Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Political Geography Iran

161. Iran In Charge

Author:
Yaakov Amidror
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
A few seemingly unrelated incidents that took place across the Middle East this week all seem to point out that much of the regional unrest can be traced back to Iran, which is backing Shiite forces from Pakistan to Syria. That is unlikely to change.
Topic:
Terrorism, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Hezbollah
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon

162. Con Artists of Tehran

Author:
Uzi Rubin
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
A recently disclosed ruling by Iran’s supreme leader caps the range of Iran’s missiles at 2,000 kilometers, a distance that threatens Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt but doesn’t threaten Western Europe. Practically speaking, this ruling is neither new nor truthful. Europe has a good reason to be concerned.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, and Saudi Arabia

163. Confronting the Con Artists of Iran

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
No duplicitous decrees by supreme or smiling ayatollahs should deflect our attention from Tehran’s dangerous moves.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

164. In Middle East, Pence must address realities of Iranian encroachment

Author:
Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
If the United States wants to disengage from the Middle East it should do so with a bang. The address for such a forceful demonstration is clear: the Iranian nuclear program.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

165. Making Peace in Syria: Economic Diplomacy

Author:
Abdallah Al Dardari
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Aleppo is a landmark in the Syrian conflict and has become the strongest signal of the failure of the western approach to diplomacy and other means of influence to end the conflict. This failure calls for a dramatic change in the approach if we want to preserve Syria as one country, safeguard its diversity, and ensure the rebuilding of the nation. The moment fighting in Aleppo ends and the current government, along with the Russians and the Iranians, feel they have the upper hand in this conflict, the immediate goal and challenge is to rebuild. Yet, how do we deliver services and create jobs? How do we support reconstruction? How do we ensure stability after “military achievement”?
Topic:
Diplomacy, Economy, Political stability, Conflict, Syrian War, and Peace
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

166. Full Issue: Money & War

Author:
Sarah Detzner, James Copnall, Alex de Waal, Ian M. Ralby, Joshua Stanton, Ibrahim Warde, Leon Whyte, Richard Weitz, Jessica Knight, John H. Maurer, Alexander Tabarrok, Alex Nowrasteh, Tom Keatinge, Emily Knowles, Karolina MacLachlan, Andrew Lebovich, Caroline Troein, and Anne Moulakis
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The Fletcher Security Review: Managed and edited by students at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, we build on the Fletcher School’s strong traditions of combining scholarship with practice, fostering close interdisciplinary collaboration, and acting as a vehicle for groundbreaking discussion of international security. We believe that by leveraging these strengths – seeking input from established and up-and-coming scholars, practitioners, and analysts from around the world on topics deserving of greater attention – we can promote genuinely unique ways of looking at the future of security. Each issue of the Review is centered around a broad theme – in this issue, we tackle “Money & War.” Money influences every aspect of warfare, conventional or unconventional. No nationstate military, insurgent group, terrorist network, trans-national criminal organization, or hybrid actor can be understood, or countered, without knowing where the money is coming from – as well as where, and how, it gets spent. Evolutions and revolutions in financial tools and practices quickly translate to transformations in military affairs, and some cases, vice versa.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, Human Rights, Governance, Sanctions, Military Affairs, Finance, Islamic State, Navy, Arab Spring, Maritime, Conflict, Multilateralism, Islamism, Drugs, and Currency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Africa, China, Iran, Sudan, Darfur, Middle East, Asia, North Korea, Mali, Asia-Pacific, Sahel, United States of America, and North America

167. Power Struggle in the Gulf: A Re-evaluation of the IranIraq War

Author:
Ferhat Pirinçci
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Academic Inquiries
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
This article aims to analyze the power struggle in the Persian Gulf towards the end of the Cold War from a different perspective. The withdrawal of Britain from the region created a power vacuum and this caused a regional leadership struggle between countries such as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Facing historical problems between each other, the Iran-Iraq rivalry came into prominence with this struggle. The fray between the two countries also caused the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. This study argues that the Iran-Iraq War is a result of the Persian Gulf struggle and examines the armament activities of the parties concerned, the support they received and to which extend this support played a role in the conduct of the war. In this respect, the Iran-Iraq War concluded as a war of attrition without winners, caused the two countries to become a matter of secondary importance in the regional competition.
Topic:
History, Conflict, and Iran-Iraq War
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Persian Gulf

168. When Proxies Fail, Force Must Prevail U.S.-Iran Relations

Author:
Jonathan Ruhe
Publication Date:
05-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
For decades, the United States and Iran have pursued fundamentally incompatible strategic objectives. Yet despite having expansive goals and minimal mutual interests, each side has recognized that direct confrontation would jeopardize its ultimate goal. Thus competition between the two countries often has taken less decisive, but also less risky, forms of behavior, namely: diplomacy, sanctions, and the use of proxy forces. Given the stakes involved, however, relying entirely on such measures to convey the seriousness of one’s intentions is insufficient. Indeed, the United States has been most successful influencing Iranian policy when it has demonstrated its own willingness to use force or supported actors using military force directly against Iran – and conversely, least successful when it has failed to do so. ​ The two countries have long held mutually exclusive aims. The United States wants to remain predominant in the Middle East to ensure the free flow of natural resources and the security of its allies, even as it withdraws troops after more than a decade of war and faces an uncertain fiscal future. The Iranian regime pursues nuclear weapons capability to protect against its perceived danger from a U.S.-supported overthrow, provide an umbrella under which it can project unmatchable power against its neighbors, and validate its continuing right to rule, among other goals. Both objectives are highly ambitious and in direct conflict with each other. ​ Therefore the lethargy of peace suits both rivals well, as neither side feels it can afford an overt rupture. For the United States, direct conflict would critically endanger its efforts to maintain regional stability with a receding regional footprint. For Iran, it would seriously delay its approach to a nuclear weapons capability. There is little middle ground for diplomacy to secure, given the two countries’ ultimately irreconcilable goals.
Topic:
Security, Bilateral Relations, Conflict, and Proxy War
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

169. Iran-U.S.: The Case for Transformation

Author:
Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini and John Tirman
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Thirty years of enmity, disruption, and brinksmanship have yielded very little worthwhile in the relationship between Iran and the United States. The policies in both capitals toward the other are essentially bankrupt and dysfunctional. Each clings to their quiver of grievances against the other, letting the past dictate the future to the detriment of both countries. It may be time to turn this animus on its head—seeking a broad accommodation— and an opportunity for transformational diplomacy. While ample sources of suspicion and distrust have fed this simmering hostility, these sources do not warrant the war footing, attempts at isolation, political violence, and rhetoric of a looming Armageddon that mark the U.S.-Iran tangle. Both countries suf- fer high costs stemming from the confrontation. These two major states, one far more powerful than the other, are bound to compete and test each other, but in a region rife with instability, they also need each other. Iranians are weary of the cacophony of hatred. In America, the Iraq war is still a nightmare and the public is in no mood for more. A comprehensive concordat instead would serve the U.S. and Iran and help steady a very rickety part of the world. What the change is and how it is engineered are crucial, however. There is an appli- cable lesson from diplomatic history: bold and sweeping transformation may be prefera- ble—more successful and, paradoxically, easier to engineer—to small, incremental steps. Whether there is the political acumen in the leadership of either country to initiate such transformative diplomacy is arguable. But the logic of a new concordat is powerful, especially if seen through an unemotional lens of national interests and the security of the United States and Iran.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

170. Afghan Transnational Networks: Looking Beyond Repatriation

Author:
Alessandro Monsutti
Publication Date:
08-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU)
Abstract:
This is the final publication of AREU’s long-term research project looking at Afghans’ transnational networks in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Conflict, transnationalism, and Repatriation
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Middle East