Day: September 8, 2020
A big hole in the IRGC
On January 3, 2020, a United States drone strike killed Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. Soleimani was arguably Iran’s most powerful military leader, and his death marked a critical juncture in US-Iran relations. On August 6, the Middle East Institute convened a panel to discuss the impact of Soleimani’s death on the Islamic Republic. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below.
Alex Vatanka (Moderator): Director, Iran Program, Middle East Institute
Tarek Osman: Author & Broadcaster
Ariane Tabatabai: Middle East Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund of the United States
Morad Vaisibiame: Journalist & Editor, Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Immediate Aftermath
Soleimani, like Iran itself, was received differently across the Middle East. Some revered him, some feared him, and others thought of him infrequently, if at all. His assassination, however, caught the attention of the entire region, and most people worried that US-Iran conflict was imminent.
Some days later, it became clear that violent conflict was unlikely. Iran’s response was relatively small in scale, and the US did nothing to further escalate tensions. To many, Tarek Osman included, this confirmed that the success that Iran had experienced over the last decade, epitomized by improved relations with parts of the Arab world, was over. Iran lacked the will or the means to retaliate proportionately for Soleimani’s assassination.
Long-Term Changes
In spite of its apparent weakness, Iran regularly confronts the United States, albeit in a less-than-noteworthy manner. Iran targets US forces and personnel on a weekly basis. Though these skirmishes rarely make the news, they are playing out in the Arab world, Iraq especially.
In Soleimani’s absence, the core of Iran’s national security strategy remains unchanged: the Islamic Republic wishes to preserve its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It achieves its objectives by working with co-sectarian forces, including the Shi’a in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. Tabatabai posits that this will continue to serve as Iran’s modus operandi, as it is both inexpensive and fairly effective.
Observers who predicted the fall of the regime overestimated the role of individuals like Soleimani in the decision-making process, argues Tabatabai. Soleimani was an influential figure but ultimately not essential to the regime’s survival. When he died, the institutions to which he belonged simply found new leaders.
Morad Vaisibiame contends that, though the leadership structure is the same, the dynamic is markedly different. Qassem Soleimani was well-known, highly regarded, and thus quite influential; he was able to impact both domestic and foreign policy. His replacement, Ismail Ghani, is not as widely respected. Under his tenure, the Quds Force no longer has a particularly “special” relationship with the Supreme Leader. Ghani commands less respect from the other Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, as well as from his own subordinates. He also holds less influence over the commanders of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah in Yemen. In this sense, Qassem Soleimani’s absence is deeply felt.
To watch the event in full, please click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 8 – 11, 2020
- Election 2020: Challenges & Opportunities for U.S. Policy in the Middle East | September 8, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East is going through one of the most unstable periods in its recent history. Each country in the region faces its own unique challenges, but there are also cross-cutting issues ranging from proxy conflict and terrorism to climate change and water security that permeates throughout the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to launch Election 2020: Challenges and Opportunities for US Policy in the Middle East. The briefs in this book offer policy insights from MEI scholars on key issues in the Middle East and serve as a contribution to the broader discussion about the challenges and opportunities for US policy in the region.
What are the key issues the next administration must prioritize? In what ways can the US pursue and achieve its policy goals in the Middle East through diplomacy, conflict resolution, and military engagement? How can a concerted regional strategy address region-wide issues and their global impacts?
Speakers:
Amb. Gerald Feierstein (Moderator): Senior Vice President, Middle East Institute
Paul Salem: President, Middle East Institute
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow & Director, Conflict Resolution & Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Gen. Joseph Votel: Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, Middle East Institute - U.S. Policy in the Middle East: A Conversation With Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The United States has been very active diplomatically in the Middle East as of late, despite public focus elsewhere, on issues ranging from the crisis in Lebanon, to maritime tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, to U.A.E.-Israeli normalization of relations.
On September 9, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a discussion with David Schenker, assistant secretary of Near Eastern affairs at the U.S. Department of State to examine the current state of U.S policy and diplomacy in the region and its future trajectory. Assistant Secretary Schenker will be returning from a mission to the region, which includes stops in Kuwait, Qatar, and Lebanon and will offer thoughts on his recent meetings. Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, will moderate the conversation.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney (Introduction): Vice President & Director, Foreign Policy, Brookings
David Schenker: Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Natan Sachs: Director, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings - Rising Political Polarization in Southeast Asia | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM CEST | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
Rising levels of political polarization are hurting democracy in many Southeast Asian countries. Drawing on a recent Carnegie Endowment report on the topic, this event will examine three critical cases—Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand—to gain a regional understanding of why polarization is increasing, its political effects, and how political and civic actors can take steps to address it.
This event is being held in collaboration with the Institute of Asian Studies.
Speakers:
Thomas Carothers: Senior Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment
Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: Associate Fellow, German Institute for Global & Area Studies
Naruemon Thabchumpon: Deputy Director for Research Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Eve Warburton: Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National Research University of Singapore
Bridget Welsh: Honorary Research Associate, Asia Research Institute, University of Nottingham Malaysia - A New Direction for U.S. Policy on North Korea | September 9, 2020 | 5:00 – 6:30 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the February 2019 Hanoi Summit failed to reach an agreement, the United States and North Korea have been mired in a diplomatic stalemate with minimal negotiations. At the same time, Pyongyang has continued to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs while reversing many of the inter-Korean tension reduction measures achieved in 2018. The next U.S. administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will have the opportunity to break this deadlock with a North Korean regime that is increasingly confident in its nuclear capabilities but still insecure about its longevity.
The next U.S. administration will encounter a North Korean regime that has promised to demonstrate a “new strategic weapon” in its nuclear weapons program and vowed to withstand the international sanctions campaign. The policy approach taken by the next administration will help determine whether Pyongyang will cling to its nuclear weapons or if the two countries will set a new course for building peace and reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Speakers:
Frank Aum (Moderator): Senior Expert, North Korea, U.S. Institute of Peace
Christine Ahn: Founder & Executive Director, Women Cross DMZ; Co-Founder, Korea Peace Network
Suzanne Dimaggio: Chair, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment
Markus Garlauskas: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; Former National Intelligence Officer for North Korea, Office of the Director for National Intelligence
Van Jackson: Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington; Former Senior Defense Strategist, U.S. Department of Defense
Ankit Panda: Stanton Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment - Ecological Threats to Peace | September 10, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:00 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Global warming, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels are already adversely affecting food and water security throughout the world—leaving the least resilient countries with an increased risk of political instability, social fragmentation, and economic collapse. A more accurate measurement of levels of exposure to tomorrow’s ecological threats is key to helping these countries maintain peace today and can enable others to better prepare and adapt for the future.
The new Ecological Threat Register (ETR), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, synthesizes and visualizes data on environmental indicators to estimate which countries, regions, and areas are most vulnerable to environment-induced conflict. In particular, the ETR underscores that 141 countries are vulnerable to ecological threats, and that approximately 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by ecological disasters in the next 30 years.
Speakers:
Tyler Beckelman (Moderator): Director, International Partnerships, U.S. Institute of Peace
Sagal Abshir: Nonresident Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Collins: Executive Director, Institute for Economics & Peace
Dr. Joseph Hewitt: Vice President for Policy, Learning, & Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace - Jihadism at a Crossroads | September 11, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Almost 20 years after 9/11, jihadi groups are no longer in the spotlight. However, ISIS, al-Qaida, and al-Shabab remain active, and new groups have emerged. The movement as a whole is evolving, as is the threat it poses.
On September 11, the Center for Middle East Policy will host a virtual panel event to discuss the current status of jihadi groups. The panel will feature Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and author of the new book, “The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad.”Other panelists will include Tricia Bacon, assistant professor at American University, and Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Brookings Senior Fellow Daniel Byman will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Daniel L Byman: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Tricia Bacon: Professional Lecturer, School of Public Affairs, American University
Thomas Hegghammer: Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
Bruce Riedel: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Civil resistance requires stamina
In June, U.S. Institute of Peace Program Officer Jonathan Pinckney published From Dissent to Democracy: The Promise and Perils of Civil Resistance Traditions. The book centers upon political transitions brought about by civil resistance, and attempts to explain why certain resistance movements result in democratization while others do not. To review the book’s core assertions, as well as gauge its applicability to ongoing resistance movements, the US Institute of Peace convened a panel of the following:
Maria Stephan (Moderator): Director, Nonviolent Action, US Institute of Peace
Erica Chenoweth: Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights & International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Zachariah Mampilly: Marxe Chair of International Affairs, City University of New York
Hardy Merriman: President & CEO, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Jonathan Pinckney: Program Officer, Nonviolent Action, US Institute of Peace
Huda Shafig: Program Director, Karama
Civil Resistance in Writing
Since World War II, there have been more than 300 political transitions. Of these transitions, 78 were brought about by civil resistance. Pinckney’s book examined all of the aforementioned transitions, albeit some in greater detail than others. Pinckney studied three cases closely: Brazil in 1984, Zambia in 1991 and Nepal in 2006.
He found that political transitions initiated through civil resistance were three times more likely to result in democratization than other types of political transitions. Nevertheless, civil resistance transitions were not certain to result in democratization. He identified two key challenges to the onset of democracy: mobilization and maximalism.
Pinckney stressed the importance of maintaining mobilization, as successful resistance movements require targeted and consistent activism. He also cautioned would-be protestors against adopting an all-or-nothing attitude. Instead, Pinckney advocated for moderation and dialogue. Civil resistance is the most direct road from authoritarianism to democracy, but its success is determined by how effectively a resistance movement mobilization is maintained and maximalism is avoided.
Civil Resistance in Theory
In recent years, the prevalence of civil resistance has increased dramatically. Its efficacy, however, has decreased. Chenoweth attributes this unfortunate shift to the manner in which resistance movements currently manifest. Contemporary resistance movements are intent on achieving quick results and consequently lack the ability to organize, engage in negotiations, and ultimately herald a political transformation. Digital organizing and street demonstrations are important but not at the expense of capacity-building, Chenoweth argues.
According to Merriman, movements can address this issue by setting clear expectations. The average civil resistance movement takes three years to conclude, and many resistance movements persist for far longer. The vast majority of participants, however, expect to see results in as little as 3-6 months time. When participants understand the scope of their commitment, Merriman asserts, they are better equipped not only to dismantle existing institutions but also to build new ones.
Civil Resistance in Practice
This is certainly the case in Sudan, where a popular resistance movement has been active for upwards of seven months and succeeded in effecting political change. Despite Sudan’s rich history of citizen protest, the protests were only able to trigger a political transition last year.
In Shafig’s eyes, the ongoing movement has been successful because it is unlike its predecessors. It began outside of Sudan’s capital, Khartoum; participants share a commitment to non-violence; the movement is well-coordinated, with common policy goals; and the movement’s de-centralized nature allows for local leaders to immerse themselves in the movement and tailor it to their respective needs.
In a nod to Pinckney’s book, Shafig also notes that Sudan’s resistance movement has maintained participant mobilization well. Participants engage in continuous activism via neighborhood-based resistance committees. These local committees engage in joint-planning talks with other committees across Sudan, ensuring that support for the transition is widespread. Perhaps Sudan can serve as a model for future civil resistance movements.
To watch the event in full, click here.
RSS - Posts
