Iran
Selected Research and Commentary
Lessons from Six Decades of Research on Deterrence, From Cold War to Long War — Oct. 30, 2008
The United States' 2006 reversal of its 2002 proclamation that deterrence was irrelevant to most future national security strategies is bolstered by research which shows that deterrence will likely play an ongoing role in U.S. efforts to manage a variety of threats, including both near-peer competitors and terrorist organizations.
Full Document
National Security Research Area
Meeting America's Security Challenges Beyond Iraq — Sep. 18, 2008
In a conference cohosted by RAND and the Center for Naval Analyses Corporation, members of the U.S. defense community discussed approaches to meeting the challenges of a demanding future security environment.
Full DocumentNational Security Research Area
A Nuclear 9/11? — Sep. 11, 2008
Will terrorists go nuclear? It is a question that worried public officials and frightened citizens have been asking for decades. It is no less of a worry today, as we ponder the seventh anniversary of 9/11, writes Brian Michael Jenkins.
Commentary
Testimony on America's Need of a New Grand Strategy, Shift in National Security Policy — Jul. 15, 2008
The unanticipated costs and unpredictable outcomes of the War on Terror necessitate a reevaluation of national security strategy, including a shift away from policies of preemption and democratization and towards nation-building with its consequent need for a rebalancing of political and military power.
Full Document
Related Testimony
Both Sides in Debate Over Iran Fail to See Dangers of Pre-Emptive Strike — Jun. 30, 2008
Opponents of war with Iran who take their stand on the grounds that Washington should talk to Tehran first are in danger of finding themselves trapped within a broadening national consensus that could lead to an unwinnable war, writes James Dobbins.
CommentaryInternational Affairs Research Area
Negotiating with Iran — Nov. 7, 2007
In testimony presented before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, James Dobbins notes that it is time to speak to Iran, unconditionally and comprehensively.
Full DocumentInternational Affairs Research Area
The Quest for Common Grounds in American and Iranian Public Opinion — Oct. 2, 2007
Although the emergent and ever-deepening conflict between Iran and the U.S. is often framed in the rhetoric of "clash of civilizations," a review of data from the World Values Survey found considerable common ground in the values
of the American and Iranian peoples.
Full DocumentInternational Affairs Research Area
Easing U.S.-Iran Tensions — Apr. 19, 2007
Iran's decision to release the 15 British sailors and marines it captured is a victory for common sense on both sides. Now what? Can this victory begin the process of de-escalating tensions and seeking some basis for accommodation, not just between Britain and Iran, but between the United States and Iran as well?, writes Robert Hunter.
Commentary
Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe — Mar. 29, 2007
The United States and Russia appear headed for a new confrontation over American plans to deploy elements of an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, even though key questions about the need for the system remain unanswered, write F. Stephen Larrabee and David E. Mosher
Commentary
Iran's Covert War in Iraq — Mar. 16, 2007
There are four critical differences between the case against Iran today and the WMD estimates involving Iraq in 2003. All these differences combine to build an overwhelming case for the accuracy of the reports about Iranian involvement in Iraq, writes Rick Brennan.
Commentary
My Enemy's Enemy — Feb. 27, 2007
Somehow, the United States has maneuvered itself into a position where most Shiite and most Sunni, most Arabs and most Persians alike seem to regard America as their enemy, writes James Dobbins.
Commentary
A Bad Plan for the Middle East — Jan. 17, 2007
President George W. Bush's most recent address to the American people on Iraq may be the scariest presidential message since Ronald Reagan announced that he had launched a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Reagan was just kidding. Bush is not, writes James Dobbins.
Commentary
Grand Strategy for the Middle East — Nov. 19, 2006
Debate in the United States about the war in Iraq is seemingly about strategy but is really about tactics, as America struggles to control the damage without changing its basic objectives and policies in the Middle East. A strategic reassessment is needed to find a way to deal not just with Iraq, but with the other interrelated problems in the region, writes Robert E. Hunter.
Commentary
What's to Stop Kim Now? — Oct. 17, 2006
International efforts to pressure North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons program could increase the chances of one of America's worst nightmares coming true — North Korean sales of nuclear weapons and technology to Iran, terrorist groups and other nations, writes Bruce Bennett.
Commentary
Terror War Uncertainties — Oct. 06, 2006
The only certainty over the next five years is that events now unpredictable will profoundly affect the trajectory of the Global War on Terror.
Nonetheless, we can attempt to look beyond the headlines and discern some long-range trends that can give us some idea about what the state of this unconventional war will be on Sept. 11, 2011, writes Brian Michael Jenkins.
Commentary
Lebanon's Sectarian Aftershocks — Aug. 08, 2006
In the volatile Middle East, America's efforts to build friendships have often created new enemies. Many of the divided religious and ethnic factions living in the region view any U.S. move to support one group as a hostile act toward that group's opponents, write Fred Wehrey and Dalia Dassa Kaye.
Commentary
Protecting U.S. Interests In the Middle East — July 19, 2006
With fighting raging in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, American interests are under immediate threat across much of the greater Middle East. Each day requires U.S. officials to make new tactical decisions to deal with rapidly changing developments, writes Robert E. Hunter.
Commentary
Asian Countries Divided About U.S. Security Intentions in Central Asia — Jun. 30, 2006
Several Asian states are key to Central Asia's security and economic environment, and their actions will also affect U.S. interests in the region. Although some of these states fear the U.S. military presence in the region, others appreciate its strong role in promoting stability.
Full DocumentResearch Brief
The Middle East's Changing Strategic Environment — Jun. 15, 2006
A conference held jointly by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy examined the changing strategic environment of the Middle East, with emphasis on the situation in Iraq; Iran's nuclear program; and strategies for countering Islamic terrorism.
Full Document
How Iraq's Neighbours Can Steer It Away From Destruction — Jun. 07, 2006
It is time to hold a peace conference on Iraq. Only a regional solution can end the continued fighting that threatens to spill over into neighbouring states, writes David Aaron.
Commentary
Averting War with Iran — May 2, 2006
As the Bush administration wrestles with how to respond to Iran's latest challenge, it would do well to reflect on the lessons of its military invasion in Iraq. The toppling of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lead to a democratic Iraq that would ignite the fires of democracy throughout the Greater Middle East. Instead, regime change in Iraq has sparked regional turmoil and set off a chain reaction of unintended consequences, write F. Stephen Larrabee and Peter A. Wilson.
Commentary
Time To Talk With Iran — Apr. 26, 2006
American and Iranian leaders are talking a great deal about each other — when they should be devoting far more attention to talking to each other. Both sides are throwing sharp verbal punches with increasing frequency, amid news reports of a possible U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and continued efforts by Iran's leaders to advance their nation's nuclear capability, writes Rober E. Hunter.
Commentary
Striking Iran Is an Option, Not Inevitable — Apr. 11, 2006
Recent reports that the United States and Israeli militaries are weighing a possible strike against Iranian nuclear facilities have raised the stakes in Iran's effort to build a nuclear program. But a US or Israeli attack on Iran would be extremely destabilizing and counterproductive to America's war on terrorism, writes Seth G. Jones.
Commentary
Dialogue Can Stop Iran at the Nuclear Threshold — Apr. 4, 2006
After weeks of wrangling, the US has finally obtained a presidential statement from the United Nations Security Council calling on Iran to honour its International Atomic Energy Agency obligations. In a typically defiant note, Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, dismissed the message as "an abuse of international mechanisms". Far from resolving the Iranian nuclear threat, the debate in New York underscored the fragility of the international coalition and the strength of Iranian determination to proceed with its programme, write James Dobbins and Ray Takeyh.
Commentary
Defusing the Iranian Crisis — Mar. 9, 2006
Iran's decision to resume efforts to enrich uranium that could be used to produce nuclear weapons in defiance of international pressure to curb its nuclear program represents a significant escalation of the crisis between that nation and the international community. It has also raised the prospect that the United States or Israeli military might launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities if Iran continues its intransigence, writes F. Stephen Larrabee.
Commentary
The Threat of Oil Jihad — Mar. 3, 2006
The Feb. 24 unsuccessful terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia on the world's largest oil processing facility was intended to bring jihad to the wallets of consumers around the world, writes Brian Michael Jenkins.
Commentary
A Strategy for Iran — Feb. 10, 2006
The United States needs a regional strategy to respond to the growing threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Economic sanctions, military force and pressure for internal reform are not guaranteed to stop Iran from joining the nuclear club, nor will promoting democracy across the region. Instead, America needs a vision of how Iran might be co-opted into a new system of Middle East security, particularly in light of the instability that will be created by the eventual reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq, writes Dalia Dassa Kaye.
Commentary
Bush Needs Allies Near Iraq, However Unsavoury — Nov. 1, 2005
To stabilise Bosnia, the Clinton administration had to deal with Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman, the two men personally responsible for the genocide Washington was trying to stop. To put together a successor regime to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Bush administration had to deal with the regional states that had been tearing that country apart for 20 years, including Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran. The time has come for a similarly inclusive effort on Iraq, writes James Dobbins.
Commentary
Terror in Historical Context — Oct. 28, 2005
President George W. Bush asserts that fighting in Iraq is a necessary correction to the responses by the Carter, Reagan, and Clinton administrations to earlier terrorist challenges. "To leave Iraq now," the president argues, "would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 … the terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us." However, this "mistakes of the past" thesis ignores the historical context and differing circumstances of previous decisions, writes Brian Michael Jenkins.
Commentary
Contrary to Some Journalistic Snap Judgments, the Iraqi Elections Were Not a Victory for a Theocracy Controlled by Iran — Feb. 20, 2005
The final results of the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections were certified Thursday and contained no surprises — the Shiite slate of parties won a large plurality of the votes, with the Kurds making a strong showing, writes Terrence K. Kelly.
Commentary
In Iran, the U.S. Can't Stay on the Sidelines — Dec. 02, 2004
When is the United States going to do something about the Iranian nuclear program? For several years the U.S. government has stood by while Iran has moved ever closer to the point where it could, if it chose, quickly develop and deploy atomic weapons. Throughout this period Washington has neither offered new American concessions nor threatened new American sanctions, writes James Dobbins.
Commentary
Nuclear Accord Could Open Door To Re-engagement With Tehran — Nov. 19, 2004
On Monday, Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear-enrichment program. In return, England, France and Germany agreed not to support taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council, as the United States has been seeking. Will the European gamble with Tehran pay off? The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding, writes Robert Hunter.
Commentary
Talk It Out on Iran Before It's Too Late
— Aug. 27, 2004
The Bush administration is considering what to do about Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. One alternative includes military action, whether directed against Iranian nuclear facilities or more broadly. This may not come to pass. But because the possibility of military conflict with Iran is on the table, it is vital to have the kind of public debate - now - that we did not have before the Iraq war, writes Robert E. Hunter.
Commentary
Engage, Don't Isolate, Iran
— June 27, 2004
There are increased concerns that Iran is determined to cross the so-called nuclear threshold. There remains the question of what do about it. Finding the answer needs to begin with some hard analysis, not just hand wringing and foreboding about the potential need for a military riposte against Iran, writes Robert Hunter.
Commentary
Time to Deal With Iran
There is no good reason not to be talking to those in Iran who seek to democratically reform their own theocracy and have no desire to see one emerge in Iraq, writes James Dobbins.
Commentary (May 6, 2004)
Middle East in the Shadow of Afghanistan and Iraq
Summarizes the main issues and points of discussion at a 2003 conference in Geneva that examined the impact of the Iraq war on the security of the Middle East: the impact of Iraq on the war on terrorism; the future of Iran and Iraq, repercussions of the war on Syria, the Levant, Turkey, Jordan, and the Arabian peninsula; and the effect of the war on transatlantic ties.
Full
Document (2003)
Iran's Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary Era
Sheds light on the broad drivers of Iran's security policy and reviews Iran's relations with key countries, including the United States.
Full
Document (2001)
Trends, Threats, and Opportunities for the Persian Gulf
Examines challenges to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf, key uncertainties and trends, and the implications of those trends. The United States should focus less on the conventional military threat and more on the risk of weapons of mass destruction and possible instability or domestic unrest.
Full Document (2002)
Iran: Limits to Rapprochement
Statement by Jerrold Green before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.
Congressional Testimony (PDF) (1999)
Iran and Gulf Security
Argues that Gulf security can be achieved only through the collective involvement of the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran, and Iraq—therefore, it is important to avoid polarized viewpoints when trying to understand Iranian foreign policy.
Read Description (1998)
Engaging Iran: A U.S. Strategy
Argues that the U.S. policy that sought to influence Iran with penalties but without incentives has failed, suggesting that engagement is a two-way process that requires patience. Originally published in Survival.
Read Description (1998)
Terrorism and Politics in Iran
Reprint of an article originally published in Terrorism in Context.
Read Description (1995)
Top
RAND® is a registered trademark. Copyright © 1994-2008 RAND Corporation. Last Modified: December 11, 2007 