| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
065656
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1998.
|
| Description |
p.127-151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
076541
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
060403
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Mar-Apr 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
134575
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We chose this topic when President Obama gave his speech at West Point in late May of this year. He did say that the United States would use force unilaterally if our core interests were directly threatened. But he emphasized a counterterrorism strategy that would rely upon supporting, training and working with security partners and announced a $5 billion program to support security partners in the Middle East, having identified terrorism as the most direct threat to the United States.
Not long after that, the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria moved down the Tigris River, and the Iraqi security forces retreated, raising the question of how much we can depend upon a strategy like that in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, where we will be leaving soon. He also said that Syria would be a major focus of this strategy. However, we've had a difficult time finding security partners there, because it's a very fragmented opposition and hard to vet and find moderates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|