The United States Of The National Security Strategy

The foundation of the U.S. National Security Policy is on the Goldwater-Nichols Act. 1947, signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan after the World War II, encouraging a restructure of the military through the National Security Act of 1947. The Department of War and the Department of Navy was unified into the National Military Establishment (NME), then renamed to Department of Defense with the purpose to have Army, Navy and Air Force into a unified structure. President Truman signed the National Security Act Amendment of 1949 in reflection to strategic changes to the Cold War facts. This paper explores the book review, performed by Robert B. McCalla and Melvin A. Goodman, of Richard J. Stoll’s “U.S. National Security Policy and the Soviet

Evaluate both the Bush Doctrine and the emerging National Security Strategy that is replacing it.

“Strong and sustained American leadership is essential to a rules-based international order that promotes global security and prosperity as well as the dignity and human rights of all peoples.” This statement from the most recent U.S. National Security Strategy indicates that the White House administration acknowledges the current international order is shaped constitutionally, or is “rule-based.” Globalization has made states and individuals increasingly interdependent and interconnected. Globalization is an “umbrella term” used to describe the interconnectedness, integration, and transcontinental interdependence of people and states; it occurs on several dimensions: economic, political, security, and social/cultural. Constructivism best explains how globalization spreads cultural norms, values, and interests resulting in constitutional orders between states that “evolve over time through interaction between agents and social structures.” As such, the international order will change through state collaboration in institutions and organizations, economic interdependence between states, and the sharing of cultural norms particularly through the advancing platform of technology.

Abstract: The theoretical and qualitative research findings discussed in this paper support the claim that the cases of Aldrich Ames and Edward Snowden led to monumental changes in U.S. national security and foreign policy. The effects of these cases extend beyond domestic change and have instigated international repercussions in both intelligence practices and diplomatic relations between the United States and multiple countries. Moreover, research acquired from journals, academic books, congressional documents, and scholarly articles will be used to strengthen the argument that the ramifications of whistleblowing and espionage in the Information Age have heightened the potential for damage to U.S. foreign relations and national security.

The U.S. should prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a bomb as it would pose a specific security threat to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which are important strategic allies of the U.S. The ultimate goals of U.S. policies towards Iran are to limit Iranian uranium enrichment program, to relieve sanction and to ensure inspections conducted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through new sanctions against and diplomacy with Iran. Liberal institutionalism provides the best approach for dealing with security issues regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran because diplomacy would satisfy both Iranian and U.S and its allies’ interests. This memo explains the assumptions of liberal institutionalism, introduces the Iranian nuclear program background, provides liberal institutionalism diplomatic options, and offers specific strategic options with recommendations.

From the beginning of his presidency, President Obama determined that increasing our strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific Region and rebalance our national power and resources toward this region. This shift from the war footing in Iraq and Afghanistan to an increased peace and stability in East Asia was determined to be in the best national interests of the United States in the 2015 National Security Strategy. This strategic shift would have two major focus areas. First, the United States would focus on peace and stability in East Asia through sustained commitment to our traditional allies; second, we would build a cooperative, constructive relationship with China that addressed our differences. China’s aggressive actions in the East China Sea have tested the viability of this strategy. China declared a zone in this area that included the Senkaku Islands which Japan also claims as its own territory. While the United States has stated that it is a sovereignty dispute and will not take an official position, it stands by our allies in the region directly affected by this action; Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The United States must apply a strategic approach in pursuit our four enduring national interests:

This paper is to serve as an analysis of the country of MONGOLIA using the operational variables of PMESII-PT and its role in the U.S. strategy in the Pacific Command (PACOM). With the the majority of attention being given to a more aggressive China or perhaps violent extremist organizations (VEO’s) in Southeast Asia, it is easy to forget about Mongolia. Although, those threats in Southeast Asia and the growing tensions with China cannot be ignored, it would be foolish of the U.S. to ignore the country of Mongolia. In fact, further developing relations with the Mongolian government could prove to be a huge factor in our success in the region going forward. Given its geopolitical location and unique political and economical

Iran’s clerical regime with a highly complicated government structure is an adversary of the US and its allies in the Middle East. While the historical hostility between the countries, is more than the Iran’s nuclear program, but now the center of debates are Iran’s nuclear program and US-Israel relationship. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has reduced tensions between both countries. But Israel and Saudi Arabia, two allies of the US and adversaries of Iran has opposed the agreement. Iran is till considered a threat to the US national interest and security. The threats can 't be eliminated by only military means, but it requires a comprehensive strategy. It is important to reduce the capability of Iran and change its intention. The best possible way to do this is supporting a gradual political transition of power from an extremist religious leader to the Iranian nation.

Tensions between Iran and other major world powers, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, have been running high ever since the Iranians began investing in nuclear weaponry back in the 1990’s. The global community has attempted to force Iran to stop its production of such weapons with economic sanctions. These sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy but have not stopped the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear proliferation in Iran is not necessarily a threat to US society rather it is a threat to an ideal held by the US and other nations. By having nuclear weapons, Iran has the capability to destroy any nation it chooses. This kind of power paired with the track record of support for past militant groups, has caused Iran to be an issue. The Iran Nuclear Deal will help to solve the issue but has a few faults when outlining exactly how this deal will stay in tact for fifteen years without Iran reneging on its promises.

The ongoing struggle between the Iran and the United States over Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons has led to different ideas and proscriptions to solve the problem. In one particular quote, an unknown speaker advocates that it is in the best interest of the United States and its allies to strike Iran if diplomacy fails, calling this the most prudent option. This controversial idea must be considered not only in its short-term effects, but also in the long-term result. Although it may be tempting to use nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to disarm Iran, it would be far too costly for the U.S. and its allies. For this reason, the quote does not present a practical solution to the problem.

The Obama administration’s choice of approach was justified by looking at three commonly discussed options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program that come to mind. First is the one being perused, i.e. attempting to peacefully reach a long-term deal for containment through economic sanctions, reaching an agreement that is comprehensive and effective in the long term, at minimal risk and costs. Second, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would mean setting back Iran’s nuclear program but not containing future developments, weighted against the risk of starting another war in the Middle East. The current administration argues that this would incentivize them to

A nuclear free Iran is the main objective. This policy transcends partisan divides within the American political system and between international hegemonic rivalries. A nuclear capable Iran is neither an American nor an Israeli problem. Rather, the community of nations must collectively ensure the end of Iran’s pursuit towards a weapon of mass destruction. The consequences of failure are unprecedented. Regional stability will deteriorate, global security will be undermined, and economic interests will be threatened. While there is a consensus on the policy, the road taken and tools used to mitigate the proliferation of a nuclear bomb is not as clear. Unilateral actions by the United States of America are not enough. Even if Western allies implement a strategy together - it is still not enough. The formation of a multilateral coalition is essential if Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb is to be halted. A dual track approach that combines diplomatic negotiations with economic sanctions is the peaceful path required for the policy of a nuclear free Iran to be effective. Military engagement is a tool that remains on the table but should only be used when all other approaches are exhausted.

In recent years, Iranian government has been one of the primary beneficiaries of the political mayhem that shaken the Middle East and North Africa during the “Arab Spring,” which diverted the United States’ focus from the ongoing improvement over Iran’s nuclear program. The dramatic events diverted international attention from Tehran’s stubborn non-cooperative of U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions on the country’s nuclear production. Latest political disorder in the Arab world (mostly in states who opposed Iranian religious regime) has tumbled Egyptian government, and weakened governments in Jordan, Bahrain, and others in the region. Iran’s nuclear weapons program, concealed under its civilian nuclear power program, leads to global and regional nuclear race.

This paper explores long-strained relations between Iran and United States that began decades ago. The paper also examines the events that led to this decades of disagreement between Washington and Tehran. Allies to enemies, that is what happen after series of events such as the CIA backed coup in 1953 to the hostage crises at the U.S Embassy in Tehran. The U.S and many of its allies criticized Iran’s nuclear program which they believed that Iran was using it to develop nuclear weapons. Iran on the other hand denied this accusations and stated that their nuclear program was only for civilian use only. After long talks and crippling sanctions against Iran, finally there was a historic agreement between Iran and six world powers that would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and would lift the sanctions imposed on Iran.

Armageddon in the Middle East. Populations reduced to dust by nuclear war. International actors drawn into tense conflict and potentially world-altering violence. These are the fears held by the U.S. and Israel when considering the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons. However, the attitudes of the Obama administration in discussing potential deals with Iran have demonstrated a change in the U.S. strategy when interacting with an Iranian regime that desires nuclear capability. In recent months, Iran has made global headlines once again by asking for permission to develop and possess nuclear weapons within their state for the purpose of stabilizing the turbulent Middle East. This recent development has sparked a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear power in the Middle East, creating mounting tensions and polarization in American and global politics. The Obama administration aims to stabilize the Middle East by developing a diplomatic deal with Iran. However, the argument of Israel and the conservatives in Congress that Iran’s potential nuclear capability brings much more risk and danger than reward is a much more realistic, pragmatic and appropriate viewpoint given the tensions and instability in the Middle East and the history of Iran’s conflict with Western civilization.