Homeland Security expert, Dr. James Carafano, has an unique idea for nations contemplating defensive measures against the audacious pirates in the Horn of Africa: Lasers.

Most people are familiar with directed energy weapons through the legacies of such epic cinema productions as Star Wars and Buck Rogers. After the real-time pursuit of these weapons, Reagan administration opponents argued that the much maligned Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program epitomized everything that was wrong with defense acquisitions.

Fascination with the potential offensive and defensive capability of focused light beams is said to have originated from the Roman siege of Syracuse in 212 B.C.  Ancient writings tell of how Archimedes constructed a hexagonal mirror, as part of a complex that included more distant quadrangular mirrors, manipulated by a network of hinges. This complex concentrated the sun’s light to an intensity that incinerated objects an arrow’s flight away. With this device, Archimedes is credited with setting fire to the entire Roman fleet, thus saving his homeland.

In more recent times, renowned (but now mostly forgotten) scientist, Nicola Tesla, presented a detailed schema for directed energy weaponry that he considered to be “teleforce” weapons. The press sensationalized his plans with the moniker, “the Death Ray.”  His detailed research was published in 1937 under the title,”The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media.” Tesla enthusiastically explained that:

[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation’s border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks.

But much like the scientists who labored on Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative, Telsa innocently dreamt that his horrendous device would be the catalyst that would make war obsolete, and lead all rational stakeholders to the path of world peace. He attempted to sell his device to the American and European defense establishments, but found no buyers. For many subsequent decades, directed energy weapon research languished due to the inability to construct a power generation device more portable than a stationary nuclear power plant, and the nearly game-ending inability to prevent “blooming,” that is the plasma breakdown that air - as a conductor – experiences in collision with incredibly massive amounts of high intensity thermal energy.

While hopes for yesteryear’s larger-than-life projects survive most frequently in the hearts of die-hard enthusiasts, current research focuses on more immediate, practical applications that might not exclude currently ongoing conflicts. This new generation of weapons may include devices produced by Ionatron, a US-based publicly traded company that developed the Joint IED Neutralizer (JIN) to safely neutralize IEDs in war zones. Even with extremely successful tests that destroyed 90% of the IEDs, bureaucratic red tape delayed the launch of this remarkable, arguably defensive, tool. The US military has also created a multimillion dollar research-and-develop program to develop nonlethal energy weapons for use in international hot spots.

The Pulsed Energy Projectile system (PEP), while apparently not yet deployed, has already drawn ire from human rights activists due to its ability to introduce intense pain from distances of 2-km using microwaves. Not limited to combat scenarios, the PEP was intended to quell riots, and to induce maximum pain, without subsequent tissue damage.

Click here to see it being tested on US soldiers simulating a civil disturbance.

While the current directed energy weapon systems are a vastly scaled down version than those envisioned in science fiction films, or even the imagination of early 20th century scientists such as Tesla, their application on some scale seems a matter of certainty. Whether they can stop determined pirates is another matter.

Link: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/analyst-use-las/

On May 5, 2009, Senator Bob Graham, two-term Governor of Florida, US Senate member for 18 years, and former Belfer Center Senior Fellow,  gave a talk  called “From 9/11 to Obama: US Relations with the Muslim World” at the Dubai School of Government. In his talk, Senator Graham discussed the nature of US relations with the Arab world in the Obama Era, a relationship, he said, that would now be marked with pragmatism, hope, and mutual respect.

For more information on the talk, read this article in Zawya.

For more information from DSG and to access the presentation’s multimedia, click here.

A recent NY Times article highlighted Syria’s return from isolation.Noting that only a year ago it was being “vilified as a dangerous pariah,” today Syria is being thought of as a potential key to regional stability.Much of this change is the result of a new approach by the U.S. in light of the failure of the Bush administration’s policies toward Syria.

Nevertheless, some in the U.S. have argued against this softer approach claiming that Syria’s behavior has not changed and therefore it should not be rewarded in this manner.Those individuals, however, should take clear note of the words of a senior Syrian analyst close to the regime.He states, “There are some here who miss the Bush administration, because at least with them you knew where you stood. With Obama, the American demands have not really changed, but there is an impression of a new era and an expectation of new results from us.”

In other words, the policy goals have changed little, but the words and tone used to communicate U.S. demands have greatly changed.The tough rhetoric of the Bush years only led to an entrenchment in the Syrian position.While some inside Syria are trying to portray this change in U.S. policy as a victory for Syria, the regime is clearly feeling greater pressure than before to alter its behavior. It is a welcome relief that the new U.S. administration understands the value of diplomacy and the benefits that this approach can bring.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html?ref=middleeast

The recent bombings in Yemen are a stark reminder of the dangers facing the US on the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen is on the verge of becoming—if it has not already—a failed state. While the central government is still nominally in control, there have been numerous challenges to it in recent years. Given the geostrategic importance of Yemen and the threat of any failed state to US national security, it is imperative that US policy makers do not lose sight of this country amidst the ongoing challenges in the region.

Yemen, the historic homeland of the Bin Laden family, is one of the poorest societies on earth and by far the poorest country in the Arab world. The vast majority of the population still lives in rural areas in traditional communities.

At present, Yemen is facing three primary challenges, any of which could potentially bring down the state. The first is the rise of religious extremists who have been perpetrating terrorist attacks in recent years. Yemen recently arrested twelve Islamists in connection with the attacks and their nature is reminiscent of numerous other terrorist attacks in Yemen on tourists as well as the US embassy bombing last year. Using terrorist tactics, these extremists—who are suspected to be affiliated with al-Qaeda—are seeking to expel all foreign influences and bring religious rule to Yemen.

The second challenge is the ongoing war in the northern Sa’ada province. In this case, rebels loyal to members of the al-Houthi clan have been challenging the regime’s rule since the summer of 2004. While the regime declared an end to fighting last July (as it has numerous times in the past), resentment runs high and renewed fighting could break out at any time. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that jihadist groups from other provinces have been congregating in Sa’ada and new fighting could break out at any point.

Third, opposition supporters based in the former South Yemen (P.D.R. Yemen) have been holding massive protests and strikes against the government. The opposition Joint Meetings Party (JMP), which includes the Islamist Islah party and numerous leftist parties, is seeking greater access to power and a more equitable electoral process among other demands. Given that the South seceded in 1994 leading to a civil war won by the North, the threat of a renewed conflict is very real.

Also of note is the recent announcement that parliamentary elections—due to be held next month—would be delayed for two years. The JMP had sought concessions from the regime including significant revisions to the electoral law prior to the elections. However, no changes were agreed upon in time for the scheduled elections leading to an agreement between the regime and the opposition to delay the elections, thereby giving more time to undertake electoral reform.

Given the regime’s insistence on holding elections as scheduled for the previous year and its general disregard for the opposition, it is clear that it fears the opposition has made real gains. Nevertheless, given the regime’s past behavior, it is unclear if the delay will lead to promised reform or is simply a delaying tactic to try to co-opt enough opposition leaders prior to new elections to guarantee the JMP’s official participation. If the regime is in fact pursuing the second strategy, it is likely that popular protests will resurface in the near future given the unmet popular demand for political reform.

In sum, Yemen is facing significant challenges and it is unclear if it has the ability to overcome them. In a state as weak as Yemen, one such challenge might be enough to bring down the state, meaning it faces a significant risk of complete collapse. While there may appear to be more pressing demands for US attention in the region, the potential of state failure in Yemen represents a very significant threat to US national security in the years to come.

As such, it is critical that the US work to strengthen the central government. Yet, simply increasing the regime’s capacity is insufficient. Rather, the US must seek to improve conditions for Yemenis throughout the country. Much of the current resentment is the result of failed development strategies, including the failure of the discovery of oil a decade ago to bring any significant improvements in the quality of life for ordinary people. Additionally, it is important to encourage the government to meet some of the opposition’s demands for political reform to allow Yemenis a greater voice in the system leading to hope for better governance in the future.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/world/middleeast/16yemen.html?ref=middleeast

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/world/middleeast/17briefs-ARRESTSINATT_BRF.html?ref=middleeast

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7949961.stm

Check out DI Fellow Justin Dargin’s thoughts on Egypt’s current proposal to tax energy-free zones in the latest issue of MEED.

File Download: “Cairo reviews free zone tax.” (PDF)

A recent Haaretz article reports that Fatah’s political leadership has told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that unity talks will be aimed primarily at forming a caretaker government to pave the way for fresh elections. Assuming that this government recognizes Israel, it appears that the US is generally supportive of this effort.

Yet, what would result from fresh elections? A recent public opinion poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey research indicates that Hamas only trails Fatah by 7% in the Palestinian Territories. However, polls tend to underestimate support for Hamas due to the fact that supporters of smaller Islamist groups such as Islamic Jihad are likely to vote for Hamas. This means that Hamas will receive another 5% or so of support in fresh elections. As such, the two parties appear to remain deadlocked with around 20% of the population being undecided.

While fresh elections could prove surprising, at present there is little reason to believe that the overall outcome would be vastly different from 2006. If the electoral system remains the same, Hamas is likely to hold on to its parliamentary majority and there is a real chance Hamas might win the presidency if Marwan Barghouti is not released from prison. Without significant movement on the peace process or another major development, fresh elections would likely to lead to a continuation of the current political stalemate. If US leaders are pinning their hope that this will result in a Fatah-dominated government that can work towards peace, then this seems like nothing more than wishful thinking.

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070450.html

Link: http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p31epressrelease.html

A recent report published in the Lancet medical journal showed that “the trend for stunting among Palestinian children is increasing, and that there is a concern about the long-term effects.” The report shows that there are pockets in northern Gaza where the level of stunted growth among children reaches thirty percent. Stunting, which is caused by chronic malnutrition and affecting cognitive development and physical health, poses a serious threat to normal childhood development and may cause severe health problems for children in the future. The report’s conclusions that the main reasons for the ailing Palestinian health system are the occupation, the recent conflict in Gaza, and inter-Palestinian fighting stress the need for an honest assessment of the health situation within the context of broader Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Thus, the Israeli government’s dismissal of the report as “propaganda in the guise of a medical report” is disheartening. Measuring stunted growth among children represents objective health data collection. Regardless of partisan persuasions, the percentage of Palestinian children who now suffer from stunted growth remains ten percent. Dismissing the report as one-sided does not change the medical facts on the ground, which clearly indicate that the Palestinian population in Gaza is facing a dangerous and worsening health situation, one that certainly has implications on any future prospects for peace.

Link: http://www.thelancet.com/series/health-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7924199.stm

In an article for Time Magazine, Tony Karon recently suggested that the US may have to open a formal dialogue with Hamas in the near future. He suggests that this move would be in line with the change in the British stance towards Hizbullah in Lebanon. In this case, the British have concluded that despite Hizbullah’s brutal history, the “facts on the ground” in Lebanon mean that Hizbullah will remain a prominent player in the Lebanese system, necessitating some form of communication with the party.

Undoubtedly, Hamas is a major player in the West Bank and Gaza. While direct talks may prove necessary despite the costs, there remains another potential option. Rather than talking directly to Hamas, it is possible to talk directly to ordinary Palestinians who support Hamas.

It should be remembered that while Hamas originally came to prominence through its military operations, its real power comes from the support it receives from a substantial percentage of the Palestinian population. By comparison, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups have carried out numerous violent operations as well, but only Hamas is viewed by all players as being relevant today because of its mass following.

Overall, Palestinians tend to support Hamas for two basic reasons: anger at Fateh’s corruption and the failure of the Oslo process. The US can decrease support for Hamas by seeking to address these two factors. If this is done and new elections are held, then the new facts on the ground may reveal that talking directly to Hamas is less of a necessity.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883382,00.html

DSG Dean Tarik Yousef discusses how the recent economic crisis will affect  Dubai’s future progress on Al Jazeera English.  Watch the full program here.

The UAE’s recent decision to bar an Israeli pro tennis player a visa to play in the Dubai Tennis Championships is indicative of a decisive choice the UAE must make in confronting the financial crisis the country faces. The UAE’s path to prosperity has for a long time been based upon its choice of putting profits before politics in the policies it has pursued. During the Iran-Iraq War, the UAE shrewdly maintained its neutrality with all parties involved—serving as a safe free port in the otherwise dangerous waters of the Persian Gulf. Likewise, the UAE formed an alliance with the United States in the 1990s to protect itself from the military threat posed to it by Iran, while at the same time becoming Iran’s most important trading partner. In particular, Dubai has sought to create an identity for itself based upon commercial openness, religious and ethnic tolerance, and individual opportunity.

Now, when faced with its first great economic crisis, it has a crucial choice about how it seeks define its reputation. When times are good, it’s easy to choose prosperity over politics. Yet, when times get difficult, there are temptations for leaders to engage in political pandering and scapegoating to divert national attention away from the country’s truly pressing issues.

Dubai’s rulers have been know for their clairvoyant leadership, investing in the world’s large man-made port before there was any demand for it, creating an innovative system of free zones to attract global commerce and FDI, and leading the way in opening up the UAE politically and commercially. Dubai’s reputation and extraordinary success were not coincidental, but earned through making difficult, far-sighted choices. How much the current economic crisis will hurt Dubai in the long run will be a question of the extent to which it can weather the crisis with its reputation intact. To date, Dubai has chosen to known for its prosperity rather than its politics and that has been a successful model for it. Yet, it’s difficult to choose the policies of prosperity over those of politics when there is no prosperity to be had in the near-term. The issue that Dubai’s leadership must confront is to what extent it will risk damaging its hard-fought commercial reputation for ephemeral political benefits that may cost it dearly down the road.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/15/tennis.uae.israel/index.html