« Previous |
1 - 20 of 65
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Turkey and Iran: Parallel Islam imperialist ambitions for the Middle East
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Neither Ankara nor Tehran want a strong Iraq, or a strong Syria. On the contrary, the fragmentation of these countries suits both.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Imperialism, Regional Cooperation, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria
3. Assessing the US strategy in Iraq
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Only an integrated political, military and economic strategy targeting the Iranian system in all its aspects, with a long-term commitment to local allies and the mission, can succeed.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Conflict, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
4. Israel-Iraq Cooperation in 2019: Security Challenges and Civilian Warming
- Author:
- Ronen Zeidel
- Publication Date:
- 03-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
- Abstract:
- The final months of 2019 were marked by widespread, prolonged protests throughout Iraq, which began in October. Baghdad was the focal point of the demonstrations, which were directed at the ruling political elite and the state backing it: Iran. Prime Minister Adil AbdulMahdi resigned at the end of November, throwing official Iraq into a political vacuum and guaranteeing that any premier appointed to replace him would be considered an interim ruler and as such, his government would only be accepted by the weakened political elite, but not by a significant part of the population. This article reviews the changes that occurred in 2019 in the nature of Israel-Iraq cooperation, as they relate to diplomatic, security, economic and civilian aspects.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Civilians
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
5. Russia and Iraq Deepen Energy, Military Ties
- Author:
- John C. K. Daly
- Publication Date:
- 12-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Jamestown Foundation
- Abstract:
- As the United States hastens its drawdown of troops in Iraq before the January 20 inauguration of President-elect Joseph Biden, Russia is seeking to fill the developing geopolitical vacuum there. On November 25, following discussions in Moscow with Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein, Russia’s top diplomat, Sergei Lavrov, remarked that Russian energy firms have invested billions of dollars in the Iraqi oil industry. “When it comes to energy, the largest Russian companies are working in Iraq together with their partners. These are Lukoil, Rosneft, Gazprom-Neft and Bashneft. All four have invested more than $13 billion in the Iraqi economy,” Lavrov told journalists (Interfax, November 25). He added that Moscow was also prepared to increase arms deliveries to Baghdad, stating, “We are ready to meet any Iraqi needs for Russian-made military products. Our country has traditionally played and continues to play a very important and significant role in ensuring Iraq’s defense capability and equipping its army and security forces, including in the context of continuing terrorist threats” (Mid.ru, November 25).
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Iraq, Eurasia, and Middle East
6. The Human Cost of U.S. Interventions in Iraq: A History From the 1960s Through the Post-9/11 Wars
- Author:
- Zainab Saleh
- Publication Date:
- 10-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
- Abstract:
- For decades, U.S. policy actions towards Iraq have had devastating consequences for the Iraqi people. This paper situates the U.S. “war on terrorism” in Iraq since 2003 within a longer trajectory of U.S. intervention in that country since the 1960s and shows that we can only understand the full human costs of current interventions when we see them in broader historical context. The author, Zainab Saleh, an assistant professor of anthropology at Haverford College, was born in Iraq and lived there until 1997. Later, she conducted ethnographic research with Iraqis who had migrated to London since the late 1970s. The Iraqis she knew and met felt they were pawns at the mercy of global powers. When the U.S. invaded Iraq and brought down Hussein in 2003, Iraqis saw the United States' true motive as continuing a well-established pattern of pursuing U.S. economic interests in the region. Since the 1960s, Iraqi arms purchases have bolstered American military-industrial corporations and stable access to Middle East oil has secured U.S. dominance in the global economy. The paper tells the story of one Iraqi woman, Rasha, who was forced by the violence in her country to flee to London. Rasha’s displacement and her family’s history of dispossession – her father imprisoned, her family impoverished, friends murdered and her own life threatened – show the deep human effects of decades of U.S. intervention. In 1963, under pretext of protecting the region from a communist threat, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency backed a coup by the Arab nationalist Ba‘th party after Iraq nationalized most of its oil fields. During the 1980s, the United States supported Saddam Hussein’s regime and prolonged the Iran-Iraq War in order to safeguard its national interests in the region, including weakening Iran to prevent it from posing a threat to U.S. power. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, U.S. policy shifted from alignment to “dual containment” of Iraq and Iran, a posture which culminated in the Gulf War of 1991 to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. In the 1990s, the United States justified its imposition of economic sanctions by claiming a goal of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and protecting allies. In 2003, the U.S. packaged its invasion of Iraq as delivering U.S. values—namely, freedom and democracy—to the Iraqi people. Saleh writes, “The imperial encounter between Iraq and the United States has made life deeply precarious for Iraqis. For decades, they have lived with fear for their own and their family’s lives, the loss of loved ones and homeland, the realities of economic hardship, and the destruction of the fabric of their social lives.”
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, War, History, Counter-terrorism, and Military Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
7. Israel's Relations with Key Arab States in 2019
- Author:
- Yitzhak Gal, Haim Koren, Moran Zaga, Einat Levi, and Ronen Zeidel
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
- Abstract:
- Israel-Jordan: Continued Deterioration / Yitzhak Gall Israel-Egypt: Strategic Warming, Civilian Coolness? / Dr. Haim Koren; Israel-UAE: Warming Relations, Also in Civilian Affairs/ Dr. Moran Zaga; Israel-Morocco: Warming from the Bottom Up / Einat Levi; Israel-Iraq: Security Challenges and Civilian Warming / Dr. Ronen Zeidel
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, and Civilians
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Arab Countries, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and UAE
8. Kurds in Iraq seek independence 100 years after Sykes-Picot
- Author:
- Janko Bekić
- Publication Date:
- 05-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- In February, Masoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, announced that a referendum on the independence of the autonomous region would be held by the end of 2016. He stressed that Kurdistan had the same grounds for demanding statehood as Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec. Equally, he opined, the right of the Kurdish people to decide their own fate was unnegotiable. During an earlier encounter with Western journalists, Barzani pointed to the upcoming centenary of the Sykes-Picot agreement (16 May 1916), which divided Ottoman assets in the Middle East into British and French zones of interest, laying the foundations for the creation of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Iraq and Syria. The President of the Kurdistan Region underlined that 2016 would be the year in which the Franco-British agreement of World War I would be annulled and the policy of “compulsory co-existence” in the Middle East �inally abandoned. The purpose of this brief is to succinctly discuss the case made for Kurdish independence, but also the many obstacles on the way towards it. Solid arguments in favour of secession Mr. Barzani’s central argument in favour of Kurdish statehood is the fact that international borders in the Middle East largely do not correspond to popular will; i.e. they have no legitimacy, only legality. Historically, they are by-products of foreign – Ottoman, and later Western European – rule. As such, they are open for revision, especially if the states in question have a track record of discriminating, forcibly assimilating, or – in the worst case – physically exterminating segments of the population. Another argument made by Mr. Barzani is one concerning “compulsory co-existence”. It's well-known that international power brokers are rather conservative when it comes to recognizing border changes or granting independence to secessionist entities. As a rule, these are considered only in instances of grave human rights violations, and only as a last resort. The Westphalian sovereignty of states has been greatly eroded by the concept of humanitarian intervention. However, international borders are still considered to be sacrosanct and – generally – untouchable. This often leads to the involuntary co-existence of ethnic, national and/or religious groups with no sense of shared identity or mutual interests. In such unfavourable conditions, democracies – if they exist – are little more than tyrannies of the majority.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, Syria, and Kurdistan
9. NATO's Posture after the Wales Summit
- Author:
- Guillaume Lasconjarias
- Publication Date:
- 11-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The recent NATO Summit in Wales has been viewed as a watershed event not just because of the particular moment at which it took place, but because of the pledges taken by heads of states and governments. For sure, the still ongoing Ukraine crisis and the rising insurgency in Syria-Iraq might have acted as true “wake-up calls”, calling the Alliance to step up its posture and show its determination, especially in terms of commitments towards bolstering the main pillars of the Alliance. The initiatives announced in terms of readiness and defence posture, the Readiness Action Plan in particular, belong to a series of reassurance measures towards Eastern allies, but also revitalize the NATO Response Force through an expeditionary spearhead, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force. Although some might consider these measures as “too little too late”, they prove the Alliance's cohesion and the commitment to the transatlantic link.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, and International Security
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Ukraine, and Syria
10. The Terrorist Funding Disconnect with Qatar and Kuwait
- Author:
- Lori Plotkin Boghardt
- Publication Date:
- 05-2014
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Washington should look for small changes in Kuwait and Qatar's political and security calculus that could provide opportunities to support counter-terrorist financing measures there. On April 30, the U.S. State Department noted that private donations from Persian Gulf countries were "a major source of funding for Sunni terrorist groups, particularly...in Syria," calling the problem one of the most important counterterrorism issues during the previous calendar year. Groups such as al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), previously known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, are believed to be frequent recipients of some of the hundreds of millions of dollars that wealthy citizens and others in the Gulf peninsula have been donating during the Syrian conflict.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Terrorism, and Border Control
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Washington, Middle East, Kuwait, Arabia, Syria, and Qatar
11. Democracy Policy Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat?
- Author:
- Thomas Carothers
- Publication Date:
- 01-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Upon taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama inherited a democracy promotion policy badly damaged from its prior association with the war in Iraq and with forcible regime change more generally. The Bush years had also seen a decline in America's reputation as a global symbol of democracy and human rights as well as rising fears of a broader democratic recession in the world.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Reform
- Political Geography:
- Iraq and America
12. Relations With Iraq's Kurds: Toward A Working Partnership
- Author:
- Ramzy Mardini
- Publication Date:
- 04-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for the Study of War
- Abstract:
- Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani will be visiting the White House on April 4 and meeting with President Barack Obama. Discussions are likely to involve Kurdish concerns about Iraq's prime minister, but may largely focus on defining what Vice President Joseph Biden termed as a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Kurds during his visit to Arbil last December. Relations between the governments of the United States and Kurdish Region have grown and deepened considerably since the 2003 U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq. The Kurds continued to be staunch proponents of the American presence and ongoing engagement in Iraq.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Sectarianism, and Sectarian violence
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, and Middle East
13. Sadr's Balancing Act on Maliki
- Author:
- Stephen Wicken
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for the Study of War
- Abstract:
- Opponents of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have been pushing for his removal from power for much of his second term in office. In recent months, Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani and leaders from the Iraqiyya list have turned to an effort to withdraw confidence in Maliki as prime minister. Iraq's Shi'ite parties, though concerned about Maliki's accumulation of power, have largely abstained from the no-confidence push. Yet the anti-Maliki effort gained new life in mid-April when the powerful Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr intensified his opposition to Maliki and voiced his intention to remove the premier. Sadr's push for a no-confidence vote is an important inflection not only in his own posture towards Maliki, but also in the ongoing political crisis in Iraq. It has prompted a backlash from Iran, which has supported Maliki by seeking to restrain Sadr and to prevent a vote of no confidence. This backgrounder explores the possible calculus and responses of Sadr, Iran, and Maliki as Iraq's governmental stalemate continues to drag on.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Government, Regional Cooperation, Governance, Sectarianism, and Sectarian violence
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, and Kurdistan
14. The FY2013 Defense Budget, Deficits, Cost-Escalation, and Sequestration
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman and Robert Shelala II
- Publication Date:
- 09-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The US may not face peer threats in the near to mid term, but it faces a wide variety of lesser threats that make maintaining effective military forces, foreign aid, and other national security programs a vital national security interest. The US does need to reshape its national security planning and strategy to do a far better job of allocating resources to meet these threats. It needs to abandon theoretical and conceptual exercises in strategy that do not focus on detailed force plans, manpower plans, procurement plans, and budgets; and use its resources more wisely. The US still dominates world military spending, but it must recognize that maintaining the US economy is a vital national security interest in a world where the growth and development of other nations and regions means that the relative share the US has in the global economy will decline steadily over time, even under the best circumstances. At the same time, US dependence on the security and stability of the global economy will continue to grow indefinitely in the future. Talk of any form of “independence,” including freedom from energy imports, is a dangerous myth. The US cannot maintain and grow its economy without strong military forces and effective diplomatic and aid efforts. US military and national security spending already places a far lower burden on the US economy than during the peaceful periods of the Cold War, and existing spending plans will lower that burden in the future. National security spending is now averaging between 4% and 5% of the GDP – in spite of the fact the US has been fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – versus 6-7% during the Cold War.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Economics
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, and Asia
15. The EU and the Libyan Crisis: In Quest of Coherence?
- Author:
- Nicole Koenig
- Publication Date:
- 07-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- The EU's reaction is slow, the EU is divided, the EU is unable to deliver: time and time again, newspapers depict the image of an incoherent and uncoordinated EU foreign policy. This time, the topic under discussion is the EU's response to the Libyan crisis. Many have compared the EU's internal divisions over Libya with those over the Iraq war, an often-used example to illustrate the limits of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This paper aims to assess the coherence of the EU's short- to medium-term response to the Libyan crisis. It distinguishes between the horizontal, interinstitutional, vertical and multilateral dimensions of EU coherence. The analysis shows that unilateral actions or inactions of the member states mainly account for the EU's incoherent response. The post-Lisbon institutional structure has done little to compensate for these internal divisions. While the EU cannot change the course of national foreign policies, it should increase its 'leadership for coherence', communitarize its crisis response in the medium term and aim at preventing incoherence in the longer term.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Political Violence
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Europe, Libya, Arabia, and North Africa
16. The Coming Turkish-Iranian Competition In
- Author:
- Sean Kane
- Publication Date:
- 06-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- United States Institute of Peace
- Abstract:
- The two rising powers in the Middle East—Turkey and Iran—are neighbors to Iraq, its leading trading partners, and rapidly becoming the most influential external actors inside the country as the U.S. troop withdrawal proceeds. Although there is concern in Washington about bilateral cooperation between Turkey and Iran, their differing visions for the broader Middle East region are particularly evident in Iraq, where a renewal of the historical Ottoman-Persian rivalry in Mesopotamia is likely as the dominant American presence fades. Turkey aims for a robust Iraqi political process in which no single group dominates, sees a strong Iraq as contributing to both its own security and regional stability, and is actively investing in efforts to expand Iraqi oil and gas production to help meet its own energy needs and fulfill its goal of becoming the energy conduit from the Middle East to Europe. Iran prefers a passive neighbor with an explicitly sectarian political architecture that ensures friendly Shiite-led governments; sees a strong Iraq as an inherent obstacle to its own broader influence in the region and, in the nightmare scenario, once again possibly a direct conventional military threat; and looks askance at increased Iraqi hydrocarbon production as possible competition for its own oil exports. Baghdad meanwhile believes that it can become a leader in the Middle East but is still struggling to define an inclusive national identity and develop a foreign policy based on consensus. In its current fractured state, Iraq tends to invites external interference and is subsumed into the wider regional confrontation between the Sunni Arab defenders of the status quo and the “resistance axis” led by Shiite Iran. Turkey has an opening in Iraq because it is somewhat removed from this toxic Arab-Persian divide, welcomes a strong Iraq, and offers the Iraqi economy integration with international markets. Ankara could now allay Iraqi Shiite suspicions that it intends to act as a Sunni power in the country and not allow issues on which Turkish and Iraqi interests deviate to set the tone for their relationship. The U.S. conceptualization of an increased Turkish influence in Iraq as a balance to Iran's is limited and could undermine Turkey's core advantages by steering it towards a counterproductive sectarian approach. A more productive U.S. understanding is of Turkey as a regional power with the greatest alignment of interests in a strong, stable, and selfsufficient country that the Iraqis want and that the Obama administration has articulated as the goal of its Iraq policy. On the regional level, a strong and stable Iraq is a possible pivot for Turkish and Iranian ambitions, enabling Ankara and hindering Tehran. Washington may well have its differences with Turkey's new foreign policy of zero problems with its neighbors, but the Turkish blend of Islam, democracy, and soft power is a far more attractive regional template than the Iranian narrative of Islamic theocracy and hard power resistance. The United States should therefore continue to welcome increased Turkish-Iraqi economic, trade, and energy ties and where possible support their development as a key part of its post-2011 strategy for Iraq and the region.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Economics, Imperialism, and War
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Arabia
17. Iraqi Leaders React To The U.S. Withdrawl
- Author:
- Ramzy Mardini
- Publication Date:
- 12-2011
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for the Study of War
- Abstract:
- On October 21, 2011, President Barack Obama announced his decision to withdraw all of the remaining 39,000 U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year. The complete pullout of U.S. forces satisfies the final phase of the withdrawal timetable established by the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement signed in December 2008 by outgoing President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The decision comes after negotiating efforts failed to reach a new security arrangement with Iraq that would have allowed for a continued U.S. military presence beyond 2011. This document compiles and analyzes many of the reactions of Iraq's leaders to the cessation of negotiations and the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, and Middle East
18. The U.S. Senate and Iraq: Who Changed their Views, and Why?
- Author:
- Andrew Bennet and Andrew Loomis
- Publication Date:
- 10-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Focusing on the evolving views of the 77 U.S. Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, we seek to explain why some political leaders changed their views markedly from 2002 to 2008 and others did not. We argue that in view of the great preponderance of evidence that the initial premises of U.S. intervention in Iraq were not fulfilled, Bayesian updating cannot by itself explain the persistence of divergent views on Iraq. It is also puzzling that a half-dozen senators persisted in their support of Bush's position on Iraq even though this may have contributed to their electoral defeat. We use a combination of political and psychological variables, including ideology, party affiliation, safety of the senator's seat, military service, cognitive style, and presidential aspirations to explain why some senators changed their public positions on Iraq within a year, others did so by 2006, still others in 2007, and some changed very little in more than five years. We combine these variables into a typological theory and test it against a qualitative analysis of 20 senators' views on Iraq. We conclude that our model is relatively successful in predicting not only when senators' views changed but what rationales they gave for why their initial expectations were not borne out. We also note several senators who prove important anomalies for our model, including Senators Lieberman, who was the only Democrat who did not move toward opposing Bush's policies, and McCain, who thus far has not moved toward the political center on Iraq despite having effectively secured his party's nomination.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, and Arabia
19. Taming the Revisionist State: The Effects of Military Defeats on the War-Proneness of Germany vs. Iraq
- Author:
- Benjamin Miller and Moran Mandalbaum
- Publication Date:
- 09-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Following the post - 2003 US intervention in Iraq, and with a potential US use of force against Iran, one key analytical question stands out, which has major policy implications: Does military defeat by the great powers have stabilizing or de - stabilizing effects on the aggressive behavior of revisionist states? Somewhat similarly to the pre - 2003 Iraq invasion debate, the great powers have a number of options for dealing with the potential Iranian nuclear threat: diplomatic engagement, deterrence, or resort to military power -- either to bring about a regime change, or to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Taking into account the possibility of resorting to force against Iran, an intriguing question emerges: what does IR theory lead us to expect -- and what does the historical record show -- with regard to the effects of military defeats on the war - propensity of revisionist states? In other words, why do some militarily defeated states become war - like, while others peaceful?
- Topic:
- Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Regime Change
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Germany
20. The USA-Turkey Relationship After the 2003 Iraq Crisis
- Author:
- Şûle Anlar Güneş
- Publication Date:
- 03-2010
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
- Abstract:
- Turkey and the USA have been strategic allies since declaration of Truman Doctrine in 1947. This strategic partnership got worse due to the USA‘s politics towards Middle East after 9-11 tragedy and Turkey’s new changing domestic political situation through AKP in 2002. Specifically, 2003 Iraq crisis was milestone to decline the relationship between Turkey and the USA. In spite of deterioration of relationship, Turkey and the USA had to overcome this problem due to security, foreign, and economic concerns of both countries, and the process have advanced as expected. In this article, the US-Turkey relationship will be examined in the contexts of recent Iraq crisis, Turkey’s new approach to foreign policy, NATO, war on terrorism, European Union, and economic concerns in order to comprehend the new era of Turkey-US strategic partnership.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, Economics, European Union, Crisis Management, and War on Terror
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Turkey, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4