At the time of the writing of this executive summary, the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) has experienced a diplomatic crisis with three GCC member states (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain) cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar (another GCC member state) and remaining GCC members (Kuwait and Oman) attempting to mediate. This event begs the discussion of factors and dynamics that obstruct or cripple cohesion among GCC nations and possible solutions to overcome such obstacles. A thorough understanding of the threats facing the GCC and more specifically, their limitations in responding to them, are crucial to attaining a vigorous and holistic comprehension of the Gulf region.

The United States is regularly challenged by the actions of states and non-state actors in the nebulous, confusing, and ambiguous environment known as the Gray Zone. Planners, decision makers, and operators within the national security enterprise need to understand what tools are available for their use in the Gray Zone and how to best develop, employ, and coordinate those tools. This report summarizes the results of simulations created and executed by the ICONS Project as part of a larger study to capture at least some of the information needed toward that end.

This is Part 4 of a 9 part series of SMA Reach back responses to questions posed by USCENTCOM. Each report contains responses to multiple questions grouped by theme. At the request of United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), the Joint Staff, jointly with other elements in the JS, Services, and U.S. Government (USG) Agencies, has established a SMA virtual reach-back cell. This initiative, based on the SMA global network of scholars and area experts, is providing USCENTCOM with population based and regional expertise in support of ongoing operations in the Iraq/Syria region.

What are the factors that could potentially cause behavior changes in Pakistan and how can the US and coalition countries influence those factors?

Question (R2 QL 11): What major economic, political and security (military) activities does KSA and Iran currently conduct in Bahrain, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to gain influence? What are KSA and Iran’s ultimate goals behind these activities? What motivates KSA and Iran towards these goals? What future activities might KSA and Iran conduct in Bahrain, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen?

The United States is regularly challenged by the actions of states and non-state actors in the nebulous, confusing, and ambiguous environment known as the Gray Zone. Planners, decision makers, and operators within the national security enterprise need to understand what tools are available for their use in the Gray Zone and how to best develop, employ, and coordinate those tools. This report summarizes the results of simulations created and executed by the ICONS Project as part of a larger study to capture at least some of the information needed toward that end.

Based on the balance of actor interests, resolve and capability, the defeat of Islamic State organization seems highly likely (defeat of the ideology is another matter). Specifically, the push for ISIL defeat in Syria is led by Iran and the Assad regime, both of which have high potential capacity and high resolve relative to ISIL defeat. Only ISIL has high resolve toward ISIL expansion in Syria. Iran, Jordan,Iraqi Kurds, Saudi Arabia, and Shi’a Hardline & Militia, show highest resolve for ISIL defeat in Iraq.

This briefing is the final part of a four-part study exploring the dynamics of the central Middle East conflict system. Part II describes the system and why it is critical to assess U.S. security interests and activities in the context of the entire system rather than just the conflicts (e.g., defeat of ISIL) in which the U.S. is most interested. Part II describes the analytic approach used to assess regional dynamics and regional futures based on the alignments and conflicts among three critical drivers: actor interests, resources and resolves. Part III illustrates the analytic process applied to 20-plus actor over five of the eight conflicts. Part IV presents the results of the interest, resolve, capability assessment.

It would be comforting to be able to find some constants, some footholds in our understanding of terrorism. It is, in fact, the element of mystery as to what drives people to collective violence that makes us uncomfortable -- that fills us with terror. Researchers, policy makers, those who must combat terrorism, and the public hope for some simple formula for radicalization, a program or set of programs that will prevent groups of people from deliberately targeting other people in order to meet their needs (political, economic, social, etc). There is no magic formula within this paper collection, but there are a variety of perspectives that, either in isolation or when integrated, provide new ways to think about terrorism and potentially to inform decisions that will abate this global phenomenon, not exacerbate it.

The SMA Strategic Deterrence effort is a methodological study to evaluate the appropriateness and utility of modeling and wargaming to support the analytic requirements of the Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DO JOC). The objective of the study is to determine which aspects of deterrence operations and planning can be appropriately analyzed through gaming, and which aspects can be appropriately analyzed through different forms of modeling. The project also examines the synthesis of deterrence gaming and modeling, how the results of gaming can inform deterrence modeling, and how modeling can shape deterrence gaming.

At the request of United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), SMA initiated a study to understand the strategic implications of destabilizing population dynamics within the Central Region. The effort examined drivers of instability in the region emerging from radicalization, great power competition, state-level instability, and black swan scenarios. This report integrates the research conducted by the teams listed on the front cover in response to USCENTCOM’s questions about great power competition. This report is intended to be a succinct, easily navigable representation of the exceptional work by the collective SMA team. Please click on the links embedded in the report to go directly to the research studies.

[B4] How do you reintegrate radicalized people back into society? Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have centers focussed on this problem. What should the international community do with people who cannot be reintegrated into society? Are there lessons from other regions on reintegration and reconciliation that could be applied to the central region?

At the request of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), the Joint Staff Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) conducted a study to understand the strategic implications of destabilizing population dynamics within the Central Region. The SMA considered drivers of instability in the region to include long-term internally displaced persons and refugees, spread of radical ideologies and extremism, great power competition, disruptive non-state actors, and the potential for “black swan” scenarios.

In August of 2018, United States Central Command asked the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Reachback team, How can the United States best increase the resolve and capability of regional actors to get to political reconciliation in Afghanistan? This report highlights the results of NSI’s Interest-Resolve-Capability (I-R-C)™ analysis of Afghanistan stakeholder dynamics.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Professor David Des Roches (National Defense University) as a part of its SMA CENTCOM Speaker Series. Prof. Des Roches began his presentation by discussing the details of the $110B arms deal that US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud negotiated during the Riyadh Summit.

Climate-related stressors present significant risks to future stability in countries worldwide, affecting all US Combatant Commands.

India’s expanding political influence is altering the current geopolitical order in Asia, with India positioned at its center. India’s growing role in geopolitics will over time take away some of the geopolitical focus on the Asia-Pacific region and place it on the Indo-Pacific region. Mr. Soliman emphasized that India’s geographical position at the center of the economic corridor running between China and the Middle East, give it a political and economic advantage. India’s massive population gives it massive economic and industrial potential on its own. India is also in a unique position to build political ties throughout the Indo-Pacific region with its historic and cultural ties throughout the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions. To further its geopolitical influence in the Indo-Pacific, India is not only relying on its economic potential, but also signing military and security deals with other nations in the region. India is increasing its dialogue with several significant actors in the Middle East: Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Finally, Mr. Soliman put forth that Shinzo Abe’s Indo-Pacific vision, an India-centric strategy with a focus on bilateral security dialogue with Australia and the US, is now coming true.

SMA hosted a speaker session, presented by Prof. Simon Mabon (Sectarianism, Proxies & De-sectarianisation (SEPAD)), Dr. Luciano Zaccara (Gulf Studies Center, Qatar University), Dr. Lucia Ardovini (Middle East and North Africa Programme, Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI)), and Dr. Rashed Alrasheed (Richardson Institute, Lancaster University), as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series.Prof. Simon Mabon began by stating that the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic increased dialogue among many of the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC): a group which had the potential to geopolitically reconstruct the region. He also compared COVID-19’s ability to improve the region’s political relationships to the softening of GCC geopolitics after past natural disasters. An example that illustrates the enhancement of political relations in the Gulf is the United Arab Emirates’ use of humanitarian aid to improve its own political image by helping countries with less resources early on in the pandemic. However, as GCC countries began suffering economically and COVID-19 rates increased, countries began to point blame, mostly at Iran, and the prospect for a GCC geopolitical renaissance faltered.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Simon Mabon (Lancaster University) as a part of its SMA CENTCOM Speaker Series. During this presentation, Dr. Mabon discussed the complexity of the broader competition in the Persian Gulf, posed a series of questions about political Islam (any interpretation of Islam as a source of political identity and action) and organizational security, assessed the role that the US can play to bring about peace in the region, and explained how this competition fits into the broader Iranian question. Dr. Mabon explained that the tensions and events unfolding among the Arab states of the Persian Gulf affect the Iran situation.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Anoush Ehteshami (Durham University) as a part of its Future of Global Competition & Conflict Speaker Series.