Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy

141. Examining the Response of Baloch Sunnis to the Ethno-Religious Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Author:
Hadi Gamshadzehifar
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Institution:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Abstract:
This study investigates the response of the Baloch Sunni ethno-religious minorty towards the assimilationist approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It argues that the Iranian theocratic political system uses an assimilationist approach and tries to assimilate the Baloch-Sunni into Shia Persain dominated ethno-religious group; but, this policy has been resisted by different strata of the society. The study finds that although there is a general consensus among the Baloch Sunnis to uphold their ethno-religious values, each segment of the Baloch Sunni society is combatting the central government’s ethno-religious policy on its own way depending on the means available, ranging from cultural efforts to political and military activities.
Topic:
Religion, Military Strategy, Sunni, Shia, and Assimilation
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

142. The Rising Crisis between the United States and Iran

Author:
Amos Yadlin
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
After a year in which Iran opted for "strategic patience," in the hope that European nations would compensate for the United States sanctions, it now seeks to present a price tag for the US measures against it, and has thus embarked on a response comprising action in three realms: nuclear, military, and oil exports from the Gulf. In the current circumstances, Iran and the United States are demanding conditions that would make a resumption of negotiations difficult, although both sides apparently understand that dialogue may ultimately be the less dangerous option for them. The latest developments embody the potential for escalation and miscalculation that is liable to affect Israel's security, and therefore the security cabinet should convene to craft an appropriate policy for the near, medium, and long terms.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Oil, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and North America

143. Does Hezbollah Want a War with Israel Now?

Author:
Orna Mizrahi and Yoram Schweitzer
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
Voices in the Arab media have recently suggested that war between Israel and Hezbollah may erupt this coming summer. This debate began even before the rise in tension between the United States and Iran in the Gulf, which once again brought to the fore the possibility of Iran using Hezbollah as a proxy against Israel. In recent speeches, however, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah acted quickly to calm the waters, while delivering messages designed to deter Israel from taking measures against Hezbollah. Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah was capable of striking strategic sites on the Israeli home front and conquering parts of the Galilee. These statements indicate that as far as Hezbollah is concerned, the current circumstances are not convenient for a conflict with Israel, due to Hezbollah's continuing involvement in the war in Syria and a wish to avoid undermining Hezbollah's recent achievements in the Lebanese political system. Also important is Hezbollah's deepening economic plight, resulting in part from American sanctions against the organization and its patron, Iran, although these economic difficulties have not yet affected Hezbollah's continued investment in its military buildup and deployment for a future war with Israel. Nevertheless, even if Hezbollah has no interest in a large scale conflict with Israel at this time, escalation as a result of particular measures by Israel in Lebanon and the organization's response, or from Hezbollah's own actions against Israel aimed at serving Iranian interests, cannot be ruled out. Israel must therefore prepare in advance for the possibility of a military campaign in the north.
Topic:
Terrorism, Military Strategy, Hezbollah, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, and Persian Gulf

144. Russia and Iran: Is the Syrian Honeymoon Over?

Author:
Udi Dekel and Carmit Valensi
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
The rescue of Bashar al-Assad’s regime by the pro-Assad coalition, comprising Russia, Iran, and Iranian proxies, led to the victory of the regime over the rebels; the coalition’s achievements stem primarily from the effective cooperation between Iran and Russia since 2015 in fighting the rebels. Now, with the battles over, despite shared interests in consolidating the Assad regime, inherent tensions between Russia and Iran regarding influence in Syria have emerged in greater relief. Yet despite the disagreements, this it is not a zero-sum game between Russia and Iran. Both continue to cooperate on a range of issues in the Syrian arena and beyond. Iran for its part continues to see its consolidation in Syria as a strategic objective, and despite difficulties that have emerged, it seems that Tehran remains determined to continue, even if to a lesser extent than originally planned. After the success of Israel’s military actions to halt Iran’s military consolidation in Syria, Jerusalem should maximize the political potential and the shared interest of Russia and the United States to stabilize the situation in Syria, and to reduce Iran’s influence and capabilities in the country.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, and Syria

145. A New Dimension of Air-Based Threats: Germany, the EU, and NATO Need New Political Initiatives and Military Defense Systems

Author:
Torben Schütz, Christian Mölling, and Zoe Stanley-Lockman
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
The range of air-based threats is expanding with considerable speed and intensity. The main reason is the proliferation of technologies and weapons systems. Germany could play a leading role in the necessary adaptation of arms control regimes and in the development of new air defense capabilities. To this end, Germany should initiate a PESCO project on short-range air defense and an air defense capability cluster within NATO.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Military Strategy, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

146. German Leadership in Arms Control: Three Pillars to Achieve More Realism

Author:
Christian Mölling and Torben Schütz
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Arms control is traditionally at the core of Germany’s cooperative security approach. It is therefore a natural leader for a new Western arms control policy. But Germany must overcome the Cold War approach that no longer suits today’s security environment. A new approach should build on three pillars: security, military, and alliance realism. While such a change entails risk and uncertainty for German decision-makers, the price of upholding existing outdated arms control architectures is already higher.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

147. Avoiding the Legal Black Hole: Re-evaluating the Applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the United Kingdom’s Targeted Killing Policy

Author:
Liam Halewood
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) became the first European State to incorporate extraterritorial targeted killing with drones into its counterterrorism framework. This article examines whether the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) extend to such operations. Scholars have suggested not, based on a comparison of a drone strike to the circumstances of the landmark Bankovic case, which was inadmissible on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the UK policy is perceived as occurring in a legal black.hole outside the purview of the Convention. However, this article argues that the comparisons to Bankovic overlook the uniqueness of targeted killing operations and the context in which the UK policy is utilized. Considering the distinctiveness of the UK policy, this article re-evaluates the applicability of the ECHR and proposes that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) could find a jurisdictional link between the UK and the victims of targeted killing, thereby avoiding the perceived legal black.hole.
Topic:
Human Rights, Military Strategy, Drones, and Extrajudicial Killings
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

148. An Analysis of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Light of its Form as a Framework Agreement

Author:
Monika Subritzky
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Nuclear weapons present a unique problem and risk to global safety and security. The destructive capability of nuclear weapons, which extends beyond intended targets, is what sets these weapons apart from all else; they are sui generis. These weapons are indiscriminate in both their scale of destruction, which cannot be said to involve proportionate force, and in their residual effects of radioactive fallout, which some scholars have equated to the effect of a poisoned weapon.1 The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted at the United Nations Headquarters on 7 July 2017, with 122 States voting in favour of the final draft, one voting against, and one abstaining.2 As of July 2019, the Treaty has twenty-three parties and seventy signatories.3 It is currently not in force as it requires ratification by a minimum of fifty States in order to come into effect.4 The core prohibitions of the Treaty are set out in its first Article, in which State parties agree to never develop, acquire, use or threaten to use, transfer, or stockpile nuclear weapons. What the Treaty does not do, however, is directly eliminate any nuclear weapons; a challenging task in itself considering that none of the current possessors of nuclear weapons even partook in the negotiation of the Treaty. State parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) have obligations under Article VI to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to disarmament.5 Against a backdrop of little discernible progress on the implementation of Article VI over the last fifty years, Ireland, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, submitted a Working Paper outlining possible pathways to nuclear disarmament in an effort to fulfil the provisions of Article VI.6 These pathways were debated in 2016 during the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), which was set up for the purpose of providing a forum for discussion regarding advancing nuclear disarmament. The argument of this paper is that the TPNW has the potential to function radically as a disarmament mechanism. At first glance, the Treaty appears to fit within the second pathway outlined in the Irish Working Paper, effectively functioning as a simple Ban Treaty. However, a careful analysis reveals that it more neatly fits into the third pathway – a framework arrangement. It is this characteristic which makes the TPNW a novel and profound instrument as well as a potential foundational solution to the problem of nuclear weapons. The core section of the paper is divided into two parts. The first delves into the three main pathways discussed in the Irish Working Paper and analyzes how well each of the proposals can address the problem of achieving nuclear disarmament. As suggested by Brazil in the OEWG debates in 2016, three categories are key in establishing the degree to which each pathway can achieve progress in achieving nuclear disarmament – universality, effectiveness, and political viability.7 All nuclear disarmament treaties must intend to be universal in light of the humanitarian consequences of their usage. However, a disarmament treaty can be successful with universality as one of its objectives, rather than a precondition. Widespread support for a treaty also lends to its effectiveness, as do mechanisms for verification and enforcement.8 The political viability of a treaty is key as, without the willing participation of governments, proposals can easily be discarded. The analysis is centred on these categories. The second core part of the paper analyzes the structure of the TPNW with a focus on Articles 4 and 8. It demonstrates that the TPNW surreptitiously functions as a framework agreement and that this attribute has enormous value, both in practice and in shaping norms. The flexibility and adaptability of framework agreements is what makes them the most suitable mechanisms for nuclear disarmament.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

149. Does the New Saudi Reactor Justify Proliferation Fears?

Author:
Basel Ammane
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:
In early April 2019, Saudi Arabia’s progress in constructing its first nuclear reactor with the assistance of Argentine firm INVAP was the subject of considerable media attention that speculated on the dangers of this development. This was made all the more alarming given the reported nuclear technological assistance to the kingdom that the American administration approved. In fact, a cursory review of events surrounding this development reveals that there are at least two indicators that can be seen as cause for concern. First, Saudi leadership rhetoric pertaining to proliferation has not been reassuring, as crown prince Mohammed bin Salman signaled his country’s resolve to pursue the path of nuclear armament in the event that Iran, its regional rival, moves in that direction too. Second, the construction of this reactor is seen as the first step toward acquiring the knowledge and experience necessary for developing a sizeable nuclear power infrastructure that will supply the kingdom’s needs in the future. The kingdom has plans to build two large nuclear reactors to diversify its energy sources and meet its electricity needs, as well as a number of small reactors for desalination purposes. As these plans begin to materialize, the importance of Saudi compliance under a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) will become indispensable and equivocation on the matter unacceptable. Having said this, speculation that is largely focused on a handful of events reported by the media is not good at providing a clear picture. Grounding analysis in an understanding of regional politics and global nonproliferation dynamics is likely to capture a clearer picture of the situation. There are at least two factors should be grounds for concern about potential Saudi nuclear proliferation.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Middle East and Saudi Arabia

150. What to Make of the Government’s Decision not to Extend its Mission in Mali

Author:
Basel Ammane
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:
News stories about the Ogossagou massacre that killed more than 161 people, the death of Malian soldiers at the hands of jihadi terrorists, as well as the resignation of the Malian Prime Minister Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga hardly paint a picture of progress towards inter-communal peace in that country. In fact, an analysis of MINUSMA (the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali) attributed the continued instability to the low ranking of ‘protection of civilians’ on the list of priorities for that mission. In other words, it assessed that the situation was so dire that it required substantial changes to the framework of the operation for tangible improvement to materialize. Yet despite UN overtures and the “bad optics” of leaving before replacements have arrived, the Canadian government has been adamant about its objections to extending the mission in the West African country beyond July, citing its previously-set duration for the mission of one year. With less than three months remaining till the end of Operation PRESENCE, Canada’s contribution of peacekeeping efforts under MINUSMA, it is worth reflecting on the significance of this endeavour and attempting to understand the limitations that shaped it and have come to define it. The announcement of the mission came on the back of the Liberals’ success in the 2015 federal election which was preceded by a campaign that prominently featured the idea of returning Canada to its place as a country heavily involved in peacekeeping. Unfortunately, though, exclusive involvement in this peacekeeping mission falls massively short of campaign promises to commit up to 600 troops to such missions. Moreover, many experts have voiced their concerns about lack of progress in Mali and the need for a stronger commitment in terms of resources, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Does that reflect a downgrading of peacekeeping as an international security priority for this government? There is evidence that suggests this is the case. A brief look at the Department of National Defence spending plans for 2019-2020 is sufficient to reveal the movement of funding to other operations. The most prominent of such operations are Operation LIMPID, REASSURANCE, and FOUNDATION. Operation LIMPID refers to CAF efforts to counter threats to the country sovereignty in a variety of realms including land, maritime, space and cyber domains; operation REASSURANCE deals with shoring up NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe to assure these countries of its support, while operation FOUNDATION deals with counter-terrorism efforts in the Middle East, North Africa, and South West Asia. So what accounts for this shift?
Topic:
United Nations, Military Strategy, Governance, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
Africa and Mali