Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Middle East Content Type Working Paper

61. Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo

Author:
Zaha Hassan, Daniel Levy, Hallaamal Keir, and Marwan Muasher
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
A new U.S. approach should prioritize protecting the rights and human security of Palestinians and Israelis over maintaining a peace process and attempting short-term fixes. The authors of this paper identified four overarching areas of focus: (1) prioritize rights and protect people, (2) roll back the Trump administration’s actions and reassert international law, (3) clarify expectations for Palestinians and Israelis, and (4) support new multilateral approaches and accountability.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America

62. Countering Zero-Sum Relations in the Middle East: Insights from the Expert Survey

Author:
Flavio Fusco
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Building on emerging debates on the need to develop de-escalation mechanisms for the Middle East, the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and the Brussels-based Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), with support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, launched a one-year research and outreach project entitled “Fostering a New Security Architecture in the Middle East”. Connected to the research, an expert survey targeting European, US, Russian, Middle Eastern and Chinese experts and practitioners was conducted on key themes, principles and approaches associated with a potential new security architecture for the region. The results of the survey – first published in an edited book volume jointly published by IAI and FEPS in November 2020 – are analysed below, complete with tables and infographics on key themes associated with the research project and the search for new, inclusive mechanisms for dialogue and de-escalation in the Middle East.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Foreign Policy, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Middle East, and United States of America

63. Great Expectations: Defining A Trans-Mediterranean Cybersecurity Agenda

Author:
Patryk Pawlak
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
European Union (EU) cooperation on cybersecurity with the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is conditioned by two competing claims. Due to the geographical proximity and broad security implications for the EU, the MENA region is one of the priorities of the EU’s external relations. Over the past two decades, and especially after the Arab Spring, the EU has invested significant resources to support the reforms in the region and align its policies with its own. At the same time, however, this ambition to cooperate closely with the region is often made more complicated by the situation on the ground. This is particularly the case of cyber resilience cooperation, where even despite overlapping interests – like the fight against cybercrime or improving the overall level of cybersecurity – the EU needs to exercise enhanced due diligence in order to avoid undermining the already fragile human rights protection in some of those countries. Reconciling these two elements – the willingness to engage in closer cooperation and the need for a cautious approach to cybersecurity cooperation – remains the key challenge. Against this background, the study aims to address two questions. First, to what extent are different initiatives and policies implemented across the region compatible with the EU’s own interests and values? Second, who are the key multipliers on cybersecurity in the region that could potentially align with the EU in certain aspects and help it achieve its policy objectives? Which of these relationships are mature enough or require further work in order to turn into concrete cooperation initiatives? These two sets of questions guide the discussion in each of the chapters.
Topic:
Security, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Middle East, North Africa, and MENA

64. Iranian Public Opinion At the Start of the Raisi Administration

Author:
Nancy Gallagher, Clay Ramsay, and Ebrahim Mohseni
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) has been conducting in- depth surveys of Iranian public opinion on nuclear policy, regional security, economics, domestic politics, and other topics since the summer of 2014. Each survey includes a combination of trend-line questions, some going as far back as 2006, and new questions written to assess and inform current policy debates. This report covers findings from a survey fielded in late August and early September, shortly after Ebrahim Raisi was inaugurated as Iran’s new president on August 5, 2021. It provides insights into Iranian public attitudes regarding a wide range of foreign and domestic policy issues as Raisi takes office, eight months after we released a similar survey of Iranian attitudes in the early days of American president Joe Biden’s first term in office. Much has changed, and much has stayed the same since February 2021. Biden had campaigned on a pledge to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and lift sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, as a first step toward further negotiations, so Iranians were relatively positive in February about the prospects for reviving the nuclear deal and improving U.S.-Iranian relations. It took about ten weeks for the new administration to begin indirect negotiations with Iran on a mutual return to full compliance with the JCPOA. The Iranian parliament had responded to Trump’s maximum pressure campaign by passing a law specifying that if the Biden administration did not reverse that policy within weeks of taking office, Iran would exceed JCPOA-mandated limits on its nuclear program in more consequential ways and suspend special International Atomic Energy Agency access to Iran’s nuclear sites that were called for by the JCPOA. The economic, political, and public health crises confronting the new Biden administration precluded it from moving that quickly. The Iranian government promised to r The talks in Vienna made slow, but significant progress as preparations for Iran’s presidential election intensified. Members of the negotiating teams indicated that agreement had been reached by mid-June on some key issues, including the sequence of steps that Iran would take to resume fulfilling its JCPOA commitments and the corresponding sanctions relief it would get from the United States. Some important points of disagreement still needed to be resolved, though. Iran wanted reliable assurances that the United States would not withdraw again or take other steps to preclude Iran from receiving the promised benefits if it abided fully by its JCPOA obligations through October 2025, when the JCPOA specifies that many of Iran’s special nuclear commitments would end and it would have the same rights and responsibilities as other non- nuclear weapon states party to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The United States also wanted assurance from Iran that once the JCPOA had been restored, it would start follow-on negotiations to address additional U.S. concerns.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Military Strategy, Public Opinion, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

65. Strategic Report

Author:
Zaid Eyadat and Moh'd Khair Eiedat
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic Studies (CSS)
Abstract:
This is not a historical nor chronological report. It is rather “a working paper”. The purpose of this rather brief report is to reflect on three major issues: first, what are the characteristics of the world we live in? How stable and predictable is it? Are those in power know what are they doing? Or is it the blind leading the blind? Is our sense of uncertainty and thus unpredictability a product of mental crisis related to one in a lifetime pandemic experience? or is it more structural with long historical span? The second question is how dangerous and out of control is the Middle east region? Or is it? The Abraham Accords promise a new dawn for the region? Paradise is just around the corner or the calm preceding the storm? The third question, where does Jordan fit in these wider circles of activities both global and regional? Deliberately we left out of the report any serious considerations of the economic aspect challenge facing Jordan which is both self-evident and widely recognized. Moreover, the emphasis is on the geostrategic aspects of security related to the global level, the regional level and that of Jordan. Let us first look at the world.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Power, Geopolitics, and Strategic Planning
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan

66. "The New Levant": Rationales, implications and future trajectories of the cooperation between Jordan, Iraq and Egypt

Author:
Neil Quilliam, Zaid Eyadat, Harith Hasan, Abdelmonem Said Aly, Riham Bahi, Noor Alshyab, Amer Al Sabaileh, Johannes Uhl, and Adnan Tabatabai
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic Studies (CSS)
Abstract:
In cooperation with Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) at the University of Jordan held a 2-day closed workshop, in Amman, with regional and international experts on the topic of the tripartite alliance between Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, discussing the nature and timing of the alliance, the national perspectives of each signatory state, policy areas of cooperation and implications for other regional actors. This introductory summary presents some of the ideas discussed during the workshop, but does not necessarily reflect the opinion or assessment of each participant or the hosting institutions.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Energy Policy, Regional Cooperation, Partnerships, Alliance, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Egypt, and Jordan

67. Ceasefire Between Israel And Hamas: Is There Hope For Sustainable Peace?

Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Nkafu Policy Institute
Abstract:
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s longest, most complex, and enduring conflicts, with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for more than half a century. Numerous efforts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, but most of the attempts have not gone beyond ceasefires. Yet, the world has been polarized in resolving the conflict.
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Conflict, Peace, and Hamas
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

68. Women and Minors in Tertiary Prevention of Islamist Extremism

Author:
Sofia Koller
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Over the past years, the role of gender issues in addressing and preventing Islamist extremism has received increased attention. Since the fall of the ‘caliphate’ of the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), most of the returnees to Western European countries have been women who had joined ISIS and other Jihadist organizations. Many travelled with children who had been brought along on the initial journey or who were born abroad. Working with women and minors, especially returnees, has become one of the main challenges for actors in tertiary prevention of Islamist extremism.
Topic:
Security, Violent Extremism, Women, Islamic State, and Islamism
Political Geography:
Middle East

69. The Growing Threat Facing Israel from Iraq

Author:
Jonathan Spyer
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Iraq is already part of the northern crescent of threats facing Israel. The US presence, broader policy regarding Iran makes Israeli action in Iraq more complicated than in Syria.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, and Israel

70. Egyptian Mediation between Israel and Hamas Can Be Useful

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
For the first time in 13 years, an Israeli foreign minister (Gabi Ashkenazi, a former Chief of Staff of the IDF) has visited Egypt for talks with his Egyptian counterpart (Sameh Shukri). At the same time, the head of Egyptian Intelligence, Abbas Kamel, landed in Israel to discuss the situation regarding Gaza with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gantz. Both visits are parts of a bid by President ‘Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi to take the lead in stabilizing the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel and managing the next steps in the broader Israeli-Palestinian context. Egypt has already benefitted from this. The initiative broke the ice between Sisi and the Biden Administration. Israel, stands to gain, as well. Unlike their predecessors, Sisi and Shukri have welcomed the Abraham Accords. Israel and Egypt have common interests in the eastern Mediterranean. And the Egyptians, for their own reasons, do not trust Hamas. Still, Israel is entitled to insist that as mediators, the Egyptians should keep Jerusalem off the table. It would be dangerous for many in the region were Hamas to gain a strategic foothold there. Israel also should insist on a swift release of its citizens held by Hamas and the return of the bodies of dead soldiers held since 2014. Additionally, it would be useful for the Egyptian government to curb the coarse anti-Israeli and often antisemitic discourse in its state-owned media and the Egyptian public domain, which acts to constrain Cairo’s options.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Hamas
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Israel, and Egypt

71. Ramifications of an American Return to the 2015 Nuclear Agreement

Author:
Efraim Inbar and Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
By ignoring Israel’s views on an issue critical to its security, Washington will cast a dark shadow over Israel’s status as a key American ally in the Middle East.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Conflict, and JCPOA
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

72. Strategic Implications of the Damage at the Natanz Enrichment Facility

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The US should be appreciative of any significant delay in Iran’s breakout timetable towards a nuclear weapon. The time gained can and should be used to negotiate a “longer, stronger” agreement.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

73. The Battle for Marib: A Tipping Point of the Civil War in Yemen?

Author:
Uzi Rubin
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The West is focusing on the tragic humanitarian costs of the war in Yemen while turning a blind eye to the significant strategic implications of a Houthi/Iranian victory. This approach imperils Middle Eastern and Western security.
Topic:
Security, Civil War, Conflict, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, and Yemen

74. The Concept of “Forward Defence”: How Has the Syrian Crisis Shaped the Evolution of Iran’s Military Strategy?

Author:
Hamidreza Azizi
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Over the past decade, Iranian officials have repeatedly referred to “forward defence” or “offensive defence” as the foundation of Iran’s military strategy. While the concept implies the inclusion of offensive aspects into Iran’s military strategy, which used to have an overwhelmingly defensive nature, it is also increasingly used to justify Iran’s military presence beyond its borders. This paper begins with a historical overview of the evolution of Iran’s military strategy, especially since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, showing how the concept of “deterrence” has become the cornerstone of its strategic military planning. It also discusses the crucial concept of “strategic depth”. Understanding these basic concepts is essential to be able to analyse the forward defence strategy, its main elements, and the domestic, regional, and international factors contributing to its formation. The paper also explores how the Syrian crisis has affected Iran’s military strategy in both conceptual and instrumental terms, leading to the formation and consolidation of the forward defence. Conceptually, Iran has justified its direct military presence far from its borders as necessary for confronting threats at their source before they reach Iranian territory. From an instrumental point of view, Iran’s involvement in the Syrian crisis has led to the development of Iran’s regional network of non-state allies and proxies, while adding a new layer to Iran’s deterrence vis-à-vis Israel. The main argument is that forward defence is not a new military doctrine but an evolved and updated form of “deterrence”. The paper also identifies Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programmes, its support for non-state actors across the region, and its focus on developing cyberwar capabilities as the main elements of its forward defence strategy, rooted in its perception that it is located in an increasingly insecure regional environment. Finally, the paper suggests that, for the United States to reach an agreement with Iran on these missile and regional issues, Washington and its regional allies must make reciprocal concessions to alleviate Iran’s sense of threat to its security and survival. In this case, Iran might be ready to make concessions on its allied and proxy militias in Yemen and Syria, although the more complex security and political situations in Iraq and Lebanon leave Tehran with comparably less leverage. While Iran is not expected to agree on considerably limiting its missile programme, an agreement on the range of its ballistic missiles could be achievable.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Missile Defense, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

75. Security Scenarios for Syria in 2021-2022

Author:
Serhat Erkmen, Nicholas Heras, and Kirill Semenov
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Syria is a geographic entity divided into three main zones of control, each ruled by local actors with the strong and seemingly indefinite support of powerful foreign actors. These three zones are one zone in western, central, and eastern Syria controlled by the Syrian government, a second zone in northwest and northern Syria along the Syrian-Turkish border controlled by the Syrian opposition and supported by Turkey and a third zone in northeast Syria controlled by the Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria (AANES) and its military the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - which is supported by the United States and several of its allies that are part of the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The common perception by observers of the Syrian conflict is that it is frozen; that Syria will be indefinitely divided into these different territorial zones of control. This assumption obscures the fact though that a significant amount of fluidity on the ground within Syria's three main zones of control is possible. Each of these zones has its own unique characteristics and local customs that must be understood to draw broader assessments on how the wider Syrian conflict might be resolved one day.
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Governance, and Local
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

76. Towards a Zero-COVID Lebanon: A Call for Action

Author:
Joelle M. Abi-Rached, Nahla Issa, Jade Khalife, and Pascale Salameh
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
In its first report, the Independent Lebanese Committee for the Elimination of COVID-19, a group of concerned citizens with various health-related expertise, addresses weaknesses in current government policy and highlights several directions and actions for a more coherent and sustainable national strategy.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Middle East and Lebanon

77. Playing Politics: International Security Sector Assistance and the Lebanese Military’s Changing Role

Author:
Hijab Shah and Melissa Dalton
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Following the August Beirut port explosion, the Lebanese Armed Forces must rebuild trust with the civilian population. The LAF can serve as a critical pillar in Lebanese government efforts to strengthen national security and identity in the midst of the crisis, in light of security sector assistance from the United States and other Western partners. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and Lebanon more broadly, is one of the largest recipients of foreign assistance in the Middle East. The United States and allied governments have sought to build the capabilities and professionalism of the LAF since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, focusing primarily on counterterrorism and border security. The LAF stood in stark contrast to other Lebanese security services in their restraint vis-à-vis the civilian population during the 2019 protests. However, recent reported violent incidents against civilians, ambiguity of the role of police forces, and concerns about both recovery efforts following the August 2020 port explosion in Beirut and extended powers under the state of emergency established by the Lebanese parliament have raised international concerns about the role of Lebanon’s security services, including the LAF. The LAF has a critical role to play in stabilizing Lebanon through a multi-faceted crisis, but will need to take concrete steps to bolster its professionalism. Lebanon’s modern politics have long been defined by confessionalism, a reality that persists even as the country is engulfed in crisis. International assistance to the LAF over the last fourteen years had intended to support the LAF as a legitimate national institution transcending confessions and supporting a broader sense of Lebanese security and identity. In the midst of the ongoing crisis in Lebanon, political turmoil at the helm of the country, and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, there is an important opportunity for the international community to support a new path for governance in the country—as shaped and envisioned by its populace. This opportunity hinges upon leveraging existing channels of support to the LAF and building in conditionality mechanisms that hold the LAF accountable for its actions, while continuing to promote a clear articulation of priorities for the LAF and a plan to improve military effectiveness through policy and doctrine; training and equipment, education, and exercises; operations; and institutional capacity building.
Topic:
Security, Government, Politics, International Security, Military Affairs, and Identity
Political Geography:
Middle East and Lebanon

78. Egyptian Plague or Spring of Youth? The Israeli Discourse regarding the Arab Spring

Author:
Lior Lehrs
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
From the outset of the protest events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and other countries, many people in the world began using the term “Arab spring” to describe the sequence of events in the various locations. The term was based on the term “theSpring of Nations,” that refers to a wave of national revolutions in Europe in the mid-19th century. It seemed to take a little longer for the term to penetrate the Israeli discourse on the subject and even when it did many hesitated to accept it and had reservations about its positive and optimistic connotations. For instance, Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe (Bogie) Yaalon stated that “the event is dramatic and historic and will be given a name, but not the Arab spring.” Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan also opined it was a mistake to use the term “Arab spring” and explained that “whoever coined the phrase drew it from events that occurred in Europe in 1848, when liberal ideas proliferated in the world. The truth is there is no liberal message.” Former head of military intelligence Amos Yadlin said “we understand today that the pair of words ‘Arab spring’ did not describe correctly the phenomenon that rocked the Middle East in 2011.” The Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence branch discussed the issue and decided that the term “Arab spring” was unsuitable and decided to use the term “upheaval” as the official term describing the events.4 Many other people in Israel, as shall be described below, began using the terms “Arab winter” or “Islamic winter” as terms to challenge the original term and express a negative reading of the events. This article wishes to present an analysis of the Israeli discourse following the Arab Spring events as articulated by different parties in diverse forums of conversation. The article analyzes the public and media conversation in Israel and includes an analysis of statements, articles and public opinion surveys and refers to different players (politicians, public figures, journalists and military commanders) and different issues and questions that have arisen as part of the conversation on the subject.
Topic:
Security, Intelligence, Arab Spring, History, and Protests
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Arab Countries

79. Terrorism in Afghanistan: A Joint Threat Assessment

Author:
Teresa Val
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EastWest Institute
Abstract:
Terrorism in Afghanistan: A Joint Threat Assessment is intended to serve as an analytical tool for policymakers and an impetus for joint U.S.-Russia action. The report provides an overview of the security situation and peace process in Afghanistan, taking into account U.S. and Russian policies, priorities and interests; surveys the militant terrorist groups in and connected to Afghanistan and explores the security interests of various regional stakeholders vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Challenges relating to border management, arms trafficking and terrorist financing in Afghanistan are also briefly addressed.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, United States, Europe, Middle East, and North America

80. Ensuring Water Security in the Middle East: Policy Implications

Author:
Liel Maghen and Shira Kronich
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
Over the last decades, the Middle East, and more specifically the Eastern Mediterranean region, has experienced a rapid process of desertification. In water-scarce areas, access to water is thus of key importance for economic prosperity, political stability and the vitality of the civilian population. As a result, in those Eastern Mediterranean countries facing severe water scarcity water has been framed as an existential threat, leading governments to use and justify emergency measures highly concentrated at the governmental and military level. The overall analysis of this Joint Policy Study asserts that though water management is highly securitised in the Middle East, and access to the resource is considered a national security issue, water security and multilateral cooperation is not ensured but jeopardised by ongoing securitising trends. Securitisation promotes a national and centralised approach towards water management at the expense of the participation of civil society, neutral monitoring and data collection, and the creation of secure, sustainable and transparent access to water for local communities.
Topic:
Security, Water, Food Security, and Political stability
Political Geography:
Middle East and Mediterranean