Annie Tracy Samuel
Research Fellow, International Security Program
Contact:
Telephone: 617-496-2569
Fax: 617-496-0606
Email: annie_tracy_samuel@hks.harvard.edu
Website: http://scholar.harvard.edu/annietracysamuel
AP Photo
Fall 2011
"Guest Editor's Forward"
Journal Article, Sharqiyya
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"The past year has been one of tremendous change in the Middle East and North Africa. The transformations that have come in the wake of momentous upheavals—now commonly known as the Arab Spring—have a wide and varying significance. For many people in the region, the past year has been one of daring, fearless action in pursuit of far-reaching political change. Their demands induced fear among the long-time, autocratic rulers, which has resulted either in the abdication of long-clung-to power or in brutal resistance and violence against masses of unarmed, pro-democracy protesters. World leaders have found themselves scrambling to protect various vital interests while struggling not to end up on the wrong side of history."
AP Photo
Fall 2011
"Guest Editor's Forward"
Journal Article, Sharqiyya
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"The past year has been one of tremendous change in the Middle East and North Africa. The transformations that have come in the wake of momentous upheavals—now commonly known as the Arab Spring—have a wide and varying significance. For many people in the region, the past year has been one of daring, fearless action in pursuit of far-reaching political change. Their demands induced fear among the long-time, autocratic rulers, which has resulted either in the abdication of long-clung-to power or in brutal resistance and violence against masses of unarmed, pro-democracy protesters. World leaders have found themselves scrambling to protect various vital interests while struggling not to end up on the wrong side of history."
AP Photo
July 28, 2012
"Attacking Iran: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War — Part 1"
Op-Ed, Fair Observer
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"While the regime may increase its strength in the wake of an attack, it may also be able to capitalize on an attack to eliminate its internal enemies. That is precisely what happened following the 1980 Iraqi invasion. Ayatollah Khomeini and his allies used the war to strengthen their control over the state along the war-making state-making nexus, following the pattern of revolutionary elites in other countries. Their main rival for power within the Islamic Republic was the secular leaning constituency led by President Abolhassan Banisadr, who had tried to gain the support of the regular armed forces and to steer the war effort in his role as commander in chief. To minimize Banisadr's power, Khomeini sent his own representatives to oversee the armed forces, which eroded their support for the president, and built up a competing powerbase in the IRGC."
AP Photo
March 28, 2012
"Why Negotiating with Iran is Israel's Best Strategy"
Op-Ed, GlobalPost
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"...[S]anctions and threats are strengthening the power of Iranian hardliners and the Revolutionary Guards, the forces that present the gravest danger to Israel. A policy that is centered on pressure will increase the likelihood that Iran will decide it needs a nuclear weapon and that it cannot reduce its enmity toward Israel and the United States. Such a policy will likely make Israel less secure."
December 2011
"Attacking Iran: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War"
Policy Brief
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
This policy brief seeks to contribute to and inform the debate concerning a possible attack by the United States and/or Israel on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The presumed aim of such an attack would be to weaken the Islamic Republic, particularly by hindering its ability to build a nuclear weapon. However, the history of the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September 1980 calls into question the contention that an attack will weaken the regime in Tehran. This policy brief examines Iran's reactions to the Iraqi invasion in order to shed light on Iran's possible reactions to a U.S. or Israeli attack.
AP Photo
October 14, 2011
"Going Rogue in Iran?"
Op-Ed, CNN.com
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"If we accept the charges made in the complaint and take Arbabsiar's words at face-value, we know that two Quds Force officers unsuccessfully and sloppily arranged, through intermediaries they thought to be associates of a Mexican drug cartel, to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C. There is no evidence in the complaint to support the claim that other elements of the Iranian government knew about, approved of, or ordered this plot."
AP Photo
July 28, 2012
"Attacking Iran: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War — Part 1"
Op-Ed, Fair Observer
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"While the regime may increase its strength in the wake of an attack, it may also be able to capitalize on an attack to eliminate its internal enemies. That is precisely what happened following the 1980 Iraqi invasion. Ayatollah Khomeini and his allies used the war to strengthen their control over the state along the war-making state-making nexus, following the pattern of revolutionary elites in other countries. Their main rival for power within the Islamic Republic was the secular leaning constituency led by President Abolhassan Banisadr, who had tried to gain the support of the regular armed forces and to steer the war effort in his role as commander in chief. To minimize Banisadr's power, Khomeini sent his own representatives to oversee the armed forces, which eroded their support for the president, and built up a competing powerbase in the IRGC."
AP Photo
March 28, 2012
"Why Negotiating with Iran is Israel's Best Strategy"
Op-Ed, GlobalPost
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"...[S]anctions and threats are strengthening the power of Iranian hardliners and the Revolutionary Guards, the forces that present the gravest danger to Israel. A policy that is centered on pressure will increase the likelihood that Iran will decide it needs a nuclear weapon and that it cannot reduce its enmity toward Israel and the United States. Such a policy will likely make Israel less secure."
December 2011
"Attacking Iran: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War"
Policy Brief
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
This policy brief seeks to contribute to and inform the debate concerning a possible attack by the United States and/or Israel on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The presumed aim of such an attack would be to weaken the Islamic Republic, particularly by hindering its ability to build a nuclear weapon. However, the history of the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September 1980 calls into question the contention that an attack will weaken the regime in Tehran. This policy brief examines Iran's reactions to the Iraqi invasion in order to shed light on Iran's possible reactions to a U.S. or Israeli attack.
AP Photo
October 14, 2011
"Going Rogue in Iran?"
Op-Ed, CNN.com
By Annie Tracy Samuel, Research Fellow, International Security Program
"If we accept the charges made in the complaint and take Arbabsiar's words at face-value, we know that two Quds Force officers unsuccessfully and sloppily arranged, through intermediaries they thought to be associates of a Mexican drug cartel, to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C. There is no evidence in the complaint to support the claim that other elements of the Iranian government knew about, approved of, or ordered this plot."
