Thousands of people have died at the hands of terrorist groups who rely on state support for their activities. Iran and Syria are well known as sponsors of terrorism, while other countries, some with strong connections to the West, have enabled terrorist activity by turning a blind eye. Daniel Byman's hard-hitting and articulate book analyzes this phenomenon. Focusing primarily on sponsors from the Middle East and South Asia, it examines the different types of support that states provide, their motivations, and the impact of such sponsorship. The book also considers regimes that allow terrorists to raise money and recruit without providing active support. The experiences of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya are detailed here, alongside the histories of radical groups such as al-Qaida and Hizballah. The book concludes by assessing why it is often difficult to force sponsors to cut ties to terrorist groups and suggesting ways in which it could be done better in the future.

The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism systematically integrates the substantial body of scholarship on terrorism and counterterrorism before and after 9/11. In doing so, it introduces scholars and practitioners to state of the art approaches, methods, and issues in studying and teaching these vital phenomena. This Handbook goes further than most existing collections by giving structure and direction to the fast-growing but somewhat disjointed field of terrorism studies. The volume locates terrorism within the wider spectrum of political violence instead of engaging in the widespread tendency towards treating terrorism as an exceptional act. Moreover, the volume makes a case for studying terrorism within its socio-historical context. Finally, the volume addresses the critique that the study of terrorism suffers from lack of theory by reviewing and extending the theoretical insights contributed by several fields - including political science, political economy, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, law, geography, and psychology. In doing so, the volume showcases the analytical advancements and reflects on the challenges that remain since the emergence of the field in the early 1970s.

This book focuses on individuals' acts perceived as international terrorism and on states' acts perceived as state support, emphasising on the legal aspects of military responses and discussing political, economic, and cultural dimensions as they bear on the feasibility of the possible response.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Examines terrorists¿ involvement in a variety of crimes ranging from motor vehicle violations, immigration fraud, and mfg. illegal firearms to counterfeiting, armed bank robbery, and smuggling weapons of mass destruction. There are 3 parts: (1) Compares the criminality of internat. jihad groups with domestic right-wing groups. (2) Six case studies of crimes includes trial transcripts, official reports, previous scholarship, and interviews with law enforce. officials and former terrorists are used to explore skills that made crimes possible; or events and lack of skill that the prevented crimes. Includes brief bio. of the terrorists along with descriptions of their org., strategies, and plots. (3) Analysis of the themes in closing arguments of the transcripts in Part 2. Illus.

Winner of the 2007 Paul Guggenheim Prize! Today's terrorists possess unprecedented power, but the State still plays a crucial role in the success or failure of their plans. Terrorists count on governmental inaction, toleration or support. And citizens look to the State to protect them from the dangers that these terrorists pose. But the rules of international law that regulate State responsibility for preventing terrorism were crafted for a different age. They are open to abuse and poorly suited to hold States accountable for sponsoring or tolerating contemporary terrorist activity. It is time that these rules were reconceived. Tal Becker's incisive and ground-breaking book analyses the law of State responsibility for non-State violence and examines its relevance in a world coming to terms with the threat of catastrophic terrorism. The book sets out the legal duties of States to prevent, and abstain from supporting, terrorist activity and explores how to maximise State compliance with these obligations. Drawing on a wealth of precedents and legal sources, the book offers an innovative approach to regulating State responsibility for terrorism, inspired by the principles and philosophy of causation. In so doing, it presents a new conceptual and legal framework for dealing with the complex interactions between State and non-State actors that make terrorism possible, and offers a way to harness international law to enhance human security in a post-9/11 world.

Since the Vietnam War, the definition of traditional warfare has changed from the military action that was observed in previous wars such as the Korean War, and both World Wars. Traditional warfare included accepted rules of engagement, drawn battlefield lines, and other elements that were generally expected and anticipated during wartime. Currently, the United States is involved in an 'Overseas Contingency Operation' (OCO) previously known as the 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT), in which soldiers face not a Nation State, but a group of terrorists, who do not claim allegiance to any specific country. In addition to the threat of terrorists acting as individuals, as groups or as organizations, the United States is also dealing with State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST), who utilize terrorist groups to achieve their own political agenda. One method the United States Government uses to confront this challenge by is establishing and maintaining a running list of States that sponsor terrorism. Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan are currently on this list. The list, produced by the U.S. Department of x State, is designed to enable U.S. policy makers to enforce restrictions in the form of embargos and sanctions against State Sponsors of Terrorism as a method to punish States for providing such support. The U.S. Department of State defines SST as those who "repeatedly provide critical support for non-state terrorist groups, who without sponsorship, would have a much more difficult time obtaining the weapons, material, and safe areas to plan, train adherents, and conduct terrorist activities." Various definitions of State Sponsorship exist; however, fulfillment of a political goal remains the underlying constant. The list of State Sponsors highlights the fact that the U.S. views these nations as potential threats. Although knowing who supports terrorism is necessary, this dissertation seeks to provide a method for analyzing the characteristics of SST to provide an opportunity to gain further insight into the justifications why each nation supports terrorist activities. This dissertation will examine the techniques that Cuba and Iran implemented in order to sponsor terrorism for the purpose of globally exporting their own ideological revolution. While analyzing these techniques, the environment that fostered both Cuba and Iran to become leading State Sponsors of Terrorism will become apparent through the examination of the root causes of the Cuban and Iranian revolutions and the conditions that existed that paved the way for Castro and Khomeini to take power. By identifying and examining the phases of State Sponsored Terrorism, an understanding of the similar sponsorship techniques that both Cuba and Iran applied during their tenure as State Sponsors will develop, highlighting the commonalities within each, and the results of each phase. Through the study of these phases of terrorism, a pattern of exploitation emerges that will enable a stronger appreciation for the history of SST and a capability to conduct tread analysis that could better establish the prediction of future actions of similar State Sponsors. Terrorism threatens the lives of numerous innocent people on a daily basis. It is inherently successful because it fosters the fear that safety is never guaranteed; Americans learned that on September 11th as three planes collided into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and a fourth crashed en route to D.C. in Pennsylvania. State Sponsorship of Terrorism has greatly increased the lethality of terrorist acts which is why the United States has focused efforts on putting political and economic pressure on states that choose terrorism as a main component of it's foreign and domestic policy. These two states, Iran and Cuba, represent only two threats facing the United States; they have the strongest history in recent years of SST. The study of these states may shed light on how to develop a better predictive model of SST behavior benefiting the U.S. in developing policy for combating terrorism.

Gareau examines a harrowing array of human rights abuses by US-supported actors.

The Oklahoma City bombing, intentional crashing of airliners on September 11, 2001, and anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001 have made Americans acutely aware of the impacts of terrorism. These events and continued threats of terrorism have raised questions about the impact on the psychological health of the nation and how well the public health infrastructure is able to meet the psychological needs that will likely result. Preparing for the Psychological Consequences of Terrorism highlights some of the critical issues in responding to the psychological needs that result from terrorism and provides possible options for intervention. The committee offers an example for a public health strategy that may serve as a base from which plans to prevent and respond to the psychological consequences of a variety of terrorism events can be formulated. The report includes recommendations for the training and education of service providers, ensuring appropriate guidelines for the protection of service providers, and developing public health surveillance for preevent, event, and postevent factors related to psychological consequences.

Accounts of the relationships between states and terrorist organizations in the Cold War era have long been shaped by speculation, a lack of primary sources and even conspiracy theories. In the last few years, however, things have evolved rapidly. Using a wide range of case studies including the British State and Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, as well as the United States and Nicaragua, this book sheds new light on the relations between state and terrorist actors, allowing for a fresh and much more insightful assessment of the contacts, dealings, agreements and collusion with terrorist organizations undertaken by state actors on both sides of the Iron Curtain. This book presents the current state of research and provides an assessment of the nature, motives, effects, and major historical shifts of the relations between individual states and terrorist organizations. The articles collected demonstrate that these state-terrorism relationships were not only much more ambiguous than much of the older literature had suggested but are, in fact, crucial for the understanding of global political history in the Cold War era.

Countries sponsoring and supporting terrorism impede the efforts of the United States and the international community to fight terrorism. Until states that support terrorism cease such sponsorship, they remain a critical foundation for terrorist groups and their operations. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the U.S. military's role in coercing states to cease their sponsorship of terrorism. Using game theory, this thesis analyzes the utility of military force against state-sponsored terrorism. It explains why past military responses did not pose a credible threat and were thus, an ineffective instrument of national power. It then examines how military force is employed in the current war on terrorism. The findings of this thesis suggest that the limited military strikes employed against states for their role in terrorist attacks prior to September 11, 2001, preconditioned the leaders of supportive states to believe U.S. leadership lacked commitment in its strategy to end state-sponsored terrorism. The findings also suggest the dramatic change in the United Stat method of employing its military forces against state sponsors of terrorism after September 11, 2001, created the credible, coercive military threat required to accomplish the U.S. national objective of ending state- sponsored terrorism.