Regional Security Issues Latest Statements, Briefings, and Hearings

Here are more links relevant to Regional Security Issues, including congressional hearings, testimonies, and policy briefs:

Live at State: Foreign Policy Priorities for 2012
Interview with Jake Sullivan, Director of Policy Planning, U.S. Dept of State, January 24, 2012  

At the same time that we’re supporting the Jordanian effort, and the Secretary had the opportunity just in the past week to engage with King Abdallah of Jordan and thank him for his efforts as well as the efforts of Foreign Minister Judeh, we are also trying to work with the Palestinian Authority, with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyed to help with their effort to build the institutions of a future Palestinian state, to respond directly to the economic aspirations of the Palestinian people by providing economic opportunity, by providing the chance to grow an economy that can thrive over time and by deepening security cooperation so that every Palestinian citizen can live in peace and security. Read more...      

Successful Conclusion of the Seventh Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention     
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman, December 23, 2011

The final document adopted a program for what we call the intercessional period, the next five years before the next review conference, that will focus on three major topics: first, strengthening implementation of the convention, that is, the implementation legally and practically by each of the states party; second, a regular and systematic review of scientific and technological developments in the life sciences relevant to the convention; and third, continuing to build capacity to deal with disease outbreaks, including capacity building in bio-safety, bio-security, disease surveillance, preparedness, and response. Read more...  
White House fact sheet    

From Telegraph to Twitter: Arms Control Diplomacy in the Information Age  
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, January 17, 2012   

Now, how are we applying 21st Century Statecraft to arms control? In my Bureau – the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, we are incorporating new technologies and methods to our tasks. If you haven't checked out my Twitter stream, please do so! But beyond such day-to-day business, I've have seen the information revolution work first hand, while we were negotiating the New START Treaty.
Read more...

Opening Statement at the Conference on Disarmament 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, in Geneva, January 24, 2012  

Regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United States is proud of the progress made towards a world free of chemical weapons. We continue to make steady progress in destroying our chemical weapons. By April of this year, we anticipate we will have destroyed 90% of our stockpile. The remaining 10% will be destroyed while assigning highest priority to ensuring the safety of people, protecting the environment, and complying with national standards for safety and emissions, as called for in the Convention. Read more...    

To Walk the Earth in Safety: Tenth Annual Report Showcases U.S. Global Leadership in Landmine Clearance and Conventional Weapons Destruction
U.S. Dept of State, December 19, 2011   

Our annual report details the United States’ Conventional Weapons Destruction (CWD) Program, a collaborative effort by the Department of State, Department of Defense, United States Agency for International Development, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Department of

Health and Human Services. These agencies strive to help countries recover from conflict and create safe, secure environments to rebuild infrastructure, return displaced citizens to their homes and livelihoods, and establish situations conducive to stability, nonviolence, and democracy.
Read full report
Media note

Countering Violent Extremism 
Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Dept of State, at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA), January 25, 2012  

In other words, we, the international community have become so adept at tactical counterterrorism that we haven’t focused sufficiently on the need to defeat terrorists at the strategic level. That means we have to undercut ideological and rhetorical underpinnings that make the violent extremist worldview attractive to some individuals and groups while also addressing local grievances and other factors.
Read more...    

Space Security – an American Perspective
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frank A. Rose, in Herzliya, Israel, January 29, 2012      

Each of us here at this conference has a different interpretation of what “space security” means that stems principally from our respective country’s national interests and the contributions that space systems make to our security, economy, and daily lives. Based on the U.S. National Space Policy and other Presidential guidance, as well as our obligations under international law, we in the United States associate “space security” with the pursuit of those activities that ensure the sustainability, stability, safety, and free access to, and use of, outer space in support of the vital interests of all nations. This is reinforced by several other related principles in the U.S. National Space Policy.
Read more... 

Defense Budget Priorities and Choices, January 2012
U.S. Department of Defense, January 27, 2012

Spending priorities in the forthcoming fiscal 2013 defense budget request call for reductions in the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps, an increase in special operations forces and maintaining the number of big-deck carriers, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.
The Pentagon’s budget topline request is set at $525 billion for fiscal 2013 with an additional $88.4 billion for overseas contingency operations -- mostly in Afghanistan. This is down from $531 billion and $115 billion, respectively, in this fiscal year.
Link to full text of report    (PDF; 1.4 MB)
Link to Defense Budget Fact Sheet (PDF; 172.28 MB)

Counter-IED Strategic Plan 2012-2016
Joint IED Defeat Organization, January 27, 2012 15:59

As we continue to address the improvised explosive device threats of today, we must simultaneously prepare for tomorrow’s counter-IED and counter-threat network effort by institutionalizing the knowledge, capabilities, and experience we have amassed during the last decade. Building upon hard-earned lessons learned, this Counter-IED Strategic Plan extends the focus beyond current operations and establishes an azimuth for the development of future and enduring counter-IED capabilities.
Link to full report    (PDF; 8.39 MB)

The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment.
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. December 28, 2011.

The (NSC) was established by statute in 1947 to create an interdepartmental body to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security. Currently, statutory members of the Council are the President, Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and, since 2007, the Secretary of Energy; but, at the President's request, other senior officials participate in NSC deliberations. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are statutory advisers.
Read more...   [PDF format, 40 pages, 448.89 KB].  

U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems
Congressional Research Service, 3 January 2012

Congressional considerations include the proper pace, scope, and management of DOD UAS procurement; appropriate investment priorities for UAS versus manned aircraft; UAS future roles and applications; legal issues arising from the use of UAS; issues of operational control and data management; personnel issues; industrial base issues; and technology proliferation.
Read more... 

The Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the Future of Middle East Security  
W. Andrew Terrill. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, December 2011

Saudi Arabia and Iran have often behaved as serious rivals for influence in the Middle East and especially the Gulf area since at least Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. While both nations define themselves as Islamic, the differences between their foreign policies could hardly be more dramatic. In most respects, Saudi Arabia is a regional status quo power, while Iran often seeks revolutionary change throughout the Gulf area and the wider Middle East with varying degrees of intensity. Saudi Arabia also has strong ties with Western nations, while Iran views the United States as its most dangerous enemy.
Read more...  (95 pages)

Israel and Iran: A Dangerous Rivalry.
RAND Corporation. Dalia Dassa Kaye et al. January 5, 2011.

Israel and Iran have come to view each other as direct regional rivals. The two countries are not natural rivals; they have shared geopolitical interests, which led to years of cooperation both before and after the 1979 Islamic revolution. But their rivalry has intensified recently, particularly with the rise of fundamentalist leaders in Iran and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran posing grave strategic and ideological challenges to Israel, according to the report. 
Read the PDF format  [118 pages, 0.6 MB].

Using Social Media to Gauge Iranian Public Opinion and Mood After the 2009 Election.
RAND Corporation. Sara Beth Elson et al. January 17, 2012.

In the months after the contested Iranian presidential election in June 2009, Iranians spoke out about the election using Twitter, a social media service that allows users to send short text messages, called tweets, with relative anonymity. The research analyzed more than 2.5 million tweets discussing the Iran election that were sent in the nine months following it, drawing insights into Iranian public and mood in the post-election period.
PDF format  [108 pages, 0.8 MB].

Israeli Mistakes Against Hybrid Adversaries Serve as Cautionary Tale for U.S. Military
Source: RAND Corporation

A review of recent Israeli military conflicts indicates the United States may be ill-prepared for “hybrid” warfare against state-sponsored adversaries who have a modicum of training and small force numbers, but possess advanced weapons and enough expertise to challenge the U.S. military, according to a RAND Corporation report issued today.
Read more... 

US and Iranian Strategic Competition In Sanctions, Energy, Arms Control, and Arms Transfers
Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 24, 2012

Tightening sanctions and Iran’s reactions have become a race against time. Every day brings a new event as the competition between the US and Iran plays out on a global level.  The Burke Chair at CSIS is issuing a new report that puts this competition in a broader perspective,  as part of its on-going series on US and Iranian strategic competition.
The report provides an in depth analysis of the ways that the US and Iran compete in four interrelated areas—sanctions, energy, arms control, and regime change. This competition has been steadily escalating since November 2011, when a new IAEA report and an alleged assassination plot spurred a renewed round of sanctions from the US and its allies.
Read more... 

The FY2013 Defense Budget Submission: Strategy is Easy (and Usually Vacuous); Money is Hard (And Only Meaningful if Used Wisely)
Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 23, 2012

A new report by the Burke Chair summarizes the new strategy, to the extent that it contains any meaningful details. It notes, however, that the current debate over defense spending has become decoupled from the far more serious issue of the impact of rising entitlement costs on the budget and US economy, and that much of the current debate over defense spending borders on the absurd because it assumes that plans for spending and cuts can be predicted and controlled over a ten year period. It also shows in detail that many of the most serious problems in shaping defense spending are the result of past failures to control costs and shape procurement and force plans, and not the result of US strategy.
Summary
Full text 

 Updated: January 31, 2012.