President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, describedIran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” and accused them of seeking to acquireand develop weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).1 Further,Under Secretary of State John Bolton said that Cuba, Libya and Syria could be groupedwith these as “rogue states”.2 In doing so, the mere alleged acquisition, without anystated intent, of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) weapons and delivery systemswas designated a threat to local, regional and global stability and security, given theterror and fear they invoked.

Worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has risen since the end of the Cold War. This escalation has brought about a new set of challenges for strategists and policy makers within the United States. No longer is the United States facing a single nuclear threat within the relative security of a bipolar global arrangement. Rather, emergent nuclear states with marked political, cultural, and ideological differences with the US are on the increase. Iran is one such state. A keystone nation bridging the Middle East with the Near East, Iran is currently pushing the nuclear weapons envelope despite protestations from the global community. The Iranian nuclear problem has vast regional implications not only for the near future, but also presents long term global security issues. What s motivating Iran to make the leap into the nuclear frying pan? Are the mad mullahs in charge driving Iran toward a course of global terrorism with an Islamic Bomb? Or, is the nuclear course within Iran a well thought out process, carefully calculated to maximize strategic leverage in order to gain and maintain regional hegemony? Finally, what are the strategic implications for the United States of a nuclear armed Iran? And, does the current US military strategy of detect, deter, and defend against weapons of mass destruction adequately address this threat?

The 9/11 terrorist attacks starkly recast the U.S. debate on "rogue states." In this new era of vulnerability, should the United States counter the dangers of weapons proliferation and state-sponsored terrorism by toppling regimes or by promoting change in the threatening behavior of their leaders? Regime Change examines the contrasting precedents set with Iraq and Libya and provides incisive analysis of the pressing crises with North Korea and Iran. A successor to the author's influential Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy (2000), this compelling book clarifies and critiques the terms in which today's vital foreign policy and security debate is being conducted.

President Clinton and other U.S. officials have warned that "rogue states" pose a major threat to international peace in the post-Cold War era. But what exactly is a rogue state? Does the concept foster a sound approach to foreign policy, or is it, in the end, no more than a counterproductive political epithet? Robert Litwak traces the origins and development of rogue state policy and then assesses its efficacy through detailed case studies of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He shows that the policy is politically selective, inhibits the ability of U.S. policymakers to adapt to changed conditions, and has been rejected by the United States' major allies. Litwak concludes that by lumping and demonizing a disparate group of countries, the rogue state approach obscures understanding and distorts policymaking. In place of a generic and constricting strategy, he argues for the development of "differentiated" strategies of containment, tailored to the particular circumstances within individual states.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union served as the predictable adversary of the US government. Now that the Cold War has ended, a threat which matches the scope of the USSR is no longer believed to exist, but still smaller countries continue to torment US leaders. The governments of these countries are considered the outlaws of the international system, whether due to their support for terrorism or their interest in nuclear weapons. In this work, Raymond Tanter explores US foreign policy with regard to nations such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, uncovering the reasons why these countries are so menacing to the United States. In addition, Tanter examines US policy toward governments in Cuba and North Korea, which continue to promote their own forms of communism.

The threat of long-range missile proliferation has been growing since the end of World War II. Today some 28 countries possess long-range missiles and this number is expected soon to grow by one-third. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. viewed the missile threat in an East-West context. However, beginning with the 1980's Iran-Iraq "War of the Cities" the U.S. view of the missile threat began to change. Third World rogue states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea gained access to long-range missiles and demonstrated a willingness to use them. The proliferation of missiles to these states added to the growing concern over the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Together, missiles and unconventional warheads created the potential of rogue states using weapons of mass destruction. In response to these particular problems (and others), the U.S. and its partners in the G-7 announced the formation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1987. The purpose of the MTCR was to prevent the proliferation of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. This non-proliferation regime became, and still is, the cornerstone of U.S. and Western efforts to stop missile proliferation. However, it has become apparent that preventive non-proliferation efforts alone can not halt missile proliferation. The Gulf War vividly demonstrates that rogue states will use long-range missiles to attack U.S. interests. Hence, the time has come for the U.S. to move beyond a preventive missile non-proliferation strategy to protect American national security interests. This thesis proposes the use of a three-pronged missile counter-proliferation strategy to nullify the threat facing the U.S. today.

The end of the cold war a decade ago has ushered in a greatly transformed international landscape. Instead of a pacific era of peace and political harmony, the world, and particularly the United States, has been confronted with a menacing challenge of rogue regimes whose propensity for violence is matched by their intentions to disrupt regional stability, contribute to outlaw behavior worldwide, or to possess weapons of mass destruction. Ruthless rogues also endanger American interests and citizens by their active or passive sponsorship of terrorism. If left unchecked, rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, and others will threaten innocent populations, undermine international norms, and spawn other pariah regimes, as the global order becomes tolerant of this political malignancy. As a major beneficiary of a global order of free markets, free trade, growing prosperity, and spreading democracy, the United States, the world's sole superpower, must take the lead in confronting rogue governments, even though our allies may balk from time to time. Specifically, American power should be used to enhance the credibility of our diplomacy. Law and diplomacy alone are unlikely to affect rogue dictators. They must be reinforced with power. Four broad policy options, which in most cases should be combined rather than implemented individually, can be applied: -Sanctions and isolation to achieve containment of and inflict economic damage on a rogue state -International courts and domestic prosecution to bring rogue criminals to justice -Shows of strength and armed interventions to coerce or eliminate rogue regimes -Support for opposition movements or covert operations to oust rogue figures Unless the United States addresses the challenge of rogue states with a combination of force and diplomacy, the new millennium will witness a widening of global anarchy, deteriorating progress toward economic development, and declining political reform. Dire consequences await the United States if it fails to react forcefully to international roguery.