Posts by SherminehSalehi:
Emerging Powers Emerging Threats
July 17th, 2015
By Shermineh Esmati.
With the ever increasing threat of world war scholars are often divided on where the brunt of attention the Department of Defense should be focused. In recent weeks Defense Chief Carter revealed a plan to curtail cyber warfare. Coupled with the final round of negotiations among P5+1 members much international relations has been dedicated to breaking a deal with Iran. Thus many believe a balanced approach to security is not being exhausted by the Obama administration. Although it is widely agreed that we are faced with a forever war, evidence proves peaceful results require a greater degree of attention given to cyber and military threats beyond those posed by Iran.
Cyber Threat
The common concern of most Iran deal critics is that the simmering of cyber attacks during negotiation meetings will only heighten if there is a less than favorable end to the talks. Like many others in the intelligence cyber security community, Mike Rogers Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee fear failed talks could propel Tehran to attack financial institutions within the United States.[1] It’s often concerned scholars to see the growing strength of the Islamic regimes Supreme Council of Cyberspace. Developed at the start of President Rouhani’s leadership, the government entity meets monthly working closely with Russian researchers.
Fear of Iran is based on logical grounds that despite negotiations held on an almost weekly basis there is no promise the Islamic regime will become less of a cyber threat. The contrast between rhetoric from the Iran nuclear delegation team and the recently developed Supreme Council of Cyberspace are unfortunately inconsistent. Yet to focus most security efforts on deterring a volatile Islamic regime will permit other emerging world powers to further innovate malicious software. In reality the efforts of Congress members to stop the Iran deal in the name of America’s national security, has actually done the opposite by deterring public attention from cyber attackers working for the Chinese government.
In contrast, other policy scholars often argue China to be a greater cyber threat, deserving of more attention from the international community. With key decision makers laser eye focused on the Iran talks, this group of thinkers are rightly concerned that little effort to pivot to Asia has given China the green light in furthering research producing better cyber warfare tactics put to use when least expected. In the Diplomat, Brookings scholar Greg Austin, articulated concern that the Department of Defense Cyberspace Policy Report demonstrated an ill calculated strategy that wrongfully separated domains of warfare.[2] The present relationship with China has created an unhealthy insecurity for Asian counterparts that would lose trust in American allies. Like others he believes the report showed a dangerous reliance on offensive strategies, quest for superiority and not enough defensive policies to ensure a degree of peace.[3]
“ The latest Pentagon document, with one paragraph on dialogue with China (almost a perfunctory nod in the direction of strategic stability) and a footnote on suspended dialogue with Russia, gives the impression of putting the cart before the horse.” –Greg Austin
When analyzing Austin’s critique he makes a great argument and provides a breakdown of how best to approach lagging security intelligence on the Chinese cyber threat. Hackers have taken advantage of the great attention world leaders dedicated to the Iran Talks. Scholars are rightly worried of the increasingly sophisticated programs that can disrupt government websites or control computers of key policy makers. Although there is an understandable need to work with the Chinese by inviting government representatives to Silicon Valley, their non-democratic policy making should not be taken lightly while developing methods of encryption.
Military Force
With the ever increasing concern of drone attacks, critic’s rightly fear Tehran’s sophisticated technology. Leading researchers like David Kennedy, CEO Trustedsec an information security company put Iran at the top of security threats. In his position he has monitored the deterrence of cyber attacks, where often times Iran’s efforts were the most complex to stop.[4] In support of this debate researchers from the United States Armies Foreign Military Studies Office, revealed the IRGC’s ambition to build a fleet of ‘suicide hamikaze’ drones and evidence of sharing technological innovation with Hezbollah.[5] Hence, there has been much concern the Iran deal will allow all levels of the Iranian military to make regular use of drones.
Concern for the growing number of drones made in Iran are rightful but even Tehran looks at the bigger picture of regional competition requiring the need to appear strong. To focus much research analysis on the movements of Iranian General Moussavi, plays right into their often empty threats towards the west. Not to dismiss the global presence of Iranian drones, but knowing China is home to the worlds most innovative drone company valued at ten billion dollars, should sound a few alarms.
Others firmly believe there needs to be a more balanced approach when preparing for threats from emerging Asia powers. It is undeniable that China is increasingly strengthening its naval and military might evident in weekly papers documenting their progress. In the Washington Free Beacon, Bill Gertz expressed a concern for future strategic relations with China which the present White House administration has not acknowledged. Intelligence committee members share a similar fear that the United States often forgets China is not a democratic state. Their ever growing alliance with Russia has seen the rise of Chinese naval power now at seventy-seven principal combatant ships surpassing America.[6] While their naval power has gone global Rep. Pompeo found Chinese cyber-warfare to remain the greatest aggressor, steeling military secrets and intellectual property,
“Chinese cyber hackers could possibly cripple the nation’s power grid.” –Rep. Pompeo
Furthermore, many are disappointed in the rhetoric by United States defense officials who purposefully down play Chinese buildup in the Pacific even though its a serious threat to Washington’s interests.
There may be thinkers who would prefer to see less American policing in the Middle East yet withdrawal will encourage non democratic states to dominate an already volatile region. With a competitive number of executions annually, China does not have the best reputation for promoting human rights like the United States in the Middle East. One must question Beijing’s rapidly growing export of drones to its allies who happen to have anti-American sentiment such as Egypt and Pakistan.
Furthermore, the Iran deal and competition to fill the vacuum of power in the Middle East requires a more balanced approach to successfully defend United States national security. Research evidence has shown the emerging powers within Asia dedicated to improve cyber and drone supremacy will create greater regional instability.
Comments Off on Emerging Powers Emerging Threats
Alliance of Circumstance
March 8th, 2015
By Shermineh Salehi.
Under global economic pressure Caucasus powers Russia and Iran, have felt the need to act quickly. The completion of a long awaited arms deal provided Iran with the much needed S-300 ground to air missiles. Researchers have been torn on whether sanctions have backfired on western nations by creating a dangerous military alliance. However, a critical observation of recent events would reveal an alliance of circumstance.
When considering the arms deal finalized on Tuesday it looks as though Putin’s team had accepted the inevitable economic isolation caused by sanctions. One must keep in mind the regional powers had been trading weapons prior to the 1979 revolution.
Yet relations became sour when sales were halted in 2010 by Medvedev due to U.N imposed sanctions on Iran in fear it would harm Moscow’s image on the global stage. In an article by political analyst Pukhov he made a legitimate claim that Iran could provide direction in navigating sanctions,
” the Iranians have a lot to offer Russians in terms of learning to operate a military and defense industry in virtual isolation.”
Although many analysts believe the Caucasus allies are unaffected by economic isolation, drop in the ruble has significantly weakened Russia’s hand in spending. There remain those who believe pressure from Moscow on former allies to pay up are signs of a resilient and intimidating regime.
Where researchers like Tamir Eshel interpreted military might when defense minister Shoygu made legal threats to France for deferring the purchase of two Mistral class warships. Hollande’s continued rejection of remaining ships added to the presumption France acted in fear of the impending 1.56 billion dollar prior agreement. (1)
In support of this view, other scholars have lost hope in Ukraine’s freedom from Gazprom’s grasp. It is believed that regardless of the millions of dollars paid in advance, Putin’s regime would be willing to follow through on threats to cut off all energy output.(2)
With that said, its understandable that the Putin Rouhani handshake insights fear in the mind of observers, yet it still must be considered that sanctions have had a real hold over efforts to strengthen the ruble. Targeted sanctions meant to hinder foreign business deals carried out by Russians banks, energy and defense companies has left Iran ties as a last resort option.
The weakened currency has stalled energy projects such as those by Rosneft struggling to attain billion dollar loans. Furthermore, Russia may have plans to align closer to Iran but economic pressure has exposed a desperation to feed a weakened state.
Comments Off on Alliance of Circumstance
Deterrence of an Iranian Bomb
October 30th, 2013By Shermineh Salehi.
On the long standing contentious matter of nuclear bomb building, scholars remain divided on a response that can bypass a potential nuclear war. Today’s Iranian nuclear development has left more than fifty percent of scholars in agreement that sanctions are ineffective while the remaining conservative bunch encourage pressure and war to halt the bomb. As a topic close to my heart, over the last few years I have found the Liberalist camp continuously pushing for diplomacy, a fact based measure in comparison to Conservative violence inducing measures that do not benefit Iranian people or the world.
Iranian Lives:
On both sides of the table Liberalist and Conservative thinkers encourage a change of course yet the Liberalist bring a more realistic and logical solution through diplomatic measures. Scholars like James Phillips of Heritage Foundation would agree with the views of Marine General James Mattis that the Islamic regime has been using negotiations to stall for time. He feels convinced that Iran is preparing for a military clash with America’s great ally Israel by installing an anti aircraft defense system in Syria.[1]
Here, Mr. Phillips makes references to the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate article encouraging Obama to prepare for military strike on Iran once negotiation talks fail. The argument shows a lack of legitimacy since he does not base the argument on sound research and tries to assume the worst, based on the tone of voice of different Iranian leaders. Phillips does not discuss an approach to negotiation instead he quickly assumes warfare is the best choice.
Whereas, doctoral researcher Mohammad Ali Shabani, might agree that sanctions are not the right response, he instead is considering the wellbeing of the middle class. Shabani would also prefer to see the regime ousted but his fact based research shows a cultural and physiological argument that Iranian leadership will attain public support using ‘Persian Pride’ as a front against sanctions.[2] Like SAIS Dean Nasr, he believes the regime would be offended by talks that lack negotiation to solely benefit America.[3]
Here both scholars, Iranian by descent have concrete understanding of the Islamic regime as they are educated in cultural norms and policy making approach of Iranian leaders. The scholars understand the expense of war and the need for America to have a strategic regional ally like Iran where sanctions would only push Iranians to support their Dictator.
Global Impact:
Additionally, discussions on increasing economic pressures showed Liberalist explain the reality that economic sanctions on Iran would have a regional consequence, while Conservative minded scholars did not consider the harm to American allies in the area. James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation laid out a number of strategies that should be imposed to oust the regime through the U.N Security Council, support United States gasoline sanction and fund opposition groups to expose corruption in the government.[4]
Phillips does not consider reality when making these suggestions since the Iranian opposition group “Green Movement” are the same middle class people angry at America for making everyday life a great economic struggle. As well, for the President of the United States to act without the support of the United Nations would divide the Democratic Party and lead international allies to question Obama’s legitimacy.
SAIS Professor Steve Hanke sees a negative outcome since Iranian people are well educated and not easily fooled by global pressures, shown through a jump in investments into gold, a stable non traceable store of value and a reliable medium of exchange.[5] As well he argues against the legitimacy in the U.S alliance with Turkey since they have been secretly providing gold to Iranians in exchange for natural gas, adding to the need to seriously consider diplomacy.[6]
Here Professor Hanke shows strong analytical arguments that America’s approach of containment is in fact bursting at the seams and dragging in Turkey an ally of the United States. Boldly and rightly so, he shows American policy makers that the Iranian middle class are an educated bunch whom can easily pull in the economies of neighboring nations, thwarting the goals for sanctions. Hanke takes a more humane approach and considers the livelihood of the hard working middle class in Iran who do not deserve to suffer as a consequence of failed leadership.
Furthermore, when the motivation behind Iranian nuclear deterrence is for the purpose of avoiding a violent war, Conservative minded thinkers must consider the middle class population who unjustly suffer. While Liberalist scholars might agree that the Islamic regime is inhumane these thinkers have considered diplomacy as a realistic option after carefully reviewing academic research and American backed military tactics that failed i.e. Iran Iraq war. Although researchers may continue to debate on the best policy approach, Iranians directly affected will continue to nervously wait upon the results of international discussions.