“Dual Containment” Policy in the Persian Gulf


Book Description

This book offers a concise account of US "dual containment" policy towards Iran and Iraq during the 1990s, an overlooked era between the tumult of the liberation of Kuwait and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In particular, it uses a theoretical framework derived from neoclassical realism to examine the impact of domestic US politics and interest groups on policymaking, as well as perceptions of threat derived from two decades of mutual hostility between the US and Iran.




Dual Containment: US Policy in the Persian Gulf and a Recommendation for the Future


Book Description

This paper is a critical analysis of the US foreign policy toward Iran and Iraq known as dual containment. The objective of dual containment is to isolate these regimes politically, economically, and militarily. This paper evaluates recent American policy directed toward the region in order to place the policy of dual containment in perspective. The paper contains a review of the policy of dual containment itself by examining the writings of the authors of the policy. The debate that has surrounded the policy of dual containment is summarized. In conclusion, the paper offers three possible policy options for the future, provides some predictions of the near term future for the region, and closes with a policy recommendation. The paper concludes that dual containment is a sustainable policy for the region. In the long term, however, it is argued that the interest of the United States would be better served if a policy of incremental engagement toward Iran and Iraq was initiated. This policy option should begin with economic engagement leading eventually to restoring diplomatic relations. For this to become a reality, the regimes in Iran and Iraq need to demonstrate the desire and ability to accept the standards of behavior as established by the community of nations.




Dual Containment in the Persian Gulf


Book Description

This thesis is a critical analysis of US foreign policy toward Iran and Iraq known as a policy of dual containment. The objective of dual containment is to isolate these regimes politically, economically and militarily. This thesis evaluates American conduct in the region for the last 50 years, in order to show how previous strategies culminated in the present policy. It discusses both the merits and problems inherent in dual containment, as well as the impact of this policy on its two intended recipients. In closing, the thesis offers possible policy options, including an analysis of their specific advantages and disadvantages. The findings of this research conclude that dual containment is a sustainable policy in the near term and ensures that US vital national interests in the region are not challenged. In the long term, however, it is argued that America needs to initiate a policy of incremental engagement toward both Iran and Iraq. This strategy should begin with economic ties leading eventually to diplomatic relations. Nevertheless, both regimes need to demonstrate the desire and ability to accept the standards of behavior as established by the community of nations.













The US Policy of Dual Containment Toward Iran and Iraq in Theory and Practice


Book Description

The policy of dual containment has been adopted by the Clinton administration as a method whereby the nations of Iran and Iraq may be simultaneously prevented from embarking upon actions deemed counter to the interests of the international community in general, and the United States in particular. This is a departure from policies of previous administrations which had sought a balance of power between the two nations in order to contain whichever nation seemed to present the greatest threat at the time. The ability of the United States to embark on a strategy of containing these two states at once, is a result of the new world order in which America finds itself as the sole remaining superpower, able to work its will with a degree of impunity heretofore unknown. The problem to be considered here is whether this strategy is indeed appropriate and whether it will achieve the desired outcomes with respect to US security strategy. This paper analyzes the position of the Clinton administration in light of current and historic US interests in the Persian Gulf region. It examines the opinions of various strategists and academicians regarding the policy of dual containment in order to determine if this policy can be an effective one. The conclusion of this research is that a linkage of US policy between the two nations of Iran and Iraq is inappropriate. While the state of Iraq must be contained to prevent its aggressive activities, diplomatic methods should be applied to Iran in the hope of engendering a renewed relationship.




The United States and the Persian Gulf: Reshaping Security Strategy for the Post-Containment Era


Book Description

Significant changes lie ahead for U.S. security strategy in the Persian Gulf after almost a decade of stasis. In the decade between the Gulf War and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the strategy of dual containment of Iraq and Iran was a key driver of American military planning and force posture for the region. During these years, the overriding U.S. concern was preserving access to Gulf oil at reasonable prices; both Iran and Iraq possessed only a limited ability to project power and influence beyond their borders; the Persian Gulf states acquiesced to a significant U.S. military presence on their soil despite the domestic costs; and the United States was reasonably successful, at least until the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000, in insulating its relationships with key Gulf states from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the end of the Clinton administration, it seemed safe to assume that the regional security environment would continue to evolve more or less on its present trajectory and that the challenge confronting the United States was how to manage U.S. forward presence for the long haul under increasingly stressful conditions. This premise is no longer valid. The strategy of dual containment, which is just barely alive, will expire in one way or another in all likelihood because the United States decides to end Saddam Husayn's rule. American success in engineering a regime change in Baghdad will require a substantial increase in U.S. forward deployed forces followed by a multinational occupation of Iraq that is likely to include a significant U.S. military component. At the same time, even if regime change does not occur in Iraq, other factors are likely to put pressure on the United States over the next decade to alter the shape of its military posture toward the region. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implications of these political, strategic, security, and military factors for U.S. military presence and force posture, defense and security relationships, and force planning for the region. Specifically, the chapters that follow seek to frame the issues, options, and tradeoffs facing U.S. defense planners by focusing on the following questions: To what extent does the emerging security environment-that is, the changing nature of U.S. interests and threats to those interests- require changes in the size and composition of forward deployed forces, peacetime engagement activities, military operations, and force protection? Does the United States need to reconfigure its security and military relationships with regional friends and allies to take account of their changing security perceptions and policies? Are there trends in the strategic environment that are likely to generate new demands and requirements for the Armed Forces? How can the United States reconcile the call in the Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 for greater flexibility in the global allocation of U.S. defense capabilities with the harsh reality that, for the foreseeable future, forward defense of the Persian Gulf will remain dependent on substantial reinforcements from the United States? The main conclusion of this study is that, with or without regime change in Iraq, the United States will need to make significant adjustments in its military posture toward the region.




U.S. Policy in the Persian Gulf


Book Description




Explaining Foreign Policy


Book Description

Scholars of international relations tend to prefer one model or another in explaining the foreign policy behavior of governments. Steve Yetiv, however, advocates an approach that applies five familiar models: rational actor, cognitive, domestic politics, groupthink, and bureaucratic politics. Drawing on the widest set of primary sources and interviews with key actors to date, he applies each of these models to the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis and to the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Probing the strengths and shortcomings of each model in explaining how and why the United States decided to proceed with the Persian Gulf War, he shows that all models (with the exception of the government politics model) contribute in some way to our understanding of the event. No one model provides the best explanation, but when all five are used, a fuller and more complete understanding emerges. In the case of the Gulf War, Yetiv demonstrates the limits of models that presume rational decision-making as well as the crucial importance of using various perspectives. Drawing partly on the Gulf War case, he also develops innovative theories about when groupthink can actually produce a positive outcome and about the conditions under which government politics will likely be avoided. He shows that the best explanations for government behavior ultimately integrate empirical insights yielded from both international and domestic theory, which scholars have often seen as analytically separate. With its use of the Persian Gulf crisis as a teachable case study and coverage of the more recent Iraq war, Explaining Foreign Policy will be of interest to students and scholars of foreign policy, international relations, and related fields.