Israel’s Syria strike may precede a new US operation

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
International Norm ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Chemical Attack ◽  
Us Military

Significance Initial reports blamed the United States, which had been expected to react strongly to allegations of a devastating chemical attack on the last rebel outpost in Eastern Ghouta, attributed to forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Israeli planes seem to have carried out the strikes, which are therefore related to a separate set of strategic calculations. Impacts The centrality of Syria to Iran’s regional policy means it is unlikely to be deterred by repeated Israeli military actions. Ultimately, Israel may face a full ‘northern front’ conflict against Iran-linked forces in Lebanon and Syria. US military action cannot save the international norm banning chemical weapons, which has seen too many breaches.

Misusing historical analogies limits US policy options

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Future

Significance The Vietnam analogy implies that President Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan will have deeply negative consequences for the United States. However, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the Biden withdrawal needs to be considered within the wider context of his administration’s review of US commitments abroad. Impacts The White House will be pressured to clarify the future of other US military commitments, particularly in Iraq. Biden will seek to reassure allies, particularly those in NATO, that his commitment to multilateralism will not diminish. Biden may seek an opportunity for a military show of force, possibly in the Middle East, to refute accusations of weakness.

Ukrainian officials downplay Russian invasion fears

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
The United States ◽  
Defense Department ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Action

Significance Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on November 29 called for action "now, not later" to "deter" Russia. The same day, US Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said the Pentagon was watching Russian troop movements near Ukraine "with great concern". Fears of imminent conflict stem not just from the number of troops and tanks moved closer to Ukraine, but from Moscow's more than usually hostile rhetoric and its deliberate ambiguity, through hints that Ukraine may provoke it into some form of action. Impacts The threat of Russian action will accelerate and expand the defence assistance Ukraine gets from the United States and other NATO members. Moscow would hope its importance as a gas supplier mitigates EU sanctions imposed for military action against Ukraine. The Ukrainian government will be tempted to use the Russian threat to curb domestic opposition.

The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmine Nahlawi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Chemical Attack ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
Red Line

The 21 August 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta led to the mobilisation of the international community after long international paralysis towards the ongoing conflict in Syria. It is unclear, however, why or under what legal basis states chose to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in exclusion to other mass atrocity crimes committed within the country. This article evaluates the legal underpinnings of President Obama’s ‘red line’ on the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the context of R2P. It notes that while all states condemned the Ghouta attack and called for accountability in this regard, only a minority of states shared the United States’ position that chemical weapons constituted a red line in their own right. Overall, it is maintained that the ‘red line’ phenomenon was case-specific to the Syrian conflict, reflecting geopolitical interests of world powers rather than signifying a new precedent for R2P’s application.

India-Pakistan tensions will hit US military strategy

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Indian Ocean ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
Military Cooperation ◽  
Security Risks ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
Support Fund

Subject Strategic entanglement of India, Pakistan and the United States. Significance Washington is slashing Coalition Support Fund (CSF) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) payments to Islamabad, in the belief that Pakistan harbours the very militants that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan. Washington envisions deeper military cooperation overall with Delhi, which accuses Pakistan of sponsoring militants who act against India. Islamabad is being driven closer to Washington’s rival Beijing. Impacts Pakistan will step up efforts to complete an anti-militant fence on the disputed border with Afghanistan. India is likely to resist any calls from the United States to begin joint patrols in the Indian Ocean. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will face security risks from Islamist militants and Baloch separatists.

Iraq sees rising risk of a US-Iran clash in 2020

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
Kurdistan Region ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
Warning Services

Significance These have caused the United States to begin the process of shuttering its Baghdad embassy -- while signalling that it could reverse the process if the government moves more aggressively against pro-Iran groups within the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) that are blamed for the strikes. Impacts Groups will step up attacks designed to lever the US-led coalition out of Iraq, while seeking to mask their identity. The United States will have greater latitude for military action to weaken Tehran in November or December, if it closes the embassy. Japanese, Saudi, Emirati and some European embassies relying on US evacuation and warning services might also be forced out. Washington might opt instead to downsize the embassy, which cannot operate normally due to COVID-19 and security threats. Even if the US embassy closed, some coalition military sites and the US consulate in the Kurdistan region would remain open.

US Space Force will start small and then evolve

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Marine Corps ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us

Subject Creation of the US Space Force. Significance President Donald Trump on February 19 signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to draw up legislation establishing a Space Force as the sixth branch of the US military, alongside the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Impacts A separation of air and space budgets could positively affect future military space modernisation and development programmes. Creation of the Space Force could ultimately move the United States closer towards openly putting weapons in space. If China and Russia perceive it this way, it creates the risk of an arms race in space.

Syria players’ next steps hinge on US withdrawal plans

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Us Military

Significance Confusion still reigns over US military policy on Syria two months after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a withdrawal. Washington is seeking a deal between Kurdish elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) -- its local allies -- and Ankara, which wants to invade areas of the north-east, but has not yet found one. Impacts Ankara will not engage in any offensive that could bring Turkish troops into conflict with US forces. If the United States leaves suddenly, the Turkish army will move quickly to seize priority targets. An emphasis on Kurdish identity by SDF elements could provoke unease among the north-east’s Arabs.

Trump uncertainty impedes NATO's Afghan strategy

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Economic Decline ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us

Subject NATO plans in Afghanistan. Significance The United States has nearly 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, spread across two separate but complementary missions. One is led by the US military and the other by NATO, but both are commanded by US General John W Nicholson. Uncertainty about US President Donald Trump’s policy looms over NATO’s plans for the country. Impacts Afghanistan’s economic decline will accelerate if US aid falls markedly. The Taliban have no incentive to talk peace at present. Direct Chinese security involvement in Afghanistan may deepen.

US military alone cannot end Somalia militant threat

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
Security Assistance ◽  
Military Engagement ◽  
Policy Risk ◽  
Trump Administration

Subject US military engagement in Somalia. Significance The United States in December announced it was suspending security assistance to elements of the Somali army, based on reports of corruption and diversion of aid. The decision came amid intensifying US military engagement in Somalia, where airstrikes against al-Qaida-linked Harakat al-Shabaab have increased dramatically since July. Special forces ground operations also appear to be on the rise. Last May, the United States suffered its first combat death in Somalia since the infamous 1993 ‘Battle of Mogadishu’, where 18 US soldiers lost their lives. Impacts The potential for more US fatalities presents a policy risk for the Trump administration given domestic memories of the Battle of Mogadishu. Collateral casualties from US actions may provide al-Shabaab with useful domestic propaganda. Deepening cooperation with Somali intelligence services may have value but will prove complicated in practice.

US military aid to Africa will not grow significantly

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Foreign Operations ◽  
Military Support ◽  
Military Engagement ◽  
Security Affairs

Significance The trip to Washington by Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari last month has raised questions about whether the United States plans to step up its military support to assist with counterinsurgency against Boko Haram. However, speculation on whether the United States may soften its stance on military support to Nigeria belies the broader structural obstacles that limit US military engagement to Africa. Impacts The United States prefers for other actors to lead on African security crises, such as France in Mali or the African Union in Somalia. African security affairs are highly unlikely to feature in US presidential candidates' speeches, nor national security manifestos. US military activities also remain constrained by African governments' unwillingness to host foreign operations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document