Rogue States And Nuclear Outlaws

In this incisive examination of our national security policy, Michael Klare suggests that the Pentagon in effect established a new class of enemies when the Cold War came to an -unpredictable and hostile states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Klare argues that the containment of these rising Third World powers-Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea, especially-became the centerpiece of American military policy and the justification for near-Cold War levels of military sping.

Explores U.S. foreign policy with regard to nations such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, uncovering the reasons why these countries are so menacing to the United States.

This book investigates whether so-called rogue states – assumed antagonists of a Western-liberal world order – could also act as norm entrepreneurs by championing the genesis and evolution of global norms. The author explores this issue by analyzing the arms control policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. A comparison with the prototypical norm entrepreneur Sweden and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea – a notorious norm-breaker – reveals interesting insights for norm research: Apparently, norm entrepreneurship manifests itself in different degrees and phases of the norm life cycle. The finding that Iran indeed acts as a norm entrepreneur in some cases also sheds light on those factors that might account for the success or failure of norm advocacy. Lastly, the book offers a new perspective on “rogue states”, by not only regarding them as irrational antagonists of the current world order, but also as legitimate participants in a discourse on what the ruling order should look like. This book will appeal to scholars interested in critical norm research in international relations. “This book offers cutting-edge norm research, highlighting how norm-breakers can function as norm-makers." Maria Rost Rublee, Associate Professor of International Relations, Monash University (Australia) “So-called ‘rogue states’ are typically understood as norm breakers, but Carmen Wunderlich makes a persuasive conceptual case backed by empirical research that we need to consider the extent to which they are in fact norm entrepreneurs in their own right. In an era characterized by much concern over the status of liberal norms, this is a very timely study.” Richard Price, Department of Political Science, The University of British Columbia (Canada) "At a time when the world order is under pressure, this cutting-edge analysis of how dissatisfied states challenge existing global norms illuminates a topic crucial to understanding contemporary international relations." Nina Tannenwald, Director, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University (Rhode Island USA)

"Using Power and Diplomacy to Deal with Rogue States" is one essay in the "Essays in Public Policy" series of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. The essay was written by Thomas H. Henriksen and was published in February 1999. Henriksen asserts that the United States should use its powers to confront "rogue" governments that are dedicated to disrupting regional stability.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union served as the predictable adversary of the US government. Now that the Cold War has ended, a threat which matches the scope of the USSR is no longer believed to exist, but still smaller countries continue to torment US leaders. The governments of these countries are considered the outlaws of the international system, whether due to their support for terrorism or their interest in nuclear weapons. In this work, Raymond Tanter explores US foreign policy with regard to nations such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, uncovering the reasons why these countries are so menacing to the United States. In addition, Tanter examines US policy toward governments in Cuba and North Korea, which continue to promote their own forms of communism.

This book investigates what is driving Iran's nuclear weapons programme in a less-hostile regional environment, using a theory of protracted conflicts to explicate proliferation. Iran’s nuclear weapons program has alarmed the international community since the 1990s, but has come to the forefront of international security concerns since 2000. This book argues that Iran’s hostility with the United States remains the major causal factor for its proliferation activities. With the US administration pursuing aggressive foreign policies towards Iran since 2000, the latter’s security threat intensified. A society that is split on many important domestic issues remained united on the issue of nuclear weapons acquisition after the US war in Iraq. Consequently, Iran became determined in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons and boldly announced its decision to enrich uranium, leaving the US in no doubt about its nuclear status. This book underscores the importance of protracted conflicts in proliferation decisions, and underpinning this is the assumption that non-proliferation may be achieved through the termination of intractable conflicts. The aims of this work are to demonstrate that a state’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons depends largely on its engagement in protracted conflicts, which shows not only that the presence of nuclear rivals intensifies the nuclear ambition, but also that non-nuclear status of rival states can promote non-proliferation incentives in conflicting states inclined to proliferate. This study will be of great interest to students of Iran, Middle Eastern politics, nuclear proliferation and international relations theory. Saira Khan is a Research Associate in the McGill-University of Montreal Joint Research Group in International Security (REGIS).

President Clinton and other U.S. officials have warned that "rogue states" pose a major threat to international peace in the post-Cold War era. But what exactly is a rogue state? Does the concept foster a sound approach to foreign policy, or is it, in the end, no more than a counterproductive political epithet? Robert Litwak traces the origins and development of rogue state policy and then assesses its efficacy through detailed case studies of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He shows that the policy is politically selective, inhibits the ability of U.S. policymakers to adapt to changed conditions, and has been rejected by the United States' major allies. Litwak concludes that by lumping and demonizing a disparate group of countries, the rogue state approach obscures understanding and distorts policymaking. In place of a generic and constricting strategy, he argues for the development of "differentiated" strategies of containment, tailored to the particular circumstances within individual states.