As long as Turkey pursues its regional ambitions, any understandings with the US and the West will necessarily have a hard ceiling. However, Ankara seems to be pursuing a more conciliatory policy in the region and in its relations with the West for both economic and strategic reasons.
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Bilateral Relations, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Rapprochement, Strategic Interests, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
Understanding India’s soft power in the Indo-Pacific and the possible impact of its recent decline is essential to a well-informed American strategy in the region. As the world’s second-most populous country and largest democracy, India is an important power and American partner, as highlighted in President Biden’s March 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, which also identified the Indo-Pacific as vital to American national interests.
The Great Power competition in the Indo-Pacific and India’s hard power has been analyzed in other articles in this series. As Joseph Nye pointed out in the 1980s, successful states require both hard and soft power–the wherewithal to coerce as well as the ability to entice and influence the behavior of other countries without force. America’s partnership with India is based not only on the mutual strategic interest of countering China but also on the soft power element of shared democratic values. At the same time, India’s ability to persuade regional countries to partner with it, despite it not having China’s deep pockets or hard power, is key to keeping the Indo-Pacific free and open.
Topic:
Soft Power, COVID-19, Strategic Interests, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies
Abstract:
In this issue of Turkeyscope, Selin Nasi analyzes how Turkish and American foreign policies have reached an impasse on a number of issues. Despite these differences, she highlights several areas of mutual interest where cooperation can, nevertheless, improve the relationship going forward.
Topic:
International Relations, Partnerships, and Strategic Interests
National security determines the degree to which endangering national interests that sublimate national values is absent. With
a review of the genesis and framework of the modern interpretation of national security, the paper discusses its approaches to endangerment. A retrospective of the ideas of endangerment in the paradigm of the changed physiognomy of contemporary conflicts
and dynamic geopolitical movements creates the need for an innovative approach and prediction in national security strategic
assessments. The paper provides an overview of the internal and external political aspects of national security and a framework
for the actions of prominent entities according to the perceived foreign policy interests of importance for the Republic of Serbia’s
security. By analysing common and conflicting interests of Serbia and forces that have geopolitical interests in the Western Balkans, it is possible to establish the most objective framework for predicting the trend of relationship development and the vector
of influence. The paper analyses Serbia’s interactions with Russia, the United States, and the EU. The findings point to a complex situation regarding Serbia’s national security, where Russia seeks to maintain its strong soft power presence, the United
States wants close cooperation and insistence on recognising Kosovo’s independence, and the EU does not vigorously stimulate or promote Serbia’s European integration. In that way, a concrete contribution is made to the developing of strategic assessments of possible trends of importance for the Republic of Serbia’s security, as well as to the achievement of declared national goals.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, European Union, Geopolitics, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, Eastern Europe, Serbia, Balkans, and United States of America
This report is a summary of a policy debate held at MERI on Wednesday, 24 November 2021, attended by a selection of policy makers, politicians and academics. Discussions focused on the current US Administration’s priorities and its policies in the wider Middle East, Iraq and Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI).
Topic:
Diplomacy, Hegemony, Leadership, Conflict, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The withdrawal of American forces from the Middle East may have strategic merits. The rationale for a contracted global military seems to match what American strategists have termed “offshore balancing,” which means that the U.S. holds fewer overseas bases but maintains its military capability to intervene in distant regions when necessary.
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
America’s decision to leave Afghanistan makes sense only if the plan is to cut losses in an unwinnable war and redirect resources and energies toward a winnable strategy against Iran.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Intervention, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
US determination to draw down in the Middle East, which characterized the Obama, Trump and now Biden administrations, appears likely to prevent the development of any coherent strategy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Leadership, Strategic Interests, and Intervention