Tag

Iran

Its been four months since the United States ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) near Baghdad, an act that conjured rising fears of a severe Iranian retaliation. America prepared its troops for an assured attack, waiting steadily, all for what turned out to be an incredibly weak Iranian response. What came as a surprise to many top officials, it seemed like Iran yielded in the aftermath of the attack, leaving many to wonder . . . was that it?

Recent events have given reason to believe that this battle is far from over. With America’s attention on the coronavirus and the weakening of Iran’s regional enemies due to the pandemic, could this prove to be the perfect scenario for an Iranian retaliation?

“He’s probably the most powerful figure that is generally unknown outside Iran and the Middle East. He’s essentially Iran’s viceroy for Iraq.”
Jim Phillips, Middle East analyst for conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, was quoted as saying this about Soleimani in 2015

Who is Soleimani, and why is he important? The Iranian General rose rapidly through the ranks of Iran’s military forces at just 20 years old. During the Iran-Iraq war, his fierce tactics made him a war hero, and he emerged as a commander of his squad. Within a few years, he became the head of the IRGC’S elite Quds force — a unit that specializes in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations.

Following America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Soleimani channeled money to Iran’s proxies to fund the creation of highly destructive weapons, including Improvised Explosive Devices. These would be used to kill over 300 American soldiers. The next decade would see war in Syria, where Soleimani was the lifeline that kept Bashar al-Assad’s power alive. “Tehran’s overseas visionary” propelled Iran’s expansionist agenda by directing deadly proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, where he took control of Hezbollah forces. By 2013, he was believed to be one of Iran’s most important figures, and a pressing threat for American officials.

At home, Soleimani was enigmatic and well-cherished, even by critics who acknowledged his dedication to fighting for the Islamic Republic for almost five decades. In the aftermath of his death, violent protests erupted across the Middle East, reaching Palestinians in Gaza and Pakistanis in Lahore.

“Soleimani’s martyrdom will make Iran more decisive to resist America’s expansionism and to defend our Islamic values…with no doubt, Iran and other freedom-seeking countries in the region will take his revenge.”
President Hassan Rouhani, January 3, 2020

Killed alongside Soleimani was Iraqi politician and highly influential military commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who served with the General against the Saddam regime. With the death of two of Iran’s chief military figures and a precarious replacement, Iranian officials are fuming.

Making matters worse, many Iraqis believed this strike at Baghdad was a myopic move by America that caused severe strains to their relations. An Iraqi official told Newsweekly back in March that “America is supposed to be our ally, they are supposed to be different from Iran, that strike showed that they are no different than the Iranians.”

Iran responded to the murder by firing 15 ballistic missiles at a US Air Base station in Iraq, the long time battle ground for the two forces. No one was killed, but more than 100 American service members suffered head injury. Tehran framed the rather poor attack as the “conclusion” to their retaliation.

But, more recently, this proved to be false.

On March 11, IRGC proxies sent off a volley of rockets that killed American and British service members near Baghdad. The US responded by striking five Iranian militia logistical and military hubs. Foreign policy expert Philip H. Gordon wrote for the New York Times that Washington’s maximum pressure could pave a path to war with Iran, especially following their decision to no longer observe the nuclear restrictions outlined in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

But, the change in global atmosphere due to the coronavirus has opened up new possibilities for Iran.

Despite burgeoning tensions, American officials are now seriously considering lifting sanctions made against Iran in light of the Covid-19 crisis, which could open the doors for a renewal of Iranian strength down the line. America’s incentive for lifting sanctions include providing greater health protection for American forces stationed nearby in Iraq and showing a sense of morality in light of a cataclysmic virus, something that could fortify international and domestic favorability for the Trump administration. American officials state there is little appetite in the White House for an escalation with Iran whose population is coping with the virus amid sanctions that limit their import of medical supplies.

What would this mean for the Iranian government if the sanctions are lifted? General Kenneth Mcenzie, head of the US Central Command and now at the top of Iran’s “hit list,” said last month that Iranian leadership has become fractured because of the virus, “and they’re having difficulty dealing with a number of things. So I think it probably makes them, in terms of decision-making, more dangerous.” He went on to state that Iran is prepared to use their emissaries in Iraq against American targets and targets in the Gulf.

Indeed, Iranian militia groups have been escalating tensions with the United States in hopes of extracting the remaining 5,000 American troops from Iraq, a prominent goal of theirs.

If Iran’s vengeful mindset persists among a lift of sanctions, it could possibly mean that they could carry out an attack after gathering more resources that had once been denied to them. At that point, what would stop Tehran, in its sensitive and unstable posture, from seeking further retaliation for the murder of Soleimani? And, would America’s distractions over reinvigorating their economy prove to be perfect timing?

It doesn’t seem to be outside the realm of possibility. And now, Iran has a new figure to admire, Soleimani’s own daughter, Zeinab Soleimani, who has become the public face for consolidating national unity and openly calling for Iran to avenge her father.

With an unstable government and new public figure, the risk of an emotionally-driven attack seems more and more likely in the wake of the virus. This environment can prove to play into the political hands of the Iranian government and their proxies by opening up a new channel for strength and recuperation from the sanctions and pandemic. There is now a gamble that Washington has to play. Should the Trump administration show diplomacy and shuffle aid to Iran’s hard-hit country which could prove to lessen tensions between Washington and Tehran, or should strengthen their threats and continue imposing sanctions?

It seems like a hybrid of the two choices, that is, providing temporary relief with strings attached that would prevent Iran from manipulating the circumstances, such as renewed negotiations for the 2015 nuclear deal, would seem best. This could project an image of peace and rationale for the Trump administration, perhaps resolve some tensions with Tehran, and it would help to contain the virus in the Middle East which is also risking the lives of American troops stationed there. All of this could be done while still maintaining a heavy-hand with Iran. We will have to wait and see, but given the rapidly changing and hypersensitive environment, an answer should not be long-awaited.

April 18, 2020 0 comment

Middle East Security and Conflict Society and Culture

The Dangers of Iranian Hip-Hop

written by thegeneration

by Yalda Mostajeran
Contributing Writer

If 50 Cent’s laurels rest on his nine gunshot wounds, then Iranian rapper Shahin Najafi’s rest on his death warrant. The Islamic Republic of Iran issued a fatwa, a legal Islamic decree, against Najafi after he mentioned Ali al-Hadi al-Naqi, the tenth Imam of Shi’ia Islam, in his song “Naqi.” Furthermore, Shia-Online.ir, a religious Iranian website, offered a $100,000 reward to whoever kills Najafi. Despite being based in Germany, the Iranian rapper faces death threats for a song that only referenced, not discussed, the Imam.

As tension swells in an unstable Iran, the livelihood of Iranian hip-hop is threatened. Iranian music is severely monitored. In order for an artist to distribute their music in Iran, they must get approval from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, who strictly prohibit political and most popular rap. Artists have resorted to online piracy, music blogs, and distribution via the Internet to get their music heard. The artist makes little to no money from these methods.

With heavy restrictions on Iranian music, many hip-hop artists have had to create their music elsewhere. Many artists produce their content across the globe and distribute it on illegal satellite television. Music production studios in Iran are often disguised as old buildings. Iranian artists hold secret underground concerts but sometimes cancel them in fear of interruption by the authorities.

Surprisingly, Iranian hip-hop is not much different from its American counterpart. In fact, part of the ban on hip-hop in Iran is because rappers emulate Western styles. While some Iranian rap is about social and political issues, other songs mirror the vulgar language and vocal styles of American rap culture. For example, the song “Mehmooni” by Zedbazi samples the beat from 50 Cent’s “In Da Club,” while also referencing women and parties in an obscene light.

[display_podcast]

Lewd party songs aside, Iranian hip-hop’s similarity to American hip-hop also lies in its political and social nature. Iran’s first female rapper, Salome MC, produces her music in Japan in order to avoid persecution in Iran. She walked on a dangerous line with her song “Drunk Shah, Drunk Elder.” In it, she raps about the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and how it has forgotten about the Iranian people.

I have things to say that are stuck in my throat like a forbidden bite
Like the temporary marriages of officials, hidden behind curtains
Like a political prisoner stuck in solitary confinement.

But have you [the Islamic Republic of Iran] ever looked for answers in the street?
Have you ever put a camera under your chador [veil] to record the truth?
Yeah, sometimes we take the chance of losing our freedom
To protect our liberty and the meaning of our existence. (Drunk Shah, Drunk Elder)

The Iranian hip-hop scene reflects various themes. Some songs are simply party songs, while others have a political message criticizing the Islamic Republic. This music scene is youth-driven. The major purpose of this music is to challenge the restrictions the Iranian government has placed on the people. Party songs exhibit their creative freedom by referencing what Iran has deemed Western influence, such as drinking. Political hip-hop songs discuss the actions of the regime, often criticizing the lack of freedom in the country. Regardless of subject, Iranian hip-hop is reflective of the dissatisfaction the Iranian youth have with the current state of Iran.

Distributing Iranian hip-hop faces severe consequences in Iran. CD shops, which at times carry numerous illegal copies of foreign CDs, refuse to sell underground Iranian hip-hop for fear of incarceration. For example, in 2009, twelve Iranians were arrested in the city of Orumiyeh. The Iranians distributed and produced hip-hop, an act the Islamic regime viewed as promoting Satanism.

Even with the danger surrounding Iranian hip-hop, the music still has an audience. Iranian college students in their 20’s make up a majority of the listeners; however, the genre has spread, finding an audience in younger and older age groups as well. Iranian hip-hop is the youth culture. It discusses issues and interests present in Iranian youth life ranging from revolution to partying. Iranian hip-hop is a way for the youth to creatively express themselves and comment about the state of affairs in Iran.

In spite of the circumstances, Iranian hip-hop artists continue making music. Najafi, Zedbazi, and Salome MC pursue their passions in the shadow of a looming regime. Although in danger, they do not allow the regime to oppress their efforts. If 50 Cent has built a rap star throne from his plight, then Najafi, Zedbazi, and Salome MC have built empires.

—

Yalda Mostajeran is a fourth year, Political Science major at UCLA. She is also Co-Producer of the LCC Theatre Company.

February 16, 2013 2 comments

Middle East Security and Conflict

Does Collective Paranoia Shape Foreign Policy?

written by thegeneration

by Gabrielle Cherney

A few months ago I wrote an article riddling the political, social, and moral implications of Argo, the recent motion picture about a Central Intelligence Agency exfiltration mission in the midst of the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. The primary consequence I dreaded was the perpetuation of an emboldened, vilified Iran, riling up an ill-informed American public by reminding it of the event that marked the sudden disintegration of relations with the country that was previously its greatest ally in the Middle East.

But the underlying assumption of these concerns is related to the power of creative pursuits. Art and expression are such vague, yet powerful concepts, and at times, they appear to pit freedom of cultural expression against other types of freedom.

The film has seen major success, ranking number one in the box office into its third week running. Movie reviews out of Iran complain that the portrayal of Iranians lacks nuance, and the one-sided nature of the movie’s portrayal does not do justice to the depth of warranted grievances felt by the Iranian public.

Although this is largely a product of the expectedly American-focused nature of the film, I would agree with the majority of this criticism. The filmmakers attempted to set the film in a historical context within the opening couple minutes of storytelling, but that sentiment was easily subsumed by the graphic scenes of the violent Iranian reaction for the following two hours.

Some aspects of the film were exaggerated or entirely fabricated, including the stroll through the bazaar, the American government suddenly deciding to backpedal out of the mission, and the Iranian government being right on Tony Mendez’s tail. These are perhaps inevitable consequences of Hollywood, but are nevertheless significant.

There was of course no visibly perceptible shift or reinforcement of the American understanding of Iran, and the effect that the film may or may not have on the public’s collective consciousness will only be seen through eventual action.

But at the most basic level, Argo is a reminder of an event that traumatized the United States. It has virtually defined our foreign policy toward Iran, and has helped drive our generally suspicious approach to other Islamic regimes. After all, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the United States’ first real experience with Radical Islam.

Since this moment in history, mutual caricaturing of the United States and the Muslim World has been occurring, reinforced directly and indirectly, purposely and inadvertently, through media of all kinds, on some level even with films such as Argo. This caricaturing is defined by paranoia and conspiracy, which both sides have historically demonstrated an inclination toward and only accelerated after 9/11.

Paranoia on the American front has lent itself to approaching Islamic states with skepticism and a blanket expectation of backwardness. The apparent obsession with “top secret” information often trumps common knowledge; a phenomenon that I think can be attributed to deep-rooted distrust that makes even basic facts suspicious.

Instead of reading the most basic, readily available history of, for example, Iraq in the nineteenth century, to determine whether or not the country has weapons of mass destruction, the top officials of this country were smitten with “secret reports” that amounted to unfounded conspiracy theories.

The degree to which these tendencies dictate political decisions is alarming, such as when the then-newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote then-President George W. Bush an eighteen-page letter in 2006. The letter was dismissed, characterized by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as unimportant on the basis that it was merely an account of history, religion, and philosophy. As the first leader-to-leader outreach between the U.S. and Iran in 27 years, the contents of this letter could have provided context conducive to rebuilding something resembling US-Iranian relations.

The longer-term and ever-growing paranoia about American anti-Islam sentiment from the Muslim community has been increasing simultaneously. Ironically, as the United States began viewing the Muslim world as a threat, this paranoia became more and more legitimized, and this cycle continues even within the United States itself.

A worst-case scenario of the consequences of this cycle, and its perpetuation through various creative mediums, is seen beginning last month with the diplomatic missions attacks. The embassy attacks, riots, and demonstrations were sparked by the proliferation of the YouTube trailer for The Innocence of Muslims, a crude, cheaply made movie mocking Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. The question of the potential implications of “creative expression” at the expense of another group has unfortunately been answered.

Regardless of whether or not those orchestrating this violence had purely political concerns under a mere guise of religious uprising, at least 687 people have died as a result of this trailer and the misinformation surrounding it. Despite President Barack Obama coming forward to reject the content of the video, rumors about the film being shown in major movie theatres all over America were believed by the outraged groups.

Without an informed understanding of historical context and the sociopolitical lens through which your counterpart is seeing you, there is no hope for genuine relations beyond “rational” political and economic exchanges. There is only a risk of further distorting the truth with paranoia and bias, and making poor decisions at human society’s cost.

Gabrielle Cherney is a senior at Indiana University Bloomington studying Near Eastern Language & Culture and Political Science. She is a founding member of the IU Debate Team and pursuing Language and Area Certification in Iranian Studies.

November 18, 2012 1 comment

Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism The 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:

Cyber attacks to slow or prevent any nuclear weapon development
Diplomatic Intervention
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:

Regional Defense System
Reduce US dependency on Middle East oil
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

Middle East Security and Conflict The International Economy Uncategorized

The De-evolution of Iran: Re-claiming a Homeland

written by thegeneration

A Foreign Love Affair

The last time I visited Iran I was ten, and although I looked eight, I still had to wear a hijab and be covered head-to-toe anytime I was outside. This summer, I planned on returning to Iran to see my grandmother for most likely the last time. I am now 21, and although I look 15, I was still prepared to wear whatever I had to in the 110 degree dry heat in order to see my grandmother. But after a phone call with my aunt last week, it turns out I will no longer be visiting my parents’ homeland. As I sat listening to her explain how it is too dangerous for me to visit Iran, I was stunned. I expected this from my American friends or co-workers, but not from one of our own. I responded as I did to friends who worried if it was a safe time to visit, “But I have dual citizenship, my parents are Iranian, I speak Farsi, and I’ll still have the protection of the good ol’ U-S-of A.”

Aside from the obvious fears of potential war, she emphasized how my visit would fall on the month of Ramadan, an Islamic holiday entailing dawn until dusk fasting everyday for a month. Hence, in about a week in Iran (and many other Muslim countries), there will be no eating, drinking, or smoking in public during the daylight hours. Moreover, the already absurd and oppressive laws will be enforced under a zero tolerance policy. If I wear too much make-up, if my hair is showing a bit, if I am not dressed like a wizard, etc. special police called “modesty squads” will be on the streets enforcing their standards with punishments for violation including lashes, fines or imprisonment. Wonderful.

As I reflect upon my last visit, this is neither the Iran I remember (although not as a liberal haven, a far more lax vision than the current state of affairs) nor the Iran my parents spoke so fondly of, a progressive Iran they were so proud of. Countless times I have sat in the car beside my father as he (un-prompted) began explaining how the “Persians liberated oppressed minorities, invented mathematics” and essentially began the civilized world. His bias pride and thick booming accent aside, he is right about a few things. In his Iran, the Iran of the generations before us, the Iranian government was a beacon of progression and innovation, not an oppressive expression of insecurity and ignorance. I used to ask my parents why, after living in the United States for twice as long as they ever lived in Iran, their hearts ached for a homeland I did not understand. My mother explained, “Azizam (my dear), things were not always this way…the Iran I love was a place where women wore shorts and were not afraid, where the government, like Cyrus the Great, reflected his people’s values instead of oppressing them.” As a child, I never understood her deep love affair with Iran, but after my first visit, her nostalgic vision slowly became my own.

The Empire That Once Was

Although it is difficult to tell from today’s Iran, there remain historical symbols amongst the Iranian people that more accurately reflect the people’s priorities, as referenced by my mother’s mention of Cyrus the Great (Iran’s Abe Lincoln). From government rulers to religious tenants to progressive innovations, the country’s past shows us the greater potential of Iran’s future.

Among the artillery of Iranian history my parents’ generation is surely to reference is Cyrus’s Great Cylinder, a piece The United Nations continues to promote as “an ancient declaration of human rights.” Yet, more than a written relic, the ruler’s legacy as a tolerant and progressive figure towards those he defeated and ruled serves to symbolize an origin of tolerance in Iran that has since been forgotten.

In fact, the issue of modern Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic government falls short of the country’s original religious roots: Zoroastrianism. As one of the first religions of the world, Iran’s foundation of Zoroastrianism held free will, “good thoughts, good words, and good deeds” as fundamentally key to happiness and the maintenance of chaos—quite different than today’s Islamic Republic of Iran.

Lastly, what more reflective of the promise of a progressive and engaging nation than its contribution to man’s innovations, including the first: power windmill, banking system of the world, distillation of alcohol, and the creation of algebra, trigonometry, and of course, ice cream (you’re welcome).

Modern Iran’s Failing Politics and Economy

But what has Iran become today? A theocracy. Oppression. Violence. Torturing and killing political opponents. Quarantined from the global social, political and economic realms. Sexism. Persecution of Bahá’ís, gays, and really anyone who isn’t (or isn’t pretending to be) part of a fundamentalist gang running a nation at complete discord with its own people.

In today’s Iran, homosexual behavior and adultery (for women only) are illegal and can carry the death penalty. If a Muslim woman engages in a relationship with a non-Muslim man, she may be sentenced to be whipped. Men (and only men) can contract multiple marriages at a time (up to four permanently and as many temporarily as desired) and can terminate each marriage at will. As for custody, under Iranian law, the children always go to the father—even if the father is not present, the children go to his parents over the mother herself.

Furthermore, a recent announcement of 36 Iranian universities closing 77 fields of study (mostly math and sciences) to women only goes to further devolve the great country that once was. Following the election protests of 2009, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei blamed universities for encouraging subversive behavior and mandated a greater focus on Islamic principles in universities. How promising.

The Iranian government’s current dismissal of human rights aside for a moment, the recent political actions of the government of Iran are now economically penalizing the entire nation. As a result of the Iranian government’s refusal to negotiate or reverse course on its nuclear program, the European Union (EU) governments have agreed to an immediate prohibition of all new contracts to import, buy or transport Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. Last Monday marked the first day of oil trading under the embargo, and consequently, the International Energy Agency estimates as much as one million barrels of Iran’s crude may leave the market.

Countries such as South Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States have also engaged in bilateral sanctions against Iran in hopes of curbing its nuclear program. Iran has a $352 billion, oil-dominated economy, hence the objective of the sanctions to make it harder to obtain specialized resources and equipment needed for the nuclear program. Consequently, the value of the Iranian rial has plummeted since fall 2011 and has now fallen another 10% immediately after the implementation of the recent EU oil embargo, significantly affecting the Iranian people.

Fast-rising prices (the cost of chicken, a staple during Ramadan, has doubled in the last two months) have resulted in recent protests by outraged consumers chanting anti-government slogans like “Death to the looter of public treasure!”— reflecting a popular view among Iranians that public capital is being funneled into bureaucratic pockets instead of benefiting the Iranian public. In response, advisor to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Yadollah Javani, claims “The West is trying to create a divide between the people and the government.”

No, The East is trying to hide a divide between the people and the government for its own manipulative power-maintenance purposes. Iranian currency has devaluated 40% since February; the self-serving political decisions of the Iranian government are having tangible negative effects on millions of citizens all because of a few merciless men who will stop at nothing for power. Not even at killing their own innocent children of Iran. Not even at sacrificing an entire nation’s economy. Not even at demolishing the once great name of an empire.

The vision of Iran from the eyes of the people is not the same as that of their leaders. And more importantly, the promise of revolution lies in the blood of the Iranian people, in their past, in their resume for rebellion, progression, and tolerance–not in its current government’s fundamentalist power struggle. Iran need not remain a nostalgic fantasy, as it is now, a heavy sigh amongst my parents’ generation. After all, as Michael Leeden writes in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Although an Iranian revolution may seem unlikely to the casual observer, the Iranian people can be said to have revolution in their DNA, having carried out three revolutions in the twentieth century.”

The Future of a Homeland

In summation, although sanctions may temporarily pressure the Iranian government’s economic options for a nuclear program, long-term, the Iranian people need a democracy, one in which their votes are not stolen, their women are not hidden, and their economy is not a gambling chip.

Meanwhile, the government’s intolerance of minorities in reality is really nothing more than a projection of its own weakness and fear; the stricter they enforce their oppressive laws, the more evident it becomes they are losing control of a boiling nation with a dangerously strong youth demographic waiting to be unleashed (60% of Iran’s population are under 30 years old). From the Green Movement to the attacks on Revolutionary Guard Corps last March, tensions grow and patience draws a close amongst the people of Iran, but their sticks and stones fall short when flung against the government’s unforgiving army of machines, ceasing for neither child nor elder. So what will work?

When I last visited Iran as a child, I observed my own temporary oppression and the more permanent bondage of my female cousins as they longed to escape their hijab and wear “two pieces in America.” I resented the government then, at age nine, as much as I do now for its insecure bondage of a people. I asked my father why someone didn’t hire an assassin to take out the top fundamentalist members of the government (obviously I had watched Godfather too many times). Although the idea made my father smile, he explained how that would not actually solve anything—one dramatically eliminated extremist would just be replaced with another. The long-term solution is implementation of a progressive democratic system genuinely created and supported by the Iranian people. It seems that has already begun to some extent. The Iranian people sent a clear message to the Obama administration in November 2009 after the fraudulent Iranian election: “Religion, by the will of the Iranian people of today, has to be separated from the state in order to guarantee unity of Iran.”

Moreover, as Leeden projects, there will be a need for a global union of actions: a call for the end of the regime; airing unbiased, on-the-ground news of Iran to the Iranian people in Iran and America; publicly demanding the release of political prisoners; and implementing international trade unions as a strike fund for Iranian workers.

I believe the last piece of the puzzle, and perhaps the most powerful, are Iranian Americans living in America. With the organization of Iranian citizens within Iran, the support of a global effort for universal human rights, and the tapping of a hugely agitated and patriotic Iranian-American population in America itching to get a punch in at the pillagers of their homeland, I believe there could be a promising and progressive future for Iran. Let us look to Iran’s beautiful past to turn today’s third world shadow of an empire into the bright promise that flutters in the hearts of the generations before us.

Facts and figures from BBC, CBN, and Foreign Affairs.

August 13, 2012 20 comments

Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism

Does American Film’s Portrayal of Iran Shape Public Perception?

written by thegeneration

I recently saw the trailer for Ben Affleck’s upcoming film Argo, set during the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81. It follows an unorthodox exfiltration attempt by the CIA of six American hostages who managed to hide from Iranian authorities and take shelter with the Canadian ambassador to Iran.

As I watched strategically integrated clips of angry Iranian mobs harassing a bus carrying Americans and the Revolutionary Guard marching in the streets with guns, I couldn’t help but wonder how much the public perception of Iran played into the timing of the film’s release. That is to say—does the fact that many politicians and media outlets have recently been vilifying Iran guarantee higher public interest and, in turn, profit for the movie-makers?

Now for all I know the film may have a message that somehow paints the Iranian people in a pacifistic light, emphasizing the distinction between the people and the government. But regardless, it appears that advertent or not, these filmmakers are fueling the vilification of a country by means of trailers that look like news clips.

That is to say, vilifying the Iranian people through reminding the public of a crisis that took place thirty years ago seems like a morally questionable act at a time when relations between Iranians and Americans are at an extremely dangerous place.

The proposal of denying or altering historical reality to protect people from skewed opinions or perceptions is a way this article might be misinterpreted, but I assure you this is not my intention—I’m merely attempting to weigh the moral obligation of filmmakers (or any artist for that matter) in playing off of the popular perception of “other” people. It seems filmmakers sometimes forget that though these perceptions may help their work be successful, it also has the cyclical effect of feeding into that perception and, in a sense, confirming it.

So while I do not have a prescription for how long someone should wait to remind people of atrocities that question the character of a group or country, I think it’s important to keep in mind that filmmakers are not necessarily more educated on current events than the average American, and that their work being played very loudly on a large screen in front of a lot of people gives them artificial authority in terms of broader things like politics and current events.

While it may be argued that the movie’s timing is appropriate since it is, in theory, only vilifying the Iranian government which, now more than ever is disconnected from its own people, this argument assumes prior knowledge of this disconnect. The reality of the American public’s knowledge on Iran, let alone the silenced tensions between the government and the people, is that it is simply lacking.

A CNN Gallup poll from February of this year showed 71 percent of Americans think that Iran currently possess a nuclear bomb, and another poll shows roughly 25 percent want to take action to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The sentiment reflected by these numbers is one that does not mesh with an understanding of the complex state of Iranian politics, nor the history surrounding Iranian resources.

For most of Iran’s recent history, great powers have forced themselves into the country, calling themselves “business partners,” but functionally acting as bullies. Specifically, beginning in the early nineteenth century the Great Game took place, during which Great Britain and Russia were in competition with one another for control over Central Asia. During this period the two countries fought over the resources of the Iranian Plateau and took over the Persian Empire’s most lucrative industries, including that of oil. This continued into the twentieth century and the Iranian people suffered mass inflation and starvation.

For Iran, nuclear energy means independence at last, looking toward France as a model, a country that gets over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Petroleum exports are the main source of economic surplus for the Iranian government, and abandoning the development of its nuclear power projects means risking using up all oil for potential exports domestically. No oil exports means no economic surplus for the government, a huge incentive to maintain nuclear development.

Furthermore, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khameini reiterated afatwah (a religious ruling by an authority on Islam) in April of this year that deemed nuclear weapons haram (forbidden in Islam) on the basis that they necessarily kill innocent civilians. He explicitly forbade the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons, meaning his pursuing nuclear weapons would entirely undermine his own religious authority—which is, of course, the basis for his claim to political authority.

Logically, signs thus do not necessarily point to Iranian desire to create a nuclear weapon to strike the United States. Actually, it seems almost vain to assume such motive. Iran is acting rationally in its own best interest on the nuclear question, and until the International Atomic Energy Agency reports say something more than the informal equivalent of “hey, it could happen!” the risks involved in a strike on Iran cannot conceivably be outweighed by much of anything.

Though Argo features the rise of what is technically the same government that maintains power in Iran today, it also perpetuates the idea of this government as a resolute one, which emboldens it in the minds of watchers and makes it seem much more threatening.

But the reality of the current dynamics at play in Iran is one of great complexity that involves cleavages within the government itself. And if people continue to assume the Iranian government exists as one cohesive, strong entity, they are missing an extremely important element of Iranian state of affairs that could, almost ironically, be the key to taking down the unpopular, abusive regime.

At a time when waging war on this country is currently being seriously discussed by many unenlightened politicians, it is unquestionably risky to increase vilification of Iran in the minds of American moviegoers. They are, after all, citizens with voting power.

Cheney’s one percent doctrine, the idea that war against Iraq was justified by even a “one percent risk” of their possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, played off of the fears of a public that did not know anything about their new so-called enemy, which is a testament to the fact that bad things happen when the public doesn’t know any better and looks to assumed authorities for wisdom. Thousands have been killed in a war that should never have taken place, as it was justified by fabricated facts and flawed logic.

If nothing else, this piece is intended to remind people that every country has a dark past and, often, even a dark present, but that there are also competing perspectives and complicating factors at play that are often neglected out of ignorance or convenience. Though there is surely not malicious intent on the part of the Argo creators, they may be inadvertently helping to shift public opinion in such a way that creates undesirable outcomes.

After all, the fact is that the goal of movie makers is to make money, and sometimes reality doesn’t sell.

June 27, 2012 5 comments

Security and Conflict

Accidental Slip-up or Political Strategy? The “Bunker-Busting Leak” Debunked

written by thegeneration

By Jennifer Ching

The media has whipped itself into a speculative frenzy after a recent “leak” from the Obama administration. A Newsweek exclusive story, released on September 25th, revealed that President Obama secretly authorized the sale of bunker busting bombs to Israel. These bombs are an important asset in the strategy of nuclear deterrence, because they are able to penetrate targets buried underground (hence their name “bunker busters”). This news isn’t particularly surprising given the United States’ close relations with Israel. What is odd is that the U.S. has been transferring these bombs to Israel since 2009. In light of recent events, was this secret information really just an unauthorized tip-off by some insider? Or was it strategically “released” to the public but made to look like a leak? The timing of the affair seems to suggest the latter.

One explanation for the sudden acknowledgement of the bombs sale is the recent news about Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. boasts a long history of deterring Iran’s nuclear capacity. In 2010 the U.S. used a computer worm named Stuxnet to cripple one-fifth of the Iran’s working centrifuges and briefly halted the country’s nuclear expansion plans. Western nations widely believe that Iran’s pursuit of fission-based energy is a guise to hide its development of nuclear weapons.

Given these suspicions, just imagine the Obama administration’s reaction when the New York Times wrote on September 1, 2011 that Iran “is moving its most critical nuclear fuel production to a heavily defended underground military facility outside the holy city of Qum.” In addition, Iran also announced its first nuclear plant is going into operation. In fact, Iran’s state-controlled TV station Al Alam announced that the $1 billion Bushehr plant was officially inaugurated on Sept. 12, 2011. Whether Iran is secretly hiding a nuclear-weapons agenda or not, these developments certainly do nothing to deter worldwide suspicion.

In light of these events, it is perfectly reasonable for the Obama administration to remind Iran that any ventures into a nuclear buildup will be closely shadowed. Additionally, instead of publicly admitting the sale, it makes sense to release it as a “leak”. Iran could perceive an outright declaration as too hostile, which would lead to a further strain in its already tense relationship with the United States.

A second plausible reason for this timely announcement is U.S. domestic politics. President Obama’s approval among the Jewish American community is declining. This is due in part to a feeling that Obama is less supportive of Israel than his predecessors. Critics point toward Obama’s urging of Israel to make huge concessions to the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders as evidence of this. A recent Gallup poll conducted from September showed a drop in Obama’s approval ratings from 60 percent in June to 55 percent. His disapproval ratings also increased from 32 to 40 percent, resulting in a net 11 point drop in approval from the Jewish population.

The Jewish community plays an integral role in voting, especially in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. With the upcoming elections looming ahead, it only makes sense that Obama would attempt to increase his approval ratings in this community. What better way to do this than “announce” that he’s been secretly boosting Israel’s military since 2009? In theory this information, coupled with his vehement refusal of Palestine’s entry into the United Nations, should be more than enough to persuade any disconsolate Jewish American that Obama has Israel’s best interests at heart.

Given these two crucial and timely reasons, the “leak” was surely no accident. It was a strategic maneuver on Obama’s part. Not only did he subtly warn Iran of his watchful eye, but he also released it before the upcoming elections to enhance his image among an important group of voters. Talk about killing two birds with one stone! Sure, it’s possible that this could have all just been a slip-of-the-tongue accident. According to recent happenings, however, it seems like this mouth was ready to talk in the first place.

Photograph taken from Wikimedia Commons

November 3, 2011 1 comment

UCLA's Foreign Affairs Magazine since 2010

Iran

Could a Global Pandemic Pave the Way for an Iranian Retaliation?

The Dangers of Iranian Hip-Hop

Does Collective Paranoia Shape Foreign Policy?

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

The De-evolution of Iran: Re-claiming a Homeland

Does American Film’s Portrayal of Iran Shape Public Perception?

Accidental Slip-up or Political Strategy? The “Bunker-Busting Leak” Debunked