United States

While the U.S. State Department did not designate the Shi’a Muslim group Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization until 1997, the group had been active since the early 1980s. Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s first attack came in 1983 in response to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Because Iran wanted to start a proxy war with Israel, they provided Hezbollah with ample funding and weapons. With Iran’s help, Hezbollah successfully removed the Israeli Defense Forces from Lebanon. The group published their manifesto in 1985, which stated, among other items, that American hegemony was the “source of all their catastrophes,” and their main priority is the annihilation of Israel and the expulsion of colonists, like the United States, from the Middle East.[1] This group functions in the Middle East and North Africa region and receives extensive support from Iran including missiles, military training, and more than $700 million per year.[2] Hezbollah is also an influential political party in Lebanon; in the 2018 parliamentary elections, the party won the plurality of votes, and in 2008, the party gained veto power in the cabinet.[3] This politically agile group presents many issues for the United States’ War on Terror. While Hezbollah is rightfully on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, the United States needs to open a dialogue with Hezbollah and recognize their role as a powerful political party in Lebanon. This will help the U.S. protect its foreign policy interests in countering terrorism and maintaining political and economic stability in Lebanon.

An August 8 nuclear accident in Nyonska, Russia is the result of Russia’s nuclear expansion, which Russia President Vladimir Putin officially announced in March 2018. This accident, along with the INF Treaty’s collapse in February 2019, show that the United States needs to examine its current nuclear policies and set new objectives to match the evolving global order. Its two objectives need to be global non-proliferation and improving security and prosperity across the globe.

Denuclearization talks have come to the forefront of the Trump administration’s foreign policy concerns and now even tops the list of international issues. Negotiations with North Korea have been pursued for many years and over numerous administrations with varying success. Some of the most in-depth and involved discussions took place during the Six-Party talks in China from 2003 to 2009. While the talks ended with no comprehensive denuclearization deal, recent calls from many countries to resume talks may indicate that there is an increased willingness internationally to resolve this issue[1].

US-Iran relations have grown increasingly troubled since the election of President Trump. Given the recent rhetoric from the current administration, some worry about the possibility of conventional armed conflict between the two states. Military maneuvers on both sides have postured the two nations for conflict despite some congressional efforts to prevent war. In June, an unmanned US drone was shot down in what Iran claimed was its airspace. President Trump accused Iran of “warmongering”[1] while Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted that the drone had “violated Iranian airspace.”[2] In July, Iranian officials detained a British tanker in response to Britain’s detainment of an oil tanker in Gibraltar.[3]

This summer has been notably characterized by a heating up of tensions between the US and its allies, and Iran. President Trump’s hardline, “maximum pressure” approach against Tehran, which dates back to his withdrawal from the JCPOA in the spring of 2018, has been firm and constant. The US has imposed strict economic sanctions, sent 2,500 troops to the region, an aircraft carrier, and conducted cyber attacks, while Iran has shot down a US drone and allegedly attacked ships in the region.[1] Iran’s acts of aggression and recent breaches of sections of the JCPOA are primarily meant to coerce the US into lifting the series of economic sanctions it has enacted since its withdrawal from the accord.

On October 25, 2012, The New York Times published an eye-opening report on an extensive, billion-dollar business empire constructed by relatives of China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao. Three months later, the Times revealed it had been undergoing intense cyber attacks even before the report was publicly released. Cooperating with AT&T, the FBI, and a leading cybersecurity firm, the Times pinned the digital break-ins on Chinese hackers, adding that the Chinese military was likely involved.

In the last Presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle, both President Obama and Governor Romney referred to the U.S. national debt as a growing threat to security. These claims echo the 2011 remarks of Admiral Michael Mullin, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asserting that the national debt is the greatest security threat currently facing the United States. In addition to severe economic problems, the inability to resolve the debt issue may result in a weakened ability to pursue military and diplomatic missions, an increase in domestic human security problems, and an expansion of foreign influence regarding U.S. policy.

On Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad accused the United States and “internal enemies” of waging a “psychological war” against Iran in an attempt to stop Iranians from ditching the weakening rial for U.S. dollars. This “war” refers to the significant problems Iran faces, including the U.S.-led economic sanctions, a threatened Israeli military strike, and now internal protests. While this perceived psychological war against Iran has yet to turn into a physical conflict, the United States and Israel must be aware that increasing pressure may cause the Iranian military and government to act erratically, which may lead to Iranian military action.

One of the biggest recent news stories in the East Asian Region is the continuing territorial dispute between China and Japan. The two world superpowers have been involved in the dispute for longer than either would care to admit, given the nature of the islands themselves. The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, consist largely of nothing but jagged rock faces, overgrown shrubs, and wild birds. Despite this fact, the dispute has flared recently, even causing the Chinese to cancel plans for an event that was supposed to mark 40 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The recent debate over the Affordable Care Act, known to critics as Obamacare, highlights the growing divide in U.S. politics and the political culture that idolizes politicians with a ‘no-compromises’ stance. This was made abundantly clear through the fight over the constitutionality of the healthcare law as well as the recent Republican presidential primaries where Mitt Romney was accusingly labeled a “moderate” by competing candidates. Romney had to fight each surging challenger’s accusations of being moderate and continues to struggle against hard-liners of his party. This fight to assuage ideological worries within one of the major U.S. parties shows the pull away from the center towards the more hard-line views.

Afghanistan will face two major issues this year. The more publicized issue is Pakistan’s refusal to open up their supply routes into Afghanistan for NATO use. The lesser known issue is the devastatingly poor poppy harvest. Both of these problems will create unique challenges for NATO forces. A brief examination of the problems will show points of concern that need to be addressed.

The attack in France this past week at the hands of the terrorist Mohammed Merah is reawakening Europe to the realities of radicalization. This event should not be viewed as the beginning of a complex new terror campaign domestically but should be seen as an infrequent reality of war with terror groups. The majority of attempted domestic attacks have been unsuccessful for a number of reasons, and most people who are successfully recruited end up going to conflict areas in order to train and act out their new sense of ideology rather than stay in their country. A quick overview of some aspects of the radicalization process will reveal that there is no trend towards coordinated attacks or rampant radicalization in the West.

Recently there has been a deluge of calls for action to topple the Al-Assad regime in Syria in order to stop its bloody crackdown against the opposition movement. Many ideas have been thrown out into the open, the most prominent of which center around an air campaign, using a harsh set of sanctions against the regime, or arming the opposition with weapons capable of leveling the playing field. The loudest champions of these ideas by and large are generalizing the matter. Reducing the situation into black and white, election-friendly terms glosses over many of the grim realities in Syria. Looking at the main ideas listed above, we see that they are either unfeasible or the risks involved make them not only undesirable but also counterproductive.

XinJiang, the Uyghur Autonomous Region, stages some of China’s most violent separatist movements, the most violent of which are developing terrorist- threats. In April, President Xi Jinping visited the region and spoke specifically on the issue of combating terrorism. While China has not officially declared a counterterrorism program, it has developed a new National Security Commission designed to counter “unconventional security” threats. China has modeled much of its new commission after that of the U.S. and may, in the future, follow the U.S. model further by developing a comprehensive counterterrorism program. Given the escalating situation in various autonomous regions, the likelihood that China will develop a broader official counterterrorism strategy is high. This analysis takes into consideration two simplified factors: the development of separatist movements in a Chinese national context, and the evolving Chinese policy of dealing with regional security threats.

Now that the possibility of a US missile strike in Syria has faded, US attention has been diverted to other matters in the Middle East, namely, negotiations with Iran. However, the diminished threat of intervention combined with a weak UN Security Council Resolution has led to a significant loss of US influence among the Syrian opposition. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), one of two al-Qaeda branches operating in Syria, has capitalized on this influence vacuum by attempting to establish its dominance within rebel-held territory. In response to an ascendant ISIS and general frustration with US foreign policy, opposition fighting groups are beginning to form Islamic coalitions independent of the US-backed Syrian National Council. US policymakers will now have to deal with a stronger al-Qaeda presence and less capacity to bolster anti-regime forces.