This book shows that the revolutionary guard has resisted professionalization on the key aspect of war decision making. It explains how the Guard was able to resist ideological dilution despite its need to adopt a rationalized and complex organizational structure.

This book shows that the revolutionary guard has resisted professionalization on the key aspect of war decision making. It explains how the Guard was able to resist ideological dilution despite its need to adopt a rationalized and complex organizational structure.

Upon and since taking office, the Obama Administration has faced a deteriorating security environment in Afghanistan, including an expanding militant presence in some areas, increasing numbers of civilian and military deaths, growing disillusionment with corruption in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the infiltration of Taliban and other militants from safe havens in Pakistan. The Obama Administration conducted a strategic review, the results of which were announced on March 27, 2009, in advance of an April 3-4, 2009, NATO summit. This review built upon assessments completed in the latter days of the Bush Administration, which produced decisions to plan a build-up of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In part because of the many different causes of continued instability in Afghanistan, there reportedly were differences within the Obama Administration on a new strategy. Apparently leaning toward those in the Administration who do not believe that more combat troops will reverse U.S. difficulties, the new strategy focuses not on adding U.S. troopsalthough at least 21,000 are being added in 2009. It emphasizes instead non-military steps such as increasing the resources devoted to economic development, building Afghan governance primarily at the local level, reforming the Afghan government, expanding and reforming the Afghan ...

The Obama Administration and several of its partner countries are seeking to reduce U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan while continuing to build Afghan governing and security capacity to defend the country by the end of 2014. To secure longer term U.S. gains, on May 1, 2012, President Obama signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that will likely keep some (perhaps 15,000-20,000) U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 as advisors and trainers. Until then, the United States and its partners will continue to transfer overall security responsibility to Afghan security forces, with Afghan forces to assume the lead nationwide by mid-2013. As lead responsibility shifts, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, which peaked at about 100,000 in June 2011, has been reduced to the "pre-surge" level of 68,000 as of September 20, 2012. President Obama has said that "reductions will continue at a steady pace" from then until the completion of the transition to Afghan lead at the end of 2014. However, the transition process has been hampered somewhat by a pattern of attacks by Afghan forces on their coalition mentors and trainers. In keeping with the Strategic Partnership Agreement, on July 7, 2012 (one day in advance of a major donors' conference on Afghanistan in Tokyo) the United States named Afghanistan a "Major Non-NATO Ally," further assuring Afghanistan of longterm U.S. support.

The UAE's relatively open borders and economy have won praise from advocates of expanded freedoms in the Middle East while producing financial excesses, social ills such as prostitution and human trafficking, and relatively lax controls on sensitive technologies acquired from the West. The social and economic freedoms do not necessarily translate into rapid political opening; the UAE government remain authoritarian, even as it allows informal citizen participation and traditional consensus-building. Members of the elite (the ruling families of the seven emirates and clans allied with them) routinely make national decisions unilaterally, obtain favored treatment in court cases, and are favored for lucrative business opportunities. However, economic wealth has allowed the UAE to largely, although not entirely, avoid the popular unrest and demands for political change that have erupted elsewhere in the Middle East in 2011.

After extensive sectarian conflict during 2006-2008, Iraq's political system is characterized by relatively peaceful political competition and formation of cross-sectarian alliances. However, the dominant factions have, by several accounts, often exercised questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions to arrest or intimidate their opponents. This infighting is based on the belief of many factions that holding political power may mean the difference between poverty and prosperity, or even life and death. The schisms significantly delayed agreement on a new government 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 finally agreed on a framework for a new government under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is serving a second term.

The UAE's relatively open borders and economy have won praise from advocates of expanded freedoms in the Middle East while producing financial excesses, social ills such as human trafficking, and opportunity for Iranian businesses based there to try to circumvent international sanctions. The social and economic freedoms have not translated into significant political change; the UAE government remains under the control of a small circle of leaders, although it allows informal and some formal citizen participation to supplement traditional methods of consensusbuilding. To date, these mechanisms, economic wealth, and reverence for established leaders have enabled the UAE to avoid wide-scale popular unrest. Since 2006, the government has increased formal popular participation in governance through a public selection process for half the membership of its consultative body, the Federal National Council (FNC). But, particularly since the Arab uprisings of 2011-12, discontent has risen somewhat over the unchallenged power and privileges of the UAE ruling elite as well as the government strategy of spending large amounts of funds on elaborate projects that cater to expatriates and international tourists. The leadership has resisted any dramatic or rapid further opening of the political process, and it is becoming increasingly aggressive in preventing the rise of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist as well as secular opposition movements. The crackdown is drawing increased criticism from human rights groups.

The principal objective of international sanctions-to compel Iran to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses-has not been achieved to date. However, a broad international coalition has imposed progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran's oil export lifeline, producing increasingly severe effects on Iran's economy.

Developing effective Afghan justice sector institutions is considered by many observers to be essential in winning the support of the Afghan population, improving the Afghan government's credibility and legitimacy, and reducing support for insurgent factions. Such sentiments are reinforced in the face of growing awareness of the pervasiveness of Afghan corruption. To this end, establishing the rule of law (ROL) in Afghanistan has become a priority in U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and an issue of interest to Congress. Numerous U.S. programs to promote ROL are in various stages of implementation and receive ongoing funding and oversight from Congress.

The UAE's relatively open borders and economy have won praise from advocates of expanded freedoms in the Middle East while producing financial excesses, social ills such as human trafficking, and relatively lax controls on sensitive technologies acquired from the West. Moreover, the social and economic freedoms have not translated into significant political opening; the UAE government remains under the control of a small circle of leaders, even as it allows informal citizen participation and traditional consensus-building. Members of the elite (the ruling families of the seven emirates and clans allied with them) also routinely obtain favored treatment in court cases and lucrative business opportunities. However, economic wealth- coupled with some government moves against political activists-have enabled the UAE to avoid widescale popular unrest that have erupted elsewhere in the Middle East since early 2011. Political reform has been limited, both before and since the Arab uprisings began in the region. Lacking popular pressure for elections, the UAE long refrained from following other Gulf states' institution of electoral processes. It altered that position in December 2006 when it instituted a selection process for half the membership of its consultative body, the Federal National Council (FNC). Possibly to try to ward off the unrest sweeping the region, the government significantly expanded the electorate for the September 24, 2011, FNC election process. However, turnout was only about 25%, suggesting that the clamor for democracy in UAE remains limited or that the citizenry perceived the election as unlikely to produce change. And, the government has not announced a major expansion of the FNC's powers, which many intellectuals and activists seek.

There is broad international support for imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran to try to compel it to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. During 2011, there was broad agreement among experts that sanctions had not hurt Iran's economy enough for the Iranian leadership to feel pressured to accommodate core Western goals on Iran's nuclear program. As 2012 begins, Iran is indicating it sees new multilateral sanctions against its oil exports as a severe threat, to the point of Iran possibly threatening armed conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran also has indicated receptivity to new nuclear talks in the hopes of reversing the oil export-related sanctions being implemented. The energy sector provides nearly 70% of Iran's government revenues. Iran's alarm stems from the potential loss of oil sales as a result of: (1)A decision by the European Union on January 23, 2012, to wind down purchases of Iranian crude oil by July 1, 2012. EU countries buy about 20% of Iran's oil exports. This action took into consideration an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's possible efforts to design a nuclear explosive device, and diplomatic and financial rifts with Britain, which caused the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran on November 30, 2011. (2) Decisions by other Iranian oil purchasers, such as Japan, South Korea, India, and China, to reduce purchases of Iranian oil. Those decisions are intended to comply with a provision of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81, signed December 31, 2011) that prevents the opening of U.S. accounts by foreign banks that conduct transactions with Iran's Central Bank-unless the parent country reduces substantially its purchases of Iranian oil. (3) The willingness of other oil producers with spare capacity, particularly Saudi Arabia, a strategic rival, to sell additional oil to countries cutting Iranian oil buys. Even before these latest sanctions, the signs of economic pressure that sanctions are placing on Iran were multiplying. Iranian leaders have admitted that Iran is virtually cut off from the international banking system. The announced pullouts from Iran by major international firms have accelerated since early 2010, slowing Iran's efforts to modernize its energy sector and other sectors as foreign firms take with them irreplaceable expertise. Partly as a result, Iran's oil production has remained relatively steady at about 4.1 million barrels per day, defying Iranian efforts to increase production. Iran has small amounts of natural gas exports; it had none at all before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. Even before the United States and several other countries moved to cut off Iran's Central Bank in late 2011, several countries, particularly India, had delayed billions of dollars in oil payments for Iran because payments mechanisms had been disrupted by sanctions. However, Iran's overall ability to limit the effects of sanctions has been aided by relatively high oil prices-prices that tend to increase as Iran threatens conflict in the Persian Gulf region. The United States and its partners are attempting to implement the 2012 sanctions so as not to raise world oil prices any further.

After extensive sectarian conflict during 2006-2008, but with U.S. troops still present, Iraq's political system evolved into relatively peaceful political competition and formation of crosssectarian alliances. However, the dominant factions have, by several accounts, often exercised questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions to arrest or intimidate their opponents. This infighting is based on the belief of many factions that holding political power may mean the difference between poverty and prosperity, or even life and death. The schisms significantly delayed agreement on a new government 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 finally agreed on a framework for a new government under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is serving a second term. As the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011 approached, relations among major factions frayed, and worsened substantially after the last U.S. troops left Iraq on December 18, 2011. Sunni Arabs, always fearful that Maliki sought unchallenged power for Shiite factions allied with him, accused him of an outright power grab as he sought to purge the two highest ranking Sunni Arabs from government (a deputy President and deputy Prime Minister). The Sunnis have sought to enlist the help of the Kurds to curb Maliki's perceived ambitions; the Kurds also distrust Maliki over territorial, political, and economic issues. The apparent unraveling of the political consensus has created conditions under which the insurgency that hampered U.S. policy during 2004-2008 continues to conduct occasional high casualty attacks, including over a dozen near-simultaneous bombings on December 22. The open break within Iraq's government in December 2011 has called into question many of the assumptions that justified a full U.S. withdrawal - a withdrawal that was announced by President Obama on October 21, 2011 when Iraqi factions refused to grant legal immunity to any U.S. forces after the end of 2011. That date had been specified as a final withdrawal date under the November 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement, but U.S. negotiations with Iraq during 2011 sought to extend the agreement to allow for the presence of 3,000 - 5,000 U.S. forces after that time. Despite the lingering doubts, when the decision to withdrawal all U.S. troops was announced, Administration and Iraqi leaders asserted that Iraq's governing and security maintenance capacity is sufficient to continue to build democracy, enact long delayed national oil laws, and undertake other measures without a major U.S. military presence. Iraq's security forces number over 650,000 members, increasingly well armed and well trained - enough to justify selling Iraq such sophisticated equipment as U.S. F-16 aircraft. Some movement on national oil laws had occurred since August 2011. The assertions have sought to rebut outside criticism that Iraq's factions lacked focus on governance, or on improving key services, such as electricity. The view of the Administration and others is that Iraqi factions, with U.S. and other help, will be able to work through the severe political disputes and ongoing violence, and will also be willing and able to resist increased Iranian influence in Iraq. The Administration states that U.S. training will continue using programs for Iraq similar to those with other countries in which there is no U.S. troop presence, and about 15,000 U.S. personnel, including contractors, remain in Iraq under State Department authority to exert U.S. influence. Continuing the security relationship in the absence of U.S. troops in Iraq, and developing the civilian bilateral relationship, was the focus of the U.S. visit of Prime Minister Maliki on December 12, 2011.