Home Terrorism
Category

Terrorism

EuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsMiddle EastSecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorismUncategorized

In the Shadow of Terror—The Global Response to Terrorism in Light of the Paris Attacks

written by Arturo Siguenza

November 13, a day that will surely be ingrained in the nightmares of thousands, began as any other day in Paris, with the promise of an exciting evening of friends, food, and music. No one predicted the horror that would ensue as the sun set, namely that a group of strategically organized terrorists would infiltrate various locations throughout the city. At 9:20pm explosions erupted in the locality around the Stade de France, triggering the beginning of multiple attacks. Over the next four hours, cafes and restaurants were targeted in a slew of bombings and shootings, culminating at the Bataclan Concert Hall. Those hoping to enjoy an evening of rock music headlined by the American band, Eagles of Death Metal, instead faced a group of armed militants that entered the venue and opened fire at unsuspecting crowds. Within a few hours, the city of Paris was consumed by panic and terror as thousands fled these targeted centers in search of safe havens from the attacks.

The city of Paris lost 130 lives throughout the course of the night and 351 people were left injured. An attack meant to indiscriminately stir fear not only in France, but globally, has successfully shaken spirits worldwide. Empathy for France was instantaneous as social media reacted in support. Facebook instituted a safety check system, a tool previously reserved for natural disasters, allowing users in Paris to notify their loved ones of their status. Feeds flooded with profile pictures donning a blue, white and red filter in solidarity. Across all social media platforms, people showed their support using the hashtag #prayforparis, and governments worldwide showed their solidarity, projecting the French flag over their monuments and gathering to discuss collective action. Just two days after the attacks, world leaders met at the G20 World Summit in Turkey, vowing to increase military response against IS. Since the World Summit, an international coalition including the USA, France, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and recently Britain, has formed using air strikes to bomb IS targets in Syria aiming to weaken the organization’s strongholds. With the ever-increasing support for France and the reactionary discussions among government heads, the Paris attacks marked a pivotal point in the war against IS and its affiliates. Claiming responsibility for the horrific attacks, IS has demonstrated its ability to not only effectively inflict its militant terror tactics within its territorial strongholds but also to extend this destructive reach internationally.

But what does this social response and acceleration in government action tell us? The terrorist attacks in Paris and the response that followed showed a collective empathy that cut across national boundaries, but also conversely emphasized the stark contrast in the attention garnered by terrorist attacks in other regions. With everyone from celebrities to prominent government officials making statements and sending their condolences and prayers to Parisians, one begins to wonder why other countries do not receive the same treatment. For instance, earlier last year a suicide bomber killed 12 people during a funeral in eastern Afghanistan. In April, al-Shabab militants attacked and killed 147 at Garissa University in Kenya, most of whom were students. Just a day before the attacks in Paris, a suicide bombing orchestrated by ISIS hit the city of Beirut killing 43 people. These are but a few of the acts of terrorism this past year and the majority of these brutal incidents share one common factor: none garnered the outpouring of global attention and empathy that the Paris attacks had.

My intention is not to shame the solidarity shown for Paris, but to highlight the stark contrast between how these events are treated.  This contrast makes it impossible to continue ignoring the chronic perception that terrorism occurring in countries situated in regions more prone to violence, such as in the Middle East and Africa, can be waved aside as normal or habitual occurrences. At the G20 Summit in November, President Obama referred to the events in Paris as not just an attack on France but as “an attack on the civilized world.” This raises the question as to how and what we can identify as “the civilized world?” This loaded statement calls forth the idea that world governments, popular media, and ordinary individuals dismiss some regions as backwards and their confrontations with violence as the unfortunate but dismissible status quo—until bombs go off in their own backyards. What is most distressing is that attacks subsequently launched against terrorist organizations often result in the upheaval and loss of many innocent civilian lives; consider the civilian death toll in the War on Terrorism following 9/11 and the warzone that Syria has become. Civilians in countries that seem to be too “uncivilized” to foster global attention or completely lost in micro-aggression, are often neglected and their already chaotic surroundings decimated.

So what does this mean for the future in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? It is clear that IS and its affiliates will not stop anytime soon in their ongoing terror rampage. They have already claimed sequence of more attacks, since the Paris events. In Nigeria two bomb attacks carried out by Boko Haram killed 31 and injured 72. This past week a suicide bomber—and suspected member of IS—killed 10 in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Square and the organization also orchestrated a series of attacks in Jakarta leaving 2 dead and 20 injured. A new IS propaganda video, titled “Paris Has Collapsed,” was released on November 20th glorifying the Paris attacks and vowing continuation of threats to not only France, but also the U.S. The hacker-activist group known as Anonymous also released a list of future IS targets it claims to have uncovered suggesting plans for strikes in the U.S., Indonesia, Italy, and Lebanon. Additionally we also see the domino effect IS attacks have on its ongoing rivalry with Al Qaeda for Islamic supremacy. Shortly after the Paris attacks, Al Qaeda launched an attack that killed 19 in a Mali hotel on November 20th.  A dangerous future of competition between the two organizations is becoming progressively more apparent.

The West, or the “civilized world” as described by President Obama, is entering a state of emergency as the war against terrorism escalates indefinitely. The next steps will undoubtedly bring massive change to the international sphere. In this, we must remember that government and social response can empower terrorism as much as it can end it; justice is our duty but retaliation is not. We cannot permit ourselves to repeat the mistakes following 9/11 with an emergency response that does not consider further consequences in war-torn countries. For every innocent life lost in distant battlefields and each person at home that allows their fear to turn them away from the idea of human rights, plays into the hands of terrorist organizations moving us towards an increasingly militant global climate fueled by terror.

 

My prayers go out to all those affected by the recent terrorist attacks and those who continue to experience the aftermath of past episodes. Your stories will not go forgotten.

January 15, 2016 1 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Crisis ReliedEuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsGlobalizationImmigrationInternetMiddle EastReligionSecuritySecurity and ConflictSociety and CultureTerritorial disputesTerrorismUncategorized

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

written by Madison Weil

In light of recent radical Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, individuals everywhere are feeling uneasy and unsafe. The topic of national security has moved to the forefront of political agendas and has become an integral part of international discussions. In the United States, 49% of citizens are worried that they, or someone in their family, will become a victim of terrorism. This percentage is the highest it has been since the year following 9/11. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, “Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own.” Additionally, 59% of Republicans, 38% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats support a ban on all Muslims wishing to enter the United States. For a nation that prides itself on freedom and equal opportunity for all, these are surprising numbers, which reveal the success of radical extremists in their ability to create widespread fear and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In an effort to learn more about the goals and recruitment strategies of ISIS, a colleague and I recently interviewed Mubin Shaikh—an ex-extremist turned counter-terrorism operative, and author of the book Undercover Jihadi. Born in Canada, Shaikh was raised Muslim and became influenced by the radical ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He began actively recruiting other young Muslims for the cause of jihad. After the events of 9/11, however, he questioned Islamic extremism and travelled to Syria, where he underwent deradicalization—a process he defines in his interview as “a full cognitive shift away from extremist thinking.” Upon his return home, he began working undercover with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the “Toronto 18” case, in an effort to prevent extremist attacks.  Today, he works to stop radicalization using social media to directly engage Islamic State sympathizers, while also speaking out against Islamophobia, which he believes only fuels and encourages radicalization.

What many people do not understand is that the fulfillment of ISIS’ agenda is actually dependent upon worldwide discrimination against Muslims—all Muslims, even moderate, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. According to Shaikh, “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious how easily people are falling into that trap. ISIS has actually written a document in which they wrote and said ‘we will commit these attacks so as to create retaliation on Muslims to make them feel so isolated and marginalized that they will be pushed into our waiting arms.’”

Shaikh is referring to both a manifesto called “The Black Flags from Rome,” as well as the February edition of ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq, in which the Islamic State warned, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” This statement was published in the weeks following the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris—an abhorrent act that only heightened the pre-existing tension between French Muslims and their fellow citizens. The group boasted that the attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing the coexistence between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. The text further explains that Muslims living in the West will soon feel so isolated and marginalized, they will be forced to “either apostatize … or [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” The term “crusader” is the title given by ISIS to every Western soldier, civilian, and politician, regardless of party or nation.

In the weeks following the most recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, ISIS has seen their goal come to fruition—innocent Muslims everywhere have been experiencing acts of violence, hatred, and discrimination at the hands of angry, fearful Western citizens. Many in the West believe that Islam is a religion that promotes violence, without understanding that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Shaikh explained that ISIS manipulates the Quran, “cherry-picks” verses, and uses phrases out of context in order to piece together an outline for their violent mission.

In a more recent interview with VICE, Shaikh reemphasizes that widespread Islamophobia provides a major advantage to ISIS recruiters: “The sad reality is, you have people on the right who might as well directly take the marching orders from ISIS because they’re doing the work for them.” ISIS targets individuals who feel isolated and rejected. Youths are an easy target given their desire to formulate their own identity and find a community to which they belong. Shaikh comments, “Your brains are still developing until your mid-twenties. That’s a time when you’re susceptible to influences from adults, community members, and religious members.” ISIS preys on the vulnerability of ostracized youths, reaching out to them via social media platforms such as Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Instagram, etc. “They’ll take screenshots and continue to engage you until they feel like they can successfully recruit you,” says Shaikh. He also solemnly discusses the impossibility of quitting ISIS once an individual has been recruited: “Their lives are destroyed. And it will be very, very difficult for them to leave that place. Some of them have been executed because they were creating ‘too many problems’ because they wanted to go home.”

While widespread fear and anger might seem inevitable in light of current events, Shaikh encourages individuals to educate themselves on the goals and strategies of extremists, and to resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Muslim sentiment which only further fuels radicalization and polarization.

December 28, 2015 1 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsGlobalizationHumanitarian AidImmigrationMiddle EastReligionSecuritySecurity and ConflictSociety and CultureTerrorismUncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

                          “It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.”                                                                                                   –Ernest André Gellner                                                                                                                      (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”  

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedGeopoliticsMiddle EastSecurity and ConflictTerrorism

Why Bashar al-Assad Will Win the Syrian Civil War

written by Erin Kelly

Syria today is, put simply, a catastrophe. Caught in a vicious cycle of violence, a civil war rages. The government commits war crimes against its own people. Rebels retaliate. The resultant instability of the country practically invites in the terrorist group known as Daesh, ISIS, ISIL, or Islamic State. But as millions of displaced citizens flee the country en masse, the president presides over the situation with an eye to the future.

Bashar al-Assad, despite his almost reluctant ascension to power in the wake of his father’s death, has been the president of Syria for the past fifteen years, and given the extreme nature of the ongoing civil war he clearly does not intend on relinquishing that power. In fact, he appears to be manipulating his country’s dire situation to his own political advantage. Between his strategic strikes on Syrian opposition forces, his response (or lack thereof) to the threat of Islamic State (IS), and now Russia’s involvement on Assad’s behalf, the Syrian president is positioning himself to remain the only viable leader for Syria.

Since March 2011 government forces have been under investigation by the UN into human rights violations, and since 2013 the regime has been accused of chemical weapons use against its own citizens. But recently the focus has shifted from Assad’s alleged war crimes to his strategic targets. The United States claims that pro-Assad forces have been targeting moderate, Western-backed rebels, rather than more dangerous jihadists like Jaish al-Fatah, an alliance including extremist groups like the Nusra Front. This choice is clearly deliberate, based on politics rather than on military strategy. Assad maintains his appearance of fighting for Syrian stability by defeating the violent rebels. But the decision to battle specifically more moderate opposition permits extremists to thrive, cultivating fear in the Syrian people. Thus, Syrians must turn to Assad for deliverance.

Similarly, Assad and his supporters have strategically responded to the Islamic State invasion of Syria. From the beginning when IS took control of oil production facilities, the regime has continued to buy from these same facilities, literally feeding IS funding. Furthermore, Assad believes that IS does not pose the most direct threat to Damascus. So he focuses his military forces on rebel groups rather than on IS, essentially allowing the organization to conquer some areas in the north of Syria, recruit sympathizers, and terrorize the rest of the population. But Assad does not ignore the imminent threat of IS. On October 4th, just days after Russia began its airstrikes, he warned during an Iranian TV interview that failure in Syria’s campaign against IS would “destroy the Middle East.” This combination of inaction against IS and public statements about the dangers it poses only serves to increase levels of concern, both in Syria and in the international community, demonizing IS and elevating Assad as the more reasonable leader.

Already Assad has a strong base of support, which has mobilized against his opposition often using brutal tactics. By relying only on his most trusted units during the initial insurgency in 2011, Assad managed to hone the Syrian Army down to totally committed regime supporters. Reinforcing the Syrian Army are pro-Assad militias, mostly consisting of Alawites led by distant Assad family members, but also including minority groups desperate to defend their communities against opposition fighters. Finally, both Iran and Hezbollah provide direct support to pro-Assad efforts. But now an even stronger ally, a major global power, has joined forces to fight for Assad – Russia.

On September 30, 2015, Russia began airstrikes in Syria, allegedly contributing to the effort against IS and “terrorists” in Syria. However, from day one of the airstrikes U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, claimed that these air strikes were not on IS-held territory. Instead, many have struck Syrian opposition forces, including U.S.-backed “moderates.” Indeed, as Russia’s involvement in Syria has increased, its focus has proved to be the rebels. This is because the Russian definition of “terrorists” is the same as Assad’s – any group opposing the government. President Vladimir Putin has acknowledged that Russia’s priority is to ensure that President Assad remains in power (contrary to the wishes of the majority of the international community), so it follows that the primary targets for Russian attacks are the non-IS Syrian rebels who pose the gravest threat to Damascus.

Russia and Syria have maintained a close relationship since Syria achieved independence and aligned with the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Over the course of that relationship, the two countries have developed economic and cultural connections, most important of which appear to be Russia’s warm-water port at Tartus and its lucrative arms exports to Syria. For Putin, it is critical that Assad remains in power in order to prevent a potentially catastrophic regime change in Syria and prove the strength of authoritarian leaders. Stakes are high now that Russia has committed tangible support to Assad by commencing air strikes; at this point, Assad’s failure would make Russia look weak as well. So Assad can rely on Putin’s pride and stubbornness to ensure that he will receive all the support Russia can provide, paving the way to eventual victory.

Once the opposition forces are neutralized by the Russia-Syria team, Islamic State will be Assad’s only enemy left in Syria. And with an international coalition, led by the United States, already battling IS, this particular “Daesh” brand of Islamism will eventually be crushed, leaving Bashar al-Assad as the last man standing – just as he planned.

November 11, 2015 6 comments
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsImmigrationSecuritySociety and CultureTerrorism

The Tragic Murder of a Licensed Fool: Extremism, Freedom of Expression, and the Fight For “European Values.”

written by James Walker

At midday on the 7th of January 2015, three masked gunmen forced their way into the offices of a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and ruthlessly executed ten members of staff, including the editor, Stephane Charbonnier, and his police bodyguard. The men then fled the scene into the Paris streets, killing another policeman on their way out. The motivation for this horrific massacre is very clear – the offices and personnel had been under threat of terrorist attack since 2007, when the magazine participated in the controversial publishing of cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed.  The situation became even more intense in 2011, when the magazine issued a special edition titled “Charia Hebdo” (a reference to Sharia law), and listed the prophet as the editor-in-chief. A day after publication, the offices were petrol-bombed.

Monsieur Charbonnier  (or Charb as he was known in the cartoon world) was an outspoken critic of many aspects of modern day French life, and used his position to ridicule the great and the good alike. The tagline for his magazine was “Journal Irresponsable” and it took pains to offend politicians, social commentators, and religious sensibilities across a broad spectrum of French society. In doing so, Charb looked to fulfill a venerable role within European society – that of the court jester, or fool. Dating back to ancient times, the fool has often been afforded a license to both mock and speak irreverently to power. George Orwell, another outspoken critic of European society, identified the role of the fool in Shakespeare’s King Leer as an example of how the position was necessary to provide a “trickle of sanity running through the play.”

Here in the United States, the role of the fool is filled by political comedians such as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They are so effective, in fact, that the Pew Research Center published a report in 2007 identifying viewers of Stewart and Colbert as the most politically informed demographic in the country. The mixture of political satire and sheer lunacy is a potent elixir, and one that a health society suffers from in its absence. Eric Idle, legendary comedian, and founding member of Monty Python, explored this notion when he stated:

“At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted.”

Of course, the presence of humor is not, in and of itself, a justification for giving deliberate offense. The fool’s role is not to simply make you gasp in revulsion, but is intended to provoke reflection, in the same way that the apocryphal story of the servant riding behind Caesar whispering “remember thou art mortal” is intended to remind the powerful of their humanity. The question for many European societies is how to merge the strong free speech traditions of European modernity, with the resurgent influence of strongly held religious convictions.

In the coming weeks many commentators are going to focus on the so called “culture wars” of European integration. Given the highly charged political situation across the continent, that is not surprising.  A mere two days before the Paris attack, tens of thousands of Germans took to the streets to demonstrate against what they see as the “Islamification of the West.” In Greece, an openly racist political party, the Golden Dawn, has begun exploiting nationalist resentment and the scapegoating of foreign immigrants, and France itself has been engaged in a never ending debate over the role of religion in an explicitly secular republic. Having outlawed the wearing of the Islamic burqa in public places (along with overt displays of Christian crosses in public schools, and other such religious symbology), the French state has explicitly attempted to assert a vision of “Frenchness” that sits outside of cultural or traditional religious boundaries.

The more alarmist observers will fall back upon such well worn tropes as Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilizations,” regardless of the fact that no-one with any serious academic reputation has given it any credence for the past decade. Those with a more cogent perspective will attempt to fight this redundant narrative as best they can. As has all too often been the case, the Islamic authorities that represent the vast majority of European Muslims will try in vain to make their own revulsion at this heinous act known. Muslim scholars and commentators will do their best to explain that the actions of a few insane zealots do not represent the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people who see themselves as both Muslim AND French. Perhaps this time they will be heard, although previous experience does not hold out much optimism on this point.

Hopefully, what will not disappear into the morass of hyperbole and hysteria over the coming months is the strength and conviction of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Every day for the past few years, each individual walked into their office knowing that a small group of homicidally inclined fanatics had vowed to kill them. Initial reports from the crime scene state that the men proclaimed they had “avenged the Prophet” as they fled from the carnage. Quite why an all powerful creator and His messenger should need the assistance of three rifle wielding lunatics is never explained, but perhaps you have to have a certain kind of faith to understand such things. What is understandable is the position of Charb, and his fellow fools. – they were all true believers in their own right, with an unshakable belief in the function of satire and humor as an essential element of the public discourse.

When asked how he continued to face the ever present threat of attack, Charb replied that he was “not afraid of reprisals, [as] I have no children, no wife, no car, no debt. It might sound a bit pompous, but I’d prefer to die on my feet rather than living on my knees.”

In the words of one of Shakespeare’s most enduring fools:

“I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of me;to fright me, if they could. But I will not stir from this place, do what they can: I will walk up and down here, and I will sing, that they shall hear I am not afraid.”

Bottom – A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene 1.

January 8, 2015 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedMiddle EastSecuritySecurity and ConflictSociety and CultureTerrorismUncategorized

Adventures in Bizzaro World: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb…

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

Last week, the President of the United States of America made a televised appeal to the nation, asking them to get on board with his plan to use limited military strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. President Obama laid out two main points for consideration:

1) The use of chemical weapons is a clear crime against humanity and in contravention of an accepted international norm. To let such actions go unpunished would be a green light to the dictators and terrorists of the world, and as such posed a threat to regional, global, and US security.

2) It is unacceptable for the world to stand idly by as helpless civilians are slaughtered by the thousand, akin to the stain on the consciousness of the international community over Bosnia…or Rwanda…or Darfur…

Having reached the second decade of the 21st century, what is most shocking is the notion that the focus of this debate continues to revolve around the lynchpin of chemical weapons as an unacceptable form of mass murder—in contrast to the apparently acceptable nature of conventional weapons.  The President’s call to arms is, in essence, based upon the form of murder, rather than the act of murder itself.

By the time of the President’s speech on September 10th,  the civil war in Syria had been ongoing for over 900 days—or almost two and a half years. In that time, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates a civilian death toll of over 40,000 people, including 5,800 children. This means that on average, 44 civilians (including 6 children) die every single day in the Syrian conflict. In other words, almost 1,000 people who were not combatants or directly involved in the war have been killed by conventional arms since the Sarin attack on August 21st. To make that point clearer in a local context, by the time UCLA holds its annual Activities Fair for incoming students on September 23rd, the death toll from good-old-fashioned flying lead ordinance will surpass the number of civilians killed in the gas attack, estimated at 1,429 people.

It is at this point that the “Bizzaro World” factor kicks into high gear. According to the latest rash of polls by CNN, the Pew Research Center, and the Washington Post, the American public opposes armed intervention in the Syrian crisis by a majority of about 63% of the population. This is an astounding figure, given the fact that since the invasion of Grenada in 1983, public opposition to bombing other countries has never risen above 45% (in the case of Bosnia). Even the extensive military intervention against Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011 only reached a high water mark of 37%! As a nation, we have never been shy about raining death from above before.

A number of commentators have suggested that the prospect of US casualties is simply too much for a post-Iraq/Afghanistan war-weary nation to accept. Given the fact that during the Libyan engagement (which consisted of considerably more involvement than the President is asking for over Syria) the US did not sustain a single military casualty, this notion is a little hard to defend. Others claim that it is a lack of tangible evidence, or possibly a lack of trust in the evidence provided, that is swelling public opposition. If that is the case, then we chose a fine time to start demanding absolute proof from our government. Where was this sense of caution in 2003? An informed electorate is, of course, a laudable thing and should be encouraged. However, most IR specialists would be happy if the majority of Americans could find the Middle East on a map.  Add the fact that a recent Gallup poll found 65% of Americans were in favor of using unmanned drones to kill “terrorists” in Yemen and other countries, and you really have to wonder where the opposition to bombing Assad is coming from. Perhaps if Obama simply labeled Assad a terrorist, his PR issues would be solved.

Questions are also being posed as to the intent of the Obama plan – whether the intention is for a punitive strike, or for regime change. At a recent cultural event in Los Angeles, Middle East specialist and UC Riverside professor Reza Aslan suggested that, humanitarian ideals aside, it is not within US interests to remove Assad from power – if it were, then taking out the seven airfields that constitute the regime’s lifeline of military supplies would effectively turn the tide of the war in the rebel’s favor – and that is why we won’t do it. In fact, Obama has explicitly stated that any airstrikes would NOT target such infrastructure, even though it would be a relatively simply task to accomplish from our floating missile platforms in the Mediterranean.

If we take that position for granted and work on the basis that it is not our intention to change the course of the war, then what is the purpose of the proposed “limited military strikes”? There are any number of potential answers here, from the geo-political to the neo-realist, but is it also possible that Obama’s avowed aim to enforce an international norm is in fact the truth? Has the shame of inaction from previous debacles actually begun to sink through, at least in regards to the most heinous of atrocities? If history is any guide, then the odds are not high, but in Bizzaro World anything is apparently possible.

The Bizzaro factor ratchets up even further when you consider the fact that the reason Obama had to make a case to the nation was that the response from the International Community has been minimal, to say the least. The Syrian crisis has done more to highlight the ineffective nature of the UN Security Council (UNSC) than a thousand missives from the Teapublicans, the John Birch Society, or the “New World Order” conspiracy nuts of the world combined. It is a political truism that “politics makes strange bedfellows,” but in this instance you would expect that the “American exceptionalism” wing of the country would be in lock-step with a hawkish President, intent on flexing US military might in order to promote truth, justice, and the American way. Instead we find ourselves in a situation where President Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, takes the same position as the Russian delegation to the UNSC! Has the world gone mad?

If ever there was a textbook case in the international arena to invoke the notion of the “Right to Protect” (R2P), then it is hard to see how it could be any more clear-cut than the Syrian crisis.  Does the state have a “responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing”? Check! Does the international community have a “responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility”? Check! Has the state “manifestly failed to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities, have peaceful measures failed, and does the international community have the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures”? Check, check, and check!

For any ardent internationalist, it is painful to acknowledge that the system as it currently stands is so deeply flawed. Russian intransigence, combined with a lack of prior political will on our part, has allowed the situation in Syria to devolve into a neo-Hobbesian nightmare. The need for consensus in military intervention is a central tenant of the post-WWII collective security ideal, but it is one that has lead to the current deadlock at the UN, and threatens to sideline the effectiveness of this vital institution. R2P was supposed to be a way of answering this issue – instead it has simply become an example of it.

If the Obama administration’s plan to initiate limited, punitive strikes against the chemical weapons capacity of the Syrian state goes ahead, we might actually find ourselves in a world where US military actions serve to reinforce “universal” collective norms, but are undertaken in opposition to the collective will, and without the legal imperator of UN legitimacy. In that case, the move to implement the essence of R2P in the face of stagnation and deadlock would become, in and of itself, a criminal act in international law!

Welcome to Bizzaro World….

 

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography, and an Editor for The Generation. He is also an ardent internationalist, and astonished by his own position on the situation in Syria – hence the Bizzaro World analogy.

September 16, 2013 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Global HealthMiddle EastSecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorism

Pakistani Elections 2013: Vote for Change, Vote for Integrity

written by thegeneration

By Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

December 2011, Abbottabad, Pakistan – Well over a year before Election Day, in one of the world’s most dangerous countries, I could already sense the beginnings of what was becoming the most important election in the history of the country. Political banners, slogans, and portraits lined street corners and highway billboards. Buses, filled with enthusiastic supporters, were shuttling constituents to party rallies. The political climate was heating up in anticipation of the upcoming May 11 election and even I, a foreign-born Pakistani, understood the magnitude of what was riding on the outcome

Since achieving Independence in 1947 under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, Pakistan has not exactly been an exemplar of democratic statehood. In its relatively short 65-year history, the country has been the victim of four military coups, three territorial wars with India, and numerous rigged elections. Today, political corruption, rural poverty, and Islamic extremism plague the country. And yet, despite all this negativity, the people of Pakistan face an opportunity for change in the upcoming election.

In the Pakistan’s party dominated political landscape, there are about 90 parties, but the 2013 election has been dominated by three in particular:  Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The latest polls show that the PML-N will win the most seats, followed by PTI and PPP. Some speculate that if PTI and PPP form a coalition, it could control a majority of the 272 electable seats and consequently, Imran Khan (PTI) would be designated as Prime Minister.  

 Pakistan People’s Party — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Founded as a progressive party in the 1960s, the PPP won parliamentary majorities in 1973, when Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister, and in 1988 and 1993, under Benazir Bhutto, the first female elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following her assassination in 2007, the PPP won a majority of seats in the 2008 elections but have lost support in recent months with the rise of the PML-N and PTI. The current chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, is the son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Educated in England and following in the footsteps of his mother and grandfather, Bilawal Bhutto possesses enormous potential as a future leader. However, since he is only 24 years old, he is unable to run as Prime Minister in the upcoming election (in order to run for a seat, a candidate must be at least 25 years of age).

The PPP has been the most targeted party of the Pakistani Taliban’s campaign violence, which has resulted in the death of several party members and the recent kidnapping of former Prime Minister Gilani’s son Yusuf Raza Gilani by gunmen in Multan. Since April 11th, pre-election bombings have left more than 100 people dead. As a result, the party has not been able to campaign as openly as it would like. Despite efforts by PPP members to protest to the Election Commission that the attacks have put an unfair strain on their campaigning abilities, with Election Day less than 24 hours away, there is little the party can do to make up lost ground. Because of the heightened threat of suicide bombers, the Pakistani Army has announced that 70,000 troops will be deployed across the country on Election Day.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz — Nawaz Sharif

The PML-N, a conservative party, is centered in the Punjab province. It won parliamentary majorities in 1990 and 1997 enabling its leader, Nawaz Sharif, to become Prime Minster in both years. Sharif has little to boast from his two terms as Prime Minister. Acquiring considerable wealth from his milling industry ownerships throughout the country, Sharif was accused by former President Ghulam Khan of corruption for his personal financial gains during his tenure as Prime Minster. Despite this allegation, the PML-N remains the leading party at this point in the election campaign.

Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf — Imran Khan

 The PTI is a relatively young party founded in the 1990s. It is the only party out of the major three in this election that has not had a substantial political voice until recently. Its chairman, Imran Khan (the former cricket star who brought a World Cup victory to Pakistan in 1992), first achieved national political prominence through his construction of a major cancer hospital in Lahore, dedicated to his mother who died of cancer. His work on the hospital earned him a reputation as an honest leader because he consistently provided statements of the hospital’s funding records, demonstrating that he had not pocketed any of the donations he received for the project. He was also heavily involved in aid relief efforts for flood victims in 2010. His party’s campaign focus has been to bring justice to Pakistan and to eradicate corruption within the state.

The Path of Change

If there is one thing that has been consistently lacking in the Pakistani government, it has been integrity. Pakistan’s political institutions have been riddled with corruption. Parliamentarians have laundered taxes for their own personal benefit and high-ranking leaders have coerced banks to lend, only to default on the loans. Even I have witnessed police officers blatantly accepting bribes in their execution of the “law.” Unfortunately, there exists a gap in trust between the Pakistani people and their government.

However, on May 11th, the people of Pakistan face a landmark opportunity because this election marks the first time in the country’s history that one democratically elected government will succeed another. After years of “load shedding,” infrastructure deterioration, stagnant social and economic opportunities, and overall political neglect, they finally have an opportunity to steer the country in a direction that can cater to their needs. With this opportunity, though, comes a weighty responsibility: the Pakistani people must be the catalysts for the positive change they seek within the country. This change starts by filling the gap in trust between the government and its constituents. In order to do this, the people must distinguish between leaders who have had a record of corruption from those who have not and put the latter in power. A foundation of trust will only be laid down for future democratic transitions if people have confidence in the government; this is true of any country aspiring towards democracy and Pakistan is no exception.

Both the PLM-N and PPP would preserve the status quo. Nawaz Sharif has little to speak for his leadership besides allegations of corruption and the PPP, the currently ruling party, has accomplished little in its latest attempt to govern. Of the three major candidates, only one candidate has had a track record of sincerity and honesty. From the beginning of PPP’s campaign, Imran Khan has made it a point to fight corruption in Pakistan. To some, he lacks political savvy and experience, but his greatest asset is what is most needed in the country – integrity.

Unfortunately, several days ago, Imran Khan fell off of a tall structure while making a rally appearance. The incident was completely accidental but now Imran will be bed-ridden for several weeks, which renders him unable to campaign. He has insisted, however, on making speeches from his hospital bed. Despite the circumstances, Imran is still devoted to his cause for a better Pakistan and the country should take this as a sign of his determination.

Tomorrow, despite the violence, the Pakistani will take to the ballots. For their sake, and for the sake of the country, I hope they vote for the path of change and integrity.

Facts and figures from Trading Economics, BBC, UNICEF, Guardian, and Pakistan Today

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations. 

 

May 10, 2013 1 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
SecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorismThe International Economy

Boston Strong

written by thegeneration

by Christine Smith
Editor

Two weeks ago on April 15, 2013, the city of Boston became the center of a locally-grown terrorist attack that involved two pressure-cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The attack wounded hundreds of runners and spectators and killed three observers: a Boston University graduate student, an eight-year-old boy, and a local restaurant manager. Of the victims, over a dozen have had at least one limb amputated. In just those few minutes of chaos, what was previously a largely local sporting event morphed into a reason to highlight its international significance and to put aside political and ideological tensions to rally behind the United States. 

On the surface, the Boston Marathon may primarily appear to be a domestic event. After all, while the rest of the country and world goes about their daily lives, the entire city of Boston and state of Massachusetts shut down for Patriots’ Day, also known as Marathon Monday. At first glance, the race may consequently appear to many as merely an excuse to party with friends and to take a day off from work or school. In actuality, the Boston Marathon means significantly more; it symbolizes a day for the residents of Boston and Massachusetts to unite as New Englanders and to revitalize their already strong sense of regional pride. The race, however, also acts as a day for the international community to come together over a shared interest: running. 

As a result of its humble origins, the Boston Marathon has always been connected to the international community. Established in 1897 by U.S. Olympic Team Manager John Graham after watching and training athletes for the Olympic Marathon, the Boston Marathon has continued to include athletes from all over the world. Over 95 countries were represented in this year’s race alone, including 10 African and 15 Asian nations. The Boston Marathon bombings were not merely an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against 95 states of varying political, religious, economic, and ideological backgrounds.

Many runners opted to run on behalf of an international charity, further reflecting their deeper commitment to making a positive impact globally. Most of the 35 charities sponsoring the race are connected to either the Greater Boston area or to the United States, but several represent global partners, including the Alzheimer’s Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. As a result, over $133 million in donations have been given since the creation of the Boston Marathon Official Charity Program in 1989 to charities whose issues are just as important beyond American borders as they are within. 

Additionally, by occurring annually on Patriots’ Day, the Boston Marathon brings attention to the anniversary of the start of the Revolutionary War: a war that pitted the Thirteen Colonies, France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Great Britain in an effort to diminish Great Britain’s global power and to give the United States its independence. Consequently, the Boston Marathon acts as a reminder to both the U.S. and the world that the currently prosperous country was once a mere colony of the British Empire that lacked its own independent international voice.

Perhaps it is not surprising then, that the international community has rallied behind Boston and the United States in light of the recent Boston Marathon bombings. After all, many American allies regularly fall victim to terrorist attacks and thus understand the physical and emotional trauma New Englanders are currently experiencing. Even some countries, like Syria, whose relationships with the United States recently have been considerably strained as a result of the issuing of strong criticism of Washington and U.S. foreign policy, have reached out through social media to suffering New Englanders to express their condolences. “Boston Strong,” therefore, means more than the unification of a city; “Boston Strong” represents the world’s commitment to putting aside divisive differences to work together to help all innocent participants and spectators impacted by the Boston Marathon bombings.

Facts and figures obtained from The Boston Athletic Association, The New York Times, and CNN.

 

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She is currently a first year M.A. in African Studies student at UCLA focusing on human rights issues in East Africa and plans to pursue a second M.S. in Print Journalism. She is also an editor with The Generation.

May 3, 2013 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AfricaMiddle EastSecurity and ConflictSociety and CultureTerrorismUncategorized

Terrorist Coup Threatens to Destroy Mali

written by thegeneration

By Christine Smith
Co-Editor 

Recently, Al Qaeda-affiliated militants have created political chaos in the previously stable West African country of Mali by successfully gaining control of the country through a coup. The United Nations passed a resolution roughly one month ago on October 12th stating that the militants renounce power in Mali within 45 days. Little positive progress, however, has been made. Several international actors, including the United States, France, and Algeria, have been in discussion about the growing necessity for international action. While losing the country to Al Qaeda-linked militants is an obvious security threat both to surrounding countries and to the entire international community, the militants’ presence is significantly impacting Mali’s economy and culture as well.

In an effort to replace Mali’s Africanized version of Islam with the traditional version that is more commonly seen throughout the Middle East, the Islamic militants have decided to ban all forms of secular music and all things “un-Islamic” in the northern part of the country. As a result, the militants in the region have dealt a major blow to Mali’s music and tourism industries. This seemingly minor incident has in reality caused major repercussions throughout the country.

A country that has a rich history of music that includes the singer Salif Keita, the late guitarist Ali Farka Toure, and the legendary kora player Toumani Diabete, Mali has created a vibrant tourism industry out of the legendary music the country produces. Further, Mali has made its mark in the international community as one of the premier music destinations on the planet. Western artists, including U2’s Bono and the British band Blur’s Damon Albarn, have flocked to Mali to collaborate with Malian musicians and immerse themselves in Mali’s rich music scene.

Banning secular music in northern Mali, therefore, has amounted to a significant economic setback to the region. Because of the ban, northern Malian music has been forced underground or out of the country and into neighboring states, resulting in the largest income-producing industry in Mali being eliminated. Malian music, in fact, accounted for two to four percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2000 and is believed to have an even greater impact on Mali’s current GDP. An even bigger economic consequence of banning secular music, however, is the impact it will have on the developing economy. As the country has demonstrated in recent years, the impact of culture on economic development in Mali is huge. Music and other profitable aspects of Malian culture have created more jobs and economic markets both for the state and for its citizens, which consequently has helped grow the national economy. Removing music from Mali’s economy is therefore shaping up to be a huge financial blow to one of the ten poorest nations in the world.

Without secular music, Malians have also lost their ability to publicly express their dissatisfaction with the current political situation. The loss of the traditional way of vocalizing political disapproval, albeit in an indirect manner through their secular music, however, reaches beyond politics. By banning secular music, the Islamic militants have created a cultural war against Malians and their identities. After all, it can only benefit the militants to attack and forcefully remove a culture they view as “un-Islamic.” Consequently, Malians are currently living in silence or facing arrest and possible death if they choose to voice political objections.

A continuation of the militants’ policies will certainly lead to a drastically different Mali than the one that has existed up until the March coup. Not only will the country’s culture significantly change and its economy weaken, but Malians will also continue to lack their pre-coup right to express their opinions and act as the democracy that they have been since 1992. It is essential that the international community follows through on its desire to remove the Islamic militants from Mali. Doing so will both benefit Malians and protect their rights and culture as well as benefit the international community and its security.

Facts obtained from The New York Times, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post, and The Independent.

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She is currently an editor for The Generation as well as a first year M.A. in African Studies student at UCLA with a focus on human rights issues in East Africa.

November 25, 2012 3 comments
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Middle EastSecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorismThe International Economy

Assessment of U.S. Policy Options in the Face of Iran’s Nuclear Efforts

written by thegeneration

by Brad Rowe

The New York Times reported on Saturday that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.   According to Obama administration officials, this is “setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”

This is encouraging as we are approaching a U.S. Presidential election that pits two candidates against each other who have vastly differing opinions on foreign policy.  These negotiations fit in nicely with the policy suggestions put forth below.  This article is meant to offer an objective dissection of the issues that face the United States and the world with regards to the issue of a nuclear Iran.

The ideas are based upon a policy memo created in June 2012 by UCLA Master in Public Policy candidates Chloe Cornuejols, Nobuko Goto, Masaaki Kishi, Celeste Miller, Brad Rowe and Isla Yao for their Methods in Policy course.  In addition to conducting thorough research that went into the creation of the memo, these students conducted interviews with high-level policy and security experts who elaborated upon some of the concepts and findings.

* * * * *

Iran may be enriching uranium to levels that would be useful for developing a nuclear weapon.  If they acquire a weapon of this type, it presents several potential concerns.  There are a multitude of possible even probable dangers from this scenario. One is that Iran would use the weapon on the U.S. or elsewhere. Others come simply from their possession of the bomb: it could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, it could provoke a military response from Israel, or an Iranian nuclear WMD could end up in the hands of terrorists.

It would serve the negotiating parties to embrace the fact that, at this point, we cannot prove they are not enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, but we most certainly cannot prove that they are either.  Dealing with the argument that ‘you cannot prove the absence’ of something is akin to me saying that you cannot prove that I don’t have a nuclear device somewhere in my house.  Indeed you would have to tear apart every square inch of my house to prove this.

The current U.S. course of sanctions, diplomatic negotiation, military threats, and cyber attacks seems like a prudent path for the time being.  For now, the IAEA has been accommodated by Iran for unfettered access to existing nuclear power development facilities.  If reliable information emerges signaling a shift to weapons enrichment efforts, we should consider alternate options.

In light of the unlikely but hugely consequential possibility that Iran is working toward acquiring ‘doomsday’ technology, it is critical to keep the full menu of strategy options available as actionable scenarios and as tools of negotiation.

Before Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options are: do nothing; diplomatic intervention (which seems currently viable); economic sanctions and incentives; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks.  These are not exclusive options and can be used in combination.

After Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options would be: do nothing; diplomatic intervention; reduce US dependency on oil from the Middle East; regional defense system; secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system; regime destabilization; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks.  Again, these are not exclusive options either and can be used in combination.

 Policy Options

Let’s look at the policy options in two ways.

First, BEFORE acquisition: Should the United States dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and if so, how?  The top options in this scenario would be:

  1. Cyber attacks to slow or prevent any nuclear weapon development
  2. Diplomatic Intervention
  3. Economic intervention: sanctions and incentives

Second, AFTER acquisition: If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, how could the United States best minimize bad outcomes?  The top options in this scenario would be:

  1. Regional Defense System
  2. Reduce US dependency on Middle East oil
  3. Secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system

U.S. Priorities and Concerns

 For the UNITED STATES: The major priorities and concerns relating to Iranian nuclear weapons acquiring activity are the international distrust and disbelief that Iran is developing its nuclear capabilities for peaceful uses only.  Furthermore there is concern that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran via military efforts if Iran continues to grow its nuclear capacity overall and/or if Iran specifically develops nuclear weapons.  This could have dire circumstances if Israeli leadership is less than rational.

We also need to give weight to the potential growth in and power of threats to U.S. interests posed by Iran’s support for militant groups in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan.  As Colin H. Kahl stated in September’s Foreign Affairs article ‘Iran and the Bomb’: “Iran’s government currently sponsors terrorist groups and supports militants throughout the Middle East, in part to demonstrate a capability to retaliate against the United States, Israel, and other states should they attack Iran or undermine its interests.”

This threat is leveraged by Iran’s ability to destabilize world economy and oil markets through controlling their own oil exports and threats to free passage of Middle East oil through the Straits of Hormuz.

What no one wants is further proliferation resulting in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East especially among Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

There are homegrown concerns as well. U.S. leadership, such as House Speaker John Boehner, is very mercurial and has displayed hawkish tendencies recently.

And relating directly to the November elections, there is U.S. executive unpredictability.  Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with several neo-con military advisors from the George W. Bush era.  Among them are a group born from the post 9-11 neo-con think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), now renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).  One of the most prominent hawkish foreign policy advisors to Romney is John Bolton who has publicly equated diplomacy with weakness and indecisiveness.  This could spell for contentious or non-existent future negotiations with Iran.

 Iran’s Key Drivers

Key among Iran’s drivers and positions concerning its potential status as a nuclear power with weapons capability are the current regime survival and increased nationalism/support of the population for the government.  They are looking out for their national security and protection, including from external threats, such as the U.S. and other members of the international community.  They are also not without ambition and are looking at expansion of Iranian regional influence as well as of the country’s global stature – overall and as a trading partner.

The current status of Iran’s nuclear efforts and situation includes sustained vows by Iran that their nuclear activities remain for peaceful civilian purposes only.  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s (and other clerics’) repeated condemnation of nuclear weapons as being contrary to Islamic Law (he has expressed support for the development and use of nuclear resources for peaceful use but issued a fatwa in 2010 – and later reaffirmed it – on banning production and use of weapons of mass destruction).

As an international cooperator, Iran continues as a signatory to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  It should be noted that Iran is currently in compliance.  Most importantly: there is no evidence – either from the limited International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observations, under General Director Yukiya Amano, or other monitoring or intelligence sources – that Iran has diverted any nuclear resources from civilian to military uses.  To bolster Iran’s case here, there was an announcement on May 22, 2012 by the director general of IAEA, that he has reached an agreement with Iran granting nuclear inspectors wider access to Iranian atomic facilities.

To be noted however: Iran’s current ability to produce low enrichment uranium means that 90% of the necessary resources and effort to generate highly enriched uranium already have been brought together by Iran.  This means simple nuclear weapons could at that time be delivered to a target in a small vehicle or boat; however it would still take several years of work and testing, for any weapon to be delivered by missile.  Such undertakings – especially testing – would be hard to keep under wraps.

To understand the progress they have made, consider that having enriched to 20% means they are 90% they way to enriching to 90% weapons grade Uranium.  This is on account of front loaded program building and the similarly front loaded Separative Work Units, or SWUs, needed to separate the Uranium isotope 235 from zero to 5% energy-producing levels.

A few points to highlight for further research are:

  • Recently uranium enriched above the 20% used for power was found, though the 27% enrichment number could have been attributed to equipment error.
  • In a 2005 speech, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commented that he wished the State of Israel would collapse. (The translation of his “Wiped off the Map” comment has been widely disputed)  Whether or not his statement was a declaration of military intent or simply a lament, it has resulted in an agitated condition for nuclear-armed Israel.

Based on review of existing research, analysis, and information on this situation as well as our own expert interviews[1], we also acknowledge that the highest objective of the Iranian government is to remain in power.  Within the Iranian national dynamic, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wants power over Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and vises versus.

Let us not underestimate the power of the masses however.  Iran could become a fully representative democratic republic.  Per our U.S. security and international diplomacy source, people of Iran currently appear favor or to have neutral feelings about America now, but would likely be swayed the other way by overly aggressive U.S. intervention.  Extreme external pressure or military aggression will only increase Iranian nationalism and support of its citizens for the existing government there.

Regionally?  Iran has scarce close regional allies on account that it feels ethnically and religiously isolated and has a sense of cultural and historical “exceptionalism.”  While U.S. and international economic sanctions may have no direct effect on the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts, they are causing enough pain to the government and country overall to potentially allow for more openness in discussions on the part of Iran as an example, both sides (Iran and US/P5+1) have dropped some prior intractable conditions for negotiation and Iran has agreed to grant wider access to IAEA inspectors.

Any military intervention would raise Iranian incentive for expansion of nuclear capabilities into weapons of mass destruction, while at the same time ensuring Iran’s expulsion of any IAEA observers and possible Iranian withdrawal from the NPT.  Along these lines, we feel the Iranian government will act rationally.  Iran is aware of and we all should be as well that U.S. future standing with the Middle East, Russia and Iran itself are critical considerations when weighing these policy options.

There is an important note regarding horizon type strategy relevance here.  This long-term strategy is a valid exercise as Iran acquiring a nuclear device is still possible, even though they would have to violate the non-proliferation treaty and jump through several logistical and technical hurdles to get there.  We also want to consider the possibility that Iran getting the bomb could potentially be a stable scenario *(i.e. Pakistan).

Finally, there is a special worst-case situation that needs sober consideration.  While military intervention was not one of the more robust strategies when all criteria were considered, there is one situation in which experts believe it should be fully considered as a top option.  That is when it is absolutely obvious that a missile attack by Israel on Iran is imminent and the U.S. and/or UN are unable to dissuade them.  Under such circumstances, according to some security experts, the U.S. should then undertake any bombing attacks.

The reason for this is two-fold. First, Israel does not have the military capability and weaponry to launch an effective attack, which would ensure the elimination of the nuclear targets.  The U.S. has the needed firepower and expertise to do so.  Second, even if Israel acted unilaterally, both Iran and most of the international community would assume the U.S. was complicit.  Therefore, if the U.S. will be facing the ramifications of such global opinion post-Israeli strike, then it would be prudent for the U.S. to ensure a surgical and fully efficient missile strike.

This is, of course very tricky as Israel cannot know that US will intervene on their behalf. This could cause them to act recklessly. Israel would be burning the ally bridge with US in either case.  This is a difficult hand to play for sure.

It will be of great importance and interesting to see how the Iran negotiations play out.  Hopefully cooler minds will prevail and the safety of the next generations will be more secure than they were before hand.

Brad Rowe is a second year Masters In Public Policy candidate at UCLA focusing in Education, Crime and International Affairs.  Rowe is also a Rosenfield Fellow working on Educational Policy and Programs for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

[1]Research/Analysis: RAND Corporation, Congressional Research Service, American Enterprise Institute Iran Tracker. Media reports: New York Times, The Economist, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times.

October 21, 2012 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Newer Posts
Older Posts