Suchergebnisse

In an attempt to regain some control of the strategic commodity, Washington developed special relationships with the two foremost oil procedures, Iran (under the Shah) and Saudi Arabia. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown and, with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, America became—in the eyes of Iranians—the Great Satan. By 1991, with the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf war, America was once again the dominant power in the region. But, as this study shows, America's position is hardly secure. Much of the difficulty Washington is experiencing derives from what the author regards as a poorly conceived policy. Dual Containment, promulgated in 1993, was supposed to constrain the two most powerful area states, Iran and Iraq, by imposing harsh economic sanctions on them. But, the author contends, the policy has only antagonized America's allies, while Baghdad and Tehran continue to defy Washington and threaten the oil sheikhdoms Washington is trying to protect. The Dual Containment policy must be changed, the author believes. And foremost, the practice of trying to police Iraq by aerial bombing should be abandoned. This tactic is counterproductive, according to the author; it is driving the Iraqis to rally behind the regime of Saddam Hussein, the very outcome Washington is seeking to discourage. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1845/thumbnail.jpg

For 5 years U.S. policy has managed to steer a coalition of states which share broad interests in regional stability and free trade. Yet below these common interests, the United States has walked a tightrope stretched between competing objectives vis-à-vis Iraq, e.g., undermining Saddam while preserving Iraq as a counterweight to Iran; protecting the Kurds while not promoting their independence. Time, however, has a habit of eroding international coalitions and exposing seams in the details of policy. Iraq's September 1996 actions in the Kurdish north found such a seam in coalition objectives, or, to return to the original metaphor, shook one anchor of the U.S. policy tightrope. Dr. Stephen Pelletiere examines how the Kurdish crisis developed, why--most disturbingly--the key coalition members divided in response to U.S. actions, and what factors might guide future U.S. policy. He concludes that U.S. policy needs reanchoring if we are to achieve our paramount interests in this vital region. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1869/thumbnail.jpg

Islamic fundamentalism is growing at such a rapid rate that many believe it threatens to take over the Middle East. To prevent this, enormous resources have been summoned, not only from within the region, but in the West as well. Yet, for all the efforts to contain, if not turn back the fundamentalists, the movement appears likely to pose a security challenge well into the next century. Dr. Stephen Pelletiere points out that containment of fundamentalism depends first and foremost on accurate information about the nature of the movement. He examines the origins of the various fundamentalist groups that are challenging the area's governments, and explains why they were able to grow in the face of official repression by some of the most sophisticated and well-equipped security services in the world. The author concludes by building a theory about fundamentalism, which implies a need to redirect policy for coping with it. Dr. Pelletiere maintains that the solution is not to try to crush the movement—that has been attempted numerous times and consistently has failed. Rather, the way to proceed is to locate and act on the basic split within the movement between its socially constructive and other more violent elements. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1229/thumbnail.jpg

The recent bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma has highlighted the complexity of the phenomenon of political extremism. Until this occurred, inside the United States foreign terrorists were the focus of attention, particularly the so-called Islamic fundamentalists. Undue emphasis on the "foreign connection" can make it appear that only Middle Eastern terror is of consequence. The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) has long resisted this approach. We view terrorism as a universal phenomenon, one that can erupt anywhere. As part of our continuing investigation of this problem, SSI held a conference last November at Georgia Tech, at which a number of terrorist-related issues were considered. The emphasis was on international terror, but the threat of domestic extremism also was examined. Included in this volume are three papers presented at the conference two are related to international terror, while one is concerned with the domestic variety and a concluding chapter. In the first chapter, Dr. Kenneth Katzman, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, uncovers important facts about Hizbollah, considered by many the most lethal of the Islamic fundamentalist groups. Based on his findings, Dr. Katzman ventures to predict what the group's likely future course of action will be. Dr. Lew Ware's contribution in the second chapter is equally important. A professor of Mid-East studies at the Air Command and Staff College, he has painstakingly, and with impressive scholarship, detailed the differences between Sunni and Shia ideas of jihad, a concept crucial to understanding a range of Middle Eastern fundamentalist organizations. Analysts who are less serious than Dr. Ware profess to see no difference between the Shias and Sunnis on this point. However, as Dr. Ware shows, a world of difference exists on this and other matters relating to the fundamentalists' modus operandi. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1236/thumbnail.jpg

The world is waiting for peace in the Middle East. At present the possibility of a settlement is delayed by differences between Israel and Syria. The two are far apart on how to solve one of the thornier problems of the negotiations--the eventual status of the Golan Heights. That Syria's President Assad and Israel's Prime Minister Rabin should find themselves in disagreement is not unusual--Israel and Syria have been enemies for years. But that Assad should be able to hold out against Israeli power is quite extraordinary. Assad has played an extremely astute game of diplomatic intrigue against the Israelis, with successes far beyond anything one might have imagined. This study shows how the Syrian was able to improve his originally weak position in the peace talks by exploiting crisis conditions in Lebanon. Assad's major weapon against the Israelis has been the guerrilla group Hizbollah. The author claims that the fact that a small group of guerrillas could have such an enormous impact in this international drama reveals changed power relations in the strategic Middle East. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1245/thumbnail.jpg

As of mid-1997, the fate of the Arab-Israeli peace process is dangerously uncertain. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to begin work on a new Jewish settlement in Jerusalem has so enraged Palestinians that they have effectively walked out of the negotiations. President Clinton has called on his special envoy, Dennis Ross, to exert every effort to get the Palestinians to return. Meanwhile, elements opposed to the peace process from within the Israeli political establishment have pressured the Prime Minister to halt or even reverse the steps taken to date. Given these current setbacks, it is worthwhile to review what hangs in the balance for U.S. interests in the Middle East. How important is success in the peace process? What are the implications should the peace talks fail? To examine these questions, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the U.S. Army War College joined with Villanova University's Center for Arab and Islamic Studies to cosponsor a conference on the peace process, at Villanova, in December 1996. The conference, organized by Dr. Anne Lesch of Villanova and SSI's Dr. Stephen Pelletiere, brought together six experts on the Middle East, each of whom discussed a different aspect of the crisis. The two papers presented here are particularly timely, as the authors examine the likely effects of breakdown, or breakthrough, on America's broader regional interests, extending in particular to the Persian Gulf. As U.S. policies with respect to the Gulf and the Arab-Israeli peace process come under increasing stress, these authors elaborate linkages between them. They also make clear that the outcomes will have profound implications for U.S. security commitments and, potentially, future missions and deployments. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1186/thumbnail.jpg