Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
#ExpertSpotlight: Who is Julian Assange?
In the ever-evolving landscape of digital information and cybersecurity, Julian Assange stands as a central figure, symbolizing the complex intersection of transparency, secrecy, and journalism in the modern world. This topic is not only newsworthy because of Assange’s controversial role in founding WikiLeaks and exposing classified information, but also due to the profound implications his actions have had on national security, international relations, and the ethics of journalism. Furthermore, Assange's ongoing legal battles and the broader debates they spark about freedom of speech, whistleblower protections, and government accountability are crucial for understanding the dynamics of information control in contemporary society. The story of Julian Assange offers multiple angles of interest, including: The Genesis of WikiLeaks: Exploring the foundation and mission of WikiLeaks, and how it has changed the landscape of journalism and whistleblowing. Major Leaks and Their Impact: Analyzing significant leaks published by WikiLeaks, such as the Iraq War Logs and the diplomatic cables, and their impact on global politics and public opinion. Legal Battles and Extradition: Investigating Assange’s legal challenges, including the charges against him, the extradition process, and the implications for international law and human rights. Freedom of Speech vs. National Security: Examining the debates surrounding Assange's actions, balancing the right to information with concerns over national security and the protection of sensitive information. Role of Journalism in the Digital Age: Discussing the ethical considerations and responsibilities of journalists and media organizations in handling leaked information. Assange’s Personal Journey: Delving into Assange’s personal life, his motivations, and the psychological and physical toll of his prolonged legal and diplomatic battles. The life and actions of Julian Assange provide journalists with a wealth of storylines that illuminate the complex and often contentious relationship between transparency, security, and the right to know in the digital age. Connect with an Expert about Julian Assange : Keith Werhan Professor Emeritus · Tulane University School of Law Samantha Bradshaw Doctor of Philosophy Candidate · Oxford Internet Institute Michael Moreland, JD, PhD University Professor of Law and Religion; Director, Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy | Charles Widger School of Law · Villanova University Craig Albert, PhD Professor of Political Science and Graduate Director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies · Augusta University Michael S. Rogers Senior Advisor, Washington, D.C. · Brunswick Group Robert Anderson National Security Consultant & Intelligence Analyst · Altadena Group To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Markus Spiske
UCI scholars discuss how 9/11 changed America
In recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S., we asked UCI scholars a single question: How did 9/11 change America? They responded according to their expertise – which ranges from collective trauma, media, air travel, foreign relations, false narratives, political divisiveness, and the war on terror. Contact Tom Vasich at 949-285-6455, tmvasich@uci.edu, to arrange interviews. Roxane Cohen Silver, Distinguished Professor of psychological science, public health and medicine E. Alison Holman, professor of nursing Topic: Media and collective trauma Quote: “The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – which hijacked our television screens that Tuesday morning as people who sought to do us harm hijacked four airplanes – captured people’s attention throughout the days and weeks that followed. It also ushered in 24/7 media attention to what has become known as a “collective trauma,” transmitting the horrible events of that day throughout the country and, indeed, throughout the world in a matter of seconds. …The 9/11 attacks were tragic for American residents, but they also taught us that the media can broadcast distress alongside the news it’s covering.” Jan K. Brueckner, Distinguished Professor of economics Topic: Air travel Quote: “In response to the revenue shock of 9/11 and to new competition from low-cost carriers, the major airlines behaved conservatively in adding back capacity as traffic returned, so that the carriers eventually offered fewer seats to an ultimately larger number of passengers, leading to fuller flights and today’s less comfortable flying experience. Even though 9/11 is long past, the airline industry continues to operate in a climate of fear of terrorism from the air.” Erin Lockwood, assistant professor of political science Topic: U.S. foreign policy Quote: “The attacks – and the U.S. response – set in motion decades of war, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias and violence, and a willingness to sacrifice military and civilian lives and civil liberties for the perception of security. As we mark the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this month, it’s all too apparent that many of those trends continue to reverberate today.” David Kaye, clinical professor of law Topic: National security Quote: “Despite my hopes for something better that might emerge, the attacks reinforced a cult of national security that the United States transformed into the torture of terrorism suspects, drone warfare, the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay’s indefinite detentions, anti-Muslim discrimination at home and the emergence of the contemporary surveillance state. … The predominance of national security as an ideology and apologia remains among the most significant legacies of that day, a feature of American political life that continues to constrain creativity and a return to normalcy in American law and policy.” Matthew Beckmann, associate professor of political science Topic: War on terror Quote: “To understand the legacy of 9/11 is to define the legacy of George W. Bush. For after the deadliest terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in our nation’s history, American citizens and lawmakers gave President Bush broad support and broader authority to wage the “war on terror” as he saw fit. … Twenty years after the attacks, having seen those lofty aspirations dashed in Afghanistan and Iraq, disregarded in Guantanamo Bay and black site prisons, and discounted even by our staunchest allies, the biggest legacy of Sept. 11 for the United States is that the “shining city on a hill” has less luster and a shorter reach.” David Theo Goldberg, professor of comparative literature Topic: Rise of false narratives Quote: “The events of 9/11 lent themselves to make-believe. The smoke hadn’t yet cleared when conspiracies began to abound, from “weapons of mass destruction” to “the deep state.” That the Trump administration adopted this as its own playbook while insisting on “draining the swamp” required cooking the rules. … Fabrication had become the rule book of the game. Invention and inventedness, disruption and innovation fueled the movement. The “truth” was, well, oh so yesterday.”
This Saturday marks the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack. It was a day that forever changed how the United States viewed terrorism and its approach to foreign policy. The Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, has seen upheaval in the wake of 9/11. Over the last two decades, America’s approach to how it deals with enemies and how it collaborates with allies has also been drastically altered. University of Mary Washington Political Science and International Affairs Professor Jason Davidson is an expert in American foreign and security policy, and international security. He is also the author of the commissioned study, "The Costs of War to United States Allies Since 9/11," which focuses extensively on the human and monetary sacrifices made by America's allies in these conflicts. Davidson, and the document, made waves this spring, landing in the likes of Forbes, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. If you’re looking to arrange an interview with Dr. Davidson, simply click on his icon.
UCI experts can discuss unfolding crisis in Afghanistan
UCI faculty members Dr. Heidi Hardt, associate professor of political science, and Dr. Mark LeVine, professor of modern middle eastern history, are available to speak about the crisis in Afghanistan. Dr. Heidi Hardt Dr. Hardt can talk about NATO's contribution to Afghanistan, implications for NATO's legitimacy, security concerns for Afghan women and provide broader context on military interventions and operations. She can address more specific questions related to the two decades long allied operation. About Dr. Hardt: Dr. Hardt has expertise in transatlantic security, national security and European security and defense, including NATO, the EU and OSCE. Issue areas include transatlantic security cooperation, collective defense, crisis management, military operations (e.g. Afghanistan), coalition warfare, strategy, learning, adaptation, organizational change, gender and diplomacy. She's the author of two books: NATO's Lessons in Crisis: Institutional Memory in International Organizations (Oxford UP, 2018) and Time to React: The Efficiency of International Organizations in Crisis Response (Oxford UP, 2014). She's the recipient of a 2021-2022 Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship and will soon be working as a foreign policy fellow for the Office of Congresswoman Katie Porter. Contact: hhardt@uci.edu Dr. Mark LeVine Dr. Levine was in Kabul in 2019. His point of view on Afghanistan includes: • “Why did the US abandon the embassy when the agreement with the Taliban specifically allowed to diplomatic staff to remain in Afghanistan and there was no imminent threat by the Taliban to the embassy and in fact the US was coordinating with them. They could have certainly kept the lights on and not looked like cowards running, which set the tone for everything else.” • “It seems pretty clear that there was an internal military coup. The Taliban did not just waltz into Kabul without coordination with senior military people who are already handing over parts of the country to them in the days before. Some kind of deal had been worked out behind the scenes and without the knowledge of the president, which is why he felt he had no choice but to flee.” About Dr. LeVine: Dr. LeVine completed his Ph.D at NYU’s Dept. of Middle Eastern Studies in 1999, after which he held postdoctoral positions at Cornell University's Society for the Humanities and the European University Institute's Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, in Florence, Italy before coming to UCI. His research and teaching focus on the following issues: histories, theologies and political and cultural economies of the Middle East and Islam in the modern and contemporary periods; Palestine/Israel; cultural production, revolution and resistance in the Middle East and Africa; modern and contemporary Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco; art and conflict in West Africa (especially Ghana and Nigeria, but also Senegal, Mali and Kenya); comparative studies of imperialism and colonialism, urban planning and architecture (history and theory); critical theory and globalization studies with a comparative focus on popular cultures and religion in Europe and the Muslim world; peace and conflict studies; and comparative nationalisms. Contact: mlevine@uci.edu
At the age of 88, American political giant and two-time former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is dead. Donald Rumsfeld, the two-time defense secretary and one-time presidential candidate whose reputation as a skilled bureaucrat and visionary of a modern U.S. military was unraveled by the long and costly Iraq war, died Tuesday. He was 88. In a statement Wednesday, Rumsfeld’s family said he “was surrounded by family in his beloved Taos, New Mexico.” President George W. Bush, under whom Rumsfeld served as Pentagon chief, hailed his “steady service as a wartime secretary of defense — a duty he carried out with strength, skill, and honor.” Regarded by former colleagues as equally smart and combative, patriotic and politically cunning, Rumsfeld had a storied career in government under four presidents and nearly a quarter century in corporate America. June 30 - Associated Press If you're a journalist looking to know more about Rumsfeld's legacy and impact on American foreign policy, then let our expert help. Professor of Political Science and International Affairs Jason Davidson is an expert in American foreign and security policy, and international security. His study, The Costs of War to United States Allies Since 9/11, recently received an onslaught of media attention, landing in Forbes, The Guardian and Daily Mail. If you’re looking to arrange an interview with Dr. Davidson, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
New CBS Sitcom "United States of Al" Taps Experience of Social Work Student and Veteran
On April 1, 2021, CBS premiered United States of Al - a new comedy from producer Chuck Lorre (Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory) about a Marine combat veteran struggling to readjust to civilian life and the interpreter who served with his unit in Afghanistan and has just arrived to start a new life in America. The show explores the relationship between these two men and how they help each other adjust to their new lives. So, what does a CBS sitcom have to do with the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work? Enter Master of Social Work (MSW) student Josh Emerson, who landed in the right place at the right time through his field internship at No One Left Behind. No One Left Behind (NOLB) is an all-volunteer, national nonprofit organization that supports recipients of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIVs), and those pursuing an SIV. The founders of No One Left Behind believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to protect these interpreters, and their families, who served side-by-side with American soldiers. Emerson, a veteran of the U.S. Army who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, is very familiar with Iraqi and Afghan interpreters. “I went on missions with these interpreters, got to know them, built relationships with them,” he said. “I was so very happy to be able to work with them in this capacity. In addition to providing resources for SIV ambassadors living in the United States, NOLB advocates on behalf of the SIV population to the executive and legislative branches of government provides subject matter expertise to the media, and partners with U.S. businesses to provide opportunities for what they call “this next generation of Americans.” Alea Nadeem, MSW ’15, is a board member of NOLB and reached out to USC with a field internship opportunity for social workers to do macro-level clinical work in a nonprofit setting. Nadeem became Emerson’s field instructor. “What Josh has brought to No One Left Behind has never been brought to the board before,” Nadeem said. “They now see the value in social work.” Bringing the issue to a larger audience Chase Millsap, a consultant and writer on United States of Al, is a former board member of No One Left Behind. “I am still very supportive, impressed and proud of all the work the NOLB team does on a daily basis,” he said. A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army Special Forces, he holds a master’s degree from USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. "USC helped me to learn the tools about how to connect entertainment and policy,” Millsap said. “United States of Al is a perfect example of those two worlds coming together in a powerful (and funny) way.” Millsap’s idea was to bring the issues around SIVs into America's living rooms, in a way that would make them relatable. Emerson’s experience as a veteran, his clinical and project management skills obtained through his social work studies and his stellar ability to work one-on-one with SIV recipients and applicants allowed him to inform the show’s stories with a wide breadth of knowledge. Emerson joined James Miervaldis, chairman of the NOLB board, in helping the writers and actors on the show understand the SIV issues, the ways in which NOLB provides assistance and advocacy, and sharing funny stories of cultural differences between Afghans and Americans. Emerson and Miervaldis have also been able to include some of NOLB’s SIV ambassadors in the process, those with an SIV who have already established themselves in the U.S. and are contracted by NOLB to help others assimilate. “They’re talking to the exact people they're portraying,” Emerson said. Nadeem sees Emerson’s contribution to the show as another platform through which to educate. “There are a lot of different tentacles to social work, and it may not seem like the most obvious place in TV and film, but it is,” she said. The show itself touches on everything social workers value ― service, challenging social injustice, dignity and worth of a person, the importance of human relationships and integrity. “This just makes so much sense that a social worker would be involved in this show because that's what we're always trying to communicate to a larger audience,” Nadeem said. “Through this show, you can make a greater impact for these folks to sort of assimilate them to be American citizens, and then also have the whole world appreciate their culture and appreciate what they've done for our nation to keep U.S. service members safe.” A valued member of the team Emerson, a father of five who resides in New Hampshire, knew he wanted to work with veterans after leaving military service. He felt that an MSW was the most versatile degree for this and chose the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work because of its military social work track. “I think to be a good social worker you need to have experience in life,” Emerson said. “To have seen some things, or been through some things, to understand the population you're dealing with and what they're going through.” When Emerson began his internship at NOLB in 2020, Miervaldis immediately began working with him to focus on SIVs who recently had come to the United States. The first case Miervaldis assigned to Emerson was an SIV family with two young children who needed emergency surgery at a specialty hospital in Washington D.C. “This SIV packed up his family, his pregnant wife and the two kids, used up all his money to take them by bus from Texas to D.C. in the middle of a pandemic and ended up in a bad part of town,” Miervaldis said. As the SIV’s assigned caseworker, Emerson established a relationship and trust with the SIV, helped him obtain safe housing and a job interview, and coordinated details for the children’s surgery with the hospital. “He’s gone and done everything,” Miervaldis said. “We are very proud of Josh’s initiative and empathy for a family in such need. No One Left Behind is the safety net for our allies.” Last year, NOLB helped over 600 families with visas and resettlement. “Josh has exceeded all our expectations and done so while communicating with clients who speak in broken English, Dari and Pashtu, struggling during a pandemic,” Miervaldis said. “His professionalism and empathy are great credits to USC. We would not be where we are today without him. That is not hyperbole.” Miervaldis hopes NOLB will have more social work interns from USC to continue Emerson’s work. For him, Emerson’s project management skills have been the greatest asset, creating a new process for how NOLB provides help for SIV families. “We told Josh, you're a pathfinder, you're a pioneer,” Miervaldis said. “We need to figure out very quickly what works, what doesn't work, and he took it and said, ‘okay, point me in the right direction.’ He’s very much valued as a member of the team.” From advocacy to TV No One Left Behind gets about 20 messages every day from Iraqi or Afghan interpreters who served with U.S. forces in their countries, and who now receive daily death threats from the Taliban. “They're not allowed to live in their homes or their neighborhoods anymore because they helped the U.S.,” Emerson said. “Now the U.S. is withdrawing from all these countries, and the Taliban and terrorist activities in general are picking up, and these people are getting pressured and killed. NOLB has over 300 cases of SIVs who have been killed waiting for their visas.” Emerson hopes that the added exposure from United States of Al will bring awareness particularly to service members about what these interpreters are experiencing and how they can help. One of the requirements for an SIV is a letter of recommendation from the U.S. service member with whom they served, and those have been the most difficult items for SIV applicants to secure. “I have been able to provide some input to what should be addressed in the show,” Emerson said. “It's interesting to see how advocacy on an issue can turn into something this large scale.” See more news from USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck here.
U.S.-Iran Crisis: Outlook and Implications
Executive Summary: The immediate crisis following the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a U.S. airstrike and Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against two U.S. airbases appears to have settled down. However, the conditions for a future flare-up remain in place because the underlying conditions have not changed. Going forward, each side is likely to double down on its stated strategic objective, with Iran pushing for an end to U.S. presence in the region and the U.S. pushing for an end to the Iranian nuclear program. Further, the norms that had previously prevented an open exchange of fire between the two sides have been eroded. Why It Matters: The events of January 3rd and 8th represent the first time since the skirmishes of the “Tanker Wars” of 1987-88 that the military forces of the United States and Iran have directly and openly exchanged fire with each other. For the last three decades, the contest between the two states has been a shadow war of proxy conflicts, plausible deniability, and non-military measures. The American decision to strike Soleimani and the Iranian decision to fire missiles in response removed many of the guardrails that have set limits on previous escalations of tensions. The Iranian decision to renounce cooperation with the 2015 nuclear agreement places back into contention an issue that had previously brought the U.S. and Israel to the point of war with Iran in 2012-13. Business Impact: Markets have been largely taking a wait-and-see approach in order to determine the form of Iranian response to Soleimani’s death, and they responded with relief when President Trump signaled that the U.S. would not retaliate. To an extent, uncertainty in the Middle East had already been priced into the markets due to tensions in the second half of 2019. A significant or prolonged conflict would have an obvious negative impact on energy markets and regional economies. In addition, American and Western companies operating internationally or their employees could suffer collateral damage from any future Iranian proxy attacks against visible symbols of U.S. presence overseas. Looking Forward: In the immediate term, the resolution of the crisis represented one of the best possible outcomes: Iran has publicly signaled that the missile launches conducted on January 8th constituted the extent of their military retaliation to Soleimani’s death and President Trump’s White House address acknowledged Iran’s desire to de-escalate and spoke of finding mutually beneficial outcomes with no further mention of military action. Going forward, both Iran and the United States are likely to double down on their desired strategic outcomes. Iran will seek to use all of the levers of its influence to drive the United States from the region, beginning with Iraq but also including indirect pressure on the Gulf states that host U.S. forces. Offensive cyber operations and deniable proxy attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Gulf could be part of that campaign, returning to tactics observed in the past. For its part, the United States will continue its maximum pressure campaign over the Iranian nuclear program, with President Trump promising additional economic sanctions even as he stepped back from military action. Therefore, although both sides appear to be committed to non-military means, the points of tension that caused the most recent crisis are all still present and have arguably increased based on Iran’s increased non-compliance with JCPOA. It remains to be seen whether coming close to the brink of open conflict will have changed the risk tolerance of either side or whether the first acknowledged exchange of fires between the U.S. and Iran for 32 years will usher in a new period of low-level conflict. The View from Tehran: Iran has played Soleimani’s death for maximum strategic benefit. The messaging of the past 96 hours was aimed at various audiences within the country, the region, and around the world. Having been caught on the backfoot by the U.S.’s strike on Soleimani, the Supreme Leader allowed the IRGC to retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a calibrated manner, likely calculating that a strike with limited casualties would satisfy demands for vengeance while not prompting a response. Khamenei’s Decision: Ayatollah Khamenei is an inherently conservative figure and one who is above all else motivated by the priority of regime survival. Given their long-standing personal relationship, there is ample reason to believe that his displays of emotion of Soleimani’s death, including weeping over his coffin during the funeral on January 6th, were genuine and heart-felt. However, his expressed desire for revenge has been tempered by the overarching imperative to avoid a conflict that would have threatened the regime’s hold on power, either from within or without. Rally Around the Flag: Within Iran, the regime is seeking to use Soleimani’s death and their subsequent retaliation to build national unity following a period of significant domestic unrest. This has been emphasized by the extended period of mourning for Soleimani, days-long funeral spectacle, and the invocation of religious and cultural symbols associated with Shi’a martyrs. The death of Soleimani comes on the heels of a series of mass protests in Iran that originally began on November 15th in response to proposed increase in the price of gas, but which have since expanded to a wider challenge to the regime. Media reporting from late December suggested as many as 1,500 Iranian civilians have been killed as part of a regime crackdown on the protests, which have been characterized as the most serious challenge to the regime since the Green Movement of 2009. JCPOA as a Wedge Between U.S. and Europe: Iran announced on January 5th that it would cease compliance with the remaining provisions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action but would be willing to return to compliance if sanctions are removed. The nuance in Iran’s position highlights the fact that it is continuing to attempt to use the nuclear issue to drive a wedge between European signatories to the agreement and the United States, which unilaterally walked away from the treaty in May 2018. Regime Dynamics: Soleimani was a high-profile figure within Iran, but his outsized influence on Iranian foreign policy also created friction with other stakeholders in the regime, including leaders of the conventional military forces, the ministry of foreign affairs, and the intelligence services. He was one of few genuinely strategic thinkers in the Iranian national security apparatus and the one with the most extensive and deepest connections within the Arab-speaking world. His replacement as commander of the Quds Force is his long-time deputy who will be familiar with the day-to-day operations of the IRGC’s external operations arm but will not have the stature or the network of Soleimani. As a result, other stakeholders may jockey to move into the vacuum created by his death. The View from Washington: The present challenge for the U.S. is how to maintain both a deterrent posture and establishing the means to avoid further escalation. The policy on Iraq going forward will have to balance President Trump’s desire to disengage from the conflict while not creating the appearance of having been pushed out by Iran. Escalate to Deter: President Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani reflected an “escalate to deter” strategy, using a sudden and unexpected escalation of force during a crisis in order to reestablish deterrence after previous provocations in 2019 had gone largely unanswered. However, deterrence is only as good as the last demonstration of a willingness to respond. The decision to not respond to Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes reflected a pragmatic decision to de-escalate. National Security Decision-Making: Nearly three years into his presidency, Donald Trump feels increasingly confident making national security decisions based on his own instincts. The original coterie of experienced national security establishment members such as Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster who had populated the Situation Room during the early days of the administration have largely resigned or been fired and replaced with individuals of lower profile and/or proven loyalty. Although the mechanisms of the formal interagency process continue to function, President Trump increasingly makes decisions based on a network of informal advisors and media sources. Domestic U.S. Considerations: The decision to launch the strike on Soleimani came during a period of high political tension in Washington, as it had been expected this month that the U.S. Senate would begin a trial in response to articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives in December. The Soleimani strike is being taken up by both Trump’s supporters and opponents as evidence of either his credentials as a decisive commander-in-chief or his unsuitability for office, depending on their perspective. Congress has proposed votes to limit President Trump’s independent authority to initiate hostilities with Iran, but this is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate. Separately, the first voting in the Democratic primary is less than one month away, and a sudden shift in focus to national security issues could have results that are difficult to predict, either boosting those with national security credentials (such as former vice president Joe Biden and military veteran Pete Buttigieg), or rallying support among primary voters for anti-war (such as Bernie Sanders). Third-Party Perspectives and Responses: Iraq: The strike at Baghdad International Airport that killed Soleimani also killed the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Front, a coalition of militias that forms a part of Iraq’s official security apparatus. Iraq’s new Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has condemned the attack as a “massive breach of sovereignty” and an “aggression on Iraq”. Iraq’s parliament passed a draft law on January 5th calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraqi soil, but the law was non-binding and the session had been boycotted by most of the Sunni and Kurdish members of the legislature. Iranian presence has also been the recent target of Iraqi ire, such as in November when a crowd of Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulate in the Shi’a holy city of Najaf, and the Iraqi government will likely try to play both sides against each other to maximize its leverage for military and financial support. Withdrawal from Iraq would mean that the remaining American forces in Syria could no longer be supplied or supported through the western desert of Iraq and would therefore also have to be withdrawn. Iran will likely seek to use all its considerable levers of influence in Iraq to convince the government to see through the expulsion of American forces. The United States leaving Iraq and Syria due to Soleimani’s death would be a fitting legacy from the Iranian perspective and a perverse one from the American perspective given that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers in Iraq (and thousands of Iraqi civilians) through his support for Shi’a militias in the mid-to-late 2000s. Europe: Statements from European capitals emphasized the need for restraint and de-escalation. French President Macron is likely to view this event as further justification for his proposals that the EU develop a defense and security apparatus independent of NATO in order to avoid being entangled by potentially reckless American actions. Iran will likely continue to use this event as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe on the nuclear program and other issues, and their chosen retaliation was likely calibrated at least in part to allow them to continue positioning themselves as a responsible actor. For his part, Trump is urging the European signatories to join him in walking away from the JCPOA in order to increase Iran’s international isolation. United Kingdom: The British government has tried to tread a fine line in its responses to the strike, with Prime Minister Johnson calling for de-escalation while also stating that he “will not lament” the fact that Soleimani is dead. The U.K. is likely trying to balance its desire to remain aligned with France and Germany in trying to keep the JCPOA together with its traditional close alliance with the United States and Johnson’s personal relationship with President Trump. Russia: Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the American strike, which removed a valuable interlocutor for Russian forces in Syria. Russian troops and Iranian-backed militias in Syria had periodically found themselves with diverging interests in their campaign to support the Assad regime, and Soleimani performed a critical function in directing the activities of those militias to ensure that both Russia and Iran achieved their strategic objectives in Syria. A potential American withdrawal from Iraq and Syria would advance Russia’s interest in establishing itself as the indispensable foreign power in resolving the crisis in Syria and within the region more broadly. China: In line with their long-standing principle of non-intervention and their own interest, China condemned the strike, but the response was muted overall. Chinese interests are primarily economic and tied to ensuring a steady supply of petroleum. One of China’s newest and most capable naval destroyers recently participated in trilateral naval exercises with Iran and Russia in the Gulf of Oman. Although such exercises primarily serve a strategic messaging and diplomatic function, they do signal an emerging alignment of interests between the three states that would be significant for the response to any future crises.
Picking sides – Team Iran or Team America? Our expert can explain
Like America, the Middle East is divided, tense and the sands shift constantly between allies and enemies. And as the temperature rises and war looks more and more imminent – it might be time to find out who is on side with who are why? It seems obvious – with Iran would be Syria, Palestine and Iraq (a newer friend). Siding with America would be Saudi Arabia, Israel and likely Turkey. But what about the other world powers with investments in the region like France and Russia? It’s a powder keg, and it could likely blow – and if you are a reporter covering this topic, let our experts help with your coverage. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include domestic and international terrorism, comparative politics, and international relations theory. Glen is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
The killing of Iranian military leader Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani by an American ordered drone strike has put the world is on edge. As leaders call for calm, hundreds of thousands are protesting across the Middle East and war seems almost inevitable. As news broke of the attack late last week, media were scrambling to find experts to lend their perspective, opinions and expertise about what’s next. That’s where the University of Connecticut’s Director of Middle East Studies Jeremy Pressman was able to help. Pressman said it’s “too early to say” what kind of repercussions the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani will have in Iran, Iraq or in other countries like Saudi Arabia or Lebanon, in part because it’s not known yet how much planning went into the decision. “The Trump administration is an administration that, on foreign policy, has not demonstrated that it usually plans much in advance,” he said. “You want to have thought what ways Iran could respond, and how you are going to defend yourselves in those situations and respond to those situations.” January 03 – Middletown Press If you are a reporter covering this ongoing and progressing situation – the let our experts help with any of your questions or stories moving forward. Jeremy Pressman (MIT, PhD) studies international relations, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East politics, and U.S. foreign policy. He is the Director of Middle East Studies at the University of Connecticut and is available to speak with media, simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
The link between veterans coming home and racial violence in America. Our expert can explain.
There is a long history of white supremacist and white-power ideology developing out of the wars the United States has fought. In Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America (Harvard University Press, 2018), Kathleen Belew shows that, beginning in the 1970s, a small but committed number of Vietnam War veterans took the racist understanding of the Vietnamese and Asians more broadly that the U.S. military taught them and became instrumental in building the current white-power movement. These vets often did not initially know each other, but they eventually built a wide variety of organizations: the White Aryan Resistance, the latest, post-Civil Rights Era iteration of the Ku Klux Klan, various Christian Identity and white skinhead organizations, and the militia movement of the 1980s and 1990s. In his forthcoming book, Guarding the Empire: Soldier Strikebreakers on the Long Road to the Ludlow Massacre, Otterbein’s Dr. Anthony DeStefanis has found that the men who fought the Plains Indians in the late nineteenth century and who served in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American-Filipino War (1898-1902) came to understand Native Americans, Cubans, and Filipinos as formidable but racially inferior enemies. When these same men joined the National Guards in states across the country and were called out on strike duty during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, they took what they learned on the Plains and overseas to create a racist rationale for breaking the labor strikes of a working class that was increasingly made up of southern and eastern European, Mexican, and Asian immigrants. Many of these same men also joined the Second Ku Klux Klan that emerged in the late 1910s and became a nationwide organization by expanding the targets of its hatred beyond African Americans to include Jews, Catholics, and immigrants. Racism is a many-headed hydra with multiple roots in experience at home and abroad. Some white southerners who were central in the project of creating and maintaining Jim Crow white supremacy were Confederate military veterans and it is clear that wars across the twentieth century – from Cuba and the Philippines to Vietnam – pushed some veterans into the white- power movement. Today, we know that white-power organizations concentrate on recruiting military veterans and we have seen a spike in support for these organizations among current members of the military. It’s no accident that some of these active troops and veterans served in the Iraq and Afghan Wars, where they faced a Muslim enemy with unfamiliar social and cultural practices, and who did not welcome the U.S. military presence with open arms. Clearly, we must reckon with what our wars overseas have brought back to the United States. If you are a reporter covering this topic – let the experts from Otterbein University help. Dr. Anthony DeStefanis is an associate professor of history at Otterbein University. He specializes in modern U.S. history with an emphasis on labor and the working class and immigration, race, and ethnicity. Dr. DeStefanis is available to speak with media regarding the history of racial violence in America – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
