Proxy Wars

Hezbollah is the archetype and so far the most important and efficient of all Iranian proxy forces in the Middle East, and it demonstrates all the traits that eventually became the trademarks of Iran’s proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and beyond. While embedding itself in the national government of Lebanon, Hezbollah receives its portfolio from Tehran and advances the agenda of the Islamist regime of Iran. While pressing the regime’s interests at the expense of the West and its regional allies through widespread terrorism and proxy warfare, Hezbollah provides Tehran with just enough plausible deniability to still appear as a somewhat “respectable actor” on the world stage.

The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement seeking to create a homeland for Sikhs by establishing a sovereign state, called Khālistān ('Land of the Khalsa'), in the Punjab region. The proposed state would consist of land that currently forms Punjab, India, and Punjab, Pakistan.

War spins the wheels of history. It changes societies, alters lives, and brings about new dimensions to inflict more brutality on human beings. This is what happened in the aftermath of World War II, when the advent of the nuclear weapons set about a chapter of sophisticated and lethal warfare. Conventional war between the great powers has since been antiquated. It only puts to display the apparent capabilities of the adversary so that deterrence remains intact. War has now become multilevel and multi-dimensional. In such a case hybrid warfare strategy comes to play-which falls under the third dimension of warfare and includes application of both conventional and non-conventional means. It becomes lethal because it brings together the use of technology and cognition to bring about destruction and disruption. On the other hand, the Strategic Interaction theory examines the asymmetric dimension of warfare which a weaker party undertakes in order to subdue or challenge its adversity. To put all this in context, India and Pakistan both being nuclear states do not directly confront each other by conventional means; rather they opt for the non-conventional means. The doctrinal change and rapid military modernization drive by India creates security dilemma for Pakistan. This paper studies that how India has employed hybrid warfare strategy against Pakistan, what are the vulnerabilities of Pakistan that India is exploiting and can exploit, how Pakistan can confront this type of warfare.

This article examines contemporary modes of American warfare. It posits the concept of “vicarious warfare” as a means of capturing prominent patterns in warfighting approaches. Although rooted in long-standing traditions of military practice, vicarious warfare is sufficiently novel as to be identifiable as a distinct phenomenon. The precise manifestation or combination of vicarious methods vary according to the specific circumstances and political contexts prevailing in different theaters. However, America’s general preference is to fight its wars by delegating tasks to proxies and limiting exposure of its own military to danger. Where U.S. forces are employed directly, this takes place largely in the shadows. Such approaches have clear attractions, offer undoubted tactical advantages, and permit successive administrations to maintain a persistent tempo of operations that evades rigorous democratic scrutiny. Yet, prominent cases and numerous studies suggest that vicarious warfare has a high potential to generate counterproductive effects and significant strategic harm.

Proxy wars are a phenomenon widely encountered in the history of armed conflicts. The character and particularity of a proxy war is not determined by direct warfare but by the orchestration of a military conflict serving the political needs of a third state without its direct involvement. This orchestration may assume a variety of forms, and the scale and specifics of each case are determined by the third party’s aims and interests. The category of proxy wars is known in Polish strategic studies, although so far not much attention has been paid to it. This article is an attempt to fill this gap. The main research problem undertaken by the author is to answer the question of what characterises the phenomenon of proxy wars. To answer this question, the author has formulated the following specific problems: 1) what are the definitional frameworks of the phenomenon of proxy wars? 2) what are the strategic goals of waging a war by proxy? 3) what are the forms of the external orchestration of a conflict?

States engage in proxy war for numerous reasons, the most important of which is the avoidance of direct conflict, especially with a state of greater or equal strength. This strategic rationale has gone unquestioned for some time, as the logic of its underlying assumption seems sound. As a result, few analyses of the costs and benefits of proxy war exist, and none directly address what is perhaps the most important cost-benefit question one can ask about such conflicts: Does the strategic use of proxy war actually decrease the chances of direct kinetic action between two states? Additionally, it is commonly assumed that the Cold War remained cold because of the use of proxies; but is this actually the case? To answer these questions, this study uses quantitative methods to analyze an original dataset on relations between the Great Powers from 1816 to 2010. This study finds that proxy wars do not have a statistically significant effect on direct wars, but that the possession of nuclear weapons increases the chances of proxy war. These findings cast doubt on the notion that proxy wars decrease the likelihood of direct wars between two Great Powers. In addition, I present an original argument for including both state and non-state actors in definitions of proxies.

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Orta Doğu’da Arap Baharı olarak adlandırılan
toplumsal hareketlerin bir iç savaşa sürüklediği Suriye’de var olan uluslararası çıkar çatışmalarını, günümüzde devletler arasındaki güç mücadelesinin değişen boyutu olan vekâlet savaşları bağlamında ele almaktır. Bu çalışma, devletlerin dış politikada kullandığı sert gücün, çeşitli gerekçelerle sınırlandırılması nedeniyle, çıkarlarına ulaşmada elini rahatlatan ve günümüzde etkinliği giderek artan devlet dışı aktörlere
daha bağımlı hâle geldiği savından hareket etmektedir. Bu sav doğrultusunda savaşlardaki değişim meselesi ve yeni bir dış politika aracı olarak “vekâlet savaşı” kavramının Suriye krizindeki yansımalarına değinilmiştir.
Bu bağlamda çalışmanın birinci bölümünde uluslararası ilişkilerde vekâlet savaşı kavramı analiz edilmiş, ikinci bölümde ise uluslararası güçlerin Suriye krizi özelindeki çıkar çatışmaları, vekâlet savaşları bağlamında örneklendirilmiştir.

รัฐศาสตร์สาร ปีที่ 1 ฉบับที่ 2 มกราคม - กุมพาพันธ์ 2516
สหรัฐอเมริกาและปัญหาเวียดนาม
เขียนและแปลโดย
ชัยชนะ พิมานแมน
ตะวันชาย ชุมสาย ณ อยุธยา
เสน่ห์ จามริก
เสริญ ศรีกสิพันธ์
ฉันทิมา อ่องสุรักษ์
วารพรรณ นิมบุญจาช
ไพฑูรย์ ดัสเซ่
โรงพิมพ์ พิฆเณศ 2516

Os referentes do conceito de proxy war (ou uma guerra de 'substituição', ou 'por delegação' ou 'procuração') tendem a ser conflitos bélicos instigados por uma potência -por via de regra média-grande, mas podendo não o ser -que nela não participa de maneira directa. Está por isso nele implícita a ideia de que aquilo que está em causa é a 'representação' dos interesses de uma potência por forças exteriores que dela não constituem parcela intrínseca. Ao utilizar a expressão proxy war, aludimos assim por norma a guerras nas quais os oponentes utilizam partes terceiras, sejam elas forças governamentais, mercenários, ou actores não-estaduais, como seus substitutos na condução material do conflito.

The civil war in Syria continues more than eight years. Many different actors, including the United States of America are involved in this conflict. This article analyses Middle Eastern Policy of the USA in the context of Syrian civil war. The United States of America views the Syrian conflict as the “key” to further solving many problems in the region. The main conclusions of the paper are the following. First, Middle Eastern Policy of the USA, particularly in solving Syrian crisis, is inconsistent and does not have a clear concept. Second, the United States of America tries to reduce the influence of Iran and Russia. Third, Washington uses techniques of “proxy war”.

Since the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, it has become a magnet for many countries and organization that, concerned for their own interests, cannot keep their hands out of the pot. As a result, Syria has regressed about six decades, to the period when its weakness left it prey to the influence of both regional and international powers.  Of all the countries that have taken vigorous action against the regime of Bashar Assad, Saudi Arabia stands out. King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz was the first senior Arab leader to break the silence and condemn the Syrian president’s repression of the protests. Abdullah was also the first Arab leader to call openly for arming the Syrian opposition.
The present study analyzes the relations between Saudi Arabia and Syria and examines the kingdom’s motives for getting involved in an internal Syrian war. I will review the ties between the two countries, from the advent of the present regime in Syria until the zenith of the civil war, looking at both official relations as well as the indirect messages conveyed through various channels. I will also look at the history of the Saudi intervention inside Syria and the means it has employed for that.

ÖZ Günümüze kadar savaşlarda çok belirgin saflar, net üniformalar, net taarruz çıkış hatları ve savunma hatları hatta buna göre düzenlenmiş konseptler ve doktrinler yer almıştır. Ancak içinde bulunduğumuz yüzyılda bu hatlar ve stratejiler aşınmakta, saflar gittikçe belirsizleşmektedir. Bunun yanında uluslararası sistemin iki kutupluluktan tek kutupluluğa doğru dönüştüğü son çeyrek yüzyılda küresel hegemon güç tarafından uluslararası savaş hukukunun bazı alanları dejenere edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda yeni savaş türlerinden hibrit savaş ve onun bir alt alanı olarak varsayılabilen vekâlet savaşlarının, çatışma ortamlarında gittikçe daha fazla yer edinmeye başladığı değerlendirilmiştir. Neredeyse 21 " inci yüzyılın başına kadar uluslararası ilişkilerde ana aktör olarak devlet hemen her alanda aktif rol üstlenen yegâne güç olmuştur. Ancak küreselleşme ile birlikte gelen liberal akımlar ve mikro milliyetçilikler gibi birçok etkenden dolayı aktörler gittikçe çeşitlenmeye başlamıştır. Yakın zamanda bazı uluslararası örgütlerin etkisinin zayıfladığı ve bazı terör örgütlerinin aktörlük vasfı kazanmaya çalıştığı görülmektedir. Uluslararası hukuk alanında yaşanması muhtemel bazı sorunlar ve kamuoyunun artık daha aktif hale gelmesi sebebiyle yeni yüzyılda savaşan devletler yerine savaşan vekiller dönemi daha makul hale gelmeye başlamış görünmektedir. Ancak ana aktör olan ve birçok meselede belirleyiciliğini sürdüren devletlerin Clausewitz " in deyişiyle siyasetlerini başka vasıtalarla sürdürmek için başvurduğu savaşın yeni türü devletleri nasıl etkileyecektir? Bu sorunun cevabı zor olmakla birlikte üzerinde düşünmeye değerdir. Bu çalışmada, nüfusun gittikçe artan bir oranda yaşadığı şehirlere doğru kaymakta olan savaşın vekiller eliyle yürütüldüğü yeni türünün üzerine devletlerin ordularını ve kamuoyunu yeniden inşası konusunda değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. ABSTRACT Until today during the wars, there have been very clear ranks (both on the battlefield and adversaries), distinct uniforms, marked offensive and defensive lines. Beyond that collective defense organizations arranged very certain concepts and doctrines. However, in the current century, these boundaries are eroded and the lines become increasingly uncertain. In the last twenty-five years when the international system has turned from bipolarity to unipolarity, some areas of international law of war have been degenerated by global hegemon  Doktora Öğrencisi, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Ana Bilim Dalı, E-posta: [email protected].

Iraq parliament has passed a resolution on January 5, 2020 to oust US-led coalition forces from country, as hostile response grew after the assassination of Qasim Sulemani, a top Iranian military commander, near Baghdad airport. The US State Department rejected this demand and said Washington and Baghdad should instead focus on fixing their alliance.US and its allies were expecting that their presence in Iraq will be welcomed by different Iraqi communities as these communities came out of Saddam's suppression with the help of US and its allies. This study tends to address the fundamental challenge regarding US' consistently diminishing influence over the Iraqi society. Though heterogeneous in its nature and fabricated in its essence, US still have no pivotal powersay over any of the Iraqi societal, religious or political groups. Particularly, the Iraqi majority Shiite population is real beneficiary of US campaign against Saddam as they remained under the despotic rule of Sunni minority led by Saddam. In post Saddam period their increasing inclination towards Iran has changed the entire socio-political scenario of Iraq and despite huge strategic investment in Iraq, US has been marginalized in main stream decision making process. Consequently, US supremacy in entire Middle East went under question.

This thesis applies the concept of religious (national) identity to the cases of Saudi Arabia, Iran and their proxy allies-state and non-state actors-in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. The aim was to show that in the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite affiliations matter in the relationship between the regional powers and respective proxies, as opposing to realist statement that alliances, conflicts and political developments are only governed by pragmatic power interests. Additionally, the work examines whether religious national identities have impact on the dynamics of proxy conflicts. Overall, the objective was to establish comprehensive image of how ideational/constructivist and pragmatic/realist factors work in combination to influence alliances, enmities and conflicts in the Middle East. Using qualitative methods of research, religious (national) identities of Saudi Arabia, Iran and their allies in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen were constructed so as to create ideational and realist points of departure, and then interlinked to show how convergence of religious identities helps in creating durable alliances if used in targeted manner as a strategic tool which can help safeguard national interests. The work shows notable differences in the use of this tool between Saudi Arabia and Iran, suggesting that it may influence foreign policy successes and failures. Additionally, support of religious convergence between Saudi Arabia, Iran and their respective proxies has direct impact on the dynamic of conflicts and political developments, as "sectarianization" affects formerly secular causes.

The military operation in Yemen is significant departure from Saudi Arabia's foreign policy tradition and customs. Riyadh has always relied on three strategies to pursue its interests abroad: wealth, establish a global network and muslim education and diplomacy and meadiation. The term "proxy war" has experienced a new popularity in stories on the Middle East. A proxy war is two opposing countries avoiding direct war, and instead supporting combatants that serve their interests. In some occasions, one country is a direct combatant whilst the other supporting its enemy. Various news sources began using the term to describe the conflict in Yemen immediately, as if on cue, after Saudi Arabia launched its bombing campaign against Houthi targets in Yemen on 25 March 2015. This is the reason, why author try to answer for following questions: Is the Yemen Conflict Devolves into Proxy War? and Who's fighting whom in Yemen's proxy war?" Research area includes the problem of proxy war in the Middle East. For sure, the real problem of proxy war must begin with the fact that the United States and its NATO allies opened the floodgates for regional proxy wars by the two major wars for regime change: in Iraq and Libya. Those two destabilizing wars provided opportunities and motives for Sunni states across the Middle East to pursue their own sectarian and political power objectives through "proxy war".

This Thesis tries to explain why did Saudi Arabia conduct Proxy War to Iran in the Syrian Conflict. Since the beginning, Saudi Arabia and Iran had a stagnant relation; they are not far from confrontation. Their fight has always enlivened every conflict in the Middle East region, including the worst humanitarian problem in human history, which is the Syrian Conflict. Using Andrew Mumford’s proxy war theory and rational choice by focusing the approach on the rational actor model by Graham T.Allison, Saudi Arabia’s decision to take part in the Syrian Conflict through its proxies is based on the consideration of strategic outcomes and more rational cost-benefit calculations of proxy war.

Keywords: Proxy War, Proxies, Syrian Conflict, Hegemony, Strategic Outcome, Cost-Benefit, Saudi Arabia

В 1978-1987 тривала лівійсько-чадська війна. В ході неї лівійські війська, скориставшись крайньою політичною нестабільністю та громадянською війною в Республіці Чад ввели на її територію свої війська, спираючись на місцеві сили, що підтримували лівійців. Дане протистояння стало надзвичайно яскравим прикладом воєнного конфлікту сучасності -проксі-війни.

This chapter provides an overview of Yemen’s modern history, explains the emergence and development of al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State in Yemen, assesses their respective goals, strategies and success, and examines how the Houthi insurgency managed to take over government and overrun much of the country in 2014.

Recent developments in Yemen demonstrate growing proxy wars between the regional powers: Saudi Arabia and Iran. This type of conflict relies on warfare in neighboring countries instead of direct combats with the enemy. In fact, the alternative conflicts avoid disastrous consequences of conventional war and they put pressure on opponents. The polarization between the two geopolitical blocks is evident especially in the context of rivalry between different political factions supported by Teheran or Riyadh. Besides, all sides involved in the conflict try to dominate on the Yemeni political scene and the Middle East. However, the analysis presented in the paper demonstrates that the conflict in Yemen creates various threats for the stability of the Gulf and worldwide security.

Since 2014, the Russian Federation has seen an increase in the number of operations performed by private military „contractors”. Those who are de facto Moscow’s mercenaries are committed to carrying out a series of tasks, as they offer support for Moscow-backed separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas or guard military and oil infrastructure in Syria. Also, their position is used to extend Russia’s influence on African soil while safeguarding Moscow’s allied regimes in Latin America. In addition to being an export product, military services have emerged for Russia as a strategic tool for building up its strength in Asia and Africa. By grating support to local regimes and their armed forces, Moscow seeks to install its military facilities and create favorable conditions for both armaments deals and long-term mining investments. Private military companies are technically illegal in light of the Russian law, which serves as a convenient excuse for the Kremlin elites to deny any connection with „contractors” in a bid to diminish both political and reputational costs of breaching international law. But the activities of Russia’s Wagner Group in Syria show that an ability to plausibly deny one’s actions is limited in times of ubiquitous digitalization and open-source intelligence (OSINT) methods while falling back to hire ChVK’s (Частная Военная Компания, Chastnaya Voennaya Kompaniya), defined as private military companies, may eventually become a double-edged sword. Their operating in the legal gray zone emerges as an element of rivalry between Russian special forces that seek to win control over the sector of private military firms. This generates a set of specific forms of exerting operational control over „contractors”.

Jammu and Kashmir, a region in the northern part of the Indian sub-continent, is globally known for the battle of ownership which has been going on for seven decades. Once a single entity before the partition of British India into Pakistan and India in 1947, today Jammu & Kashmir is separated into three politically different regions with one administered by Pakistan, one by India, and one by China. The ‘war’ over Jammu & Kashmir is a multifaceted one which consists of political as well as social aspects, with the issue of religion being the most predominant. The State of Pakistan has used the religious sentiment of the people in the region, most of whom are Muslims, to instigate them against Indian rule.

Regality theory is a theory saying that people show a preference for strong leadership in times of war or collective danger, but a preference for an egalitarian political system in times of peace and safety. These psychological preferences in individuals are reflected in the political structure and culture of the society. A society in danger will develop in the direction called regal, which includes strong nationalism, discipline, strict religiosity, strict sexual morals and perfectionist art. A society in peace will develop in the opposite direction called kungic, which includes egalitarianism and tolerance. The book is both theoretical and experimental. The theoretical explanation of the regal-versus-kungic dimension is based on evolutionary theory, game theory, biological life history theory and ecological theory. Contributions from the social sciences and the humanities are added to further analyze historical examples of regal and kungic developments. The theory is tested on data from both contemporary and ancient societies. These tests confirm the predictions of the theory. A concluding chapter discusses the applications of regality theory to history, archaeology, political science, conflict and peace research, social psychology, cultural studies, etc.

Yemen enfrenta en la actualidad la crisis humanitaria más grave en todo el mundo agudizada por la guerra cruel desde 2015, ausente en el análisis de algunos académicos y de los principales medios de comunicación. Desafortunadamente la poca información y aproximaciones que se producen en la actualidad no consideran las múltiples facetas y actores que este conflicto implica, sumado a la poca profundidad de los distintos estudios. Ejemplo de ello es la usual afirmación de que lo que pasa en Yemen es producto de la “eterna rivalidad sunní-chií” o de la guerra proxy (o subsidiaria) que enfrenta a Irán y Arabia Saudí en la región. La presente ponencia considera que este planteamiento es insuficiente para entender a cabalidad la guerra en curso pues resulta reduccionista, simplista e invisibiliza todas las agendas internas de la realidad yemení. Ello ocurre con el movimiento Huti, usualmente señalado como un “proxy de Irán”.

Devletler arasındaki rekabetin ve büyük güçlerin mücadele yöntemlerinin değişime
uğramasıyla birlikte savaş kavramının da biçim değiştirdiği bir çağa şahit
oluyoruz. Savaşların maliyetlerinin kazanan devletler için dahi çok büyük boyutlara
ulaşmasının yanı sıra iletişim teknolojisindeki gelişmelerin sağladığı olanaklar,
günümüzde asimetrik savaş yöntemlerini olabildiğince yaygınlaştırmıştır. En
önemli pratiğine Ortadoğu ülkelerinde ve bilhassa Suriye’de şahit olunan yeni
nesil savaşlar, “vekâlet savaşları” olarak adlandırılmaktadır.
Vekâlet savaşlarının bilinen aktörleri, cephede karşılaşan ordular yerine düşük
yoğunluklu savaşlar için sahaya sürülen terör örgütleridir. Orduların cephede
karşılaşmalarının ikincil pozisyona düştüğü, asıl savaşın hedef ülkenin toplumsal
ve siyasal sistemini çökertme ve içten teslim almaya dönüştüğü yeni nesil savaşta
medya da çok önemli bir silah olarak kullanılmaktadır.
Hedef ülke kamuoyu medya faaliyetleri ve sivil toplum örgütleri gibi unsurlar
ile etki altına alınmaktadır. Sert güce dayanan müdahalelerden önce tercih edilen
ve genellikle halk merkezli bir ikna arayışının eşlik ettiği vekâlet savaşlarında
devlet dışı aktörlerin kullanıldığı, toplumsal hassasiyetlerin ve kamplaşmaların
istismar edildiği görülmektedir.
Türkiye’yi 15 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yapılan karanlık darbe teşebbüsüne
götüren süreçte, FETÖ terör örgütünün medya faaliyetlerinin önemli bir rolü söz
konusudur. Örgüt 15 Temmuz’da silahların namlusunu millete çevirmeden önce,
Türkiye’nin bağışıklık sistemini çökertecek yoğun bir medya faaliyeti içerisinde
olmuştur. FETÖ medyası bilhassa 2013 yılından itibaren örgütün eylemlerine paralel
bir şekilde devletin resmi kurum ve kuruluşlarına açıktan saldırmaya, devlet
sırlarını ifşa etmeye, belirlenen amaçlar doğrultusunda kamuoyu algısı oluşturmaya
ve seçilmiş meşru hükümetleri etkisizleştirmeye çalışmıştır.
Bu çalışmada Türkiye’yi 15 Temmuz ihanetine götüren süreçte FETÖ terör
örgütünün medya yapılanması üzerinde durulmaktadır. Küresel güç savaşında  Türkiye’nin düşmanlarına hizmet eden etkili bir araç haline getirilen FETÖ medyasının,
darbeye giden süreçteki işlevi ortaya konmaktadır.
Çalışma nitel araştırma tekniklerinin kullanıldığı betimsel bir çalışmadır. Belirlenen
amaç kapsamında kaynaklara ulaşılarak incelemeler yapılmakta ve alt
başlıklar halinde durum ortaya konmaktadır.
ABSTRACT
We are witnessing an age in which the rivalry between the states and the
ways of fighting the great powers have changed as well as the concept of war.
In addition to the fact that the costs of wars have reached enormous dimensions
even for winning states, the opportunities provided by the developments
in communication technology have made asymmetric methods of war as widespread
as possible. The most important practice is that the new generation
wars, which are witnessed in the Middle East countries and especially in Syria,
are called “proxy wars”.
The well-known actors of the proxy wars are terrorist organizations that are
put on the scene for low-intensity wars instead of armies facing the front. The
media in the new generation of warfare, where the frontiers of the armies fall
into the secondary position and the main war destroys the social and political
system of the target country and turns it into internal delivery, is also used as a
very important weapon.
The target country is influenced by public opinion media activities and
non-governmental organizations. In Proxy wars which prior to hard-bodied interventions,
a preferred and often community-centered quest for persuasion, it
is seen that non-stated actors has used along with exploitation social sensitivities
and polarization.
In the process leading to the dark coup attempt on July 15, 2016, the media
activities of the terrorist organization of FETÖ have played an important role.
Before turning the weapon to nation on 15 July, the organization had an intense
media activity to knock down the immune system of Turkey. Since the year
2013, in particular, FETÖ media have tried to attack the government’s official
institutions and organizations in an open manner, to disclose state secrets, to create public opinion in the direction of the determined aims, and to neutralize
elected legitimate governments.
This study focuses on the media structure of FETÖ terrorist organization in
the process leading to the betrayal of 15 July. In the global power battle, the
function of the FETO media, which has become an effective tool to serve the
enemies of Turkey, in the process of going to the coup is revealed.
The study is a descriptive study using qualitative research techniques. The
resources are reached within the scope of the determined purpose and the situation
is put into sub-headings.

Saudi Arabia and Iran compete for the hegemony in the Middle East and in the whole Muslim world in a broader perspective. Both states, take advantage of religious-based internal conflicts for their political interests and strategic goals. Iran and Saudi Arabia are not interested in the involvement into direct military confrontation. Therefore they fight for regional superpower position indirectly, by proxy wars. The main research problem of this paper is to seek an answer for the question: how Saudi Arabia and Iran influence the ongoing armed conflict in Yemen. The aim of this research is to present indi-rect involvement of both entities, and clarify political motives as well as strategic goals of this involvement.

This study analyzes the implications of the Syria policies of the United States, Russia and China with regard to the international system within the framework of the great power politics. In this context, the main research question of the study is as follows: What are the Syria Crisis' implications and transformative effects for the international system? The study has two fundamental arguments: First, the geopolitical struggle involving the United States, Russia and China begun after the Syria crisis turned to a proxy war between great powers. Second, this struggle also transforms the international system. The Sino-Russian dual campaign to protect the principle of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention of the Westphalian system against the unilateral development of intervention law of the United States in the international system. Özet Bu makalenin temel araştırma sorusu, Suriye krizinin uluslararası sisteme yönelik yansımaları ve dönüştürücü etkileri nelerdir olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada iki temel argüman geliştirilmiştir: Birincisi, Suriye krizinin büyük güçler arasında vekalet savaşına dönüşmesiyle ABD, Rusya ve Çin arasında yürütülen bir jeopolitik mücadele başlamıştır. Suriye krizi üzerinden büyük güçlerin küresel nüfuz mücadelesi realist büyük güç politikasını tekrar ortaya çıkarmıştır. Suriye krizi üzerinden Ortadoğu'da ABD, Rusya ve Çin, nüfuz alanlarını yeniden belirlemeye başlamışlardır. Böylece Suriye, 21. yüzyılın yeni satranç tahtası olmuştur. İkincisi, bu mücadelenin uluslararası sistemi dönüştürmesidir. ABD'nin tek taraflı uluslararası sistemde müdahale hukukunu geliştirmesine karşı Rusya ve Çin ikilisi Vestfalyan sistemin egemenlik ve diğer devletlerin iç işlerine müdahale etmeme ilkelerini koruma yönünde mücadele vermektedir.

Öz İlk çağlardan beri devletler arası çatışmaları tanımlamak için kullanılan savaş kavramı, günümüzde geleneksel anlamının çok daha ötesinde durumları ifade etmektedir. Uluslararası ilişkilerin ruhuna uygun bir şekilde evrilen savaş olgunun günümüzdeki türlerinden bir tanesi de vekâlet savaşlarıdır. Soğuk Savaş döneminde sıkça örneklerine rastlanılan vekâlet savaşlarının günümüzde Suriye'deki çatışma ve iç savaş sürecinin bir boyutunda yaşandığı açık bir şekilde görülmektedir. Bu noktada vekâlet savaşlarına başvuran aktörlerin başındaysa ABD gelmektedir. Suriye politikasını vekil aktörler üzerinden sürdürmeye çalışan ABD yönetimi, bu noktada tercihini terör örgütlerinden yana kullanmaktadır. Konjonktürel olarak ekonomik, politik ve psikolojik maliyetleri azaltsa dahi söz konusu ilişkinin uzun vadeli olmadığı ve şartların değişmesine bağlı geçici ve taktiksel bir işbirliği olduğu açıktır. Anahtar Kelimeler: ABD, Suriye, YPG, Vekâlet Savaşı, Terör Örgütleri.

This study examines the Iran-Saudi rivalry within the context of the changing balance of power in the Middle East. The main research questions were determined to be what the dynamics of the Iran-Saudi rivalry are and what type of role Turkey may play within the rivalry between the two countries. Three essential arguments were developed within this context. The first argument is that the regional balances were broken by the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 and by the 'Arab Spring' process resulting in the regional hegemony rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The second one is that Iran desired to utilize the Arab Spring process as an opportunity to become a regional hegemonic power. On the other hand, the policy of the US to withdraw from and leave the Middle East to its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia caused King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud to adopt a regional leadership policy. Within this framework, the study argued that the rivalry to become the new regional hegemon of the Middle East re-surged between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two historic rival powers of the Middle East. The third argument is that the rivalry between the two countries was mainly in the form of a proxy war but resulted in the fact that the balance of power struggle in the region reached to the proxy war balance as no country managed to outcompete the other.

Öz

Bu araştırmada Ortadoğu'daki İran-Suudi rekabeti, değişen güç dengeleri bağlamında incelenmiştir. Makalenin temel araştırma sorusu, İran-Suudi rekabetinin dinamikleri nelerdir ve iki ülke arasındaki rekabette Türkiye'nin rolü ne olabilir olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu bağlamda üç temel argüman geliştirilmiştir: Birincisi, ABD'nin 2003 yılında Irak işgali ve 'Arap Baharı' sürecinin bölgesel dengeleri bozduğu ve iki ülke arasında bölgesel hegemon olma rekabetine yol açtığı tezi geliştirilmiştir. İkincisi, İran, Arap Baharı sürecini bölgesel hegemon güç olmak için bir fırsat olarak kullanmak istemiştir. Öte yandan ABD'nin

After the Islamic Revolution, which took place in 1979 under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini, Iran aimed to spread the principles of the Revolution to the Islamic geography and to expand its sphere of influence on countries with Shiite populations. Contrary to the Shah’s regime, which had good relations with the Western world before the Revolution, independence was prioritized in foreign policy, starting from 1979, to protect the oppressed Muslim peoples and to move away from both the East and the West, based on the principle of "Islam alone". In this article, considering the foreign policy parameters that changed after the Revolution in Iran, foreign policy preferences at the level of religious leaders and Presidents were examined with their main points. In this context, the breaking points such as the Iran-Iraq War which started right after the Revolution, Iran’s sectarian policies, strategic interests, relations with neighbors and Arab Spring process are emphasized. Besides to the development of Iran's conventional power within the scope of military deterrence, Iran’s strategy which is based on the use of regional proxies formed by the organization of Shiite militias under the control of the Revolutionary Guards since 1979, has been mentioned. It is included that the contributions of Russia which Iran has established alliances in line with their common goals from past to present in Iran’s becoming one of the influential countries of the Middle East.

Generasi muda Indonesia adalah the leader of tomorrow dari Bangsa Indonesia, sebuah Bangsa akan abadi dan bermartabat jika generasi mudanya peduli terhadap budaya-budaya serta pedoman hidup yang telah mengakar abadi sebelumnya di tengah masyarakat, sehingga diperlukan konsep dan strategi untuk menangkal dengan mengenalkan ancaman peperangan asimetris kepada generasi muda Indonesia karena di tangan kaum mudalah nasib peradaban Bangsa ini dipertaruhkan keberlangsungannya

This paper was created as an performance requirement for an undergraduate seminar in the B.A. political sciences.

The aim of the paper is to scrutinize the phases of escalation in Syria in 2011. The finalised version of it was delivered on january 27th, 2013. I use the model of conflict escalation by Friedrich Glasl and one other by GTZ (today: GIZ) to analyze the  events in Syria in their first year. The researched question asks for the cause of the dynamics of escalation in the phases of the conflict.

This study examines both Syrian Conflict and Critical Security Studies (CSS), as known Welsh/Aberystwyth School. The security situation in Syria, especially security of chosen case, the Ethnic and sect groups/communities has been examined in the lens of CSS. The role of ethnic and sect groups is very important in this state. From independence of Syria until beginning of the civil war, there have been many problems between those groups, and it has been blown-up with the protests then, became a conflict between the ethnic and sect groups. After a long-time conflict, many people have been killed and displaced. It is time to secure Syria. Of course, Emancipation, human security and derived concept are very important for a decision on security and which are also highlighted by CSS. In any case, a security decision is taken by actors, it should include emancipation of individuals and communities like sects and ethnic communities.

Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, proxy war, Middle Eastern conflicts

One of the reasons for regional instability is an ongoing division between Shias and Sunnis. This division is fuelled both by external actors, including the United States and Russia, and regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. For ideological, religious, geopolitical and military reasons, those two states have been providing support to opposing sides in almost all regional conflicts, including in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. One of them, although relatively unknown (particularly compared to the struggles in Syria and Iraq) is an ongoing struggle in Yemen, which had for years been considered a sphere of influence of Riyadh. By supporting Houthi insurgency, Iran not only tries to increase its own national power and influence, but at the same time Tehran’s goal is to decrease the position of its rival – Saudi Arabia. This chapter presents and analyses Iran’s activities and approach towards Yemen vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia.

WINNER of the Lynn W. Turner Prize in the 2018 Phi Alpha Theta National Paper Prize Competition (Undergraduate).

The introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945 changed warfare forever, not least in the American context. With the Soviets’ challenge to the American “nuclear monopoly” in 1949, American policymakers and strategists were forced to reconsider the implications of using such weapons. Some suggested using smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapons (TNWs), intended more for targeting an enemy’s military than its population centers. At several points in the early Cold War period, the US almost employed TNWs, but held back. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower restrained themselves from using these weapons due to political, diplomatic, and practical concerns. Specifically, they feared domestic and international backlash, and the possibility of starting World War III. Additionally, many of the situations in which use of these weapons was considered—especially in Asia—were not conducive to mass military casualties, due to environmental constraints (e.g. terrain and climate), and military realities (e.g. enemy formations and positions). While Presidents Truman and Eisenhower both ultimately restrained themselves from employing TNWs during the Cold War, Truman was clearly more reluctant to consider their use. Though Truman saw nuclear weapons as a valuable diplomatic tool, he also considered them to be cataclysmic and morally reprehensible, and was therefore committed to only using them as weapons of last resort. President Eisenhower, on the other hand, was deeply intrigued by their diplomatic and military value, and sought to make such weapons conventional. His interest in TNWs, however, was repeatedly squelched by potential foreign and domestic reactions and military (in)feasibility. For both presidents, the greatest deterrent to using tactical nuclear weapons in the field was the fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union and, later, China. These constraints are evident in the policymaking records from the period, as well as the memoirs and other accounts left by the policymakers themselves.

In recent years, much excellent research has been conducted concerning the Syrian War, which broke out in 2011. Turkey and Russia in Syria: Testing the Extremes is one of these studies. The author’s well-researched and well-designed work offers valuable insights into the relationship between Turkey and Russia after the Syrian War within the context of an oscillation between the extremes of war and alliances.

Dövlətlər arasında münaqişələri ifadə etmək üçün istifadə edilən müharibə anlayışı, müasir dövrdə ənənəvi mənasını itirərək, öz mübarizə üsul və vasitələri, müddəti, forma və aktorları ilə asimmetrik xarakter almışdır. Güc tətbiqi inhisarının qeyri-dövlət aktorları ilə getdikcə daha çox paylaşıldığı XXI əsrdə müharibələr dövlətlərarası səviyyədən dövlətdaxili səviyyəyə doğru sürətlə təkamül etməkdədir. Beləliklə, yeni müharibə kontekstində nizami ordular əvəzinə müxtəlif motivlərə malik “xarici döyüşçülər”, proksi (vəkalət)savaşların zorakı qeyri-dövlət aktorları qismində çıxış etməkdədir. Müharibə aktorları kimi milli dövlətlərin öz mövqelərini itirməsi və zorakılığın simmetrik müharibə qanunlarını nəzərə almayan qruplar tərəfindən tətbiq edilməsi beynəlxalq hüququn pozulması kimi tövsif edilə bilər. Bu araşdırmanın məqsədi “yeni müharibələr” olaraq xarakterizə edilən münaqişə formalarından biri olan proksi (vəkalət) savaşları araşdırmaq, həmçinin bu yeni formatın yaratdığı təhlükəsizlik aspektlərini müzakirə etməkdir. Mövzunun müəyyən edilməsində müasir dünyada təhlükəli problemə çevrilmiş “xarici terrorçu döyüşçülər” fenomeni və bu məsələyə vəkalət savaşının təsirləri həlledici olmuşdur. Mövzunun tədqiq olunmasının praktiki əhəmiyyəti isə ölkəmizdə edilən orijinal tədqiqatlar baxımından proksi müharibə çərçivəsində çox məhdud sayda araşdırmaların olmasıdır. Tədqiqatda ilk növbədə, yeni müharibələrdə milli və beynəlxalq çərçivədə təhlükəsizliyin təmin olunmasına dair yol xəritəsini tərtib etməyə kömək edən təhlil aparılmağa çalışılmış və bu kontekstdə müharibə nizamını dəyişdirən amillər və onların siyasi nəzəriyyəyə təsirləri şərh edilmişdir. Nəticə hissəsində isə ənənəvi müharibə fenomeninin vəkalət savaş kimi asimmetrik müharibə mühitinə transformasiyası və inteqrasiyası ilə bağlı göstəricilər təqdim edilmişdir.