STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY
Year:2011 | Volume:14 | Issue:3 (53)|Papers Count:7

this article tries to answer this question: does information revolution, which brings about revolution in open source intelligence, challenge intelligence ontologically? Author first describes the basic concepts, and then explains transformations in Open source intelligence as one of the collection methods. To answer the question, He analyses information revolution and open source revolution effects odd different aspects of intelligence such as: transparency, accountability, secrecy, relation between intelligence producer and consumer of intelligence. He claims that open source revolution restricts monopoly of intelligence production by intelligence organizations and decreases the level of secrecy. Author also assumes that multitude of information available in information revolution era, makes some uncertainties on validity and reliability of data.

the main purpose of this article is to explain effects of networking process on intelligence organizations. Author claims that networking decrease level of secrecy, increase flexibility, and cause some changes in structure, approaches and process of intelligence collection. He also assumes that variety of intelligence issues and frequency of threats in network space, makes "intelligence share" Approach a need for nations to overcome threats and protect strategic intelligence.

this article tries to explain control of intelligence in different political regimes especially democracies, through analysis of relation of security, politics and intelligence from traditional, post traditional, modern and post modern discourses.Author's assumption is that any analytic tool on intelligence control is based on relation of those three factors. Hypothesis of article is that: control of intelligence is affected by symmetric relation between security, politics and intelligence and, in the course of time, have transformed from personal and unilateral control toward legal and multilateral controls.

Politicization of intelligence is a perilous phenomenon in both covert and overt form, which has dangerous impacts on intelligence organization and political system. Politicization weakens and distorts intelligence analysis and intelligence estimates. Author claims that the most important of these distortions are radical subjectivity and interpretive in analysis. This deviation first acts as a cause of failure and mal-function of intelligence and in turn causes dis-identification of intelligence before policy-makers (consumers) and public opinion. Subjectivity and interpretivism may cause positive anthropy in political system which could be a factor of surprise and failure of policies of government.

The main goal of intelligence and security analysis is foresighting and warning about future events to prevent security crisis, failures and surprise. The main claim of author is that adopting futurist approach and designing warning system, can strengthen intelligence organizations role in production of pre-knowledge about events to prevent surprise situations. Warning system must be based on probability determination, and ranking probable. This way, intelligence analysis could approach it's main and essential functions.

This article tries to answer this question, how and through what mechanism, intelligence organizations effect political stability and prevent instability? Findings of research show that intelligence organization as an independent variable, effects political stability as a dependent variable, through mediator variables such as relative deprivation, political opportunities, external factors, political anomy, legitimacy, democracy, social movements, political culture, and economic problems.In the end, author claims that the best strategy for intelligence organizations to promote and protect political stability is to focus on "cognitive actions" instead of "covert actions" and "Participation in policy making" instead of "warning".

What is the role of intelligence organizations in foreign policy? And how is the relation of intelligence and foreign policy? Author in response to these questions numerates cognitive and executive roles of intelligence in foreign policy making and mutual relations between them. Author believes that type of foreign policy and requirements of foreign policy makers determine intelligence agenda and on the other hand, intelligence organizations by their cognitive products effect policy maker’s perception of issues and problems of foreign policy.