Middle East
4 articles filed under this keyword.
Drone Operations by Non-state Actors in the Middle East
Parwar Saeed Saido, Shoker Abobeker Aziz
This study examines the impact of drone technology on the operational capabilities of armed non-state actors (ANSAs) in the Middle East, following 2010; the Middle East entered a new era of conflict, the escalations led to the appearance of new terrorist groups like Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and regional competition led to increased involvement of armed groups in the conflicts. Drone technology has extensively contributed to these conflicts through armed non-state actors in the region. The research focuses specifically on Hezbollah and ISIS in drone warfare. It explores how the adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has reshaped traditional paradigms of asymmetric warfare by enhancing reconnaissance, precision strike capabilities, and long-range operations. The research has conducted a comparative analysis between both groups in terms of when Hezbollah, supported by state sponsorship, has developed a structured and technologically sophisticated drone program, whereas ISIS has employed an improvisational, low-cost approach aimed at disrupting enemy forces through innovative tactics. The research indicated how drone technology has significantly increased their reach and precision in targeted strikes, highlighting their ability to project power and adapt to evolving battlefield conditions. Ultimately, the increasing accessibility and deployment of drone technology by (ANSAs) in conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East, poses significant challenges to traditional security paradigms and necessitates a deeper understanding of its impact on asymmetric warfare. The aim of the study is to answer the question of how have Hezbollah and ISIS utilized drone technology to reshape their operational capabilities and asymmetric warfare strategies in the Middle East? The study underscores the growing need for flexible security policies in response to the proliferation of drones beyond state control and their integration into hybrid and irregular warfare strategies.
Volume 9 · Issue 5 · December 2022Theoretical Analysis of the U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Kurds in Syria After 2011
Zainaddin Mawlood Khidhir
The United States' new foreign policy, which includes abandoning America's Kurdish friends and a new strategy on how the US should execute military interventions, as well as the "America First" ethos, has triggered a humanitarian and military catastrophe for Syrian Kurds. Despite the prevalence of study on American strategy in Syria and towards Syrian Kurds, there is a noticeable lack of comprehensive research explaining and evaluating the growing connections. This paper argues that deciphering these patterns necessitates a deep understanding of regional politics and a thorough engagement with the vast IR research. In this context, it is essential to look at the nature, limitations, and constraints of the Kurdish-US relationship, which is the Kurds' most powerful ally. For the present study, a theoretical framework is chosen to analyse US foreign policy comprehensively. This is a qualitative research report based on a case study. The case for this paper is the United States' foreign policy toward Syrian Kurds, as seen through several international theories, particularly realism and liberalism. The suggested study aims to explain why the US overlooked Syrian Kurds at the start of the Syrian crisis, why the US worked with and backed Syrian Kurds or SDF till 2019, and why the US abandoned or deserted the Syrian Kurds after a foreign policy shift. To sum up, scholarly reports show mixed results, with some claiming that the US decision to abandon Syrian Kurds was well-informed. In contrast, others suggest that if the decision is made without caution, it will do more harm than good to America's long-term ally, who played a critical role in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Volume 7 · Issue 4 · December 2020The Eisenhawer Doctrine (1957): The Impact on Arabic Countries and The Soviet Union Attitude
Harem Hasan Ahmad, Ribwar Khalid Mustafa, Ibrahim Ali Salim
Following the end of World War II, and emerging of a vacuum after the withdrawal of British and French forces from some of the Middle East countries in the region, creating fear in Western countries, particularly the United States, that the Eastern Bloc, in particular Russia, would seek to fill the vacuum and spread the idea of leftism and communism in the region. For this reason, the United States has made every effort to confront the idea of communism and establish a foothold in the region among its policies. To this end, then US President Harry Truman announced his country's new policy in the context of the Truman project on the Middle East in (1945). Following Harry Truman, when Eisenhower assumed power as the new US president in (1953), he put forward the new policy of his country named Eisenhower’s Dwight in Congress in order to confront Russian politics and infiltrate communist thought in the area. There were several items in his project that emphasized the cooperation of Middle Eastern countries, especially in the economic and military fields. The Eisenhower’s Dwight has had a variety of reactions from countries in the region, especially Arab countries. Some have accepted it from the very beginning. Some also expressed opposition to the project. There were also countries that initially opposed the Eisenhower project, but after a period of time following US efforts and pressure, eventually endorsed the project and became a fan of the US. As a result of these political divisions in the region, several political and military alliances between the countries of the Middle East Were formed. The idea of Nasser and the idea of Arab nationalism come to life at this time. Although originally favored by the Eastern Bloc, especially Russia, it also partially weakened the notion of communism and was about to cause tension between proponents of these two ideas. This situation had nothing in fact to do other than destabilizing the political state and the occurrence of several coups in order to change the regime of some of Middle Eastern countries, besides the long sovereignty of some Arab rulers.Regarding the Soveit Union attitude towards the Eisenhower’s doctrine, it can be seen that,the Soveit Union ctitisized by the Soviet authorities from internal and external the SoveitUnbion.For instance the The Soveit Union attempted to gain extermal allies among the Middle Middle Eastren countries to convince them this doctrine is a part previous imperliams that supported by Westren countries.Finally,in the United Nation,The Soveit attempted to make a campaign to remove this doctrine as it mention a therat of world peace.
Volume 7 · Issue 1 · January 2020The impact of the Algiers Agreement on the Kurdish liberation movement
Aras Hasan Abdulqadir, Shakhawan Khdir Rasul, Himdad Majeed Ali
The 1975 Algiers Agreement is a political and legal agreement signed between Iraq and Iran to end the chronic border problems between them after the abolition of the Saadabad Agreement of 1937 from the Iranian side unilaterally on 19/4/1969 and the demarcation of the border between the two neighboring countries. In the waters of the Shatt al-Arab in favor of Iran in return for non-support of the Tehran government of the Kurdish liberation movement in Iraq, has already collapsed this movement as a result of a mysterious international and regional deal, Moreover, this agreement has met the historical demands of Shahnashah Iran to extend its sovereignty over the Gulf And the region, in addition to strengthening the American influence of this region to counter the influence of the Soviet Union, as the signing of this agreement as a result of manipulation of the paper by the American and Iranian interests and joint scheme in the Gulf, the Algiers agreement is a mysterious political and legal deal at the expense of Iraqi territory and at the expense of Kurdish liberation movement in Iraq to end The long-standing problems between Iraq and Iran, and therefore be replaced by this illegal agreement is not in place and the Iraqi and Iranian borders have become clear and final. The United States and Iran Israel has used the movement Kurdish liberation as a bargaining policy against the Soviet Union for the Gulf region, and vice versa Kurdish liberation movement has benefited these financial aid and internal and international Tazizmkantha.