In this comparative analysis of editorial columns in Danish newspapers, we analyze how news media can act as a political voice during times of war. Whereas most studies of media coverage of war focus on one specific war, this analysis provides empirically and theoretically grounded conclusions across three wars: Afghanistan 2001–, Iraq 2003–2007, and Libya 2011. The analysis focuses on the interpretative frames that are mobilized concerning the cause of conflict, the legitimacy of war, and the rationales for deploying Danish troops. Various models of elite–media relationships are considered and modified from a theoretical perspective in order to take into account the particular problems involved for a small nation going to war. The analysis largely confirms the influence of elite consensus or dissensus on media coverage. Other influential factors include the media system and the semi-autonomous status of newspapers as an elite voice competing with other opinion-making elites.

Complex rivalries for influence among regional powers, most notably between Saudi Arabia and Iran but also including Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are transforming the Middle East. As local borders and ruling institutions have become contested in the aftermath of the Iraq War and the Arab Spring, so has control of the region’s major oil and gas facilities. Warring militias, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Al Qaeda and traditional governments are increasingly focusing on maintaining or gaining control of oil production and refining installations. Additionally, regional conflicts, now complicated by the active military involvement of Russia, have spilled over to affect global oil markets as Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, seeking to influence regional military and geopolitical outcomes, have initiated a market share war that has brought about a collapse in oil prices. This paper examines how conflicts in the Middle East, including the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS, are shifting the geopolitics of oil. These conflicts are raising serious new risks to regional oil facilities, making them both strategic assets and spoils of war. Current diplomacy to resolve the conflict in Syria faces serious challenges. In addition to humanitarian grounds, it is imperative to find a durable solution in order to prevent the continued destruction of major regional oil and gas production and export facilities. The ongoing destruction of such infrastructure may represent a major challenge to global energy security in the three to five year time frame.

This essay examines the roles that sex, gender, and sexuality can play in the study of international security. It makes the argument that “hard” security pressing questions like wars, genocides, and terrorist attacks and issues of gender, sex, and sexuality are linked. It begins by providing information about the recent and ongoing conflict in Libya as a case study. Then, it explores some of the questions that feminist and queer scholars have asked about international security in turn: where are the “women” in global politics? Where is “gender” and what does it matter? How do gender dynamics influence war and conflict? Do issues of sex and sexuality matter to war and conflict? If so, how? What tools are available to study these questions and produce answers in any given political situation?