DOCSLIB.ORG

Globalization. Security Crises

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

“HENRI COANDA”
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
ROMANIA

  • GERMANY
  • “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK”

ARMED FORCES ACADEMY
SLOVAK REPUBLIC

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER
AFASES 2011

Brasov, 26-28 May 2011

GLOBALIZATION. SECURITY CRISES

Iustin ACHIRECESEI, Vasile NODIŞ
Introduction

further reported that, such a base would not have been conceivable before Poland joined
This report examines the implications Nato in 1999.

  • of this strategy in recent years; following the
  • In November of 2007 it was reported

emergence of a New Cold War, as well as that, Russia threatened to site short-range analyzing the war in Georgia, the attempts and nuclear missiles in a second location on the methods of regime change in Iran, , the European Union's border yesterday if the expansion of he Afghan-Pakistan war theatre, United States refuses to abandon plans to erect and spread of conflict in Central Africa. These a missile defence shield. A senior Russian processes of a New Cold War and major army general said that Iskander missiles could regional wars and conflicts take the world be deployed in Belarus if US proposals to

  • closer to a New World War.
  • place 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in

Peace is only be possible if the tools Poland and the Czech Republic go ahead.

  • and engines of empires are dismantled.
  • Putin also threatened to retrain Russia's

nuclear arsenal on targets within Europe.

Eastern Europe: Forefront of the New Cold However, Washington claims War

that the shield is aimed not at Russia but at
In 2002, the Guardian reported that, states such as Iran which it accuses of seeking
“The US military build-up in the former to develop nuclear weapons that could one day Soviet republics of central Asia is raising fears in Moscow that Washington is strike the West.
This is a patently absurd claim, as in exploiting the Afghan war to establish a May 2009, Russian and American scientists permanent, armed foothold in the region. released a report saying “that it would take Iran at least another six to eight years to
In 2004, it was reported that US produce a missile with enough range to reach strategy “is to position U.S. forces along an Southern Europe and that only illicit foreign "arc of instability" that runs through the assistance or a concerted and highly visible, Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, the decade-long effort might produce the Caucasus, Central Asia and southern Asia. It breakthroughs needed for a nuclear-tipped is in these parts of the world -generally poor, missile to threaten the United States.” Even in insular and unstable --that military planners December of 2007, the National Intelligence see the major future threats to U.S. interests.
Estimate (NIE) released by all 16 US intelligence agencies reported that, “Iran
In 2005, it was reported that talks had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 been going on between the US and Poland and that the program remains frozen.”

  • since 2002, along with various other countries,
  • Russia has concerns not only about

over the possibility of setting up a European missile interceptors in Poland, which it claims base to intercept long-range missiles. It was are aimed at Russia, but is also concerned

7

  • about an advanced missile-tracking radar that
  • In April of 2009, Obama said, “that the

the Pentagon wants to place in the Czech U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic. Further, in 2007, the Guardian Republic and Poland will go forward.” In May reported that, Russia is preparing its own of 2009, Russia said that it “could deploy its military response to the US's controversial latest Iskander missiles close to Poland if plans to build a new missile defence system in plans to install U.S. Patriots on Polish soil go eastern Europe, according to Kremlin ahead.”In July of 2009, Russian President officials,in a move likely to increase fears of a Medvedev said that, “Russia will still deploy cold war-style arms race. spokesman said of the Polish missile

  • A
  • Kremlin missiles near Poland if the US pushes ahead

with a missile shield in Eastern Europe.” defenses and the Czech radar system, that, “We were extremely concerned and disappointed.We were never informed in advance about these plans. It brings

Iran and the China-Russia Alliance

The Bush regime used hostile rhetoric tremendous change to the strategic balance in against Iran, threatening possible war against Europe, and to the world's strategic stability.” the country. However, Iran will not be in any
In May of 2008, it was reported that, way similar to the military adventurism seen
“President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia and in Iraq. A war against Iran will bring China President Hu Jintao of China met ... to and Russia to war with the west. Chinese and conclude a deal on nuclear cooperation and Russian investments with Iran, both in terms together condemn American proposals for a of military cooperation as well as nuclear missile shield in Europe. Both countries called proliferation and energy ties, have driven the the plan a setback to international trust that interests of Iran together with those of China was likely to upset the balance of power.
In July of 2008, the Russian Foreign and Russia.
In 2007, both Russia and China warned
Ministry said that it “will be forced to make a against any attack on Iran by the west. From military response if the U.S.-Czech missile 2004 onwards, China became Iran’s top oil defense agreement is ratified,” and that, “we export market, and Iran is China’s third largest will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but supplier of oil, following Angola and Saudi with military-technical methods.” In August of Arabia. China and Iran signed a gas deal in 2008, the US and Poland reached a deal “to 2008 worth 100 billion dollars. Further, place an American missile defense base on Beijing is helping Tehran to build dams, Polish territory. Russia responded by “saying shipyards and many other projects. More than that the move would worsen relations with the 100 Chinese state companies are operating in

  • United States.”
  • Iran to

Russia further said “the US had shown develop ports and airports in the major Iranian that Russia was the true target of the defensive cities, mine-development projects and oil and shield, as tension between the two powers gas infrastructures. Also, China, Iran and continued to rise over the conflict in Georgia.” Russia maintain identical foreign policy The Deputy Head of Russia’s general staff positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya, “warned that Poland was making itself a target which only further strengthens their alliance.

  • for Russia's military.”
  • In August of 2008, a senior Iranian

It was further reported that, “General defense official warned that any attack against
Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US Iran would trigger a world war In February of assets in Europe could come under Russian 2009, Iran and Russia announced that, “Iran nuclear attack with his forces targeting ‘the and Russia are to boost military cooperation.” allies of countries having nuclear weapons’,” Russia has also been selling arms and and that,“Such targets are destroyed as a first advanced weapons systems to both Iran and

  • priority.”
  • Venezuela.In 2008, OPEC warned against an

attack on Iran, saying that, “oil prices would see an ‘unlimited’ increase in the case of a

8

“HENRI COANDA”
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
ROMANIA

  • GERMANY
  • “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK”

ARMED FORCES ACADEMY
SLOVAK REPUBLIC

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER
AFASES 2011

Brasov, 26-28 May 2011

military conflict involving Iran, because the left the city without food, water, electricity group's members would be unable to make up and gas.

  • the lost production.”
  • Georgian forces surrounded the city

and their troops and tanks continued to assault

The Georgian War: Spreading the civilian targets. On the 8th of August,
Conflict in the Caucasus

Russia called for an end to the military offensive. Reportedly, 2,000 civilians were
After the break-up of the Soviet Union killed by this point in South Ossetia, so Russia in 1991, Georgia’s northern province of South sent troops into the area. Russian Prime Ossetia declared independence but failed to be Minister Putin referred to Georgian actions as internationally recognized. South Ossetia as “genocide” and Russia also reportedly well as Georgia’s other largely autonomous bombed a Georgian town. Immediately, the province, Abkhazia, had traditionally been US called for “an allied with Russia. There had been long- end to the Russian bombings.” The Georgian standing tensions between South Ossetia and President called it an “unprovoked brutal

  • Georgia and a shaky ceasefire.
  • Russian invasion.” Much of Tskhinvali was

On August 1, 2008, six people were left in ruins after the Georgian offensive, with killed in South Ossetia when fighting broke 34,000 South Ossetian refugees in Russia. out between Georgian and South Ossetian Georgia, which had 2,000 troops deployed in forces. Both sides blamed each other for Iraq, announced on August 9th that they opening fire first, with Russian peacekeepers would be pulling 1,000 troops out of Iraq to be blaming Georgia and the Georgians blaming deployed into South Ossetia, with the US

  • Russian peacekeepers.
  • providing the transportation for Georgian

On August 5, Russia announced that it troops to get back to Georgia. However, the would “defend its citizens living in the Russian advance pushed the Georgian troops conflict zone” if a conflict were to erupt in back, recapturing Georgia, and the South Ossetian President said the city and damaging much of Georgia’s Georgia was “attempting to spark a full-scale military infrastructure. The Russian troops

  • war.”
  • also entered the other breakaway province of

Further, South Ossetian children were Abkhazia and even occupied the Georgian city being evacuated out of the conflict zone, an of Gori.

  • act that was “condemned” by Georgia, saying
  • On August 12, the Russians announced

that the separatists were “using their an end to their military operations in Georgia youngsters as political propaganda.” and on August 13th, the last remaining

  • On August 7, ceasefire was Georgian troops pulled out of South Ossetia.
  • a

announced between Georgia and South

  • Ossetia, with Russia acting as a mediator
  • However, there is much more to this

between the two. On the night of August 7, story than simply a conflict between a small five hours after the declared ceasefire, Central Asian nation and Russia. It is Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili began important to remember the role played by a military operation against the capital city of American NGOs in putting the Georgian South Ossetia, Tskhinvali. The Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili into power attack targeted hospitals, the university and through the Rose Revolution in 2003.

9

The US then developed closer ties with Ossetian capital were aided by Israeli military
Georgia. Even before the Rose Revolution, in advisers. Further, for up to a year leading up 2002, US military advisers were in Georgia in to the conflict, the Georgian President had an effort to open up a “new front” in the war commissioned upwards of 1,000 military on terror, with Americans there to “train the advisers from private Israeli security firms to Georgian army in how to counter militant train the Georgian armed forces, as well as activity.” Also in 2002, hundreds of US Green offer instruction on military intelligence and Berets and 200 Special Forces arrived in security. Georgia also purchased military Georgia to train Georgian forces “for anti- equipment from Israel.

  • terrorism and counterinsurgency operations.”
  • The War in Georgia was designed to

Russia warned against US involvement in escalate tensions between NATO and Russia, Georgia, saying that it could “complicate” the using the region as a means to create a wider

  • situation.
  • conflict. However, Russia’s decision to end

US and Georgian troops even the combat operations quickly worked to its conducted war games and military exercises benefit and had the effect of diminishing the together. In July of 2008, it was reported that international tensions. The issue of NATO 1,000 US troops in Georgia began a military membership for Georgia is very important, training exercise with Georgian troops called because had it been a NATO member, the “Immediate Response 2008.” The same report Russian attack on Georgia would have been stated that “Georgia and the Pentagon viewed as an attack on all NATO members. [cooperated] closely.” The training exercise The war in Afghanistan was launched by came amidst growing tensions between Russia NATO on the premises of ‘an attack against and Georgia, while the US was simultaneously one is an attack against all. supporting Georgia’s bid to become a NATO member.
It also was significant that there was a large pipeline deal in the works, with Georgia
Further, 1,200 US servicemen and 800 sitting in a key strategic position. Georgia lies
Georgians were to train for three weeks at a between Russia and Turkey, between the military base near the Georgian capital of Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, and above Tbilisi.The exercise was being run in Iran and Iraq. The significance of Georgia as a cooperation with NATO and was preceded by strategic outpost cannot be underestimated. a visit to Georgia by US Secretary of State This is true, particularly when it comes to Condoleezza Rice, where she met with the pipelines. President and stated that, “the future of Georgia is in NATO.”
The Baku Tblisi Ceyhan (BTC)
Pipeline, the second largest pipeline in the
However, these exercises and increased world, travels from Baku, the capital of military cooperation between the US and Azerbaijan, through Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia did not go unnoticed by Russia, Georgia, to Ceyhan, a Mediterranean port city which simultaneously began military exercises in Turkey. This pipeline creates a route that on the other side of the Caucasus mountains, bypasses both Iran and Russia, to bring involving up to 8,000 Russian servicemen. Caspian Basin oil resources “to the United Clearly, Russia itself was aware of the States, Israel and Western European markets.”

  • potential for a military conflict in the region.
  • The US company Bechtel, was the main

When the conflict with Russia began, contractor for construction, there were US military instructors in Georgia, procurement and engineering, while British and Russia’s envoy to NATO also accused Petroleum (BP), is the leading shareholder in NATO of encouraging Georgia to take the the project. Israel gets much of its oil via offensive against South Ossetia. The US was Turkey through the BTC pipeline route, which not the only western nation to aid Georgia, as likely played a large part in Israel’s support the unofficial NATO member, Israel, also for Georgia in the conflict,as a continual played a part in arming Georgia. The Georgian standoff between the West and the East tanks and artillery that captured the South

10

“HENRI COANDA”
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
ROMANIA

  • GERMANY
  • “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK”

ARMED FORCES ACADEMY
SLOVAK REPUBLIC

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER
AFASES 2011

Brasov, 26-28 May 2011

(Russia/China) takes place for control of the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear world’s resources. Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder, with David programme.”
The CIA operations “involve dealing
Rockefeller, of the Trilateral Commission, and with movements that resort to terrorist Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser methods,” and the article noted that, “there has who played a key role in the creation of the been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority Afghan Mujahideen, which became known as border areas of Iran, with bombing and Al-Qaeda, wrote an op-ed for Time Magazine assassination campaigns against soldiers and at the outbreak of the Russia-Georgia conflict. government officials,” and interestingly, the Brzezinski, being a Cold War kingpin of CIA operations are focused on “helping geopolitical strategy, naturally blamed Russia opposition militias among the numerous for the conflict. However, he also revealed the ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's true nature of the conflict. He started by border regions.” A former State Department blaming Russia’s “invasion of Georgia” on its counter-terrorism agent was quoted as saying, “imperial aims.” Brzezinski blamed much of “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with this on the “intense nationalistic mood that US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic now permeates Russia’s political elite.” minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”

  • Brzezinski went on to explain Georgia’s
  • ABC News reported in April of 2007

strategic significance; stating that, “an that, “A Pakistani tribal militant group independent Georgia is critical to the responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla international flow of oil,” since the BTC raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged pipeline “provides the West access to the and advised by American officials since energy resources of central Asia.” Brzezinski 2005.” The group, named Jundullah, operates warned Russia of being “ostracized out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, on internationally,” in particular its business elite, the boarder of Iran, and “has taken calling them “vulnerable” because “Russia’s responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings powerful oligarchs have hundreds of billions of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and of dollars in Western bank accounts,” which officials.” would be subject to a possible “freezing” by In 2008, Pakistan’s former Army Chief said the West in the event of a “Cold War-style that, “the US is supporting the outlawed

  • standoff.”
  • Jundullah group to destabilize Iran,” and that,

“the US is providing training facilities to Jundullah fighters--located in eastern areas of Iran--to create unrest in the area and affect the

The West Sponsors Terrorists in Iran

In 2005, Scott Ritter, former UN cordial ties between Iran and its neighbor weapons inspector, reported that, “the Pakistan.” Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services,” was now working for the CIA in terror bombings inside Iran. In February of 2007, the

The Afghanistan-Pakistan War Theatre

Within days of getting into office,
Telegraph reported that, “America is secretly President Obama authorized a missile strike in funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Pakistan, which killed several civilians. Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Obama continued with this strategy, after

11

Bush, in July of 2008, “authorized the C.I.A. our high-value-target hunter is sent to lead in and the Joint Special Operations Command to Afghanistan?”

  • make ground incursions into Pakistan.” This
  • However, there is another twist to this

was to set the pace for US strategy in the story. As Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, region, particularly in relation to Afghanistan Seymour Hersh revealed,Cheney created a

  • and Pakistan.
  • special unit called the Joint Special Operations

In late March, Obama announced his Command (JSOC), which was to carry out plan for a new Afghanistan and Pakistan high-level assassinations. This unit was kept a strategy, which are to be a combined strategy. secret for many years, and Hersh referred to it As part of the strategy, known as the AfPak as an “Executive assassination ring.” Hersh strategy, “More U.S. troops, civilian officials reported that they carried out many and money will be needed,” and “Obama assassinations, “not just in Iraq and pledged to tighten U.S. focus on Pakistan.” Afghanistan, Further, Obama announced in late March that, it's in a lot of other countries, in the Middle “he would send 4,000 U.S. troops -- beyond East and in South Asia and North Africa and the additional 17,000 he authorized” in even central America.”

  • February,
  • The new General of the AfPak war

“to work as trainers and advisers to the theatre, Stanley McChrystal, used to run Afghan army, and hundreds more civilian Cheney’s assassination squad.

  • officials and diplomats to help improve
  • At the end of November 2009, Obama

governance and the country's economy,” announced a surge of an additional 30,000 bringing the total number of US troops up to troops to Afghanistan, “bringing the total

  • 60,000.
  • American force to about 100,000.”[115]

In May, a major event took place in Further, in early December, it was reported military circles, as one of the few times in that Obama “authorized an expansion of the over 50 years an American wartime general C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless was fired in the field. In May of 2009, tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the top the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, general in Afghanistan saying that what was to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.”

  • needed was “fresh thinking” and “fresh eyes”
  • Clearly, the Afghanistan-Pakistan

on Afghanistan. Gates “recommended that strategy will only further inflame the region in President Obama replace McKiernan with a conflict and turmoil. Expanding the Afghan veteran Special Operations commander, Lt. war into Pakistan is akin to playing with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.” As the matches around a stick of dynamite. Perhaps Washington Post reported, McKiernan, the this was the clarity of the previous general, general whom Gates fired, “was viewed as McKiernan, in seeing this strategic insanity, somewhat cautious and conventionally and thus, the reason for his removal. minded.” Could it be that McKiernan did not see the AfPak strategy as a viable option; that threatens all of the neighboring countries, it went against “caution”? including India, China, Russia,Turkey and
The destabilization of this region
His replacement, General McChrystal, was Iran. The possibility of creating a much wider “the director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff. war in the region, and even between the From 2006 to August 2008, he was the greatpowers, is ever increasing. forward commander of the U.S. military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command, responsible for capturing or killing high-level leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda

Recommended publications
  • Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate

    Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate

    Order Code RL31607 Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate October 16, 2002 name redacted, Meaghan Marshall, name redacted Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division name redacted Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate Summary The debate over whether, when, and how to prosecute a major U.S. military intervention in Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein is complex, despite a general consensus in Washington that the world would be much better off if Hussein were not in power. Although most U.S. observers, for a variety of reasons, would prefer some degree of allied or U.N. support for military intervention in Iraq, some observers believe that the United States should act unilaterally even without such multilateral support. Some commentators argue for a stronger, more committed version of the current policy approach toward Iraq and leave war as a decision to reach later, only after exhausting additional means of dealing with Hussein’s regime. A number of key questions are raised in this debate, such as: 1) is war on Iraq linked to the war on terrorism and to the Arab-Israeli dispute; 2) what effect will a war against Iraq have on the war against terrorism; 3) are there unintended consequences of warfare, especially in this region of the world; 4) what is the long- term political and financial commitment likely to accompany regime change and possible democratization in this highly divided, ethnically diverse country; 5) what are the international consequences (e.g., to European allies, Russia, and the world community) of any U.S.
  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

    Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

    ISSUE 1 · 2018 TECHNOLOGY TODAY Highlighting Raytheon’s Engineering & Technology Innovations SPOTLIGHT EYE ON TECHNOLOGY SPECIAL INTEREST Artificial Intelligence Mechanical the invention engine Raytheon receives the 10 millionth and Machine Learning Modular Open Systems U.S. Patent in history at raytheon Architectures Discussing industry shifts toward open standards designs A MESSAGE FROM Welcome to the newly formatted Technology Today magazine. MARK E. While the layout has been updated, the content remains focused on critical Raytheon engineering and technology developments. This edition features Raytheon’s advances in Artificial Intelligence RUSSELL and Machine Learning. Commercial applications of AI and ML — including facial recognition technology for mobile phones and social applications, virtual personal assistants, and mapping service applications that predict traffic congestion Technology Today is published by the Office of — are becoming ubiquitous in today’s society. Furthermore, ML design Engineering, Technology and Mission Assurance. tools provide developers the ability to create and test their own ML-based applications without requiring expertise in the underlying complex VICE PRESIDENT mathematics and computer science. Additionally, in its 2018 National Mark E. Russell Defense Strategy, the United States Department of Defense has recognized the importance of AI and ML as an enabler for maintaining CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER Bill Kiczuk competitive military advantage. MANAGING EDITORS Raytheon understands the importance of these technologies and Tony Pandiscio is applying AI and ML to solutions where they provide benefit to our Tony Curreri customers, such as in areas of predictive equipment maintenance, SENIOR EDITORS language classification of handwriting, and automatic target recognition. Corey Daniels Not only does ML improve Raytheon products, it also can enhance Eve Hofert our business operations and manufacturing efficiencies by identifying DESIGN, PHOTOGRAPHY AND WEB complex patterns in historical data that result in process improvements.
  • Introduction Chapter 1

    Introduction Chapter 1

    Notes Introduction 1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1970). 2. Ralph Pettman, Human Behavior and World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975); Giandomenico Majone, Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 275– 76. 3. Bernard Lewis, “The Return of Islam,” Commentary, January 1976; Ofira Seliktar, The Politics of Intelligence and American Wars with Iraq (New York: Palgrave Mac- millan, 2008), 4. 4. Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in Amer- ica (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000). 5. Bernard Lewis, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” Atlantic Monthly, September, 1990; Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs 72 (1993): 24– 49; Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Chapter 1 1. Quoted in Joshua Muravchik, The Uncertain Crusade: Jimmy Carter and the Dilemma of Human Rights (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Press, 1986), 11– 12, 114– 15, 133, 138– 39; Hedley Donovan, Roosevelt to Reagan: A Reporter’s Encounter with Nine Presidents (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 165. 2. Charles D. Ameringer, U.S. Foreign Intelligence: The Secret Side of American History (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990), 357; Peter Meyer, James Earl Carter: The Man and the Myth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), 18; Michael A. Turner, “Issues in Evaluating U.S. Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 5 (1991): 275– 86. 3. Abram Shulsky, Silent Warfare: Understanding the World’s Intelligence (Washington, DC: Brassey’s [US], 1993), 169; Robert M.
  • “The Folly of Attacking Iran” Prepared Statement Before the Chicago City Council John J

    “The Folly of Attacking Iran” Prepared Statement Before the Chicago City Council John J

    “The Folly of Attacking Iran” Prepared Statement before the Chicago City Council John J. Mearsheimer May 13, 2008 There is growing evidence that the United States might launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The main proponents of an attack are essentially the same individuals and groups who pushed for war against Iraq. They include hard-line supporters of Israel here in America and Israel itself, which is deeply committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It would be a profound mistake, however, for the United States to start a war with Iran. I base this conclusion on four main arguments. First, striking Iran will not prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, an American or Israeli attack will give Tehran even more reason to acquire a nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, because no state would attack the homeland of a nuclear-armed country for fear that the victim would retaliate. This simple logic explains why Israel and the United States have sizeable nuclear arsenals and why neither country has any intention of giving them up. Attack Iran and it will surely acquire nuclear weapons to make sure it never happens again. One might argue that striking Iran will eliminate its ability to go nuclear for many years to come. One might even see Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 as an instructive precedent. But this line of argument is unconvincing. Iran would quickly reconstitute its nuclear program, and make it difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to find the new facilities and destroy them.
  • Chapter 5: the United Nations and the Sanctions Against Iraq

    Chapter 5: the United Nations and the Sanctions Against Iraq

    5 7KH8QLWHG1DWLRQVDQGWKH6DQFWLRQV $JDLQVW,UDT 5.1 The historical involvement of the international community, the League of Nations and the United Nations (UN) in the wider Middle East region was outlined in Chapter 2 of this report. As discussed in that Chapter, the Middle East became a focus for international rivalry with the demise of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, the period of the French and British Mandates, the UN partition plan for Palestine of 1947 and the post-war creation of the State of Israel in 1948. 5.2 Chapter 2 also outlined developments in the wider Arab-Israeli conflict after World War 2, the path of the multilateral tracks of the Oslo peace process from 1991 onwards and the 'shuttle diplomacy' efforts of the major powers, particularly the United States (US), until the present time. The UN in the Middle East 5.3 The UN officially came into existence in October 1945. Australia was one of the original 51 member states. In the post World War 2 environment, one of the earliest UN involvements in the Middle East region involved the former British-mandate Palestine. 5.4 By 1947, Britain had found the Palestine Mandate unworkable and, accordingly, submitted the problem to the UN. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 181 in November 1947, which provided for a 'Plan of Partition with Economic Union'. This laid down steps for bringing both Arab and Jewish peoples to independence, with special provisions for Jerusalem. No progress had been made towards implementing the plan before Britain relinquished the Mandate on 14 May 94 1948 and the Jewish leadership proclaimed the State of Israel.
  • The Grand Strategy of Militant Clients: Iran's Way Of

    The Grand Strategy of Militant Clients: Iran's Way Of

    Security Studies ISSN: 0963-6412 (Print) 1556-1852 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsst20 The Grand Strategy of Militant Clients: Iran’s Way of War Afshon Ostovar To cite this article: Afshon Ostovar (2018): The Grand Strategy of Militant Clients: Iran’s Way of War, Security Studies To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2018.1508862 Published online: 17 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsst20 SECURITY STUDIES https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2018.1508862 The Grand Strategy of Militant Clients: Iran’s Way of War Afshon Ostovar ABSTRACT This article argues that militant clients should be understood as a pillar of Iran’s grand strategy and an extension of its military power. The article examines why Iran has relied on militant clients since the 1979 revolution and the benefits and costs of its client approach. In evaluating these issues, it iden- tifies five main areas where Iran has gained from its client strategy: 1) maintaining independence from the West; 2) suc- cessfully exporting its religio-political worldview; 3) extending its military reach and power; 4) reducing political costs of its foreign activities; and 5) establishing needed regional allies. It further identifies five main dangers that Iran faces by continu- ing its strategic behavior: 1) increased pressure from the United States and a broader US military regional footprint; 2) more unified regional adversaries; 3) the risk of unintended escalation with the United States and regional adversarial states; and 4) enduring regional instability and insecurity Introduction In the 21st century, no state has had more success in utilizing militant clients outside its borders toward strategic ends than the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  • Considering a War with Iran: a Discussion Paper on WMD in the Middle East

    Considering a War with Iran: a Discussion Paper on WMD in the Middle East

    Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East Dr Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher Dr Plesch is Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies’ Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy. Martin Butcher is an September 2007 international consultant on security politics. This paper presents the views of the authors and not of CISD/SOAS. The School of Oriental and African Studies cannot accept responsibility for direct or indirect consequences resulting from this communication. www.cisd.soas.ac.uk 1 CONTENTS STRATEGIC COMMAND: GLOBAL STRIKE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & INTRODUCTION: WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS US NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIES AND HOW LIKELY IS AN ATTACK? THE US IRAN POLITICAL CONTEXT US NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIES AND THE ISRAELI MILITARY AND POLITICAL IRAN DIMENSION US PREPARATIONS TO DESTROY THE IRAN POLICY IN LONDON: WOULD BROWN IRANIAN STATE AS A REGIONAL POWER ATTACK? STRATEGIC COMMAND GLOBAL STRIKE HOW MIGHT IRAN RESPOND TO ATTACK: THEATRE OPERATIONS AND HOW COULD THIS AFFECT THE GULF STATES AND COMBATANTS DESTABILISING THE IRANIAN STATE, TOWARDS A FEDERAL IRAN? CONCLUSION 2 Executive Summary & Introduction • US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and There is considerable international discussion that the confrontation the state at short notice. between Iran and the international community over its nuclear programme may change in character into a major war between Iran • Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action and either US or Israel or both in conjunction with allies such as the as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside United Kingdom.
  • Military Background Weapons Inspector

    Military Background Weapons Inspector

    Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn, Forsvarsudvalget 2006-07 UPN alm. del Bilag 75, FOU alm. del Bilag 114 Offentligt Military background Ritter was born into a military family in 1961. He graduated from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with a Bachelor of Arts in the history of the Soviet Union and departmental honors. He was first in the U.S. Army serving as a Private in 1980. He was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps in May 1984. He served in this capacity for twelve years. He initially served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War. During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Ritter later worked as a security and military consultant for the Fox News network. Weapons inspector Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated. In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, who believed that information obtained from these sites would be used for future planning of attacks. UN Inspectors were then ordered out of Iraq by the United States Government, shortly before Operation Desert Fox attacks began in December 1998, using information which had been gathered for the purpose of disarmament to identify targets which would reduce Iraq's ability to wage both conventional and possibly unconventional warfare.
  • Scott Ritter Saddam's Arms-Control Foe to Speak at IWU, April 6 Former U.N

    Scott Ritter Saddam's Arms-Control Foe to Speak at IWU, April 6 Former U.N

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Commons @ Illinois Wesleyan University Illinois Wesleyan University Digital Commons @ IWU News and Events University Communications 1999 Scott Ritter Saddam's Arms-Control Foe to Speak at IWU, April 6 Former U.N. Arms Hunter in Iraq Quit Job Amidst Controversy Bob Aaron Illinois Wesleyan University Recommended Citation Aaron, Bob, "Scott Ritter Saddam's Arms-Control Foe to Speak at IWU, April 6 Former U.N. Arms Hunter in Iraq Quit Job Amidst Controversy" (1999). News and Events. Paper 689. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/news/689 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document. March 15, 1999 Contact: Bob Aaron, 309/556-3181 Scott Ritter Saddam's Arms-Control Foe to Speak at IWU, April 6 • • • Former U.N. Arms Hunter in Iraq Quit Job Amidst Controversy "As a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq, Scott Ritter was labeled a hero by some, a maverick by others, and a spy by the Iraqi government. In charge of searching out weapons of mass destruction hidden by the world's most ruthless dictatorship, Ritter was on the front lines of the ongoing battle against arms proliferation." --From a biography of Scott Ritter BLOOMINGTON, Ill.--He's a tough-talking ex-Marine.
  • Advocacy Journalism, the Politics of Humanitarian Intervention and the Syrian War

    Advocacy Journalism, the Politics of Humanitarian Intervention and the Syrian War

    Chapter 3: Advocacy journalism, the politics of humanitarian intervention and the Syrian war Philip Hammond, Sumaya Al Nahed and Tara McCormack Since 2011 the international media have done much to highlight the suffering of civilians in the on-going war in Syria, including through innovative forms of reporting such as VR journalism and news games.1 Yet in some respects coverage has harked back to an earlier era, recalling the style of ‘attached’ or advocacy journalism that developed in the 1990s. As in much Western reporting of the wars of that period, some journalists have understood the conflict in simplified, black-and-white terms and called for ‘something to be done’ to counter an evil regime and rescue innocent victims. Such coverage – like Western policy itself – has only occasionally involved direct and overt military interventionism (Briggs et al. 2017: 167). Yet a subtler but no less significant use of ‘emotive phrases…such as, “History will judge us”…“We cannot look the other way”…and “What will the world think”’ has beaten a steady drum for escalating international involvement in the conflict (Milojevich and Beattie 2018: 831–2). This narcissistic approach, characteristic of 1990s-style advocacy journalism (Hume 1997), has led many to interpret the Syrian war as a test for Western self- understanding. In the Telegraph (24 August 2013), for example, Matthew d’Ancona said that the ‘Syrian conflict holds a mirror up to Britain and asks us what sort of nation we want to be’; while the BBC’s Gavin Hewitt interpreted it as a ‘test for Europe’ (BBC, 27 August 2013).
  • USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #148

    USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #148

    #148 12 Feb 2002 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt Col Michael W. Ritz, ANG Special Assistant to Director of CPC or Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies.
  • Saddam's Best Friend

    Saddam's Best Friend

    32 ANNALS OF ESPIONAGE nity is acute. One former C.I.A. operative 6 told me, “I don’t know how many times we had to say this to Strobe”—Strobe SADDAM’S BEST FRIEND Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State— How the C.I.A. made it a lot easier for the Iraqi leader to rearm. “but Primakov is just not a good guy.” BY SEYMOUR M. HERSH HE targeting of Saddam had grown, T in part, out of an extraordinary in- telligence coup by a team of UNSCOM AST December, after Saddam Hus- itary targets.” That, too, was a misstate- arms inspectors. The team—headed by sein threatened to end seven ment, for two of the targets were sites Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine L years of United Nations arms- where Saddam was known to entertain Corps intelligence officer—had been control inspections, President Clinton mistresses, and they were specifically trying for two years to unscramble the ordered American attacks on Iraq. Once struck in the hope of assassinating him. encrypted communications system that again, the world watched, on television, Saddam responded to the bombing— Saddam has used since the end of the as missiles fell on carefully picked tar- and the bungled assassination attempt— Gulf War to hide the full extent of his gets. The purpose of the attacks, Clinton by formally ousting UNSCOM and turning strategic stockpile. Ritter and his UN- SCOM colleagues knew that there were missiles and warheads to be found. They also knew that Saddam, who travelled frequently in and around Baghdad, lived in constant fear of attacks on his life— from both inside and outside Iraq—and had surrounded himself with a huge ap- paratus of bodyguards, known as the Special Security Organization.