Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Interests Political Geography United States of America

91. Assessing the US strategy in Iraq

Author:
Jonathan Spyer
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Only an integrated political, military and economic strategy targeting the Iranian system in all its aspects, with a long-term commitment to local allies and the mission, can succeed.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Conflict, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

92. A large amount of noise and smoke

Author:
Jonathan Spyer
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Iran’s attacks against the US in Iraq accomplished what was intended
Topic:
Military Strategy, Conflict, Strategic Stability, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

93. NATO on the Road to a New Strategy

Author:
Wojciech Lorenz
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
During the meeting of NATO foreign ministers on 2–3 December 2020, a group of experts presented the report “NATO 2030. United for a New Era” about strengthening the political dimension and consultation mechanisms of the Alliance. The report indicates a possible consensus on the expansion of the Alliance’s tasks, including on a common policy towards China. The document increases the chances that the allies will decide to start work on a new NATO strategy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

94. Military Competition With China: Harder Than the Cold War?

Author:
Oriana Skylar Mastro
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro begins her paper by emphasizing that U.S. national defense strategy has characterized the US-China relationship as one of great power competition (GPC). Both the US and China have existing relationships in the Indo-Pacific region and are undergoing efforts to foster new relationships there as well. China’s efforts, however, conflict with US military efforts to promote peace, strategy, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, making them much harder to achieve. Mastro argues that it will be difficult to deter China’s efforts — perhaps even more difficult than it was to deter the Soviet Union’s efforts during the Cold War. She cites the geography of the Asia-Pacific (compared to that of Central Europe), the US’s ongoing struggle to establish a credible deterrent, China’s range of options for nonlethal but effective uses of force, and the lack of US willingness to grant China a parallel sphere of influence to that in which the Soviet Union was allowed to control as evidence to support her claim. Thus, Mastro recommends that the US must avoid relying on the same Cold War tools and competition strategies in its competition with China, despite their success in the past. Instead, the US needs to combat the threat posed by China through 1) convincing China that the costs of using force outweigh the benefits and 2) forging a counterbalancing coalition of allies and partners that are confident that the US will not only protect them from a military attack but other costly behaviors (e.g., economic coercion, diplomatic isolation) that China may leverage against them as well.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

95. Is America Really Back?

Author:
Thomas Fingar
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Following the 2021 Taihe Civilizations Forum, the Taihe International Communications Center hosted an online discussion on October 8 that captures the candid and profound reflections of senior officials whose actions have shaped the course of ties between China and the United States. Dr. Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein APARC Fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and former Assistant Secretary of State, and Senior Colonel Zhou Bo (ret.), Senior Fellow at Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, China Forum Expert, and former Director of Center for Security Cooperation of the Office for International Military Cooperation of Ministry of National Defense, were invited to join this dialogue. During their conversation, Dr. Fingar and Senior Colonel Zhou exchanged ideas on important topics such as the current state of China-U.S. relations, the future development of the two countries' bilateral ties, the rationale behind the US foreign policy and the American alliance system, as well as the "extreme competition" that China and the U.S. are trapped in.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Hegemony, Conflict, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

96. Implications of Russia’s Activities in the Middle East and North Africa Region for U.S. Strategy and Interests

Author:
Chen Kane and Miles A. Pomper
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Russia’s ability to project power into the region remains limited today, and the status quo seems tolerable. But there are risks to U.S. interests in the future. The United States’ military withdrawals from Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq have significantly affected both U.S. regional posture and perceptions of U.S. commitment. Against that backdrop, the United States confronts multiple challenges as it seeks to “do more with less” in the region. Russia’s opportunities in the region increase as U.S. involvement decreases. Moscow’s “low investment, high disruption” approach works because it leverages the self-interest of actors, stakeholders, and governments in pursuit of limited aims. The U.S. approach of “high investment, low disruption” to preserve favorable regional balances of power is more costly and affords the United States less latitude, since it is rooted in principles and values. Russia is well-positioned (along with China) to undermine U.S. interests incrementally. That is true in MENA itself and, given the impact of Russia’s activities in this region for U.S. strategic advantages, in other regions of importance to the U.S., such as Europe and Asia. Countering Moscow’s efforts now should, therefore, be an important element of a revised and more comprehensive, yet also tailored, U.S. approach to the MENA region. What is needed is an adapted approach that leverages the United States’ comparative advantages to mitigate Moscow’s influence and that includes shifting some of the current U.S. presence to a more agile and unpredictable posture. Throughout the report, regional countries are categorized into four groups reflecting their anticipated vulnerability to Russian influence-building: (1) “Russia’s friends” (Iran and Syria); (2) “Balancers critical to NATO’s power projection” (Libya and Turkey); (3) “U.S. friends requiring sustained attention” (Egypt and Iraq); and (4) “U.S. allies seeking limited engagement with Russia” (the GCC and Israel). The U.S. should tailor its efforts to: contain Russia’s influence in Iran and Syria, roll back Russia’s influence in Libya and Turkey, manage Russia’s influence — especially on the military and defense sectors —in Egypt and Iraq, and offer reassurance to the GCC and Israel in order to minimize Russian influence in those countries.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

97. The United States in India's Strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region Since 2014

Author:
Jakub Zajaczkowski
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The article's objective is to analyze the main assumptions of India's strategy in the Indo-Pacific region and define the role of the US in it. The time frame of the article is determined by the assumption of power in India in 2014 by the Indian People's Party (Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as the opening of a new stage of the US-led Indo-Pacific rebalancing strategy, which followed China's initiation in 2013 of its Belt and Road Initiative (previously known as the One Belt One Road project). The article seeks to answer the following main research question: What role has India attributed to the United States in its Indo-Pacific strategy since 2014? It hypothesizes that the United States has assumed an increasingly significant role in India's regional strategy over the past seven years, but not to the extent of a formal alliance, only approaching at best the status of a strategic partnership. The theoretical framework used to analyze the case study of the US role in India's regional strategy is the category of institutional balancing and the assumptions of neoclassical realism. The choice of such research tools was determined by their explanatory value. Moreover, both models complement each other. Bearing the above in mind, the following structure of the article was adopted. The first part presents the general assumption of the analysis and the theoretical framework. The second discusses the evolution of India's approach to the US from 2014 to 2021, indicating the reasons for its change and reconstructing the role of the US in the Indian regional strategy, especially after 2020. The third part draws on the theoretical framework adopted in the article, i.e., the assumptions of institutional balancing and neoclassical realism, to offer conclusions that answer the main research questions.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

98. Joe Biden’s Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: Change or Continuity. A Comparative Analysis

Author:
Marcin Grabowski
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The election of Joseph Biden for the office of the President of the United States has brought expectations of fundamental change in American foreign policy, including policy toward the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific region. As observed in the last few months, the reality has been more complex as definite changes in the US Indo-Pacific policy are not as visible as expected. It is especially in respect of the US policy toward China being more a continuation than a change from Donald Trump’s approach. Changes are rhetorical rather than actual policies. The situation is different in the case of alliances, as Joe Biden offers much more commitment to allies like Japan or South Korea. Also, multilateral dimensions (both regional and global) witness some – however still limited – change. The main goal is to make a comparative analysis of Joe Biden’s policy toward Asia, referring to the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Hence the strategies of pivot/re-balance toward the Asia of Obama, and the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump, will be examined. The analysis refers to the complex interdependence theory and the power transition theory. Methodologically, it is based on document analysis with comparative analysis.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

99. Facing A Strategic Endgame? The US and the Ambiguities of Strategic Thinking

Author:
Christopher Coker
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The disastrous strategic failures by the US in the past 30 years can be explained by its failure to understand what strategy actually is and how ambiguity lies at its heart. As a result it has stumbled from crisis to crisis. There is no reason to think that it is any better placed under Biden to address the challenges of a ‘post-hegemonic’ world, argues Christopher Coker.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Crisis Management, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

100. How to Move the Thailand-U.S. Strategic Alliance Forward

Author:
Darmp Sukontasap
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Darmp Sukontasap, Director, Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, Rangsit University, Thailand, explains that “gone are the days when an alliance is viewed exclusively from the security and military perspective. The geopolitical realities of the 21st century require alliances to encompass agendas which are non-military, non-political and non-confrontational.”
Topic:
Geopolitics, Alliance, Strategic Interests, and Military
Political Geography:
North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America