Category Archives: Middle East

Syria’s Cyclical Human Rights Abuses

03 Saturday Nov 2012

Posted by in Middle East, Regime Change, The Americas

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,


Of late, large-scale political protests around the world have focused almost entirely on human rights. Ironically, though, in the fight to power rebels have consistently violated human rights temporarily. This begs the question: When such acts in a rebellion can be justified?

Yesterday, pictures emerged showing Syrian rebels including the U.S.-funded Free Syrian Army torturing ten al-Assad regime soldiers. This is not the first time that such pictures have emerged; in August, too, such footage came out.

It remains unclear how the United States will respond to these atrocities. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said yesterday, “Anyone committing atrocities should be held to account.” The United States, though, has been cautious to withdraw aid to the rebel groups. It appears likely that the U.S. will attempt a leadership overhaul of the Free Syrian Army in a conference in Qatar next week.

The issue, though, is that the Syrian rebels are extremely nationalistic and it appears that generals did not order this torture. In the future, too, these rebels will likely disobey orders from leaders and go to any means necessary to overthrow the al-Assad regime.

What kind of government can the U.S. government expect these nationalistic rebels to institute if they do overthrow al-Assad? The U.S. and much of the international community is pessimistic. They were pessimistic, too about the post-regime governments in Egypt and Libya. Those governments, though, appear to be democratic and in favor of upholding human rights, for the time being at least. Pro-regime supporters were unfairly punished after the revolution, but that has happened in every revolution to date including the moderate American Revolution which led to the exodus of 80,000 loyalists.

So, the United States and the international community should not, as they currently are, view the human rights abuses by the Free Syrian Army as proof that a post-regime government there would be oppressive. Instead, they should view the Free Syrian Army’s recent steps as temporary sacrifices. Their human rights abuses will likely have lasted no longer than three or four years since the al-Assad regime seems close to falling. If the Free Syrian Army uses these human rights abuses as a necessary evil to gain power and end indefinite human rights abuses under al-Assad, the United States and the international community should respond with greater economic and military assistance.

About these ads

America’s New Policy of Containment

02 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


Surprisingly, Romney and Obama portray U.S.-Israeli relations as an all or nothing game. Even thought here is a full spectrum of stances towards Israel, Romney’s relations to Netanyahu appear extremely tight. Romney has said and shown through visits to Israel during his campaign his closeness to the nation and has also said that he would keep all options of diplomatic pressure on the table.  This implies that he would support Israel in a military attack on Iran. Conversely, Obama refused to even meet with Netanyahu when he came to New York for the UN General Assembly and has failed to mediate Israeli-Palestinian discussions for over two years now.

To understand the importance of the Israeli alliance with the United States, it is important to first understand the history of this alliance. This alliance was born out of a common enemy during the Cold War: the U.S.S.R. Anti-communist Israel proved an important alliance in the United States’ containment policy.

Throughout the past few decades, Israel has served as a force to counter-act anti-American hostility in the Middle East. Of course, this alliance has not come without significant costs. First of all, economically, foreign aid to Israel costs the United States about $3 billion per year. Secondly, America’s support for Israel has been damaging to the U.S. at times when Israel has acted against the will of the United States. For example, in 1967, Israel spurred Middle Eastern hanger against the U.S. and Israel when it took the currently disputed Palestinian territories. At the moment, it seems prepared to threaten the Middle East with war with a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

So, what does this mean for the future? Right now, improving relations with Israel could not be more critical. The Arab Springs have ended a generation of American puppet dictators in the Middle East and replaced them with populist Islamist group who support terrorist organizations. Undoubtedly, the United States should support democracy and democratic values like freedom of expression, petition, and assembly.  After all, these are the same values that led to the creation of the U.S. However, the U.S. should value Western-friendliness and a commitment to counterterrorism over democracy or rather, in the case of the Middle Eastern Arab Spring cases, populism. Just as in the Cold War, Israel can contain this dangerous new ideology.

On Iran, too the United States needs to cooperate with Israel. This is not to say that the U.S. should be working with Israel. It simply means that the U.S. should organize discussions with Israel to ensure that there is no discrepancy between the two nations. This will make sure that the Iran issue will not end strong Israeli-American relations.

In normal times, the United States should take a neutral stance towards Israel in order to better mediate an agreement between Israel and Palestine. However, the situation in the Middle East is anything but normal and America’s response should be appropriate to the situation.

Blood-Thirsty Iran

30 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Middle East, The Americas, War

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


The Iranian response to international economic sanctions has been extremely counterintuitive. Not only did Iran disregard the sanctions, but also it has increased its number of centrifuges and saber rattled the United States and Israel. While his citizens suffer from a currency depreciated 80% in just a few months, Ahmadinejad increasingly fervently strives for his goals of building a “nuclear deterrent” and “wiping Israel off the map.” Seems strange, doesn’t it?

Just recently, Iran claimed that it had gained images of secret Israeli nuclear facilities from drones that it had supplied to terrorist group Hezbollah running Lebanon. While Israel and much of the international community reasons that Iran could not possibly have such advanced technology, Iran’s Defense Minister assured that Iran does have such a drone and in fact also has much more sophisticated technology. In a similar instance last month, Iran claimed it was producing a missile-carrying drone with a 1,250 mile range. This claim, too, was widely refuted. However, the main issue is not whether or not Iran has this technology. The issue is why Iran is making such information public.

Could it be possible that Iran is trying to provoke a war with the United States and Israel? This frightening proposition seems all too likely. Surprisingly, there are great potential benefits for Iran for a joint U.S.-Israeli invasion of Iran.

This stems from the opposition of NATO nations to assist if the need arose. A war fought just by the United States and Israel would reflect poorly on the two nations as it would show that these countries act with impunity with no regards to the will of the international community including their allies.

Additionally, such a war could be the beginning of the end of the American Empire so to speak. After all, considering Iranian support from many key oil importers such as Russia, it seems that such a war would not be an easy victory. Although nuclear weapons will almost surely not come into place, a defeat would demonstrate the weakening of America’s military and the rise in international prominence of Eastern militaries.

There is not much that the United States and Israel can do to stop these effects other than refusing to declare war in Iran. True, a nuclear Iran would lead to a shift in the power dynamic in the Middle East. Though, a visibly weakened United States would shift the power dynamic much more negatively than would Iranian nuclear armament.

Brokering a Middle East Peace Plan: Qatar’s Specialty

26 Friday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,


Qatar is a land of contrasts. It supports autocratic rule at home, but it financially and militarily supports other Middle Easterners protesting against their governments. It consistently works to strengthen alliances with European and North American nations while also pledging $400 million in foreign aid to terrorist group Hamas. It is precisely because of these supposed hypocrisies that Qatar should be the leading mediator in international conflicts, particularly in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the United States should be the broker of Middle Eastern peace. Obama himself iterated that in recent history, the U.S. has been the only force capable of bringing Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. Yet, Israel and Palestine are currently no closer to an agreement than they were when Obama took office. If anything, relations between the two nations are more tense. Palestine and Israel have not negotiated for over two years now.

Qatar would be a more suitable broker of peace than the United States for two key reasons. First, it has a direct stake in Middle Eastern stability. As an oil exporter, Qatar is heavily invested in ensuring peace and thus open markets for all of its importers and potential importers. A politically stable and economically prosperous Palestine and Israel would be a major benefit to Qatar.

Secondly, Qatar would be an ideal moderator for a Middle East Peace Plan because it is unbiased in the issue. As mentioned before, Qatar’s Emir recently made a trip to Palestine where he pledged $400 million in foreign aid to the Hamas group ruling the country. At the same time, Qatar has constantly maintained contact with Israel and established economic alliances with its leaders. Qatar is one of a select few nations that maintains strong alliances with both parties involved in this issue and would therefore be able to bring both sides to the negotiating table.

Perhaps Romney summarized it best when he said during the campaign trail that in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue, the United States can do nothing but kick the can down the road. The issue is that America and Americans are self-interested especially in foreign policy. Without any tangible benefits to themselves, Americans rarely devote time or resources to important international issues. The United States would not benefit from an Israeli-Palestinian compromise; they would only benefit from a one-state solution under Israel given their extensive alliance with and resources invested in Israel. Qatar, on the other hand, is relatively unbiased in this issue, has direct benefits to act, and has suitable resources to facilitate an agreement between both parties. It’s a no brainer.

Model of the Arab Spring

07 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, Regime Change, The Americas

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,


Upon examining the great revolutions of history (such as the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution), a clear pattern emerges. The reactionary autocracy is replaced by a moderate government system which, in turn, is eventually overthrown for another reactionary autocracy. The Arab Springs can certainly be classified as Great Revolutions. In the definition of Great Revolutions, moderate Revolutions such as the American Revolution wherein the government structure remained similar, though, are exempted.

Of course, some nations managed to escape the typical model. Westernized nations managed to achieve democracy. However, an entirely different type of Revolution formed Western democracies.

The Revolutions that ended up instituting democracy or Republics were targeted revolts against the government system instead of specific leaders. In contrast, Egyptians, Tunisians, and Yemenis did not launch the Arab Springs because of the tyrannical government systems they faced. They overthrew specific leaders who they disliked mainly due to secularism and appeasement of the West.

In short, they overthrew Mubarak, Gaddhaffi and other oppressive tyrants not because they restrained human rights, but because of their failure to uphold popular Islamic law and their excessive reiteration of Western policies, specifically in regards to the Middle East Peace Process. This creates a dangerous precedent. Essentially, if men like Morsi simply fulfill populist demands to fight for Palestine, visibly oppose and cut ties with the West, and oust secularism, they can seize absolute power in post-Arab Springs nations without objection. Instead of helping the spread of democracy, thus, the Arab Springs could be extremely threatening to the West. It could lead to a new brand of Middle Eastern autocrats who instead of appeasing the West overtly diverge from the West in order to legitimize their rule.

What does this mean for the West? Can the West, as Mitt Romney would surely like to offer, do nothing more than kick the can down the road? It would appear so. Western influence in the Middle East will simply provide fodder for nationalist leaders like Morsi who currently cite undue American intervention in the Middle East as justification for his anti-Western sentiment. Most of these sentiments are held from Cold War era American support of ruthless dictators in the Middle East. The West supported these leaders economically in return for strongly anti-Communist stances. Now the United States and the West as a whole is paying the price. Yet, instead of stopping the bleeding, the West is continuing its strong stance on Israel much to the disgust of the international community, particularly in the Middle East. If the West does end support for Israel, though, it will lose its primary Middle Eastern ally and will likely fail to make any progress with post Arab Spring nations. It truly is a predicament for the West.

Israel’s Red Line: An Absurd Threshold for Iranian Nuclear Containment

30 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by in Middle East, War

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


The United Nations General Assembly has seen its fair share of ridiculous speeches. However, this past week, the UN General Assembly witnessed something truly rare. The prime minister of a developed, Western, democratic nation spreading propaganda on a global forum.  On Thursday, September 27, Benyamin Netanyahu delivered an overly simplified account of Iran’s nuclear armament in which he explicitly drew a red line for military intervention in Iran.

This move likely comes after Israel faced criticism for calling upon the United States to clearly define a red line for Iranian intervention while failing to do so itself.

The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to draw a red line. Netanyahu said that a line should be drawn once Iran has completed medium uranium enrichment. He explained that the process of making a nuclear weapon includes three stages of uranium enrichment: low, medium, and high concentration. He said that Iran had finished the low enrichment process, comprising 70% of a nuclear weapon. Once Iran is 90% complete in forming a nuclear weapon, once it completes the medium enrichment step, Israel will intervene militarily. What Netanyahu seemingly fails to realize is that Iran has consistently failed to agree to IAEA inspections. Without these inspections, it will be nearly impossible to accurately assess Iran’s nuclear developments. In other words, Israeli intelligence, likely influenced by Netanyahu, could easily fabricate their assessments in order to intervene in Iran militarily at their will.

Netanyahu went on to say that a nuclear-armed Iran would be just as dangerous as a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda. He said that there was not much difference between the world’s worst terrorist group and the world’s worst terrorist state. This was a completely hyperbolic claim. Though Iran has supported terrorism in the past, Iran is somewhat democratic. It is possible that Ahmadinejad will relinquish power after his second and final term ends in less than a year. Moreover, Iran has a deterrent to nuclear provocation that Al Qaeda does not. The world would likely respond to Iranian nuclear action with nuclear or military action. However, Al Qaeda is a complex organization with roots stretching from Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. The international community would almost certainly not wage a war on the entire Middle East region simply to get revenge for the action of certain individuals.

As with all wars historically, the United States and the international community must use reasonable judgment to decide when to intervene. It is entirely likely that military intervention in Iran will not be necessary. Perhaps, like North Korea at the moment, Iran is too radical and too much of a threat to the world’s oil flow and international peace to risk military intervention. Like Washington’s position on Pyongyang, it may prove far cheaper and safer for the United States to avoid military action on Iran and instead gain a tentative alliance with Tehran through sizeable foreign aid.

Of course, that is not a permanent action plan. However, much like the Kim Jong-un regime, the Ahmadinejad regime appears to be on its last legs. As proven throughout history, regimes that support crimes against humanity, terrorism, and repression tend to be overthrown within decades. His second “presidential” term is set to expire in less than a year. Thereafter, he will not be eligible for re-election. There is, of course, the threat that he will usurp power illegally as he likely did in the widely disputed 2009 elections. Nevertheless, the Arab Springs provide another alternative for regime change. Having seen their neighbors stand up for their democratic rights, Iranians could be persuaded to rebel against the regime. It is very likely that if such a protest were to erupt, the United States and its NATO allies would help to finance the rebels as they are currently doing in Syria. If Washington gets its timing right, foreign aid will precede a soon-to-come rebellion against the regime.

Thus, it is unwise to draw a red line for Iranian military action at the moment. Such a decision should be based on the context of the region and nuclear developments at the time of intervention, two factors that cannot be accurately predicted at the moment. The United States and the rest of the world should not follow suit with Israel’s absurd red line declaration at the UN General Assembly.

Iran’s Virtual Iron Curtain

29 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by in Government, Middle East

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,


In response to the video “Innocence of Muslims,” the inflammatory amateur film that depicted Prophet Muhammad poorly resulting in anti-American protests in the Middle East and beyond, Iran’s radical leader Ahmadinejad has decided to ban Internet giant Google’s search and mail features.

It should be noted that Innocence of Muslims was not the reason for this decision. The video merely provides a justification for Ahmadinejad to gain an even stronger hold on its citizens. The Iranian regime has, in fact, censored social media sites, especially during times when a high volume of anti-regime dissent erupts internationally. Just over a year ago, Ahmadinejad even suggested that Iran should have an Internet disconnected from the rest of the world to encourage Muslim values and ethics.

What exactly does Iran censoring its Internet mean for the rest of the world? At first glance: nothing good. After all, Iran is distancing itself further from the Western world. The likely conclusion would be that it is aligning itself with other rogue states such as North Korea and Russia in the process.

However, there is hope within this move. After all, Iran’s decision to censor the Internet indicates that the regime is unable to handle dissent. Obviously, Iran’s ruling regime is extremely vulnerable to dissent at the moment.

As a result, a carefully orchestrated rebellion could easily topple the regime at the moment. The agent to organize such a rebellion should be a NATO coalition, but the rebels themselves should be Iranian to ensure that such a revolt is truly in the interest of Iranian citizens. This organization would ensure that the mistakes in other Arab Springs revolts do not plague Iran. Most importantly, such a structure would help the rebels to organize themselves and establish a common set of goals. This, in turn, would create a stronger rebellion and a more unified post-conflict society.

Of course, the United States has historically been weak at organizing rebellions. In 1954, for example, the CIA planted a coup against the democratic constitution monarch Mohammad Mosaddegh. The United States instead instituted the authoritarian Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi. The goal of this was to institute a Middle Eastern leader loyal to the United States in order to contain Communism from spreading to the Middle East.

In the case of Iran at the moment, the United States and its NATO allies must balance their self-interests with Iranian interests. A more peaceful Iran is surely in America’s interests, and the only way to achieve peace and democracy in Iran is to maintain long-term aid there. In Iran in 1987, after the United States had managed to support Mujahedeen rebels in ousting the Soviet Union, the United States immediately cut its extensive foreign aid to Iran. As a result, the government was unable to make up the costs from the war and invest in much needed infrastructure. Therefore, Iran built up anti-American sentiment.

While NATO should provide more extensive funding to Iran during a potential NATO orchestrated rebellion against the regime, NATO foreign aid to Iran should continue for at least ten years. This would serve NATO goals by ensuring that the ruling party to emerge from the rebellion would be friendly towards the United States. It would also strike a balance of American self-interest and Iranian interest by providing Iran the resources it needs to westernize both politically and economically.

Syria: The Lone Arab Spring Success Story

22 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by in Middle East, Regime Change

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,


The Arab Springs were undoubtedly a failure. In Egypt, the ruling party is currently an Islamist regime under Mohammad Morsi, and the military continues to have undue power in the nation. The Libyan and Tunisian federal governments are weak which has allowed militant groups like Al Qaeda to gain strength in the nations. However, Syria, despite the seeming ceaseless battle between rebels and pro-regime forces, holds promise to be an isolated success story.

 

Sutherland, Don. Burning of American Flag. Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemonstrationRaketenStationierung1982.jpg&gt;.
Syria has the potential to become the first Arab Springs nation friendly to the United States.

Today, Riad al-Asaad, the leader of the Free Syrian Army has confirmed that the rebel group, the strongest and most unified of the many Syrian rebel groups, will move its operations from Turkey to liberated regions of Syria. The move had two main goals: demonstrating the rebel groups’ accomplishments thus far in securing liberated regions and promoting greater unity with the other rebel groups operating in Syria.

The fighting will likely take at least another 6 months until the regime is toppled considering Bashar al-Assad’s support from Russia and Iran among other anti-Western nations. The key to Syria’s success in the Arab Springs will be the Turkish influences in the Free Syrian Army, the most likely group to emerge from the Arab Springs to govern Syria.

Nearly all of the other Arab Spring nations have replaced secular regimes with Islamist regimes. Many of these nations also harbor terrorism or maintain authoritarian elements. However, Turkish influences in the Free Syrian Army will likely lead to the Free Syrian Army instituting a secular, democratic regime.

The main issue distinguishing Syria from the other Arab Springs nations is the sheer damage to the country. Commerce in Syria has been halted greatly by the violence and the death toll in Syria is incomprehensible, estimated at around 30,000 according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights.  By the end of the conflict, that number could feasibly double. Also, Syria faces sectarian violence not likely to end with al-Assad’s downfall. The Free Syrian Army must prepare itself to handle these situations among others. The most logical way to solve these issues and establish order amidst the power vacuum that will surround the downfall of the al-Assad regime is through Turkish support. The rebel group should maintain contact with and support from Turkey. Turkey could invaluable to Syria in forming a transitional government and providing Syria its Constitution to use as a framework for its own government based on secularism and democracy.

Failures of Middle Eastern Democracy

16 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The United States often tries to portray democracy as the one-size-fits-all solution to any country’s issues. In reality, though, democracy is not always the best government model for a nation. This idea can clearly be seen through the Middle Eastern protests against American embassies.

It is important to note that the Embassy attacks are not targeted. The militants justified their rebellion by citing religious provocation. Recently, an Israeli-American produced movie poorly depicting prophet Muhammad was released. Similarly, Middle Eastern militants had used the accidental burning of Qurans by US troops in Afghanistan a few months ago as justification for violence. Without a doubt, these religious extremists aim to latch onto any Western blows to their religious to use as incitements for anti-Western action. Middle Eastern Islamic extremists have a raging passion for the United States, one that is not entirely unjustified. After all, the United States, especially during the Cold War, supported anti-Communist authoritarian regimes that perpetrated countless crimes against humanity, threatened many Middle Eastern nations by setting up numerous strategic military bases across the region, and supported Israel despite its illegal seizure of Palestinian land during the Six Day War from June 5th to June 10th 1967.

Middle Eastern nations have only increased in their religious fervor since their creation of Islamist democratic governments through the Arab Springs. In the Middle East, newfound democracy from the Arab Spring is proving to foster unrest and violence. It should be noted that prior to the Arab Springs, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia were all relatively peaceful nations. Yet, Libya is now a hotbed for religious extremism and hosts Al Qaeda militant operations. Egypt and Tunisia too have weak federal governments that allows for violence and militant activity.

It would undoubtedly be beyond the bounds of the United States to intervene in nations such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya that the US supported in their rebellions against the government. However, the United States does have significant power in determining the political fate of Afghanistan. It seems absurd that the United States, a nation based on the fundamental values of popular sovereignty and inalienable liberties, could suggest that Afghanistan adopt an absolute ruler. Political reasons, such as the decade spent trying to build Afghani democracy and numerous American attempts to oust illegitimate dictators in the Middle East and abroad, may prevent the United States from establishing authoritarian rule.

The idea that authoritarian governments could be better for peace than democratic ideas is a radical one in today’s world. Yet, all ideological political and economic shifts are caused by radical ideas. After all, the first dissenter of mercantilism may have been regarded as uninformed or illogical. 3 Centuries later, though, capitalism and free trade dominate much of the world.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister: One Year On

14 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Government, Middle East

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has been in office for a year, and has enacted immense change. Overall, she has made Pakistan’s foreign policy and foreign relations much more open and transparent. While much of her action has striven to make Pakistan more amiable with the West, some of the foreign relations that she has established could undermine Pakistan’s hope to improve relations with the United States and other NATO members.

Under Khar, Pakistan has decided to overlook its anger over US drone strikes that have killed countless Pakistani security forces and citizens. While Pakistan has never formally retracted its demand for the United States to apologize for these actions, Islamabad recently opened NATO trade routes to Afghanistan. This will save the United States billions of dollars as it prepares to launch a full-scale military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without these trade routes, the United States was forced to rely on the much more costly Central Asian trade routes.

Pakistan has also consistently improved relations with India under Khar despite continued disputes of the Kashmir region and anger from India over the series of bombings in 2008 that were allegedly perpetrated by Pakistani militants. Currently, Islamabad and New Delhi are working on trade deals and maximize the efficiency of visas for citizens of one country to visit the other.

Regarding Iran, Pakistan recently signed into action a policy to improve wheat imports from Iran. At first glance, this move seems harmless. However, this policy essentially attempts to provide Iran a cushion for its economic sanctions. Pakistan thereby attempts to singlehandedly undermine the efforts of the international community to diplomatically pressure Tehran.

While the newfound openness in relations with Iran is by no means good news for the West, it signals a positive change in Pakistani foreign policy: transparency. A year ago, the United States would be oblivious to the trade and political agreements struck between Pakistan and Iran, among many other unfavorable trade partners in the West’s mind.

While Pakistan’s explicit relations with Iran may be difficult for Western nations to bear, the West should reward Pakistan for making its foreign policy more transparent by increasing free trade with Pakistan and ensuring greater intelligence cooperation with Islamabad. The worst possibility in a situation such as this would be for the United States and other Western nations to fail to recognize Pakistan’s achievements. This could result in Pakistan further distancing itself from Europe and North America which would be disastrous given the West’s interests in greater cooperation with Pakistan in order to capture key militant leaders from groups such as Al Qaeda.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers