Search

Although they can be used for offensive purposes, nuclear weapons are generally viewed in terms of deterrence. As such they are especially suited for situations of security dilemma. Often confrontations such as India-Pakistan, Arab-Israel, and the East-West are characterized in terms of the security dilemma. And notwithstanding the fact that the Middle East is a major area of concern with respect to nuclear proliferation, it is surprising to find no systematic study of the nexus between the drive for the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the region and the security dilemma. Put simply, the traditional security dilemma refers to "net insecurity" experienced by all actors as a result of self-help measures intended to enhance the security of one of them. The Arab-Israel area of the Middle East is an ideal case to examine the applicability, dynamics and impact of the security dilemma. Existing literature lacks any systematic analysis of this. Security analyses that partially employ the security dilemma almost exclusively focus on Israel's end the security dilemma to rationalize Israel's offensive posture and aggressive actions, monopoly of nuclear weapons and its superiority in conventional weaponry. I find no studies that seriously consider the Arab side of the security dilemma, as if they have no security dilemma, or if it exists, it is of no consequence to regional peace and stability. This paper is an attempt at redressing this imbalance. In applying the security dilemma to the Arab-Israel area, we can focus on the factors that have given rise to and continue to shape the security dilemma in the region. We can highlight the crucial linkage between the security dilemma and past and likely future nuclear proliferation on the one hand and the Arab-Israel conflict. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two terms, like no others, dominated debates leading up to the Iraq War in 2003: ?unilateralism? and ?irrelevance?. The first was used to characterize US policy toward Iraq and the second was a common theme of the Bush administration which saw UN inaction, or rather lack of support for American policy, likely to render the organization, irrelevant. The two publicized ?debates? at the Security Council, on February 14 and March 7, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell?s February 5th multimedia presentation on the case for war against Iraq, were crucial in forming the impressions about both the US and the UN. Most of the general public, in and outside of the US, saw these as both ?defining moments? and new developments in international relations in general and with respect to the Middle East in particular. Some were quite alarmed by the course of action taken by the Bush administration which seemed determined on placing US on a collision course with much of the world community, especially erstwhile allies France and Germany. Others, mostly of a conservative bent, thought it was time for the US to standup for anti-American forces in the UN and demonstrate to leadership commensurate with its status as the lone superpower. The tragic events of September the 11th were on the mind of both camps, with the anti-Bush forces claiming that the War on Terrorism called for a multilateral approach and the pro-Bush forces arguing that the lesson of 911 is a ?preemptive? American approach, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it. For this latter camp, both American unilateralism and the rendering of the UN as irrelevant were not only welcome but twin goals of the same project. Indeed the two (unilateralism and UN irrelevance) have very much been at the heart of US strategy in the Middle East. In this paper, we want to examine US policy by focusing on the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iraq. We will show that US policy has, at least since 1967, been one of unmitigated hegemony, whether unilateral or multilateral, subordinating to its own the interests of the people within the region?and perhaps perpetuating the conflict process. We will show that the US has successfully maneuvered itself into the position of sole arbiter over war and peace issues in the region, as best illustrated by its monopoly over the ?peace process.? In all of this, the US has acted much as had the European powers as they sought to ?re-make the Middle East.? And, just like them, it has viewed multilateralism and unilateralism simply as interchangeable means for conquest and hegemony. We will begin with a discussion of multilateralism in the next section, and, in Section III, we will briefly discuss the European legacy, the so-called Eastern Question. The aim to lay the ground for showing continuity between European colonialism and American hegemony in the region. To show the manner in which American hegemony unfolds, we will discuss two important cases. Section IV will cover key statements of policy in the form of presidential doctrines, then we will delve into Arab-Israel ?peace process.? In Section V, we will discuss the long war against Iraq, 1991-present. In the Conclusion we will revisit the issue of hegemony and its causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will consider the applicability of the security dilemma to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and analyze its implications. It will fill a gap in literature which often ignores the security dilemma and focuses on other variables. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

?Islam? has emerged as a central problematique in international relations especially since the end of the Cold War. Western commentators (from policy makers and media pundits to think-tank analysts and academics) have more or less come to perceive ?Islam? (variously articulated) as a formidable threat to Western civilization and interests. The central question with which this paper is concerned is ?why such a perception?? The Islamic dogma has not drastically changed; Osama bin Laden does not represent anything new to reform in Islam. The military power of all states of the Arab Middle East pales next to that of the US or even that of ?little? Israel. With perhaps the exception of Pakistan, there is no single Muslim state genuinely capable of defending itself against external aggression. There are no Islamic armadas roaming the oceans to safeguard the interests of Muslims. The answer could not be found in the changed nature of the Islamic doctrine or in the offensive capabilities of Muslims states. It can only be found in the realization of the Muslims, since the Islamic revolution in Iran, of the power potential of the Islamic ideology of resistance and self-determination. In this paper, I wish to analyze the "Islam" problematique and, informed by Edward Said?s Orientalism and Johan Galtung?s insights on structural and cultural violence, I will argue that the preoccupation with ?and vilification of --?Islam? is part of the Western realpolitik project of continued domination of Muslim lands. We will demonstrate that academics, including Middle East specialists, have at best been marginal and at worst culprits, serving the policy demands of Western governments. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On February 11, 2004, President Bush declared ?The greatest threat before humanity today is the possibility of secret and sudden attack with chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons.? The Bush administration used the concern about the dangers of WMD to rationalize its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Its hostility toward the other ?axis of evil? states?Iran and North Korea?is often couched in the concern about WMD proliferation. But beyond the rhetoric of the administration, how successful are American counterproliferation efforts? Notwithstanding empirical evidence that Iraq did not possess WMD in the first place, the administration touts its invasion as a success in counterproliferation. So, too, are the busting of the A.Q. Khan?s ?black market? nuclear network and Libya?s decision to relinquish its nuclear ambition. But the American approach is hypocritical, fundamentally flawed, and indeed counterproductive. An examination of regional security in the Middle East will illustrate this. This paper will analyze the context and consequences of proliferation and argue that failing to tackle root causes of conflict in the region as well as turning a blind eye to Israel?s illegal nuclear arsenal will continue to frustrate American counterproliferation efforts. A more realistic approach will need to address regional problems, including legitimate security concerns on the part of countries in the region?other than Israel. It will need to begin by acknowledging that Israel?s nuclear weapons and belligerence as well as American role and intervention are perhaps the greatest stimulators of proliferation. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides an analysis of the root causes of anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, America?s closest Arab allies. We will consider alternative perspectives generally employed to explain anti-Americanism in the Middle East. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]