Number of results to display per page
Search Results
252. 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
253. Is a Regional Strategy Viable in Afghanistan?
- Author:
- Ashley J. Tellis, Martha Brill Olcott, Dmitri V. Trenin, Frédéric Grare, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Christopher Boucek, Gilles Dorronsoro, Karim Sadjadpour, Michael D. Swaine, Aroop Mukharji, Haroun Mir, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, and Tiffany Ng
- Publication Date:
- 05-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- The Obama administration has made some decisive changes to the Afghan policy it inherited. Most significantly, in its first year it committed to a 250 percent increase in the American force on the ground (adding 51,000 troops to the 34,000 in Afghanistan when Mr. Obama took office) and lobbied hard to secure increases in non–U.S. coalition forces. It matched this large increase in force with a major reduction in the goal: from raising a democratic state in Afghanistan to the creation of a state strong enough to prevent a takeover by the Taliban, al–Qaeda, or any other radical Islamic group; and to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” al–Qaeda (which, of course, is not achievable in Afghanistan or Afghanistan and Pakistan alone). The third pillar of the policy was and is a greater emphasis on the need for a regional approach, a belief the Bush administration moved toward in its closing days.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Religion, Terrorism, and Reform
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, and India
254. Iran: A View From Moscow
- Author:
- Dmitri V. Trenin and Alexey Malashenko
- Publication Date:
- 10-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Iran's emergence as a rising power is straining its relations with Russia. While many outside observers assume the two countries enjoy a close relationship, in reality it is highly complex. Although Iran and Russia have strong economic and military ties, Moscow is increasingly wary of Tehran's growing ambitions.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Iran, Tehran, and Moscow
255. A Path Forward with Iran: Pressure through Engagement
- Author:
- Andy Johnson and Kyle Spector
- Publication Date:
- 02-2010
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- If the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is the most dangerous place in the world at the moment, Afghanistan's neighbor to the West, Iran, is making a strong play for number two. It is alarming the world community, rattling its saber loudly at Israel and the West, and brutally suppressing internal dissent. Iran's regime, yet again, is showing why it remains a major threat to America n national security interests.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, America, Iran, Middle East, and Israel
256. The Iran Stalemate and the Need for Strategic Patience
- Author:
- Barbara Slavin
- Publication Date:
- 11-2010
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- Seventeen months after disputed presidential elections, the Iranian government has forced opposition protestors off the streets but continues to face an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy that is undermining its capacity to implement effective domestic and foreign policies.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Middle East
257. U.S.-Iran Relations: Policy Compendium
- Author:
- Kenneth Katzman
- Publication Date:
- 03-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- This chapter contains major policy statements and documents on Iran primarily from the current and previous U.S. Administrations. The statements and documents presented here are intended to be illustrative of themes in U.S. policy toward Iran. Statements on specifi c aspects of U.S. policy toward Iran, such as U.S. interpretations of Iran's disputed June 12, 2009 presidential election, Iran's positions on multilateral meetings on its nuclear program, its holding of dual U.S.-Iranian nationals periodically, are a frequent feature of daily State Department and White House press briefi ngs on U.S. foreign policy.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and United Nations
258. The Foreign Policy of Iran: Ideology and pragmatism in the Islamic Republic
- Author:
- Katrine Barnekow Rasmussen
- Publication Date:
- 03-2009
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
- Abstract:
- This is a brief English version of a Danish DIIS Report on the foreign policy of Iran. In the Report, Iran's foreign policy is investigated both ideologically and in respect of its pragmatic motivations.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Islam, Oil, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, and Asia
259. The Russian Handicap to U.S. Iran Policy
- Publication Date:
- 04-2009
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- Abstract:
- There are voices in the Obama Administration who believe that the Kremlin is able and willing to exert pressure on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, perceived geopolitical and economic benefits in the unstable Persian Gulf, in which American influence is on the wane, outweigh Russia's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran. The Kremlin sees Iran not as a threat but as a partner or an ad-hoc ally to challenge U.S. influence. Today, both Russia and Iran favor a strategy of "multipolarity," both in the Middle East and worldwide. This strategy seeks to dilute American power, revise current international financial institutions, and weaken or neuter NATO and the OSCE, while forging a counterbalance to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Russian technological aid is evident throughout the Iranian missile and space programs. Russian scientists and expertise have played a direct and indirect role in these programs for years. According to some reports, Russian specialists are helping to develop the longer-range Shahab-5, and Russia has exported missile production facilities to Iran. Moscow has signed a contract to sell advanced long-range S-300 air-defense systems to Iran. Once Iran has air defenses to repel Israeli or American air strikes and nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles, it will possess the capacity to destroy Israel (an openly stated goal of the regime) and strike targets throughout the Middle East, in Europe, and the Indian subcontinent. Beyond that, if and when an ICBM capability is achieved, Tehran will be able to threaten the U.S. homeland directly. Given the substantial Russian interests and ambitions, any grand bargain would almost certainly require an excessively high price paid by the United States to the detriment of its friends and allies. Russia simply does not view the situation through the same lens as the U.S.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Nuclear Weapons
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East
260. The Obama Administration Reaches Out to Syria: Implications for Israel
- Author:
- David Schenker
- Publication Date:
- 03-2009
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- Abstract:
- In early March, two senior U.S. officials traveled to Damascus for the highest-level bilateral meeting in years, part of the new administration's policy of "engagement." Washington seeks to test Damascus' intentions to distance itself from Iran. While a "strategic realignment" of Damascus is unlikely, in the short term the diplomatic opening is sure to alleviate international pressure on Damascus. The Assad regime made no secret of its preference for Barack Obama last November. At the same time, Syrian regime spokesmen appear to be setting preconditions for an effective dialogue, saying Washington would first have to drop the Syria Accountability Act sanctions and remove Syria from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria comes at a particularly sensitive time, just a few months before the Lebanese elections, where the "March 14" ruling coalition faces a stiff challenge from the Hizbullah-led "March 8" opposition, and Washington has taken steps to shore up support for its allies. Should the U.S. dialogue with Damascus progress, Washington might consent to take on an enhanced role in resumed Israeli-Syrian negotiations. However, U.S. participation on the Syria track could conceivably result in additional pressure for Israeli concessions in advance of any discernible modifications in Syria's posture toward Hizbullah and Hamas. Based on Syria's track record, there is little reason to be optimistic that the Obama administration will succeed where others have failed. Washington should not necessarily be faulted for trying, as long as the administration remains cognizant of the nature of the regime. Damascus today remains a brutal dictatorship, which derives its regional influence almost exclusively through its support for terrorism in neighboring states and, by extension, through its 30-year strategic alliance with Tehran.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution and Foreign Policy
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iran, Washington, Middle East, and Syria