Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Political Geography United States of America

381. A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff

Author:
William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh
Publication Date:
03-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The recent National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weap- ons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program. The Bush administration should act on this opportunity, if for no other reason than that its current position is growing weaker, and without such an initiative, Iran will continue its efforts to produce nuclear fuel that might, in the future, be used to build nuclear weapons. Currently, Iran has approximately three thousand centrifuges, which it has used to produce small test batches of uranium that has been enriched to a low level (which cannot be used for nuclear weapons). Until now, Iranian engineers have not successfully operated a centrifuge cas- cade (a collection of centrifuges working together) at full capacity—which, as a practical matter, would be needed to enrich nuclear fuel to the level necessary either to establish an effective nuclear energy program or to manufacture nuclear weapons. But the Iranian government has declared its ambition to build more than 50,000 centrifuges, and recent reports also suggest that Tehran is testing a modified “P-2” centrifuge, a more advanced version of its existing centrifuge technology, which can produce a larger volume of enriched uranium. We propose that Iran’s efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, work- able solution to the US–Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Peace
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

382. Wilson and the Founders: The Roots of Liberal Foreign Policy

Author:
Ted Widmer
Publication Date:
04-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
We can’t do much better than reclaiming the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental foreign policy document in American history. We have a tendency to read it in a simplistic way, and to think of it only as a sort of airy declaration of what were then human rights, and a declaration of separation from England. But, in fact, the founders had a fairly well-articulated sense of what they were doing with foreign policy, and a fairly revolutionary sense of their foreign policy. So I’m quite interested in how Woodrow Wilson rediscovers the founders and makes them relevant for his time. This thinking about Wilson began for me about ten years ago when I came to be a speechwriter in the second term of Bill Clinton’s presidency. I was quite interested in which presidents were considered historically interesting to Clinton and quickly figured out it was John F. Kennedy, obviously, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. a little less obviously, and Teddy Roosevelt, who was a huge influence on Bill Clinton, and always has been. It was a time in the 1990s when a lot of very favorable books were coming out about Teddy Roosevelt, and it was an attractive time to be thinking about him. At the same time, I felt Wilson was completely ignored. I don’t remember Clinton ever talking about Wilson. In the collected speeches of Bill Clinton—it’s something like eighteen very fat volumes, the man enjoys speaking—if we looked up Wilson, I’m sure we could find a few references, but very few.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

383. Wilson, Bush, and the Evolution of Liberal Foreign Policy

Author:
Tony Smith
Publication Date:
04-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The first subject to discuss in considering the future of the liberal inter- nationalist agenda is the importance of the democratization project to the definition of Wilsonianism. The second is the meaning of multilat- eralism. In the first case, Thomas Knock and Anne-Marie Slaughter argue in a forthcoming volume that democratization was never an important part of Wilsonianism; that, instead, multilateralism is the key to liberal interna- tionalism. On the basis of this argument, they come to the conclusion that the Bush Doctrine is not in the Wilsonian tradition. In my contribution to this volume,1 I object to this denigration of the place of democracy in liberal internationalism as being fundamentally illogical. Accordingly, I find the Bush Doctrine easily identifiable as Wilsonian. I argue for the centrality of democracy to the Wilsonian project because it seems clear that the microfoundations for a regime in society are critical to the ability of those states that participate in multilateral organizations to do so effectively. That is, in order to function effectively, ultimately to provide for a peaceful world order, a multilateral organization needs to be dominated by democratic states, known for their rule-abiding behavior, their transparency, predictability, and accountability. Wilson wanted the League of Nations to be a League under the control of democracies and concerned with expanding this form of government,2 but then in late February 1919 at Versailles, he abandoned that idea. From a liberal internationalist perspective, the result of the League’s character was that it was undermined not only by the failure of the United States to join, but also by the role played in it by autocratic states. It is worth adding that in his drafts of the Pan American Union some three years earlier, Wilson had also looked forward to a community of American states based on the consent of the governed. In a word, a world of peace was necessarily a world dominated by what today is often called “market democracies,” a type of social, economic, and political order that Wilson argued was fundamentally different from and better than any alternative order. In such an order the place of democratic governments was central.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Leadership, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

384. Does the “Surge” Explain Iraq’s Improved Security?

Author:
Jon R. Lindsay
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Sen. John McCain has long advocated “sustained and substantial” troop increases,1 attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on drawing down forces. Obama for his part recently stated that the surge has “succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated” and “beyond our wildest dreams.”2 Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of Multi- National Corps Iraq during the surge, told a Heritage Foundation audience in March 2008, “I think it’s safe to say that the surge of Coalition forces—and how we employed those forces—have broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq.”3 While the surge was quite controversial in its inception,4 it now seems that “success has a thou- sand fathers.” Indeed, since the deployment starting in January 2007 of an additional 30,000 troops (five addi- tional Army brigades primarily in and around Baghdad and 4,000 Marines in Anbar Province, rising to a high-water mark of 171,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by October 2007), the drop in vio- lence has been remarkable. From December 2006 to August 2008, monthly insurgent-initiated attacks have dropped from over 5,600 to 800, U.S. troop fatalities from 112 to 23, and Iraqi civilian fatalities from 3,500 to 500. Even though we’re hardly out of the woods, the troop surge is clearly correlated with a major decrease in violence.5 Correlation, of course, is not causation. Lt. Gen. Odierno is right to highlight the employment of surge forces in addition to the increase in their numbers. The renewed focus on providing security to the Iraqi population—by pushing troops out of sprawling Forward Operating Bases and proactively controlling movement within major cities—has truly been a change for the bet- ter. Nevertheless, there are factors above and beyond additional troops and better counter-insur- gency tactics that may account for the drop in violence. These include the Sunni Awakening movements that emerged in Anbar province prior to the surge, the tragic efficacy of sectarian killing in 2006, the Shia Mahdi Army cease-fire announced and renewed by Moqtada al-Sadr, and operations by other U.S. organizations not associated with the surge.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

385. The U.S. and Iran in Afghanistan: Policy Gone Awry

Author:
Barnett R. Rubin and Sara Batmanglich
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Afghanistan is one of several contexts in which the long-term common interests of the U.S. and Iran have been over- shadowed by the animus originating in the 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran and the Iranian revolution of 1979, to the detriment of the interests of the U.S., Iran, and Afghanistan. This confronta- tion has served the interests of the Pakistan military, Taliban, and al-Qaida. Re-establishing the basis for U.S.-Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan would provide significant additional leverage over Pakistan, on whose territory the leadership of both the Taliban and al-Qaida are now found. During the first half of the Cold War (until the 1978 coup in Afghanistan and the 1979 revolution in Iran), Afghanistan was a non-aligned country with a Soviet-trained army wedged between the USSR and U.S. allies. In the 1970s, under the Nixon Doctrine, the U.S. supported efforts by the Shah of Iran to use his post-1973 oil wealth to sup- port efforts by Afghan President Muhammad Daoud to lessen Kabul’s dependence on the USSR. This ended with the successive overthrow of both Daoud and the Shah in 1978 and 1979. A U.S. close partnership with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan emerged as the primary means of maintaining U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf and its eastern flank. Support for Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan and an Islamist-oriented military regime in Pakistan formed parts of this strategy to repulse the USSR from its occupation of Afghanistan, begun in late 1979, and to isolate Iran.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

386. Neither Pigs nor Parrots: A Military Culture that Can Win the Peace

Author:
Ryan Close
Publication Date:
05-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
As ongoing operations in Iraq illustrate, the nature of warfare is changing: peacekeeping and warfighting are converging as the space between military and humanitarian activity erodes. Because of the vastly different challenges of fighting wars and handling post-conflict challenges, militaries traditionally train soldiers to be either warriors or peacekeepers. This new type of conflict, however, requires soldiers who are both of these simultaneously. Unfortunately, current organizational culture – focused almost entirely on combat – may prevent the ideological shift within the military that is necessary for molding a new soldier identity. This article addresses this challenge and proposes policy measures that would help transform military culture and better match combat prowess with broad intellectual, political, and social vision. To this end, this article considers how the security environment is evolving, examines how such an environment will severely stress the U.S. military, and offers recommendations for cultural change that concern force structure, operational planning, and the selection, training, and promotion of soldiers.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Culture, and Military
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

387. Russia and America: Is Another Arms Race Afoot?

Author:
Jane M.O. Sharp
Publication Date:
11-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
During the Cold War years we learned that successful arms con- trol agreements with the Soviet Union were those that codified parity, or at least a mutually acceptable status quo. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) in 1991, a much diminished Russia saw all its WTO allies and three former Soviet republics join NATO, making parity harder to achieve. But there are still compelling reasons to shape agreements that satisfy all parties. During the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, Russia strove to be represented as an equal to the United States in arms control diplomacy and in negotiations concerning the future of former Yugoslavia. President Bill Clinton tried to meet Yeltsin’s concerns, but there has been little constructive cooperation on arms control between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, since 2000, Bush has been hostile to any kind of multilateral diplomacy. He began his presidency with a new generation of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) and withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, an agreement that had stabilized U.S.-Soviet relations for two decades. In Russia, an increasingly belligerent Putin, flush with oil money, is now determined to be accorded great power status in his dealings with the West. He is asserting himself in many areas: trying to block independence for Kosovo; countering U.S. sanctions against Iran; and renegotiating arms control agreements concluded when Russia was weak. While Putin is viewed with increasing wariness in the West, on arms control he has some points that need to be taken seriously.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Arms Race
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

388. The U.S. and Iran After the NIE

Author:
Farideh Farhi
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The release of the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities, intentions, and policies created shock waves as well as sighs of relief in Washington and elsewhere. The assessment that Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003, and that its declared enrichment program cannot be converted as easily or as quickly as assumed for use in a military program, immediately brought into question the notion that Iran’s nuclear program needs to be dealt with immediately and only through coercive mechanisms. Amid a notable amount of “spinning” the NIE’s conclusions, a slew of questions are in play regarding if and how the U.S. should alter its hard-edged policies toward the Islamic Republic. A consensus seems to have developed that the report has taken the military option off the table and made the sanctions process at play in the U.N. Security Council more difficult to pursue effectively. These dynamics gave longstanding proponents of direct and unconditional dialogue with Iran new opportunity to re-state their case.1 Calls for such negotiations also came from surprising new corners. In the words of Robert Kagan, co-founder of the hawkish Project for the New American Century, “it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well.”2
Topic:
Security, Intelligence, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

389. Eastward Bound: The Strategy and Politics of Repositioning U.S. Military Bases in Europe

Author:
Todd W. Fields
Publication Date:
05-2004
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This article examines the strategic rationale and political implications of the U.S. Department of Defense’s proposal to reposition U.S. military bases in Europe. The Pentagon’s plans call for a withdrawal of U.S. bases and personnel from Germany and the creation of various smaller, more flexible bases in Central and Eastern Europe. While the removal of U.S. forces from Germany is appropriate given the absence of an imminent security threat to Europe, revamping the European basing structure in the midst of current trans-Atlantic tensions presents formidable political challenges. Given the impact that base realignment is likely to have on U.S. relations with Germany, Russia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United States must exercise a deft diplomatic touch—balancing the pursuit of its strategic interests with the preservation of its regional relationships and alliances.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Military Strategy, and Military Bases
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America