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Iraqi Shia militants—an outcome that would set back the campaign against IS and quickly wear out America’s welcome in Iraq. The time is now for President Trump to change course and set a more responsible path for U.S.-Iraqi relations. His team will confront policy decisions in its first 100 days that will have consequences for years to come. The good news is that the new administration inherits an anti-IS campaign with considerable momentum. President Barack Obama left behind a global coalition on the cusp of a major military victory in Mosul.5 With U.S. and coalition support, Iraqis have already liberated most of their country and are now degrading remaining IS sanctuaries.6 Trump’s challenge will be to correct his early missteps, see the last administration’s effort through to its conclusion, and chart a stable course for post-IS Iraq. To this end, the Trump administration should take the following six steps.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and ISIS
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

442. Iran Is ‘On Notice’—What’s Next?

Author:
Brian Katulis and Muath Al Wari
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
President Donald Trump has pledged to address Iran’s destabilizing policies in the Middle East. His first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, infamously put Iran “on notice” in early February.1 But more than two months into his presidency, it has become clear that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive strategy to deal effectively with Iran while moving forward in the fight against the Islamic State, or IS, and long-term efforts to stabilize the region. Already, the United States risks ramping up military operations in a way that could contribute to the fragmentation of the Middle East’s state system and open the space for the continued rise of nonstate actors. Without a broader regional strategy that links military approaches to diplomatic efforts in conflict resolution, tactical and operational shifts in U.S. military policy in the Middle East could make the region even more unstable.2 Congress, then, should adopt a look-before-you-leap approach when it comes to the idea of new sanctions against Iran.3 Such an approach would allow Congress to carefully hone any new measures to deal effectively with Iran’s policies. Congress also has an important role in asking tough questions about proposed increased military operations in places such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.4 Furthermore, Congress should carefully scrutinize Trump’s proposed budget cuts to funding for national security institutions central to the fight for stability in the Middle East. These cuts would prolong the fight against ISIS and weaken America’s hand in dealing with Iran using a multifaceted, integrated approach.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

443. Trump’s First 100 Days in the Middle East

Author:
Daniel Benaim
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The 10th week of Donald Trump’s presidency began with his aides’ declaration that America no longer sought the departure of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.1 It ended with missile strikes on Assad’s bases.2 The sharp shifts in Trump’s approach were a reminder that, even under the best of circumstances, the first 100 days of any presidency represent a work in progress—a moment of fluidity as campaign rhetoric gives way to governing realities; policy reviews give way to articulated strategy; and, if a president hopes to succeed, a vital window to reflect on early lessons learned.3 To date, President Trump’s actions in the Middle East have told a starkly different story from his bombastic rhetoric. While his process has been erratic, his initial policy approach to the region as president has been marked less by wholesale departures from former President Barack Obama’s policies than by shifts in emphasis that, unless corrected, risk longer-term damage to U.S. interests and regional stability.4 Trump’s limited strikes in Syria in early April are illustrative: While many cast the decision to launch limited strikes in Syria as a stark departure, Trump rushed to reassert his earlier hands-off policy regarding Syria’s civil war.5
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Leadership, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

444. Playing the Long Game

Author:
Hardin Lang and Alia Awadallah
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
During the last week of August 2017, the Lebanese government completed its largest counterterrorism operation in years, pushing Islamic State (IS) militants from the group’s stronghold along the Lebanese border with Syria. As many as 7,000 soldiers from the Lebanese army and special operations forces took part.1 The offensive underscored Lebanon’s contribution to the global counter-IS coalition and the key role that its military and security services have played in blocking the expansion of Sunni militant groups in the region. None of this would be possible without the long-term support of the United States, which has quietly bolstered Lebanon’s counterterrorism capabilities over the course of a decade. The cornerstone of the American effort has been a program to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) that was launched after Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon in 2005.2 In particular, Lebanon’s special operations community has made impressive strides in confronting the threat posed by Salafi-jihadi terror groups.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Middle East, Lebanon, North America, and United States of America

445. The Future of U.S.-Jordanian Counterterrorism Cooperation

Author:
Hardin Lang, William F. Wechsler, and Alia Awadallah
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
As the United States and Jordan enter the next phase of bilateral counterterrorism cooperation, they should work together to continue to strengthen Jordan’s security services.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, Jordan, and United States of America

446. The Assessment of EU Crisis Response in Afghanistan

Author:
Chona R. Echavez and Qayoom Suroush
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU)
Abstract:
The European Union with the Member States have been key donors for Afghanistan who have donated approximately EUR 8 billion for the period 2002-2010. With the collaboration of international partners, the EU took on a major role in the stabilisation and reconstruction efforts.1 After the overthrow of Taliban rule in 2001, the international community, along with various Afghan political elites, attended the UN conference in Bonn that resulted the Bonn Agreement to determine the establishment of the Afghan interim government and also the deployment of international military forces to aid the new administration in ensuring the security of Kabul and other provinces. The EU and its member states agreed to assist the government of Afghanistan in establishing a sturdy framework of the rule of law in the country
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, Rule of Law, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Europe, and Middle East

447. After Liberation

Author:
Hardin Lang and Muath Al Wari
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Two years on, the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State, or IS,* has achieved some important gains. This is particularly true in Iraq, where the liberation of Fallujah last month has focused attention on Mosul—the capital of the so-called caliphate. But military victory is only half the battle. As the Islamic State is pushed out of Iraqi cities and towns, the communities it ruled must be integrated back into Iraq. Nature abhors a vacuum; the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL should do more to support the Iraqi government in filling that vacuum. For its part, the Iraqi government itself must display a greater commitment to inclusive governance that reinforces its own legitimacy. Failure to do so would risk squandering hard-won gains by setting the stage for the Islamic State—or its successor—to return. It also could undercut U.S. strategic goals in the Middle East more broadly. The key will be to close the gaps in resources and priority afforded to the different elements of the global coalition’s campaign. That campaign is organized along five lines of effort: military efforts, counter-finance, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, stabilization, and strategic messaging. The military line, otherwise known as Operation Inherent Resolve, has cut the territory controlled by the Islamic State almost in half. Other key coalition lines have yielded less robust results. In particular, efforts to stabilize territory in the wake of combat operations have not kept pace with progress on the battlefield—even as that progress makes stabilization all the more urgent.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Islamic State, Political stability, and State Building
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

448. After Liberation

Author:
Hardin Lang and Muath Al Wari
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Two years on, the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State, or IS,* has achieved some important gains. This is particularly true in Iraq, where the liberation of Fallujah last month has focused attention on Mosul—the capital of the so-called caliphate. But military victory is only half the battle. As the Islamic State is pushed out of Iraqi cities and towns, the communities it ruled must be integrated back into Iraq. Nature abhors a vacuum; the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL should do more to support the Iraqi government in filling that vacuum. For its part, the Iraqi government itself must display a greater commitment to inclusive governance that reinforces its own legitimacy. Failure to do so would risk squandering hard-won gains by setting the stage for the Islamic State—or its successor—to return. It also could undercut U.S. strategic goals in the Middle East more broadly. The key will be to close the gaps in resources and priority afforded to the different elements of the global coalition’s campaign. That campaign is organized along five lines of effort: military efforts, counter-finance, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, stabilization, and strategic messaging. The military line, otherwise known as Operation Inherent Resolve, has cut the territory controlled by the Islamic State almost in half. Other key coalition lines have yielded less robust results. In particular, efforts to stabilize territory in the wake of combat operations have not kept pace with progress on the battlefield—even as that progress makes stabilization all the more urgent.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Islamic State, Political stability, and State Building
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

449. Turkey-Iran Relations

Author:
Bülent Aras and Emirhan Yorulmazlar
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Simplistic binary readings generally fail to explain the trajectory of Turkish-Iranian relations. The geostrategic rivalry between these two regional powers has deep historical roots, is subject to long-term patterns, and is amenable to realignments as a result of shifts in regional and international balances of power. For these reasons, assessing Turkish-Iranian relations requires a broader understanding than the prevalent narrow topical analysis provides.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, and Asia

450. Assessment of Israel’s Position in the 1991 Gulf War

Author:
Furkan Halit Yolcu
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
The Persian Gulf War was one of the defining incidents that shaped the current situation of the Middle East. There has been a vast amount of studies about this conflict but on a specific case why Israel stayed out of the conflict even though she was attacked continues to be an intriguing question for researchers. Saddam’s decision on invading Kuwait and the war following this is going to be summarized in order to present the structure when this incident took place and also to build an environment in which Israel’s decision on refraining itself from the war is going to be analyzed. Israel is perceived as one of the most agg- ressive countries in the Middle East mostly because of the wars that it included so far and the grand projects that it wants to put in practice in the future. With these assumptions it is rather hard to understand Israel’s passive behaviour during the Persian Gulf War and possible reasons of this is going to be main focus of this study to understand the motivations behind such policy. Israel’s state in that period and its capacity will be analyzed in order to understand whether this decision was taken directly and solely by Israel or it was a result of long-going dependency to another country or any other possible situation. Possible reasons that resulted with Israel’s passive attitude will be under the scope to explain whether what Israel did was rather rational or not. In addition to that, the advantages that Israel enjoyed and disadvantages that it faced will be shown at the last part of the study.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Conflict, and Gulf War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, Israel, and North America