Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Katzman, Kenneth" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Searching for Stable Peace in the Persian Gulf
The author examines America's dual containment policy for the Persian Gulf and shows how adherence to the policy has eroded. Key allies of the United States withhold support for military action against Iraq, despite evidence that the Iraqis are clandestinely producing weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, U.S. allies have concluded potentially lucrative deals with Iran to exploit central Asian oil resources, despite Washington's opposition to them. The author concludes with recommended courses of action the United States should follow to maintain its leadership role in the region.
Army War College (U.S.)
Katzman, Kenneth
2002-02-02
-
Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance [June 1, 2011]
"The limited capacity and widespread corruption of all levels of Afghan governance are factors in debate over the effectiveness of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and in planning for the July 2011 beginning of a transition to Afghan security leadership. That transition is to be completed by the end of 2014, a timeframe agreed to by the United States, its international partners, and the Afghan government, although some believe that timetable might be accelerated in the aftermath of the May 1, 2011, U.S. killing of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Afghan governing capacity has increased significantly since the Taliban regime fell in late 2001, but many positions, particularly at the local level, are unfilled. Many governing functions are performed at least informally by unaccountable power brokers. Widespread illiteracy and ethnic and factional ties limit the development of a competent bureaucracy, although U.S. and other programs are attempting to address these deficiencies. On corruption, President Hamid Karzai has accepted U.S. help to build emerging anti-corruption institutions, but these same institutions have sometimes caused a Karzai backlash when they have targeted his allies or relatives. Effects of corruption burst into public view in August 2010 when the large Kabul Bank nearly collapsed due in part to losses on large loans to major shareholders, many of whom are close to Karzai. Some in Congress have sought to link further U.S. aid to clearer progress on the corruption issue, and the issue is expected to be an additional significant factor in debate about the pace of a U.S. troop drawdown from Afghanistan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-06-01
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [November 1, 2006]
"According to the Administration's 'National Security Strategy' document released on March 16, 2006, the United States 'may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran.' That perception intensified following the military confrontation between Iranian-armed and assisted Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel in July-August 2006. To date, the Bush Administration has pursued several avenues to attempt to contain the potential threat posed by Iran. However, the Administration's focus on preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons breakthrough has brought diplomatic strategy to the forefront of U.S. policy. As part of that effort, the Bush Administration announced May 31 it would negotiate with Iran in concert with U.S. allies if Iran suspends uranium enrichment; in past years the Bush Administration had only limited dialogue with Iran on specific regional issues. However, Iran did not comply with an August 31, 2006, deadline to cease uranium enrichment, contained in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696 (July 31, 2006), dividing the United States and partner countries over whether to continue diplomacy with Iran and whether and how to move to impose international sanctions on it."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2006-11-01
-
Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy [Updated January 28, 2003]
The United States and its allies are helping Afghanistan emerging from more than 22 years of warfare, although substantial risk to Afghan stability remains. Before the U.S. military campaign against the orthodox Islamist Taliban movement began on October 7, 2001, Afghanistan had been mired in conflict since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The defeat of the Taliban enabled the United States and its coalition partners to send forces throughout Afghanistan to search for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters and leaders that remain at large, including Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. As U.S.-led combat against remaining Al Qaeda and Taliban elements winds down, the United States is shifting its military focus toward stabilizing the interim government, including training a new Afghan national army, and supporting the international security force (ISAF) that is helping the new government provide security. To help foster development, the United Nations and the Bush Administration have lifted most sanctions imposed on Afghanistan since the Soviet occupation. The "loya jirga" delegates selected a new government to run Afghanistan for the next 18 months and approved Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun, to continue as leader for that time, but the assembly adjourned without establishing a new parliament.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2003-01-28
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [May 13, 2011]
"The Obama Administration views Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its materiel assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. Throughout its first year, the Obama Administration offered Iran's leaders consistent and sustained engagement with the potential for closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent, the Obama Administration downplayed any discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities or efforts to try to change Iran's regime."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-13
-
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy [June 9, 2011]
"Protests that erupted in Bahrain following the uprising that overthrew Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011, demonstrate that Shiite grievances over the distribution of power and economic opportunities were not satisfied by relatively limited efforts to include the Shiite majority in governance. Most Sunnis in Bahrain believe the Shiite majority will be satisfied with nothing less than outright rule. As protests escalated in March 2011, Bahrain's government, contrary to the advice of the Obama Administration, invited security assistance from other neighboring Gulf Cooperation Council countries and moved to forcefully end large demonstrations and arrest dissident leaders. Although the 'state of emergency' was declared ended on June 1, some believe that continued arrests of dissidents have reduced prospects for a negotiated political solution in Bahrain, and could widen the conflict to the broader Gulf region. Others are optimistic that a national dialogue will begin in earnest and that the challenge to the pro-U.S. regime can be managed. Possibly because of concern that a rise to power of the Shiite opposition could jeopardize the extensive U.S. military cooperation with Bahrain, the Obama Administration has criticized the crackdown as counter-productive but has not called for a change of the Al Khalifa regime and continues to meet regime leaders at high levels."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-06-09
-
Iran Sanctions [May 25, 2011]
"There appears to be a growing international consensus to adopt progressively strict economic sanctions against Iran to try to compel it to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. In January 2011, Secretary of State Clinton claimed that sanctions have accomplished a core objective of slowing Iran's nuclear program. However, nuclear talks in December 2010 and in January 2011 made virtually no progress, suggesting that Iran's leaders do not feel sufficiently pressured by sanctions to offer major concessions to obtain a nuclear deal. Because so many major economic powers have imposed sanctions on Iran, the sanctions are, by all accounts, having a growing effect on Iran's economy. The sanctions are reinforcing the effects of Iran's economic mismanagement and key bottlenecks. Among other indicators, there have been a stream of announcements by major international firms since early 2010 that they are exiting the Iranian market. Iran's oil production has fallen slightly to about 3.9 million barrels per day, from over 4.1 million barrels per day several years ago, although Iran now has small natural gas exports that it did not have before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. The United States and its allies appear to agree that sanctions should continue to target Iran's energy sector and should try to isolate Iran from the international financial system."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-25
-
Iraq: U.S. Efforts to Change the Regime [Updated January 8, 2003]
The United States has been attempting to change Iraq's regime since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, although achieving this goal was not declared policy until 1998. In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a change of regime. A regime change policy was endorsed by the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338, October 31, 1998). Bush Administration officials have emphasized regime change as the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This paper discusses past and current U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and the current debate over the implementation of that policy.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2003-01-08
-
Iraq: Oil-For-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade [Updated September 26, 2002]
The "oil-for-food" program is the centerpiece of the long-standing U.N. Security Council effort to alleviate human suffering in Iraq while maintaining key elements of the Gulf war-related sanctions regime. In order to ensure that Iraq remains contained and that only humanitarian needs are served by the program, U.N. Security Council resolutions have mandated substantial controls on Iraqi oil exports and humanitarian imports.
Seeking to improve international unity on containment of Iraq, the Bush Administration devised a "smart sanctions" plan that it said would speed the flow of civilian goods to Iraq and thereby improve living conditions for the Iraqi people.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2002-09-26
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [May 9, 2011]
"Stated U.S. policy is to ensure that Afghanistan will not again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. Following three policy reviews on Afghanistan, the latest in December 2010, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a well-resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan leadership that will begin in July 2011 and be completed by the end of 2014. To carry out U.S. policy, a total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two 2009 reviews, bringing U.S. troop numbers to their current level of about 99,000, with partner forces adding about 41,000. Amid widespread doubts that Afghan governance and security institutions will be strong enough to protect themselves by that time, U.S. officials say that the U.S. intent is for a long term relationship with Afghanistan that might include U.S. military involvement long after 2014."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-09
-
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy [May 17, 2011]
"Protests that erupted in Bahrain following the uprising that overthrew Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011, demonstrate that Shiite grievances over the distribution of power and economic opportunities were not satisfied by previous efforts to include the Shiite majority in governance. In the early stages of the unrest, Administration contacts with the government were credited by many for the regime's decision to suspend using force against the protesters as of February 19, 2011. However, as protests escalated in March 2011, Bahrain's government, contrary to the advice of the Obama Administration, invited security assistance from other neighboring Gulf Cooperation Council countries; it subsequently moved to forcefully end the large gatherings and arrest dissident leaders. Some believe the crackdown has reduced prospects for a negotiated political solution in Bahrain, and could widen the conflict to the broader Gulf region. Others see the primary consequence of the unrest as fostering sectarian hatreds within the population, no longer confined to elite power struggles. Possibly because of concerns that a rise to power of the Shiite opposition could jeopardize the extensive U.S. military cooperation with Bahrain, the March-May government crackdown has not prompted the Obama Administration to called for a change of the Al Khalifa regime, but the Administration has criticized the use of violence by the government."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-17
-
Persian Gulf: Issues for U.S. Policy, 2003 [Updated February 3, 2003]
The Persian Gulf region, rich in oil and gas resources but with a history of armed conflict that has necessitated occasional U.S. military action, remains crucial to United States interests. This report discusses U.S. efforts to manage both longstanding Gulf security interests as well the new challenges highlighted by the September 11 attacks on the United States and the U.S. insistence that Iraq end all its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The report is derived from a wide range of sources, including press reports, unclassified U.S. government documents, U.N. documents, observations by the author during visits to the Gulf, and conversations with U.S, European, Iranian, and Gulf state officials, journalists and academics. For further reading, see CRS Issue Brief IB92117, Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy; CRS Issue Brief IB93033, Iran: Current Developments and U.S. Policy; and CRS Issue Brief IB93113, Saudi Arabia: Post-War Issues and U.S. Relations.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2003-02-03
-
Iran: Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction Suppliers [Updated January 3, 2003]
Successive U.S. administrations since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution have viewed Iran as a potential threat to U.S. allies and forces in the Persian Gulf and in the broader Middle East and have sought to limit its strategic capabilities. Iran's moderates appear to see regional threats to Iran as do Iran's hardliners and have made no apparent effort to curb Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even if moderate leaders had sought to do so, they have been largely outmaneuvered on defense and other issues by hardliners who still control the armed forces, internal security services, the judiciary, and key decision-making bodies. In the past, Iran has generally lacked the indigenous skills to manufacture sophisticated conventional arms or independently develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and one of Iran's objectives over the past decade has been to obtain the technology and skills to become self-sufficient. Iran has come a long way toward that objective in certain areas, including ballistic missiles and chemical weapons, but in the aggregate, Iran remains reliant on foreign suppliers. This dependence has given the United States some opportunity to work with potential suppliers to contain Iran's WMD capabilities.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2003-01-03
-
Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights [May 18, 2011]
"Iraq's political system is increasingly characterized by peaceful competition and formation of cross-sectarian alliances. However, ethnic and sectarian political and sometimes violent infighting continues, often involving the questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions. This infighting--and the belief that holding political power may mean the difference between life and death for the various political communities--significantly delayed agreement on a new government that was to be selected following the March 7, 2010, national elections for the Council of Representatives (COR, parliament). With U.S. diplomatic help, on November 10, 2010, major ethnic and sectarian factions agreed on a framework for a new government, breaking the long deadlock. The agreement, under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is serving a second term, was implemented when a broad-based cabinet was confirmed on December 21, 2010."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-18
-
Kuwait: Security, Reform, and U.S. Policy [May 19, 2011]
"Kuwait was pivotal to two decades of U.S. efforts to reduce a threat posed by Iraq. After U.S. forces liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invading forces in February 1991, Kuwait was the central location from which the United States contained Saddam during 1991-2003, and it hosted the bulk of the U.S.-led force that invaded Iraq in March 2003 to remove Saddam from power. It is the key route through which U.S. troops have been withdrawing from Iraq during 2009-2011. Kuwait's relations with the current government of Iraq are hampered, in part, by issues not fully resolved from the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, although a January 12, 2011, visit by the Kuwaiti prime minister appeared to represent a major, at least symbolic, breakthrough. With the strategic threat from Iraq sharply reduced, Kuwait is cooperating with U.S.-led efforts to contain Iranian power in the Gulf. At the same time, like the other Gulf monarchy states, Kuwait seeks to maintain normal economic and political relations with Iran so as not to provoke Iran or cause it to increase its support to pro-Iranian movements in Kuwait."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-19
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [June 3, 2011]
"Stated U.S. policy is to ensure that Afghanistan will not again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. Following three policy reviews on Afghanistan, the latest in December 2010, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a well-resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan leadership that will begin in July 2011 and be completed by the end of 2014. To carry out U.S. policy, a total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two 2009 reviews, bringing U.S. troop numbers to their current level of about 99,000, with partner forces adding about 42,000. Under current plans, the transition to Afghan security leadership will start with seven areas announced by President Hamid Karzai on March 22. This transition is to be accompanied by a drawdown of U.S. forces, with the specific size and scope of the drawdown reportedly to be announced later in June 2011. Amid widespread doubts that Afghan governance and security institutions will be strong enough to protect themselves by that time, U.S. officials say that the U.S. intent is for a long term relationship with Afghanistan that might include U.S. military involvement long after 2014. The start of the transition coincides with a senior personnel transition under way, announced April 28; top U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commander General Petraeus has been named CIA Director; Lt. Gen. John Allen has been named his replacement; and Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been named to replace Karl Eikenberry as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-06-03
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [November 29, 2010]
"The Obama Administration views Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. Particularly in its first year, the Obama Administration altered the previous U.S. approach by offering Iran's leaders an alternative vision of closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent, the Obama Administration downplayed discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities and repeatedly insisted that it did not seek to change Iran's regime. It held to this position even at the height of the protests by the domestic opposition 'Green movement' that emerged following Iran's June 12, 2009, presidential election. Iran's refusal to accept the details of an October 1, 2009, tentative agreement on nuclear issues caused the Administration to shift toward building multilateral support for additional economic sanctions against Iran. The Administration efforts bore fruit throughout the summer of 2010 with the adoption of new sanctions by the U.N. Security Council (Resolution 1929), as well as related 'national measures' by the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other countries. Additional measures designed to compel foreign firms to exit the Iranian market were contained in U.S. legislation passed in June 2010 (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, P.L. 111-195). Still, the Administration and its partners assert that these sanctions are intended to pave the way for successful diplomacy with Iran to limit its nuclear program. Iran has tentatively accepted December 5, 2010, and Geneva, as a date and venue for continued talks on its nuclear program as well as regional security issues that Iran demands to discuss."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-11-29
-
Iraq: Politics, Elections, and Benchmarks [February 7, 2011]
"Iraq's political system is increasingly characterized by peaceful competition and formation of cross-sectarian alliances, although ethnic and sectarian infighting continues, sometimes involving the questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions. This infighting--and the belief that holding political power may mean the difference between life and death for the various political communities--significantly delayed agreement on a new government that was to be selected following the March 7, 2010, national elections for the Council of Representatives (COR, parliament). With U.S. intervention, on November 10, 2010, major ethnic and sectarian factions agreed on a framework for a new government, breaking the long deadlock. Their agreement, under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would serve another term, was implemented in the presentation by him of a broad-based cabinet on December 21, 2010, in advance of a December 25 constitutional deadline. The participation of all major factions in the new government, while stabilizing politically, could complicate efforts to pass key outstanding legislation crucial to attracting foreign investment, such as national hydrocarbon laws. However, there may be early indications that the new government is acting on long stalled initiatives, including year long tensions over Kurdish exports of oil."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-02-07
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [November 19, 2010]
"Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a well resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership beginning in July 2011. The pace of that transition is to be determined by conditions on the ground, as determined by a formal DOD and a White House review of the Afghanistan situation in December 2010. The policy is intended to ensure that Afghanistan will not again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. At the same time, the Administration is attempting to counter the perception in the region, particularly among Pakistan, India, the Afghan insurgency, and within the Afghan political establishment that U.S. involvement will be sharply reduced after July 2011. That perception may, among other consequences, be inflaming the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India, in this case to deny each other influence in Afghanistan. As of November 2010, the Administration is stressing that a transition to Afghan leadership would not likely be completed until 2014, with only gradual handover to the Afghans prior to then. The November 19-20, 2010, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit meeting in Lisbon is to map out the transition to Afghan lead and presumably convince partner countries to remain deployed until at least that time."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-11-19
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [December 22, 2010]
"The Obama Administration views Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. Particularly in its first year, the Obama Administration altered the previous U.S. approach by offering Iran's leaders consistent and sustained engagement with the potential for closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent and respect for Iran's history and stature in the region, the Obama Administration downplayed discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities and repeatedly insisted that it did not seek to change Iran's regime. It held to this position even at the height of the protests by the domestic opposition 'Green movement' that emerged following Iran's June 12, 2009, presidential election. [...] There is broad agreement that the U.S., U.N. [United Nations], and other sanctions enacted since mid-2010 are pressing Iran economically. However, because the sanctions have not and might not cause Iran to fundamentally alter its commitment to its nuclear program, some are pressing the Administration not to de-emphasize military action as a means of setting Iran's nuclear program back. The Administration has stepped up arms sales and engagement with regional states that might be helpful to contain Iranian power, were Iran's nuclear program to advance dramatically. Some believe that only a victory by the domestic opposition in Iran, which in late 2009 appeared to pose a potentially serious challenge to the regime's grip on power, can permanently reduce the multiplicity of threats posed by Iran's regime. Congressional resolutions and legislation since mid-2009 show growing congressional support for steps to enhance the opposition's prospects, or, at the very least, to sharply increase international criticism of Iran's human rights practices. However, Obama Administration officials say they believe that the opposition's prospects are enhanced by a muting of U.S. public support for the opposition."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-12-22
-
Middle East: Selected Key Issues and Options for the 112th Congress [January 3, 2011]
"The Middle East, broadly defined as an area stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan, presents an array of challenges to U.S. foreign policy. Although the United States maintains strong relations with several key Arab and non-Arab states such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, other state and non-state actors, such as Iran, the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Palestinian Sunni group Hamas, are aligned against U.S. interests. The United States and its regional and international allies continue to work to limit the influence of these actors while advocating for economic and political reform to address ongoing socioeconomic challenges and to promote democracy and a greater respect for human rights in the region. Members of the 112th Congress may face any number of issues in or relating to the Middle East including the war in Afghanistan, terrorism, foreign assistance, democracy promotion, and ongoing effects of the global financial crisis. This report provides an overview of key issues, a summary of past congressional action on these issues, and options for congressional consideration during the 112th Congress. Key issues include: Iran Sanctions; Preserving Israel's Qualitative Military Edge; Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process; U.S. Aid to the Palestinians; Saudi Arabia: Arms Sales and Security Cooperation; Yemen; Iraq: Defining Post-2011 Relations; Turkey; U.S. Policy Toward Syria; U.S. Support for Lebanon; U.S. Democracy Promotion in Egypt; [and] Islam, Al Qaeda, and U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy This report also contains a section, Appendix A, with links to relevant Congressional Research Service reports, along with analyst contact information."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth; Blanchard, Christopher M.; Addis, Casey L.
2011-01-03
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [September 22, 2010]
"The Obama Administration views Iran as a major threat to U.S. national security interests, a perception is generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. [...] During July-September 2010, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other countries announced multilateral sanctions against Iran that use much of the authorities of Resolution 1929, and which also supports elements of U.S. legislations passed in June 2010 (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, P.L. 11-195). [...] Many observers assess that the U.S., U.N., and other 'national' sanctions enacted since mid-2010 are pressing Iran economically. However, because the sanctions have not and might not cause Iran to fundamentally alter its commitment to its nuclear program, the Administration reportedly has revived deliberations of possible military action to try to set Iran's nuclear program back. Other options include methods to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear armed power. Some believe that only domestic opposition in Iran, which in late 2009 appeared to pose a potentially serious challenge to the regime's grip on power, may provide a clear opportunity to reduce the potential threat of a nuclear Iran."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-09-22
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [August 17, 2010]
"Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a fully resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy that should pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership beginning in July 2011. The policy is predicated on the view that stabilizing Afghanistan will ensure that it cannot again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States, and that accomplishing this objective requires reversing a deterioration of security in large parts of Afghanistan since 2006. Each of the two reviews resulted in a decision to add combat troops, with the intent of creating the conditions to expand Afghan governance and economic development. A total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two reviews, which will bring U.S. troop levels to approximately 104,000 by September 2010, with partner forces holding at about 40,000. At the same time, the Administration is attempting to counter the perception in the region, particularly among Pakistan, India, the Afghan insurgency, and within the Afghan political establishment that U.S. involvement will be sharply reduced after July 2011. That perception may, among other consequences, be inflaming the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India, in this case to deny each other influence in Afghanistan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-08-17
-
Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses [August 20, 2010]
"The Obama Administration has adopted the long-standing assessment of Iran as a 'profound threat to U.S. national security interests.' This threat perception is generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. In its first year, the Obama Administration altered the previous U.S. approach by expanding direct diplomatic engagement with Iran's government and by offering Iran's leaders an alternative vision of closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent, the Obama Administration downplayed discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities and repeatedly insisted that it did not seek to change Iran's regime. It held to this position even at the height of the protests by the domestic opposition 'Green movement' that emerged following Iran's June 12, 2009, presidential election."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-08-20
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [December 29, 2010]
"Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, and another completed in December 2010, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a well resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership to begin in July 2011 and be completed by the end of 2014. [...] The December 2010 review took into account the effect of the addition of U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, intended to create security conditions to expand Afghan governance and economic development. A total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two reviews, which has brought U.S. troop levels to about 98,000 as of September 4, 2010, with partner forces holding at about 41,000. [...] As reflected in the overview of the Administration review, released December 16, 2010, the top U.S./NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organzation] commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, and his associates believe that insurgent momentum has been blunted, although gains remain 'fragile and reversible.' [...] Many assess that President Hamid Karzai's refusal to forcefully confront governmental corruption has caused a loss of Afghan support for his government, while others note that strong economic growth and economic development are additional causes for optimism. In order to try to achieve a strategic breakthrough that might force key insurgent leaders to negotiate a early political settlement, General Petraeus is attempting to accelerate local security solutions and experiments similar to those he pursued earlier in Iraq, and to step up the use of air strikes and special forces operations against Taliban commanders. In order to take advantage of an apparent new willingness by some insurgent commanders to negotiate, Karzai has named a broad-based 70-member High Peace Council to oversee negotiations. However, there are major concerns among Afghanistan's minorities and among its women that reconciliation could lead to compromises that erode the freedoms Afghans have enjoyed since 2001."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-12-29
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [September 17, 2010]
"Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a fully resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership beginning in July 2011. The pace of that transition is to be determined by conditions on the ground. The policy is predicated on the view that stabilizing Afghanistan will ensure that it cannot again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. In order to reverse a deterioration of security in large parts of Afghanistan since 2006, each of the two reviews resulted in a decision to add combat troops, with the intent of creating the conditions to expand Afghan governance and economic development. A total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two reviews, which has brought U.S. troop levels to about 104,000 as of September 4, 2010, with partner forces holding at about 40,000. At the same time, the Administration is attempting to counter the perception in the region, particularly among Pakistan, India, the Afghan insurgency, and within the Afghan political establishment that U.S. involvement will be sharply reduced after July 2011. That perception may, among other consequences, be inflaming the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India, in this case to deny each other influence in Afghanistan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-09-17
-
Oman: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy [May 27, 2011]
"Oman is located along the Arabian Sea, on the southern approaches to the Strait of Hormuz, across from Iran. Except for a brief period of Persian rule, Omanis have remained independent since expelling the Portuguese in 1650. The Al Said monarchy began in 1744, extending Omani influence into Zanzibar and other parts of east Africa until 1861. A long-term rebellion led by the Imam of Oman, leader of the Ibadhi sect (neither Sunni or Shiite and widely considered 'moderate conservative') ended in 1959; Oman's population is 75% Ibadhi. Sultan Qaboos bin Sa'id Al Said, born in November 1940, is the eighth in the line of the monarchy; he became Sultan in July 1970 when, with British support, he forced his father to abdicate. The United States signed a treaty of friendship with Oman in 1833, one of the first of its kind with an Arab state. (This treaty was replaced by the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights signed at Salalah on December 20, 1958.) Oman sent an official envoy to the United States in 1840. A U.S. consulate was maintained in Muscat during 1880-1915, a U.S. embassy was opened in 1972, and the first resident U.S. Ambassador arrived in July 1974. Oman opened its embassy in Washington in 1973. Sultan Qaboos was accorded a formal state visit in April 1983 by President Reagan. He had previously had a U.S. state visit in 1974. President Clinton visited briefly in March 2000."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2011-05-11
-
Kurds in Post-Saddam Iraq [October 1, 2010]
"The major territorial, financial, and political issues between the Kurds and the central government do not appear close to resolution. Tensions increased after Kurdish representation in two key mixed provinces was reduced by the January 31, 2009, provincial elections. The disputes nearly erupted into all-out violence between Kurdish militias and central government forces in mid- 2009, and the Kurds continue not to recognize the authority of the Sunni Arab governor of Nineveh Province in Kurdish-inhabited areas of the province. The low-level clashes in 2009 caused the U.S. military to propose new U.S. deployments designed to build confidence between Kurdish and government forces; joint U.S.-Iraqi-Kurdish militia patrols began in January 2010. The Kurds also perceive that their role as 'kingmakers' in Iraq's central government - their ability to throw their parliamentary votes toward one side or another -- was reduced by the March 7, 2010 elections which saw the seats held by the major Kurdish factions lowered from previous levels. The Kurds' political clout in Baghdad is further reduced by the political ferment in the Kurdish region itself. The Kurdish region voted for president and for members of the Kurdistan National Assembly on July 25, 2009. The results, in which an opposition list won almost 25% of the vote, have threatened the previously iron grip on the politics and economy of the region exercised by the two main factions--the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The two main factions competed as a joint list in the March 7, 2010, national elections for the next full-term government. However, the Kurdish opposition competed separately and won several seats on its own--parliamentary votes which the opposition might not necessarily place at the disposal of the mainstream Kurdish leaders for the purpose of bargaining with Iraq's Arabs. For more on Iraq, see CRS Report RL31339, 'Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security', by Kenneth Katzman."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-10-01
-
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy [September 29, 2010]
"After experiencing serious unrest during the late 1990s, Bahrain undertook several steps to enhance the inclusion of the Shiite majority in governance. However, the Sunni-led government's efforts to maintain its tight grip on power have stirred new unrest among Bahraini Shiites in advance of October 23, 2010, parliamentary elections. That election, no matter the outcome, would not produce a new executive, but achievement of a Shiite majority in the elected lower house could give the opposition greater authority with which to challenge the ruling Al Khalifa family. In advance of the elections, the government has launched a wave of arrests intended to try to discredit some of the hardline Shiite leadership as fomenters of violence and tools of Iran. The crackdown has perhaps contributed to increasing Shiite popular protests in advance of the elections. [...] Bahrain has few external security options other than relying on some degree of U.S. security guarantee. Bahrain has tried to earn that guarantee by hosting U.S. naval headquarters for the Gulf for over 60 years and by providing facilities and small numbers of personnel for U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has designated Bahrain as a 'major non-NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] ally,' and it provides small amounts of security assistance to Bahrain. On other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli dispute, Bahrain has tended to defer to Saudi Arabia or other powers to take the lead in formulating proposals or representing the position of the Persian Gulf states, collectively. These areas of strong U.S.-Bahrain cooperation have caused some public criticism of successive U.S. Administrations, including by some in Congress, for muting criticism of Bahrain's human rights record in the interests of ensuring Bahrain's cooperation on security issues. In September 2004, the United States and Bahrain signed a free trade agreement (FTA); legislation implementing it was signed January 11, 2006 (P.L. 109-169)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-09-29
-
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy [July 22, 2010]
"Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a fully resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy that will pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership beginning in July 2011. The policy is predicated on the view that stabilizing Afghanistan will ensure that it cannot again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States, and that accomplishing this objective requires reversing a deterioration of security in large parts of Afghanistan since 2006. Each of the two reviews resulted in a decision to add combat troops, with the intent of creating the conditions to expand Afghan governance and economic development, rather than on defeating insurgents. A total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two reviews, which will bring U.S. troop levels to approximately 104,000 by September 2010. Currently, U.S. troops in Afghanistan total about 95,000 and foreign partners are about 40,000."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2010-07-21
