IRAQ
AP Photo
Fall 2008
"Security and Displacement in Iraq: Responding to the Forced Migration Crisis"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 2, volume 33
By Sarah Kenyon Lischer, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2002-2003
Since the 2006 bombing of the al-Askari Mosque, 4.5 million Iraqis have fled their homes, and displacement has become a central strategy in the civil war. To prevent the wide-scale militarization of the displaced Iraqis, donors and host states should heed the following policy recommendations. First, provide a massive infusion of humanitarian aid. Second, resist the temptation to build camps to house the displaced. Third, do not return the displaced people home against their will. Fourth, expand and expedite the resettlement process, especially for vulnerable Iraqis such as those who were once coalition employees.
AP Photo
September 2, 2008
"The Neocons vs. The Realists"
Magazine or Newspaper Article, National Interest
By Joshua Muravchik and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"A must-read debate about our foreign-policy future. Does realism offer the best solutions to today’s threats? Or will neoconservatism be responsible for our policy triumphs? The choice is clear after eight years of failed Bush policies, says Walt, but Muravchik thinks the House of Kristol may well be vindicated." — National Interest
August 5, 2008
"Stephen M. Walt on the U.S., Iran, and the New Balance of Power in the Persian Gulf"
Q&A
By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program and Kayhan Barzegar, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
Walt: “…..by maintaining a (new) balance you don’t get conflict breaking out and you tilt in favour whichever side seems to be falling behind. At the same time, you do try to discourage conflict whenever possible. You certainly don’t try to control the region yourselves and if the balance breaks down as it did in 1991 and you have to intervene you go in, you get out as quickly as possible. But you don’t try to organize these societies. You don’t try to tell them how to live. You don’t try to tell them how their governments should be organized and you don’t try to transform them at the point of a rifle barrel. This is not disengagement, but it is also not trying to control the region or dictate its political evolution.”
“…we are not going to have a stable long-term situation in the Persian Gulf until the United States and other countries in the region—including Iran—do come to some understanding about the various issues that concern them. Achieving that goal will require genuine diplomacy…The United States will also have to recognize that Iran’s size, potential power, large population, and its geo-strategic location inevitably make it a major player in the security environment in the Persian Gulf, and ignoring that fact is unrealistic…”
AP Photo
Summer 2008
Hedging Against Uncertainty: US Strategy in an Interdependent World
Journal Article, National Strategy Forum Review
By William Hogan, Raymond Plank Professor of Global Energy Policy
Energy is important, but energy independence is a dangerous myth. The U.S. National Petroleum Council recently observed: "There can be no U.S. energy security without global energy security." Oil flows in a world market and events anywhere affect the price of oil everywhere. There is no escaping these oil price shocks. Even if the United States were to substantially reduce its own oil consumption, there would be no immunity from the effects of high world oil prices that would determine domestic energy prices and ripple through the world economy. Geology and politics make the world deeply interdependent and policy should be crafted to promote and secure energy interdependence. Real energy security comes from robust energy systems with diversity and flexibility, not through isolation and energy autarky.
AP Photo
Winter 2007-08
"Iran, New Iraq and the Persian Gulf Political-Security Architecture"
Journal Article, Iranian Journal of International Affairs, issue 1, volume XX
By Kayhan Barzegar, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
This article investigates the necessity of establishing a new political-security arrangement in the Persian Gulf region in the light of new political developments in the region after the 2003 Iraq crisis. The author argues that following the recent political-security changes in the region and with the shift of Iraq's role from its previous threatening position, together with the prospect of building a friendly coalition between Iran and Iraq, the formation of new political-security architecture is inevitable in the Persian Gulf region. The new arrangement has to be based on the new political-security, cultural and economic realities. The author also argues that the nature of security threat in the region has changed. Under the new circumstances, instead of hard inter-states rivalries, the security challenges are more centered in human security and nations' political demands and expectations. Dealing with these new situations requires establishing mutual cooperation in the region.
Dean Calma/IAEA
July 12, 2008
IAEA Safeguards: Dealing Preventively with Non-Compliance
Report
Pierre Goldschmidt, former Deputy Director-General for Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), outlines a new approach to strengthening the IAEA's hand in cases when states violate their safeguards agreements. Goldschmidt argues that the UN Security Council should pass a generic resolution laying out steps the Security Council would take to deal with any state found to be in violation of its safeguards obligations. Any state which violated its safeguards pact would be required to accept a broader inspection regime going well beyond the Additional Protocol until the IAEA was able to draw the conclusion that all of its nuclear facilities and materials were under safeguards. Goldschmidt offers a draft text for the resolution and for the "Model Temporary Complementary Protocol" that defines the broader inspection regime, along with an article-by-article analysis.
July 11, 2008
"Joseph Nye on Smart Power in Iran-U.S. Relations"
Q&A
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Kayhan Barzegar, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
This interview elaborates on the applicability of Nye’s theory of “smart power” in the context of the Middle East and particularly Iran. The discussion further pushes the boundaries on how the current U.S policymakers should take into account soft and smart power towards Iran.
Nye: “… if the Americans, in efforts to try to stop the Iranian’s nuclear weapons program, were to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they might gain a few years of slowing down the nuclear weapons program but they would lose the whole generation of younger Iranians who would respond in a nationalistic way. So I think that would be a very large cost for a very limited benefit.”
July 3, 2008
"Joseph Nye on Smart Power"
Q&A
By Doug Gavel and Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
The days of American hegemony on the world stage appear to be waning. The rise of other global powers, the diffusion of economic and human capital, and the increasingly powerful influences being exerted by non-state actors — including terrorists — have ushered in a new era in geopolitics. Joseph Nye is university distinguished service professor and Sultan of Oman professor of international relations. He is the author of many books and articles on international relations, including his most recent book, “The Powers to Lead.”
June 19, 2008
"Iran on Its Heels"
Op-Ed, Washington Post
By Vali Nasr, Senior Fellow, Dubai Initiative
Iran still has considerable influence in Iraq. It may reconstitute the Mahdi Army and pick up the fight against America, using special groups of the type suspected in the Baghdad car bombing Tuesday. It may also try to use nationalist opposition to the U.S.-Iraq "status of forces" agreement to its advantage. But Tehran will find it difficult to regain lost turf in Baghdad or Basra, or to go back to happily supporting Shiites both at the center and in the militias. It will have to choose whether it is with the state or the sub-state actors.
AP Photo
June 2, 2008
"Why Islam Lies at the Heart of Iraq's Civil War"
Op-Ed, Christian Science Monitor
By Monica Duffy Toft, Associate Professor of Public Policy
"...[N]ot until 2007 did the Pentagon acknowledge that Iraqi sectarian violence had crossed a threshold to become a civil war.
But policymakers still haven't come to terms with the implications of that fact. If they did, they'd see that a wisely executed withdrawal of US-led forces could well be the surest path to peace. That's because withdrawal is likely to transform the fighting in Iraq into a defensive struggle for power in a nation-state, as opposed to an offensive battle rooted in religion."
