According to an internal draft memo, the Biden administration is crafting a plan aimed at resetting US ties with Palestine that all but collapsed under former President Donald Trump. Two people familiar with the State Department document, which was first reported by the United Arab Emirates-based newspaper The National, said it was still in an early “working stage” but could eventually form the basis for rolling back parts of Trump’s approach that Palestinians denounced as heavily biased in favor of Israel.
Since President Joe Biden took office on January 20, his aides have said they intend to repair relations with the Palestinians. The administration has pledged to resume hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and humanitarian assistance and work toward reopening the Palestinians’ diplomatic mission in Washington. President Biden’s aides have also made clear they want to re-establish the goal of a negotiated two-state solution as a priority in US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they have moved cautiously with Israel’s March 23 elections looming, followed by Palestinian elections scheduled in coming months.
A portion of the draft memo quoted by The National said the US vision is “to advance freedom, security, and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians in the immediate term.” The document was cited as saying $15 million in Coronavirus aid to the Palestinians could be announced by the end of March. It is also reported to take a tougher stance on Israeli settlement activities and mentions efforts “to obtain a Palestinian commitment to end payments to individuals imprisoned (by Israel) for acts of terrorism.”
President Donald Trump announced on September 11 that Bahrain would establish full diplomatic relations with Israel, following the United Arab Emirates, in another sign of shifting Middle East dynamics that are bringing Arab nations closer to Israel. President Trump announced the news on Twitter, releasing a joint statement with Bahrain and Israel and calling the move “a historic breakthrough to further peace in the Middle East.” Speaking to reporters, the President said the 9/11 attacks‘ anniversary was a fitting day for the announcement. “There’s no more powerful response to the hatred that spawned 9/11,” he said. The announcement came after a similar one last month by Israel and the United Arab Emirates that they would normalize relations on the condition that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel did not follow through with plans to annex portions of the West Bank. Trump administration officials said they hoped that agreement would encourage other Arab countries with historically hostile, though recently thawing, relations with Israel to take similar steps. The deal, which isolates the Palestinians, comes as Trump tries to position himself as a peacemaker before the elections in November.
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel pic.twitter.com/xMquRkGtpM
Bahrain’s move was not unexpected. The tiny Persian Gulf kingdom was widely seen as the low-hanging fruit to be picked if all went well in the aftermath of the Emiratis’ announcement, analysts said. Bahrain, strategically significant as the home port for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, had already opened its airspace to new commercial passenger flights between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi. It was unclear whether the US or Israel had made any concessions to Bahrain in exchange for the agreement. When asked during a briefing for reporters, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, who helped broker the deal, did not respond directly.
Israel would always welcome the addition of another Arab country to the shortlist of those with diplomatic ties, but in Israel, the announcement landed with neither the surprise nor the weight of the Emirati decision. “Any Arab country is very important, for sure,” said Amos Gilead, a retired Israeli major general who leads the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. “It’s another precedent. But with all due respect, when you are small, you are small.” But Bahrain has outsize significance, said Kirsten Fontenrose, a former National Security Council senior director for Gulf affairs in the Trump White House who is now a director at the Atlantic Council. She noted that Bahrain was a close ally of Saudi Arabia, the true diplomatic prize for Israel.“Its importance is mostly because it’s an indication that the new leadership in Saudi Arabia supports normalization,” Fontenrose said. “Bahrain doesn’t make a foreign policy move without Saudi Arabia’s express permission.”
Israel and Bahrain have had unofficial ties on and off since the 1990s and enjoyed warm relations for several years. In 2019, Bahrain played host to a Trump administration conference promoting the economic aspects of its proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, during which Sheikh Khalid, a member of the Bahraini royal family who is now a diplomatic adviser to the king, gave friendly interviews to visiting Israeli journalists. “Israel is part of this heritage of this whole region, historically,” he said, adding that “the Jewish people have a place amongst us.”
Iran has issued an arrest warrant for US President Donald Trump over the drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in January, as reported by Fars News Agency on June 30. President Trump is one of 36 people Iran has issued arrest warrants for in relation to the death of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Fars, but the Tehran attorney general Ali Alqasi Mehr said President Trump was at the top of the list. Mehr claimed Trump would be prosecuted as soon as his term as President ends, Fars reported. Iran also said it had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for these 36 individuals, semi-official state news agency ISNA reported, though it was unlikely that Interpol would grant the request. In a statement to CNN, Interpol said it “would not consider requests of this nature.” It explained that it was not in accordance with its rules and constitution, which states “it is strictly forbidden for the organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”
US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook called the move a “political stunt” during a joint press conference with the Saudi Arabian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir on June 30. “It’s propaganda that we’re used to,” Hook said. “This has nothing to do with national security, international peace or promoting stability, so we see it for what it is — it’s a propaganda stunt that no one takes seriously and makes the Iranians look foolish,” he added.
Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in January along with five others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The strike, condemned by Iran and its allies as an “assassination,” raised the specter of further regional destabilization. A spokesman for Iran’s judiciary, Gholam-Hossein Esmaili, announced in early June that an Iranian citizen had been sentenced to death for allegedly working for foreign intelligence agencies. Esmaili claimed that Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi Majd disclosed the whereabouts of Soleimani to US intelligence officials. The Pentagon blamed Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and US allies in the months leading up to his killing. “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said at the time, calling the strike “decisive defensive” action aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks.
The Iranian parliament (Majlis) approved a bill on May 18 including a list of measures against Israel, such as the establishment of an Iranian consulate or embassy in Jerusalem to Palestine, boycott measures, and bans on contact and agreements between Iran and Israel. The bill, featuring 14 articles, passed with 43 votes in favor and no votes against, according to the Iranian IRNA news agency. The bill will be brought before the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee so that the parliament can vote on the law at the beginning of next week.
“During seven decades of its formation, the Zionist regime has created numerous difficulties for the Muslims in the region,” said the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mojtaba Zonnour, according to the Iranian Fars News Agency. “Spying, terrorism, and martyrdom of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyber and electronic warfare, and cyber-attacks on nuclear and economic centers are among the Zionist regime’s actions against the Iranian nation.” Zonnour encouraged Iranian lawmakers to approve the anti-Zionist motion as a substitute for Quds Day rallies that have been canceled due to the Coronavirus outbreak. The bill bans the use of Israeli flags, symbols, or signs for “propaganda purposes in favor of the regime“; direct and indirect financial assistance from Iranian nationals to the State of Israel is prohibited, according to the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency.
The Iranian bill claimed that the “historical and integrated land of Palestine belongs to the original Palestinian peoples, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews,” adding that the Iranian government is obliged to treat Jerusalem as the “permanent capital of Palestine.” Within six months of the adoption of the law, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must make arrangements for the establishment of a “consulate or virtual embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Capital of Jerusalem in Palestine.” The proposed law obligates the Iranian government to boycott all economic, commercial, financial, and governmental institutions of Israel whose shares belong to Israeli citizens or companies registered in Israel. Any activity of commercial companies that operate in the security, military, and infrastructure sectors is banned within Iran according to the new law as well, according to Tasnim. Cooperation between Iranian universities, medical and scientific centers, public and private centers, and government employees and their Israeli counterparts is banned as well, as is participation in conferences affiliated with the Jewish state.
Affected by the ban include any companies or entities directly created by Israel, entities that “work for the goals of the Zionist regime and international Zionism all over the world” and companies in which over half their shares belong to Israeli citizens. All hardware and software developed in Israel or by companies that have production branches in Israel are banned from use in Iran. All negotiations, political agreements or exchanges of information with official and unofficial Israeli entities are also banned by the new law. The penalties for breaking the law range from fines to imprisonment to dismissal from public service. All Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering Iran. Iranian nationals are prohibited from traveling to the “occupied Palestinian territories.” It is unclear what areas are referred to under the law. Non-incidental contact and communications between Iranian nationals and Israeli nationals are also prohibited. The perpetrator would have the burden of proof concerning proving the communication is accidental.
The announcement of the new law comes amid heightened tensions between Iran and Israel as plans for the annexation of much of the Palestinian-held territories are pushed forward by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An alleged Iranian cyberattack on Israeli water and sewage facilities last month was the subject of the first Israeli cabinet meeting since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, contributing to some of the recent tensions between Israel and Iran. Additionally, Israel in recent weeks has launched a series of airstrikes throughout Syria against targets connected to the Iranian military and the Lebanese Shi’a militia group Hezbollah. Many foreign policy observers note that the Israeli airstrikes against Iranian military assets and Iranian allies may lead to an open military conflict between Iran and Israel
Bernie Sanders rebounded late in the evening in delegate-rich Western states: He was quickly declared the winner in Colorado and Utah after polls closed there, and he also claimed the largest delegate lode of the primary race, California. Sanders also easily carried his home state of Vermont. Yet Joe Biden’s sweep of states across the South and the Midwest showed he had the makings of a formidable coalition that could propel him through the primaries. As he did in South Carolina, Biden rolled to victory in several states with the support of large majorities of African-Americans. And he also performed well with a demographic that was crucial to the party’s success in the 2018 midterm elections: college-educated white voters. “We were told, well, when you got to Super Tuesday, it’d be over,” a triumphant Biden said at a celebration in Los Angeles. “Well, it may be over for the other guy!” After a trying stretch in February, even Biden appeared surprised at the extent of his success. “I’m here to report we are very much alive!’’ he said. “And make no mistake about it, this campaign will send Donald Trump packing.”
For his part, Bernie Sanders continued to show strength with the voters who have made up his political base: Latinos, liberals and those under age 40. But he struggled to expand his appeal with older voters and African-Americans. The results also called into question Sanders’s decision to spend valuable time over the past week campaigning in both Minnesota and Massachusetts, two states where he had hoped to embarrass rivals on their home turf. The gambit proved badly flawed, as it was Joe Biden who pulled off upset wins in both states, with the help of a last-minute endorsement from Senator Amy Klobuchar that upended the race in Minnesota.
2. President Donald Trump Announces Support For Economic Stimulus Package To Assist Business, Individuals Hurt By Coronavirus
Amid increasing criticism over his response to the Coronavirus outbreak and handling of the slowing economy, President Donald Trump announced his support for an economic stimulus package this week.
President Donald Trump’s decision to push for a stimulus package represented a departure for the administration, which has insisted that the fundamentals of the economy are solid and that the coronavirus would cause only a short-term blip in growth. But the coronavirus threat continues to rattle financial markets. American stocks collapsed on March 9, with the Dow Jones industrial average plummeting by more than 2,000 points for its worst day since 2008 after a free fall in oil prices and a growing number of coronavirus cases. Total coronavirus cases around the globe surpassed 111,000, with confirmed US cases exceeding 600. The worldwide death toll approached 4,000 and rose to 26 in the US
On March 6, President Donald Trump signed an $8.3 billion package of emergency funding to help treat and slow the spread of the virus. The package includes funding for research and development of vaccines as well as money for prevention, preparedness, and response. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who appeared alongside President Trump at the news conference, said the US has “the most resilient economy in the world.” But, “there are parts of the economy that are going to be impacted, especially workers that need to be at home, hard-working people who are at home under quarantine and are taking care of their family,” he said. “We’ll be working on a program to address that.”
At the congressional level Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a strong ally of President Donald Trump, also has begun exploring the possibility of a stimulus package. “While we continue to assess the economic impacts, Senator Grassley is exploring the possibility of targeted tax relief measures that could provide a timely and effective response to the coronavirus,” said Grassley’s spokesman, Michael Zona. “Several options within the committee’s jurisdiction are being considered as we learn more about the effects on specific industries and the overall economy.” Some economists are recommending broader steps Congress can take in the short term to aid those immediately affected by the virus, such as defraying the health care costs of those infected and reducing the Social Security payroll tax for all workers.
3. The US Begins Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan
The US military began withdrawing from Afghanistan this week after signing a tentative peace agreement with the Taliban two weeks ago.
US troops have started to leave Afghanistan for the initial troop withdrawal required in the US-Taliban agreement, a spokesman for US Forces in Afghanistan announced on March 9, amid political chaos in the country that threatens the deal. The US will cut the number of forces in the country to 8,600, according to a statement by US Forces Afghanistan spokesman Colonel Sonny Leggett. “In accordance with the US-Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Joint Declaration and the US-Taliban Agreement, US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) has begun its conditions-based reduction of forces to 8,600 over 135 days,” Leggett said in the statement quoted by. “USFOR-A maintains all the military means and authorities to accomplish our objectives -including conducting counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and ISIS-K and providing support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces,” he added. “USFOR-A is on track to meet directed force levels while retaining the necessary capabilities. The pullout came as Afghanistan’s rival leaders were each sworn in as president in separate ceremonies on March 9, creating a complication for the US as it figures out how to move forward on the agreement, signed late last month, and end the 18-year war. The sharpening dispute between President Ashraf Ghani, who was declared the winner of last September’s election, and his rival Abdullah Abdullah, who charged fraud in the vote along with the elections complaints commission, threatens to wreck the next key steps and even risks devolving into new violence.
The US has not tied the withdrawal to political stability in Afghanistan or any specific outcome from the all-Afghan peace talks. Instead, it depends on the Taliban meeting its commitment to preventing “any group or individual, including al-Qaeda, from using the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the US and its allies.” Under the peace agreement, the US troop withdrawal had to begin within 10 days after the deal was signed on February 29. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on March 2 that he had already approved the start of the withdrawal, which would then be coordinated by military commanders in Afghanistan. The US official said that the troops leaving now had been scheduled to depart, but they will not be replaced. Esper has said General Scott Miller, the US commander in Afghanistan, will pause the withdrawal and assess conditions once the troop level goes down to 8,600. The long-term plan is for the US to remove all troops within 14 months if security conditions are met. The agreement with the Taliban followed a seven-day “reduction in violence” period that, from the Trump administration’s viewpoint, was meant to test the Taliban’s seriousness about moving towards a final peace agreement.
4. U.N. Announces Sharp Increase In Iran’s Uranium Stockpile In Violation Of The JCPOA
The UN this week announced that Iran has dramatically increased its uranium production in the wake of the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon the JCPOA and reimpose sanctions on the Iranian economy.
Iran is dramatically ramping up production of enriched uranium in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed on March 4 while also criticizing the Iranian government for blocking access to possible nuclear-related sites. Inspectors from the IAEA reported a near-tripling of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium just since November of 2019, with total holdings more than three times the 300-kilogram limit set by the nuclear accord. Iran also substantially increased the number of machines it is using to enrich uranium, the agency said, allowing it to make more of the nuclear fuel faster. The confidential report provided to member states is the first since Iran announced it would no longer adhere to any of the nuclear pact’s restrictions on uranium fuel production, in a protest of the Trump administration’s decision to walk away from the deal. Iran has declined to formally pull out of the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in which it had to sharply curtail its nuclear activities and submit to intrusive inspections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
Inspectors confirmed that Iran now possesses more than 1,020 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, up from 372 kilograms in the fall, although the IAEA found no evidence that Iran is taking specific steps toward nuclear weapons production. Independent analysts said the bigger stockpile and faster enrichment rate has substantially decreased Iran’s theoretical “breakout” time, the span needed for acquiring enough weapons-grade material for a single nuclear bomb. When the Iranian nuclear was fully implemented in 2015, US officials said that Iran would need about a year to reach the “breakout” point if it chose to make a bomb. Based on the new figures, one Iran analyst calculated that the window has been reduced to about 3½ months. Iran’s enriched uranium soared to “levels not expected just a few weeks ago,” said the analyst, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington nonprofit specializing in nuclear weapons research.
The IAEA reports are certain to rekindle debate over President Donald Trump’s decision to walk away from the accord, which the Trump administration says failed to address long-term concerns over Iran’s nuclear intentions. Critics of the deal pointed to Iran’s lack of cooperation with IAEA inspectors as evidence that Iran cannot be trusted. “The problem is not breakout at known facilities; it is sneakout at clandestine facilities through advanced centrifuges permitted by JCPOA,” Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in a Twitter posting, using the acronym for the nuclear deal. Other experts said the report highlighted the administration’s folly in torpedoing a deal that was demonstrably working, without having a viable alternative plan for keeping Iran’s nuclear activities in check. “The bottom line: Iran is closer to being able to build a bomb now than under JCPOA and the previous administration, and we are less capable of addressing that danger,” said Jon Wolfsthal, the senior director for arms control on the Obama White House’s National Security Council, in an email.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week:
1. President Trump’s Tax Returns Leaked, Revealing Decade of Business Losses
According to tax documents leaked this week, President Donald Trump lost over 1 billion between 1985 and 1994, calling into question the claim that he is a “brilliant businessman.”
President Donald Trump’s tax filings from 1985 to 1994 show that he had accumulated more than a billion dollars in business losses over the course of a decade, according to newly revealed tax information obtained by the New York Times on May 8. In the 10 years covered, Trump racked up nearly $1.2 billion in core business losses, according to the New York Times’ analysis of the President’s federal income tax information from those years. The loss paints what the New York Times called a bleak picture of Trump’s businesses, which he has always touted as successful. The New York Times’ analysis of the tax information includes how President Donald Trump was already deep in financial trouble in 1987 when he published his infamous book “The Art of the Deal,” a bestseller that focused on his business career as a so-called self-made billionaire. In 1985, his core businesses reported a loss of more than $46 million and carried over a $5.6 million loss from earlier years. President Trump has long blamed his first round of business reversals and bankruptcies on the 1990-93 Recession, but the New York Times analysis shows that his fortune was already on its way down much earlier.
The tax results also show that President Donald Trump appears to have lost more money during that decade than nearly any other individual taxpayer. His core businesses reportedly lost over $250 million each year in 1990 and 1991, which the New York Times said is more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in its sampling of high-income earners for those years. Notably, the investigation reveals that the president did not pay federal income taxes for eight out of the ten years analyzed. The analysis notes that President Donald Trump at one time tried to delay his collapse by playing the role of a corporate raider, in which he would acquire company shares with borrowed money, publicly announce he was contemplating a takeover and then quietly sell his shares on the resulting stock price bump.
Overall, the revelation of information shows that President Donald Trump is not the “brilliant businessperson” that he had long claimed to be. Charles Harder, one of President Trump’s financial attorneys said that the tax information was false without citing any errors and reportedly told the newspaper on May 8 that IRS transcripts “are notoriously inaccurate.” The Trump administration continued to refuse to release his federal tax returns this week, with the Treasury Department announcing on May 7 that it will not comply with House Democrats’ request for the President’s tax returns, openly defying federal law. The New York Senate is on the verge of passing a bill that would allow Congress to view Trump’s state tax returns, which are expected to have much of the same information as his federal returns.
I won the 2016 Election partially based on no Tax Returns while I am under audit (which I still am), and the voters didn’t care. Now the Radical Left Democrats want to again relitigate this matter. Make it a part of the 2020 Election!
Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee working to get President Donald Trump’s tax returns, said in response to the report that the President’s “entire tenure is built upon the most colossal fraud in American political history.” “As these records make clear, Trump was perhaps the worst businessman in the world. His entire campaign was a lie,” Pascrell said in a statement. “He did not pay taxes for years and lost over one billion dollars, how is that possible? How did he keep getting more money and where on earth was it all going? We need to know now.” Congressman Pascrell also stressed that Congress must still see Trump’s actual tax returns and that the IRS is legally obligated to hand them over. “We now have another part of the truth,” Pascrell said. “We need a lot more.”
2. US Deploys Aircraft Carrier to Persian Gulf Amid Steadily Increasing Tensions with Iran
The Trump Administration ordered the deployment of several US aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf, increasing the chances for war with Iran.
On May 6, it was announced that the Trump administration is sending an aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf ahead of schedule and warning that Iran and its allies are showing “troubling and escalatory” indications of a possible attack on American forces in the region. Exactly what prompted the action was unclear, but it marked a further step in sharply rising tensions between the Trump administration and the Iranian government. “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or regular Iranian forces,” National Security Advisor John Bolton said. Neither Bolton nor other officials would provide any details about the supposed threat, which comes as the Trump administration wages a campaign of intensifying pressure against Iran and nearly a year after it withdrew from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Tehran.
With its “maximum pressure campaign,” President Donald Trump is trying to get Iran to halt activities (that many consider to be humanitarian at their core) such as supporting Shi’a socio-political groups opposed to the ideologies of Zionism and Wahhabism. “Our objective is to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to behave like a normal nation,” said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a visit to Finland. “When they do that, we will welcome them back.” Secretary Pompeo said the actions undertaken by the US have been in the works for a while. The request for the accelerated move came over the weekend from the military’s US Central Command after reviewing various intelligence reports for some time, according to the US official.
Since he assumed office in early 2017, President Donald Trump has advocated a hardline policy against Iran (at the urging of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States) with the ultimate goal of bringing about the collapse of the current Iranian government and paving the way for the reinstallation of the Pahlavi monarchy. Last month, President Trump announced the US would no longer exempt any countries from US sanctions if they continue to buy Iranian oil, a decision that primarily affects countries such as China, India, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Greece, France, Germany, and Ireland. The US also recently designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group, the first ever for an entire division of another government. Moreover, President Trump withdrew from the Obama administration’s landmark nuclear deal with Iran in May 2018 and, in the months that followed, reimposed punishing sanctions including those targeting Iran’s oil, shipping, manufacturing, and banking sectors.
3. Trump Administrations Proposed Peace Plan for Israel-Palestinian Conflict Revealed
The Trump Administration’s proposed plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was released this week.
The main points of President Donald Trump’s much-derided plan for the Middle East, the so-called “deal of the century,” were leaked by a Hebrew-language news outlet in Israel on May 8. Israel Hayom published the main points of the deal from a leaked document circulated by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The main points of the agreement were put together by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has extensive ties to both Saudi Arabia and Israel and proposed by the Trump administration.
The agreement would involve a tripartite treaty to be signed between Israel, the PLO, and Hamas, and a Palestinian state will be established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Additionally, the settlement blocs in the West Bank (which are illegal under international law) would form part of Israel, and Israel and Palestine would share Jerusalem with Israel maintaining general control. The Palestinians living in Jerusalem would be citizens of the Palestinian state but Israel would remain in charge of the municipality and therefore the land. The newly formed Palestinian state would pay taxes to the Israeli municipality in order to be in charge of education in the city for Palestinians. The status quo at the holy sites will remain and Jewish Israelis will not be allowed to buy Palestinian houses and vice versa. Egypt will offer the new Palestinian state land to build an airport, factories and for agriculture which will service the Gaza Strip.
The US, EU, and Gulf states would fund and sponsor the deal for five years to establish the Palestinian state, the leaked document claims. The proposed Palestinian state would not be allowed to form an army but could maintain a police force. Instead, a defense agreement will be signed between Israel and Palestine in which Israel would defend the new state from any foreign attacks. Upon signing the agreement, Hamas would have to disarm and its leaders would be compensated and paid salaries by Arab states while a government is established. If Hamas or any Palestinian bodies refuse this deal, the US will cancel all of its financial support to the Palestinians and pressure other countries to do the same. On the other hand, if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signs the deal but Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not agree to it, a war would be waged on the Gaza Strip with the full backing of the US. However, if Israel refuses the deal the US would cease its financial support. The US currently pays $3.8 billion a year to support Israel.
Overall, the international reaction to the Trump Administration’s proposed Middle East process has been mixed. Whereas the leadership of both Israel and Saudi Arabia have endorsed the plan and have pledged to work to implement it, the Palestinian leadership is likely to reject the proposal. Prior to the leaks, The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza have already issued statements saying that such a plan would be rejected as it does not follow the previous international agreements that grant Palestinians a future state in pre-1967 borders. The news leaks make it more likely that the deal is doomed to fail before it is even released publically as most Palestinian factions would reject such terms that favor the Israeli side.
4. Trade War Between US and China Escalates
President Donald Trump escalated the ongoing US-China trade war this week by placing a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US.
President Donald Trump escalated his trade war with China on May 10 to tax nearly all of China’s imports as punishment for what he said was Beijing’s attempt to “renegotiate” a trade deal. President Trump’s decision to proceed with the tariff increase came after a pivotal round of trade talks in Washington on May 9 failed to produce an agreement to forestall the higher levies. In his comments at the White House on May 9, Trump vacillated between threatening China and suggesting a deal could still happen. Trump said he had received a “beautiful letter” from President Xi Jinping of China and would probably speak to him by phone, but said he was more than happy to keep hitting Beijing with tariffs. “I have no idea what’s going to happen,” Trump said. “They’ll see what they can do, but our alternative is, is an excellent one,” Trump added, noting that American tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products were bringing “billions” into the US government. China’s Ministry of Commerce said that the government “deeply regrets that it will have to take necessary countermeasures.” It did not specify what those countermeasures might be. “It is hoped that the US and Chinese sides will meet each other halfway and work together” to resolve their dispute, the statement added.
The renewed brinkmanship has plunged the world’s two largest economies back into a trade war that had seemed on the cusp of ending. The US and China were nearing a trade deal that would lift tariffs, open the Chinese market to American companies and strengthen China’s intellectual property protections. But discussions fell apart last weekend when China called for substantial changes to the negotiating text that both countries had been using as a blueprint for a sweeping trade pact. President Donald Trump, angered by what he viewed as an act of defiance, responded by threatening to raise existing tariffs to 25 percent and impose new ones on an additional $325 billion worth of products. China has said it is prepared to retaliate should those tariffs go into effect. “We were getting very close to a deal then they started to renegotiate the deal,” President Trump said. “We can’t have that.”
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week:
1. The Long-Awaited Mueller Report Is Released, Finding No Direct Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion in the 2016 Election
The log-awaited Mueller report was released this week, finding no direct evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign and the Russian government.
The two-year long investigation led by Robert Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on March 24. Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating Russia’s effort to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, found no conspiracy “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice, Barr said, so he made his own decision. The Attorney General and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense. Attorney General Barr cautioned, however, that Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.
The release of the findings was a significant political victory for President Donald Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his Presidency since before he took the oath of office. It is also likely to alter discussion in Congress about the fate of the Trump presidency, as some Democrats had pledged to wait until the special counsel finished his work before deciding whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. President Trump and his supporters trumpeted the news almost immediately, even as they mischaracterized the special counsel’s findings. “It was a complete and total exoneration,” Trump told reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One. “It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this.” Trump added, “This was an illegal takedown that failed.”
The Fake News Media has lost tremendous credibility with its corrupt coverage of the illegal Democrat Witch Hunt of your all time favorite duly elected President, me! T.V. ratings of CNN & MSNBC tanked last night after seeing the Mueller Report statement. @FoxNews up BIG!
Attorney General William Barr’s letter was the culmination of a tense two days since Robert Mueller delivered his report to the Justice Department. Barr spent the weekend poring over the special counsel’s work, as President Donald Trump strategized with lawyers and political aides. Hours later, Barr delivered his letter describing the special counsel’s findings to Congress. Barr’s letter said that his “goal and intent” was to release as much of the Mueller report as possible, but warned that some of the reports were based on grand jury material that “by law cannot be made public.” Barr planned at a later date to send lawmakers the detailed summary of Mueller’s full report that the attorney general is required under law to deliver to Capitol Hill. Despite the comprehensive nature of the report on the Mueller investigation, many Congressional Democrats expressed concern regarding its findings. For example, shortly after the release of the Mueller findings, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a Twitter post that he planned to call Barr to testify about what he said were “very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department.”
There must be full transparency in what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered to not exonerate the President from wrongdoing. DOJ owes the public more than just a brief synopsis and decision not to go any further in their work.
2. Trump recognizes Golan Heights as Israeli Territory
In a widely-denounced move, President Donald Trump recognized Israeli control over the Golan Heights on March 25.
On March 25, US President Donald Trump recognized Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights in an election boost for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, prompting a sharp response from Syria and Lebanon, which once held the strategic land. With Netanyahu looking over his shoulder at the White House, President Trump signed a proclamation officially granting US recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, a dramatic shift from decades of US policy. The move, which Trump announced in a Twitter post last Thursday, appeared to be the most overt gesture by the Republican Party to help Netanyahu, who had been pressing Trump for the move since February 2017. Israel captured the Golan in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed it in 1981 in a move condemned by the UN. In signing the proclamation, President Donald Trump said that, “This was a long time in the making.” Netanyahu welcomed Trump’s action and said Israel had never had a better friend as US President. Additionally, Netanyahu harkened back to the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War in justifying Israel’s need to hang on to the Golan. “Just as Israel stood tall in 1967, just as it stood tall in 1973, Israel stands tall today. We hold the high ground and we should never give it up,” he said.
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
Overall, the international reaction to President Donald Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli Territory was overwlmingly negative. Both Syria and Lebanon reacted swiftly to Trump’s proclamation, calling it a “blatant attack” on their sovereignty and territorial integrity and saying it had a right to reclaim the Golan. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has refused to talk to the United States since Trump ordered the U.S. embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, expressed his “absolute rejection” of the Golan move in a statement issued by the Palestinian Authority news service Wafa. “The presidency reaffirmed that sovereignty is not decided by either the US or Israel no matter how long the occupation lasts,” the statement said. Moreover, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani harshly criticized President Donald Trump for recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel and said the move was against international law. “No one could imagine that a person in America comes and gives the land of a nation to another occupying country, against international laws and conventions. Such action is unprecedented in the current century,” Rouhani said in a statement. Additionally, several staunch allies of the US and Israel including France, the UK, Germany, and Saudi Arabiasimilarly condemned President Trump’s Actions.
3. Trump Administration Announces Support for Judicial Efforts to Overturn Obamacare
The Trump Administration announced its intention to convince the courts to overturn the Affordable Car Act (“Obamacare”) on March 25.
In a significant shift, the Trump Administration says that it backs a full invalidation of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare“), the signature Obama-era health law. The Justice Department presented its position in a legal filing on March 25 with the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, where an appeal is pending in a case challenging the measure’s constitutionality. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December that the law’s individual mandate “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power” and further found that the remaining portions of the law are void. He based his judgment on changes to the nation’s tax laws made by Congressional Republicans in 2017.
If the Trump Administration’s position prevails, it would potentially eliminate health care for millions of people and disrupt the US health-care system, from removing no-charge preventive services for older Americans on Medicare to voiding the expansion of Medicaid in most states. A court victory would also fulfill Republican promises to undo a prized domestic accomplishment of the previous administration but leave no substitute in place.
The change comes as newly empowered Democrats in the House have vowed to protect Obamacare from Republican attacks. In midterm races last fall that restored their majority in the House of Representatives, Democrats hammered their rivals for pursuing an eight-year crusade against the law, commonly known as Obamacare. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged in a Twitter post on March 25 that Democrats would “fight relentlessly” to preserve “affordable, dependable health care.” “Trump and his administration are trying to take health care away from tens of millions of Americans,” warned Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is among the Democratic aspirants who have signaled support for a Medicare-for-all system. In 2020, Harris added, “we need to elect a president who will make health care a right.”
Tonight in federal court, the Trump Admin declared all out war on affordable, dependable health care. In the courts, in the Congress, all across America, Democrats will fight relentlessly to #ProtectOurCare! https://t.co/WLZl5X9GGr
4. Senate Blocks “Green New Deal” in Partisan Vote
The Senate this week blocked a vote on the “Green New Deal,” a progressive climate change legislative program championed by Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes and Senator Ed Markey
On March 26, the Senate blocked the Green New Deal, a progressive climate change resolution that Republicans view as prime fodder heading into the 2020 presidential election. The Senate voted 0-57 on taking up the resolution, with 43 Democrats voting present. The measure was widely expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the procedural hurdle. Most Democrats were expected to vote present, a move that allowed them to avoid taking a formal position. Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Doug Jones (D-AL) and Angus King (I-ME) voted with Republicans against the measure. Republicans have seized on the measure as an example of Democrats shifting to the left ahead of next year’s presidential election. Every Democratic senator running for the party’s nomination in 2020 has co-sponsored the Senate Green New Deal resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) lashed out at the proposal ahead of the vote on Tuesday, calling it an item on the “far-left wish list that many of our Democratic colleagues have rushed to embrace.” “The American people will see, they will see which of their senators can do the common sense thing and vote no on this destructive socialist daydream. And they will see which senators are so fully committed to a radical left-wing ideology that they can’t even vote no on self-inflicted economic ruin,” he said. The resolution, introduced last month by Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), strives for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.” It faced pushback from conservatives as well as some Democrats for being too broad and including wishlist items not directly related to climate change, like expanding family farming and transitioning away from air travel.
Leading into March 26’s vote, Democrats accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of trying to set up a “gotcha” vote since no hearings were held on the fast-tracked legislation, which was widely expected to fail to get the 60 votes needed to ultimately pass the Senate. Speaking at a rally early on March 26, Senator Markey blasted Republicans for putting on a “sham vote.” “They are calling a vote without hearings, without expert testimony, without any true discussion of the costs of climate inaction and the massive potential for clean energy job creation in our country. And that is because Senator McConnell wants to sabotage the call for climate action,” Markey said. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) added that Republicans were making “a mockery of the legislative process” by bringing the Green New Deal resolution up for a vote just to have the Senate vote it down. “Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. … It’s a political act. It’s a political stunt,” Schumer said.
This video by CaspianReport discusses “Saudi Vision 2030,” a plan proposed by the government of Saudi Arabia that seeks to reduce the countries dependence on oil, diversify its growing economy, and develop public service industries such as health, education, infrastructure, recreation, and tourism. The goals of the plan include reinforcing economic and investment activities, increasing non-oil industry trade between countries through consumer goods, and increasing government spending on the military. The details of the plan were first announced on April 25, 2016, by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), and the Council of Ministers has tasked the Council of Economic and Development Affairs with identifying and monitoring the mechanisms and measures crucial for the implementation of “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”
The main rationale behind the Saudi Vision 2020 plan is to decrease the dependence that the Saudi economy has on oil revenues. The oil industry comprises close to 50% of Suadi Arabia’s total GDP, and the Saudi government has sought to decrease its reliance on oil revenues since the 1970s with an overall poor track record of success. The core priority of the Saudi government is to be able to develop more alternative sources of revenue for the government such as taxes, fees and income from the sovereign wealth fund. Another significant proposal is to lower the dependency of the citizens of the country on public spendings such as spending on subsidies and higher salaries and to increase the portion of the economy contributed by the private sector to provide more employment opportunities and to provide growth in the GDP.
Suadi Vision 2020 has three main pillars: the status of the country as the “heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds,” the determination to become a global investment powerhouse, and to transform the country’s location into a hub connecting three of the most influential areas of the world (Western Asia, Europe, and Africa). The plan is supervised by a group of people employed under the National Center for Performance Measurement, the Delivery Unit, and the Project Management Office of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. The National Transformation Program was designed and launched in 2016 across 24 government bodies to enhance the economic and development center
Saudi Vision 2030 is built around four major themes which set out specific objectives that are to be achieved by 2030. The four themes are:
A vibrant society: urbanism, culture and entertainment, sports, Umrah, UNESCO heritage sites, life expectancy.
A thriving economy: Employment, women in the workforce, international competitiveness, Public Investment Fund, Foreign direct investment, the private sector, non-oil exports
An ambitious nation: Non-oil revenues, government effectiveness, and e-government, household savings and income, non-profits and volunteering.
Projects: About 80 major projects are to be developed in Saudi Arabia by the year 2030. Most of these projects are financed by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia.
One such project that is part of the Saudi Vision 2030 is the National Transformation Program. First approved on June 7, 2016, the National Transformation Programa sets out the goals and targets to be achieved by the Kingdom by 2020. It is the first out of three phases each lasting for five years. Each step will accomplish a certain number of goals and targets that will eventually help the Kingdom in reaching the ultimate goals of Vision 2030. To assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to finance all the projects to be developed and facilitate the process of achieving the goals and targets of Vision 2030, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman announced in early 2016 that an IPO of Saudi ARAMCO is going to take place. However, only 5% of the company will be offered on the stock market. Other projects put forward under the Saudi Vision 2030 plan are the construction of a luxury resort located on the Red Sea between the cities of Umluj and Al-Wajh, the expansion of the Saudi entertainment industry, and the expansion of women’s rights. In the realm of women’s rights, the Saudi Vision 2030 plan seeks to grant women the right to vote, own property, travel abroad freely, and attend higher education facilities.
Overall, the international reaction to the Saudi Vision 2030 plan has been somewhat mixed. Many critics argue that the lack of formal political institutions, inefficient bureaucracy and a significant gap between the labor force required by the Saudi labor market and current educational system serve as a hindrance on many of the growth prospects that the country has proposed. Other critics argue that the Saudi Vision 2030 plan does not take into account the fact that rapid reform efforts may not be entirely accepted by the Saudi population, and that a slow and gradual reform plan would be a more viable policy to implement. Despite some criticism towards the reform proposals, many international observers feel that it represents a genuine opportunity for the Saudi government to reform and create a far more positive view on the country in the eyes of the international community.
Ever since its founding as a nation nearly 250 years ago, the US has pursued a destructive, imperialistic, and aggressive policy towards the Middle East. This history of US intervention in the Middle East illustrates the lengths to which the US power elites have gone to gain and maintain US domination in the region. Here is a brief history discussing the evolution of US policy regarding the Middle East:
1777: Under the leadership of Sultan Mohammed Ben Abdallah, Morocco becomes the first Middle Eastern country to recognize the US as an independent country. Morocco and the US established formal diplomatic ties in 1786 through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship and developed a close relationship that continues to this day.
1801-1815: The US intervenes alongside Sweden and the Kingdom of Sicily in the Barbary Wars, an undeclared series of conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle Eastern countries of Algeria, Tunis, and Libya in response to a series of pirate attack against US ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Even though the wars did not completely end the acts of piracy against American vessels, it proved that the US was capable of waging war, if necessary, in places far from its own shores.
1834: US President Andrew Jackson authorizes the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to send Christian missionaries to the Iranian provinces of Tehran, Isfahan, Hamadan, and Fars. Despite the fact that many of the missionaries held the belief that their actions would improve Iranian society, the true intention of these missions was to establish a US foothold in the region and to weaken the dominant religions of Iran.
May 26, 1875: Mirza Mohammad Ali (better known as Hajj Sayyah), a noted world traveler and democratic political activist become the first person of Middle Eastern descent to become a US citizen. Born in the Iranian province of Markazi in 1836, Sayyah first arrived in the US in 1862, after three years of traveling through Europe and Central Asia. During his stay in the US, Sayyah briefly served in the Union Army during the Civil War and developed a friendship with President Ulysses Grant. After gaining American citizenship, Sayyeh returned to Iran in 1891 and was imprisoned for having instigated a clandestine letter-writing campaign to the Qajar monarch and clergy regarding the unbearable living conditions and lack of political freedom in Iran. After his release, he sought the protection of the US legation in Tehran, which denied him that privilege despite his service in the Union Army during the Civil War and friendship with well-known US political figures.
1920-1928: The US pressures the UK (at the time the dominant Middle Eastern power) into signing a “Red Line Agreement” stating that Middle Eastern oil will not be developed by any single power without the participation of other Western powers such as France, Germany, and Italy. Standard Oil and Mobil obtain shares of the Iraq Petroleum Company due to the agreement.
1932-1938: Oil is discovered in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. American oil companies soon obtain concessions that allow them to access the oil.
1944: The US State Department memo refers to Middle Eastern oil as, “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” During US-British negotiations over the control of Middle Eastern oil, President Franklin Roosevelt sketches out a map of the Middle East and tells the British Ambassador, “Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.” On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement is signed, splitting Middle Eastern oil between the US and the UK.
1945-Present: The US has wholeheartedly supported the brutal government of Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars in financial, military, and technological aid, as well as continued purchasing of Saudi oil. This support has encouraged the Saudi government to expand the oppressive ideology of Wahhabism to neighboring countries and to continually oppress their own people in a manner similar to European rulers during the Dark Ages.
1946: US President Harry Truman threatens to drop an atomic bomb on the Soviet Union if it does not withdraw from the Kurdistan and Azerbaijan regions of Iran. The Soviet Union subsequently obeyed US demands.
November 1947: The US helps push through a UN resolution partitioning Palestine into a Zionist state (which came to be known as Israel) and an Arab state, giving the Jewish authorities control of 54% of the land. At that time Jewish settlers were about 33% of the population.
May 14, 1948: War breaks out between the newly proclaimed state of Israel, and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, who had moved troops into Palestine to oppose the partition of Palestine. The Israeli forces attack some 800,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of the population, to flee into exile to Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel seizes 77 percent of historic Palestine. US President Harry Truman quickly recognizes Israel and authorizes the sending of military aid to the new country.
March 29, 1949: CIA backs a military coup overthrowing the elected government of Syria and establishes a military dictatorship under Colonel Za’im.
1952: US-led military alliance expands into the Middle East with the admission of Turkey and Greece to NATO.
1953: The US, UK, and Israel organize a coup overthrowing the Mossadegh government of Iran after Mossadegh nationalizes British holdings in Iran’s huge oilfields. The Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, is put on the throne, ruling as an absolute monarch for the next 25 years, torturing, killing (at least 160,000), and imprisoning (as many as three million) of his political opponents.
July 1956: After Egypt’s nationalist leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, receives arms from the Soviet Union, the US withdraws promised funding for Aswan Dam, Egypt’s main development project. A week later Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal to fund the project. In October, the UK, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union intervenes on Egypt’s side; and at the same time, the US asserts its regional dominance by forcing the UK, France, and Israel to withdraw from Egypt.
October 1956: A planned CIA coup to overthrow a left-leaning government in Syria is aborted because it was scheduled for the same day Israel, Britain, and France invaded Egypt.
March 9, 1957: Congress approves Eisenhower Doctrine, stating, “the United States regards as vital to the national interest and world peace the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East.”
April 1957: After anti-government rioting breaks out in Jordan, the US rushes 6th fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and lands a battalion of Marines in Lebanon to “prepare for possible future intervention in Jordan.” Later that year, the CIA begins making secret payments of millions of dollars a year to Jordan’s King Hussein.
September 1957: In response to the Syrian government’s more nationalist and pro-Soviet policies, the US sends Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and rushes arms to allies Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
1958: The merger of Syria and Egypt into the “United Arab Republic,” the overthrow of the pro-US King Feisal II in Iraq by nationalist military officers, and the outbreak of anti-government/anti-US rioting in Lebanon, where the CIA had helped install President Camille Caiman and keep him in power, leads the Eisenhower Administration to dispatch 70 naval vessels, hundreds of aircraft and 14,000 Marines to Lebanon to preserve “stability.” The US threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Lebanese army resists, and to prevent an Iraqi move into the oilfields of Kuwait and draws up secret plans for a joint invasion of Iraq with Turkey. The plan is shelved after the Soviet Union threatens to intervene.
1957-58: Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent in charge of the 1953 coup in Iran, plots, without success, to overthrow Egypt’s Nasser. Between July 1957 and October 1958, the Egyptian and Syrian governments and media announced the uncovering of what appear to be at least eight separate conspiracies to overthrow one or the other government, to assassinate Nasser, and/or prevent the expected merger of the two countries.
1960: The US begins working to undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti-government Kurdish rebels and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq’s leader, Abdul Karim Qassim, an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq’s Communist Party.
1963: The US supports a coup in Iraq by the Ba’ath party (headed by Saddam Hussein) to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba’ath names of communists to murder. “Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention…were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing… [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba’ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists.”
1966: The US sells its first jet bombers to Israel, breaking a 1956 decision not to sell arms to the country.
June 1967: With US weapons and support, Israeli military launches the so-called “Six Day War,” seizing the remaining 23 percent of historic Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, along with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Syria’s Golan Heights.
September 17, 1970: With US and Israeli backing, Jordanian troops attack Palestinian guerrilla camps, while Jordan’s US-supplied air force drops napalm from above. The US deploys the aircraft carrier Independence and six destroyers off the coast of Lebanon and readies troops in Turkey to support the assault. The US threatens to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it intervenes. 5,000 Palestinians are killed and 20,000 wounded. This massacre comes to be known as “Black September.”
1973: The US rushes $2 billion in emergency military aid to Israel after Egypt and Syria attack to regain Golan Heights and Sinai. The Nixon Administration puts US forces on alert and moves them into the region. When the Soviet Union threatens to intervene to prevent the destruction of Egypt’s 3rd Army by Israel, US nuclear forces go to DEFCON III (nuclear alert) to force the Soviets to back down.
1973-1975: The US supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq in order to strengthen Iran and weaken the Iraqi government under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Iraq cut a deal, the US withdraws support, denies the Kurds refuge in Iran, and stands by while Saddam Hussein kills many Kurdish people.
1976-1984: The US supports paramilitary forces to undermine the government of South Yemen, which was allied with the Soviet Union.
1978: As the Iranian Revolution begins against the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the US and Israel continued to support him “without reservation” and urge him to act forcefully against the masses. Over the course of 1978, security forces loyal to the Shah kill between 2,000-60,000 innocent civilians, including a large number during a September 8, 1978 protest against the Shah in Tehran’s Jaleh Square. Additionally, the US and Israel supplied the Iranian Army with chemical weapons that were deployed on a small scale against protesters in the Iranian cities of Qom and Mashhad.
Early 1979: The Carter Administration tries, without success, to organize a military coup to save the Shah. In January, the Shah is forced to flee and is replaced by Shapour Bakhtiar, a weak, pro-US puppet leader. Bakhtiar is subsequently forced from office by Ayatollah Khomeini on February 11, 1979. Khomeini, who promised to bring about democracy to the country, as well as to stand up against the ideology of Zionism, immediately became a hated figure amongst US political elites.
Summer 1979: The US begins arming and organizing Islamic fundamentalist “Mujahideen” in Afghanistan. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski writes, “This aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention,” drawing the Soviets into an Afghan quagmire. Over the next decade, the US passed more than $3 billion in arms and aid to the Mujahideen, with another $3 billion provided by Saudi Arabia.
1979: In response to Soviet military maneuvers on Iran’s northern border, President Jimmy Carter secretly puts US forces on nuclear alert and warns the Soviets they will be used if the Soviets intervene.
November 4, 1979: A group of Iranian students seized control of the US embassy in Tehran in response to allegations that the US was planning out a coup to return the Shah to power. The students demand the US return the Shah to Iran to stand trial for his crimes against the Iranian people. The Embassy and 52 US personnel are held for 444 days. This international embarrassment prompts new US actions against Iran, including an abortive rescue attempt.
December 1979: Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, which the US government considered a “buffer state” between the Soviet Union to the north and the strategically important states of Iran and Pakistan to the south, overthrowing the Amin government and installing a pro-Soviet regime.
January 1980: US President Jimmy Carter designates the Persian Gulf as a vital US interest and declares that the US will go to war to ensure the free flow of oil.
1980: The US begins organizing a “Rapid Deployment Force,” increasing its naval presence and pre-positioning military equipment and supplies. It also steps up aid to reactionary client states such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. On September 12, Turkey’s military seizes power and unleashes a brutal clampdown on revolutionaries and Kurds struggling for liberation in order to “stabilize” the country as a key US ally.
September 22, 1980: After a year of minor border skirmishes, Iraq invades Iran with the support of the US and Israel, starting a bloody eight-year war. The US supports both sides in the war providing arms to Iran and money, intelligence and political support to Iraq in order to prolong the war and weaken both sides while trying to draw both countries into US orbit.
1981: The US holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya to intimidate the Qaddafi government. When a Libyan plane fires a missile at US planes penetrating Libyan airspace, two Libyan planes are shot down.
1982: After receiving a “green light” from the Reagan Administration, Israel invaded Lebanon to fight against both the Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon, as well as the large population of Palestinian refugees that resided in Lebanon. Over 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians are killed, and Israel seizes control of Southern Lebanon, holding it until 2000.
September 14, 1982: Lebanon’s pro-US President-elect, Bashir al-Jumayyil, is assassinated. The following day, Israeli forces occupied West Beirut, and from September 16-18, the Phalangist militia, with the support of Israel’s military under future Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, moved into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and barbarically massacred over 1,000 unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children.
1983: The US sends troops to Lebanon, supposedly as part of a multinational “peace-keeping” operation but in reality to protect US interests, including Israel’s occupation forces. US troops are withdrawn after an Iran-backed bomber destroys a US Marine barracks in October of 1983.
1983: CIA helps murder General Ahmed Dlimi, a prominent Moroccan Army commander who seeks to overthrow the pro-US Moroccan monarchy, then under the leadership of King Hassan II.
1985-1986: The Reagan Administration secretly ships weapons to Iran, including 1,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk missile parts, and Hawk radars. The weapons are exchanged for US hostages in Lebanon in hopes of increased US leverage in Iran. The secret plot collapses when it is publicly revealed on November 3, 1986, by the Lebanese magazine, Al-Shiraa.
1985: The CIA attempts to assassinate Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Shi’a leader. 80 people are killed in the unsuccessful attempt.
1986: When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub and kills two Americans, US President Ronald Reagan blames Libya’s Qaddafi and orders the US military to strike Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, and Qaddafi’s house, killing 101 people, including Qaddafi’s adopted daughter.
1988: The Iraqi regime launches mass poison-gas attacks on Kurds, killing thousands and bulldozing many villages. The US responds by increasing its support for the Iraqi regime.
July 1988: A cease-fire ends the Iran-Iraq war with a pyrrhic Iranian victory. Over 1 million Iranians and Iraqis are killed during the nine-year war.
1989: The last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan. The war, fueled by US-Soviet rivalry, has torn Afghanistan apart, killing more than one million Afghans and forcing one-third of the population to flee into refugee camps. More than 15,000 Soviet soldiers die in the war.
July 1990: April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, meets with Saddam Hussein, who threatens military action against Kuwait for overproducing its oil quota, slant drilling for oil in Iraqi territory, and encroaching on Iraqi territory. Glaspie replies, “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”
August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The US seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf. The US condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq.
January 16, 1991: After a 6-month military buildup, the US-led coalition launches “Operation Desert Storm.” For the next month and a half, the US and allied planes pound Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, systematically targeting and largely destroying its electrical and water systems. On February 22, 1991, the US coalition begins its 100-hour ground war. Heavily armed US units drive deep into southern Iraq. Overall, 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis are killed during the war.
Spring 1991: Both the Shi’a Muslims of Southern Iraq and the Kurds of Northern Iraq rise up against Saddam Hussein. The US, after encouraging these uprisings during the war, now fears turmoil and instability in the region and refuses to support the rebels. The US denies the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allows Iraqi helicopters to attack them.
1991: Iraq withdraws from Kuwait and agrees to a UN-brokered cease-fire, but the US and Britain insist that devastating sanctions be maintained. The US declares large parts of north and south Iraq “no-fly” zones for Iraqi aircraft.
1992: US Marines land near Mogadishu, Somalia, supposedly to ensure humanitarian relief and “restore order.” But the US also plans to remove the dominant warlord, Mohammed Aidid, and install a more pro-US regime. In June 1993, after numerous gun battles with Aidid forces, US helicopters strafe Aidid supporters, killing scores. In October, when US forces attempt to kidnap two Aidid lieutenants, a fierce gunbattle breaks out. Five US helicopters are shot down, 18 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded, while 500 to 1000 Somalians are killed and many more injured.
March 1992: Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney drafts a new, post-Soviet “Defense Planning Guidance” paper stating, “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.”
1993: The US brokers a “peace” agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in Oslo, Norway. The agreement strengthens Israel and US domination while leaving Palestinians a small part of their historic homeland, broken up into isolated pieces surrounded by Israel. No provisions are made for the return of the four million Palestinian refugees living outside of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
1993: President Bill Clinton launches a missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush two months earlier.
1995: The US imposes oil and trade sanctions against Iran, reinforcing sanctions that have been in effect since 1980, for alleged sponsorship of “terrorism”, seeking to acquire nuclear arms, and hostility to the Middle East process.
1998: Congress passes the Iraq Liberation Act, giving nearly $100 million to groups attempting to overthrow the Hussein regime.
August 1998: Claiming retaliation for attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, President Bill Clinton sends 75 cruise missiles pounding into rural Afghanistan, supposedly targeting Osama Bin Laden. The US also destroys a factory producing half of Sudan’s pharmaceutical supply, claiming the factory is involved in chemical warfare. The US later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
December 16-19, 1998: The US and the UK launch “Operation Desert Fox” a bombing campaign supposedly aimed at destroying Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. For most of the next year, U.S. and British planes strike Iraq every day with missiles.
October 1999: The US Defense Department shifts command of its forces in Central Asia from the Pacific Command to the Central Command, underlining the heightened importance of the region, which includes vast oil reserves in and around the Caspian Sea.
October 2001: In response to the 9/11 Attacks, the US begins bombing Afghanistan, as the first act of war in “Operation Enduring Freedom,” the US “war against global terrorism. Over the course of the nearly 17-year-long war, thousands of civilians have been killed by US-led invasion and occupation forces who bombed wedding parties, humiliated Afghans with house-to-house searches, and locked people up in US-controlled dungeons where many were tortured. Today the US still has “advisory” troops in the country to try to prop up its puppet regime. Some five million Afghans have been driven from their homes and have fled to neighboring countries such as Iran, Pakistan, India, and Russia.
January 2002: In his second State of the Union Address, US President George W. Bush announces that Iran and Iraq are part of the so-called “Axis of Evil,” arguing that both countries are sponsorers of terrorism and represent profound threats to US national security.
2002: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, under pressure from the Bush Administration, rejects the Arab Peace Initiative, a comprehensive proposal to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and create a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.
March 2003: The US attacks Iraq based on false allegations that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks. The invasion resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussien from power and devastated Iraq. Conservative estimates show that over 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of the invasion. Over four million were driven from their homes in the ensuing war and occupation. Over the course of its 8-year long occupation of Iraq, US forces committed numerous massacres and acts of terror against Iraqis, including the destruction of Fallujah in 2004 and the torture carried out in Abu Ghraib prison. The US relied on brutal warlords to help clamp down on the Iraqi people. Iraqi women, once among the most educated in the Middle East, were slammed back into subservient roles in society. The actions of the US directly led to the rise of ISIS, a Wahhabi-inspired militant group that has claimed responsibility for numerous atrocities in Iraq since 2011.
May 2003: The Bush Administration rejects an offer by the Iranian government to begin direct talks to settle the disputes between both countries. Instead, the US government doubles down on its allegations that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons program and is supportive of violent militant groups throughout the Middle East.
February 2006: After the resounding victory of Hamas in the Palestinian General Election, President George W. Bush authorizes sanctions against the Palestinian Authority and refuses to negotiate with the legitimately-elected government of Palestine
July-August 2006: The Bush Administration backs Israel during the Israel-Hezbollah War, repeatedly urging Israel to annex the Southern part of Lebanon and use all means at its disposal to destroy Hezbollah, an Iranian and Syrian-backed Shi’a group that is strongly opposed to Zionism. Even though Israel had the upper hand in terms of military support and technology, Hezbollah ultimately won the war and cemented its support amongst the Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon.
December 2008-January 2009: The US increases its political and military support to Israel during Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli invasion resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinian civilians and created a humanitarian crisis in the area that the effects of which are still being felt today.
June 4, 2009: In a speech in Cairo, Egypt, President Barack Obama stated that his administration would work towards increasing democracy in the Middle East and support efforts by people throughout the Middle East to promote peaceful political reforms.
June 2009-February 2010: In response to allegations that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unfairly elected to a second term, President Obama authorized CIA director Leon Panetta to orchestrate a series of (failed) protests in Iran with the goal of bringing about the collapse of the government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and to allow the US to install Reza Pahlavi into power.
July 1, 2010: President Obama signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which extended US economic sanctions placed on Iran in 1984 and 1995 and prevented nearly all trade between the US and Iran. The results of the legislation were devastating to the Iranian people, as they prevented the importation of even the most basic forms of medicine to the country and resulted in the Iranian economy almost entirely collapsing between 2010 and 2015.
October 20, 2010: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces that the Obama Administration will sell $60 billion in weapons and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia, a direct contradiction of President Obama’s earlier announcement that his administration would reduce its support for oppressive governments in the Middle East.
Map of countries impacted by the 2011 Arab Spring.
2011: After an uprising broke out against Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi during the Arab Spring, the US and its NATO allies intervened to shape and control it for their interests. NATO launched thousands of air strikes, killing thousands of civilians. After a group of insurgents murdered Qaddafi in October of 2011, Libya became enmeshed in warfare among rival groups of warlords and Wahabbi groups who have been variously backed and condemned by Western powers.
2011-Present: The US, Israel, the UK, and Saudi Arabia have played a major role in the Syrian Civil War and their actions have destabilized the entire country for decades. The US-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War has resulted in the deaths of some 500,000 civilians, displaced nearly 12 million Syrians, and has emboldened Wahhabi-inspired militant groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks against Shi’a Muslims and Christians throughout the region. Additionally, the US intervention in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad has resulted in several of Assad’s major allies such as Iran, Russia, China, and Hezbollah intervening in the country, which has increased the risk of a major global conflict breaking out in the Middle East
July 3, 2013: The Obama Administration authorizes a coup against Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi due to his criticism of US policies in the region and opposition to Zionism. Morsi is replaced by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a pro-Western Egyptian general who has suspended the 2012 Egyptian Constitution and repeatedly tortured regime opponents.
July-August 2014: The Obama Administration endorsed Israel’s actions during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 10,000 Palestinian civilians. Additionally, the Obama Administration authorized some $225 million in aid to Israel over the course of the conflict.
March2015-Present: The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States have been heavily involved in the Yemen Civil War. The Yemen Civil War began as a result of conflicts between the Sunni-dominated Yemeni government and the Houthis, a Shi’a political party that seeks to replace the authoritarian government of Yemen with a democratic government. The US-led intervention in the conflict caused the deaths of nearly 100,000 Yemeni civilians, devastated the infrastructure of Yemen, and resulted in a famine that threatens to starve some 17 million Yemeni people.
January 27, 2017: US President Donald Trump signs an executive order arbitrarily banning Shi’a Muslims from the following seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya) from entering the US, arguing that such a policy is beneficial to US national security and that residents from all seven countries were involved in terror attacks on US soil. Foreign policy experts were quick to note that residents from the seven countries were never involved in any attacks on US soil and that such a policy ignores the fact that the perpetrators in all terror attacks carried out in the US by Muslims were Sunni Muslims sympathetic to the Wahhabi ideology.
February 2017: President Trump announces that his administration is supportive of Israeli settlement-building in the Palestinian territories and that he would favor the Israeli government to annex the entire Palestinian territory.
April 7, 2017: The Trump Administration ordered the US Navy to launch cruise missiles at Shayrat Air Base in response to an alleged chemical attack carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Further airstrikes in Syria were carried out in April and September of 2018 even though there was no tangible evidence implicating the Assad regime in any of the chemical attacks.
May 20-21, 2017: While attending the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, President Trump announces his signing a $350 billion arms sale agreement with Saudi Arabia, as well as the formation of an anti-Iran alliance with the Gulf States.
June 7, 2017: The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel covertly carry out a terrorist attack against the Iranian Parliament building in Tehran, resulting in the deaths of 23 civilians. Even though ISIS initially claimed responsibility for the attacks, the Iranian government revealed that it had evidence that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were the perpetrators of the deadly attack.
October 13, 2017: President Trump announced that his administration will not certify Iran in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and would instead implement a new policy that may ultimately lead to the collapse of the current Iranian government.
December 6, 2017: Breaking nearly four decades of precedence set by US Administrations, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite objections from Palestinian leaders, causing further unrest in the region.
December 2017-Present: The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel orchestrated numerous protests within Iran with the goal of weakening the Iranian government.
May 8, 2018: President Trump unilaterally withdraws the US from the JCPOA, claiming (without evidence) that Iran is not upholding its end of the agreement and is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon (a charge that has been proven false numerous times since 2003). Additionally, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that regime change is the main goal of all US policy towards Iran and that the US will consider all military options (including the use of nuclear weapons preemptively) when dealing with Iran going forward.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week
1. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Meet in Helinski For Controversial Summit
President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in a controversial summit in Finland.
Amid chaos following his week-long European trip and the ongoing investigations into allegations that the Russian government colluded with his 2016 Presidential campaign, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir in Helinski, Finland on July 16 in their first-ever summit meeting. The summit marked the first official meeting between the leaders after previous unofficial talks between Trump and Putin at the 2017 G20 conference in Vienna. In addition to meeting with Putin, Trump also met the Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in the Presidential Palace. Some of the topics Trump pledged to discuss with Putin include the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the steadily declining relationship between the US and Iran, and measures to reduce the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia.
The summit between President Trump and Putin was wrought with controversy from the moment of its announcement. On June 14, a group of leading Senate Democrats urged Trump to forgo meeting Putin face-to-face and instead called on the President to work to remove the Putin regime from power and pressure the Russian government into stopping their supposed malign activities on the world stage. The letter was written by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and endorsed by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and many others. Additionally, Trump tweeted on the morning of the summit that the relationship between Russia and the US has “never been worse,” blaming the declining relationship on “foolishness and stupidity” on the part of the US, and referenced the ongoing Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, calling it a “witchhunt”. Trump also indicated his inclination to accept Putin’s denial of Russian interference, saying “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!
The Helsinki 2018 meeting began with Niinistö officially welcoming Putin, followed by Trump. The bilateral discussions between Putin and Trump mainly took place in the Finnish Presidential Palace, with Trump and Putin met with only interpreters present. The bulk of the meeting was conducted in secrecy, leading to much confusion and questions regarding the content that was discussed. In the closing press conference press conference, Trump and Putin praise each other and appeared to be in broad agreement on all policy issues. Much to the shock of Western observers, President Trump exonerated Putin of interfering in the 2016 election, directly going against the overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community that Russia indeed interfered in the election and potentially swayed the vote in as many as ten states. Trump also used the press conference to criticize the ongoing investigation into his campaign by Special Counsel Robert Muller, calling it a “partisan witch-hunt.”
Overall, the reaction to President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been negative. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a “sad day for America,” and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) called for American interpreter Marina Gross, who sat in on the private meeting with Putin, to be questioned before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additionally, many Republicans strongly criticized President Trump. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claimed Trump “made us look like a pushover,” whereas Senator Ben Sasse called Trump’s remarks “bizarre and flat-out wrong.” 2008 and 2012 Republican Presidential Nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney also condemned the meeting and the President’s actions. Romney said Trump’s siding with Putin rather than US intelligence agencies was “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles”, while McCain called the summit “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” Despite the overall negative reaction to the summit by political leaders of both parties, President Trump’s approval rating among Republican voters increases in the wake of the summit, with many of his strongest supporters expressing the belief that Russian collusion in the 2016 Election was a positive turn of events.
2. Violence and Turmoil Threatens Pakistan’s Unstable Political Situation
Amid a hotly-contested general election, several events this week threaten to further destabilize Pakistan and prevent the country from exiting a long period of political turmoil.
Several events this week have threatened to upend the already unstable political situation in Pakistan. On July 19, Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2013 until his removal from office in 2017, returned to his country to begin serving a ten-year prison sentence. In a July 6 court decision, Sharif was sentenced to 10 years in prison and handed an almost $11 million fine over corruption charges related to his family’s purchase of overseas properties. His daughter Mariam Nawaz was also found guilty and is facing seven years in prison and a $2.6 million fine. Her husband Captain Safdar has received a one-year jail sentence. All three have been barred from engaging in politics for 10 years and four properties in London will be confiscated by the Pakistani state, according to the verdict.
The return of Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan occurred amid a heightened level of violence and turmoil facing the country in the wake of the bombing of a political rally in Baluchistan province on July 15, as well as tensions surrounding the upcoming general elections on July 25. Th suicide bomb attack resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 people and injured 186. Nawabzada Siraj Raisani, who was campaigning for an assembly seat in Balochistan, was killed in the bomb blast along with dozens of others. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in an email, stating that the attack was meant to intimidate the Shi’a Muslim community of Pakistan and discourage their participation in the political process. The Balochistan government announced two days of mourning and political parties in the province announced the suspension of political activities in the aftermath of deadly suicide bombing.
Despite the ongoing tensions within the country, many observers feel that the July 25 general election has the potential transform Pakistan for the better and allow the country to at last gain a sense of stability after nearly 4 decades of military rule. “For the first time in our history, fair elections are going to be held,” stated Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesman for the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party. As campaigning enters the final stretch, charismatic populist and former cricket star Imran Khan and the deposed leader’s brother, Shahbaz Sharif, have emerged as the two frontrunners. Additionally, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the 29-year-old son of former leader Benazir Bhutto, is also attracting widespread support, seeking to reestablish his family’s party as a viable political force. Most polling suggests that the election is too close to call, and could result in coalition negotiations which will ultimately leave Bhutto Zardari’s smaller party with the balance of power.
3. Israel Launches Broad Air Assault in Gaza Following Border Violence
Israel resumed its sustained siege against Gaza this week with the commencement of a sustained bombing campaign.
On July 20, the Israeli government launched a large-scale attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip after a Palestinian sniper killed an Israeli soldier along the border fence during a day of escalating hostilities. Successive explosions rocked Gaza City at nightfall, and the streets emptied as warplanes struck dozens of sites that Israel said belonged to Hamas. Israeli military analysts said the aerial assault was one of the most intense since a cease-fire ended 50 days of fighting in the Gaza Strip in 2014. The ferocity of the bombings raised fears that the hostilities could spiral into an all-out war that will further devastate the Gaza Strip. After nearly seven hours of siege by the Israeli government, a Hamas spokesman announced that the cease-fire had been restored with the mediation of Egypt and the UN. At least four Palestinians were killed by initial Israeli artillery and tank fire. Hamas said that three of the four were members of its military wing.
https://youtu.be/XkaUJa2PkMA
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Isreali Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman defended the actions by their government, warning of the commencement of a major siege of against the Gaza Strip unless Hamas ceases its supposed attacks against Israeli targets. Additionally, US Ambassador to the UN Nikk Haley and Senior Advisor to the President Trump Jared Kushner enthusiastically defended the Israeli government, stating that Netanyahu and Lieberman acted appropriately and that their actions will increase the chances for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, Nickolay E. Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator in the Middle East, had urged the Israeli government and Hamas “to step back from the brink” in a strongly worded post on Twitter on Friday night. “Not next week. Not tomorrow. Right NOW!” he wrote. “Those who want to provoke #Palestinians and #Israelis into another war must not succeed.”
🔴 Everyone in #Gaza needs to step back from the brink. Not next week. Not tomorrow. Right NOW! Those who want to provoke #Palestinians and #Israelis into another war must not succeed.
4. Israel Passes Controversial “Jewish Nation-State” Law
Amid much criticism, the Israeli Parliament passed the “Jewish Nation-State” Law on July 19.
On July 19, the Israeli parliament adopted a controversial and bigoted law defining the country as the nation-state of the Jewish people, provoking fears it will lead to blatant discrimination against its Palestinian citizens. The legislation, adopted by a relatively close 62 to 55 margin, makes Hebrew the country’s national language and defines the establishment of Jewish communities as being in the national interest. The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli governmental and educational. “This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote. The nation-state bill was first introduced in 2011 by Avi Dichter, a member of the Likud Party and a center-right conservative. The main goal of the law was to establish the unique Jewish right to an Israeli homeland as one of Israel’s constitutional rules. When the final version passed this week, Dichter declared that “we are enshrining this important bill into a law today to prevent even the slightest thought, let alone attempt, to transform Israel to a country of all its citizens.”
Overall, the reaction to the new Israeli law has been mixed. In addition to praise among conservative Israeli politicians, noted American White Supremacist and Fascist political activist Richard Spencer endorsed the law. “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law, Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans,” Spencer stated in a press release. On the other hand, countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and even Israeli ally Saudi Arabia denounced the law, stating that it is discriminatory against Israel’s large Arab minority and threatens to further Israel’s reputation as an “apartheid state.” Additionally, several liberal Jewish leaders and orgnizations expressed outrage with the law. “The damage that will be done by this new nation-state law to the legitimacy of the Zionist vision … is enormous,” wrote Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, in a press release. J Street, a liberal Zionist organization, called it “a sad day for Israel and all who care about its democracy and its future.”
This video by CaspianReport discusses the ongoing border disputes between Israel and the Hamas-based government in the Gaza Strip (one of the two territories of the Palestinian Authority) and the recent protests along the Israel-Gaza Border. At the end of March 2018, a campaign composed of a series of protests was launched at the Gaza Strip, near the Gaza-Israel border. Called by Palestinian activists and human rights organizations active in the Middle East the “Great March of Return“, the protestors demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to Israel. Additionally, the protestors also gathered to protest the crippling Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip (which has entered into its 12th year), as well as the decision by the Trump Administration to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The violence that stemmed from these pretests has resulted in the deadliest Israeli-Palestinian conflict in nearly 4 years.
The Organization of the protests was initiated by independent activists active in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, as well as by the governments of Iran, Syria, Lebanon and sociopolitical organizations active in the Middle East such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement. The protests were originally slated to last from March 30, 2018 (Land day) to May 15, 2018 (Nakba Day). Five tent camps were set up between 1,500-2,500 feet from the Israeli-Gaza border and were to remain there throughout the entire campaign. In the first day of the protests, some 30,000 Palestinians participated in a march near the border, and several larger protests held throughout the months of April and May 2018 involved at least 10,000 Palestinian activists. Even though a vast majority of the protestors were peaceful, a number did engage in acts along the border such as property destruction, vandalism, and harassment of Israeli soldiers. In response, the Israeli government retaliated forcefully, killing over 100 unarmed Palestinian protestors and wounding an estimated 14,000 Palestinians.
Overall, Israel’s use of deadly force in retaliation to the unarmed protestors was met with strong condemnation within the international community. For example, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the actions on the part of Israel and called for moderation on both sides. Additionally, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem cautioned the Israeli government against using deadly force against largely peaceful protestors. On the other hand, the US government praised Israel’s handling of the protests, stating that the Jewish state has every right to defend itself even against the most insignificant threat.
This video by CaspianReport discusses President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement. On May 8, President Donald Trump pulled the plug on the Iranian nuclear agreement, saying that the Iranian government has failed to live up to its obligations and violated the spirit of the accord. Yet since no tangible evidence that was presented, the unilateral decision places the US in violation of the treaty and subject to international scorn. Despite the decision, much remains to be seen regarding what steps both Iran and the US will take next.
In July 2015, an agreement was concluded with Iran, China, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, which is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It provided that Iran’s nuclear activities would be limited, in exchange for a reduction in some of the US sanctions implemented against the country in 1979, 1984, 1987, 1995, 2006, and 2010. According to the JCPOA, the President of the United States would certify that Iran would adhere to the terms of the agreement every ninety days.
Ever since he announced his candidacy for President in early 2015, Donald Trump made the renegotiation of the JCPOA one of his main campaign promises, stating at a campaign rally that “this deal, if I win, will be a totally different deal. This will be a totally different deal. Ripping up is always tough.” Trump described the Iran deal as “the worst deal ever,” and argued that its implementation will lead to “a nuclear holocaust” and the destruction of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Under the Trump administration, the State Department did certify that Iran was compliant with the agreements terms in both March and July of 2017. On October 14, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would not make the certification provided for under U.S. domestic law, on the basis that the suspension of sanctions was not “proportionate and appropriate,” but stopped short of terminating the deal.
Despite withdrawing from the agreement, the Trump Administration announced that it would be willing to renegotiate a “tougher, more comprehensive deal” with Iran. President Donald Trump proposed that any new agreement with Iran would include indefinite restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program (the original agreement only lasted 15 years and became noticeably less strong after the first 10 years), as well as restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program. Additionally, the Trump Administration stated that a new agreement would also limit Iran’s foreign policy plans. In response to Iran agreeing to these new provisions, the Trump Administration would remove all sanctions against the Iranian government, restart diplomatic ties, and work to modernize the Iranian economy.
Overall, the withdrawal was praised by most members of the Republican Party, supporters of the neo-conservative movement, and countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Others in the US, including the former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden criticized the decision by the Trump administration, while various countries that had been signatories including the UK, France, Italy, Germany, China, and Russia condemned the decision in the strongest terms. Additionally, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini denounced the Trump Administrations actions, saying that such actions on the part of the US government are more proof that the Iranian people can never trust the US. Moreover, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif stated that his country is “taking all necessary steps in preparation for Iran to pursue industrial-scale enrichment without any restrictions, using the results of the latest research and development of Iran’s brave nuclear scientists.”
The withdraw of the US from the JCPOA places both the US, its allies, and the wider Middle East on an uncertain course. It is likely that the renewal of sanctions and international isolation will do little to change the policies of the Iranian government, as the sanctions have bolstered the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by weakening the Iranian private sector. Additionally, it is argued that the sanctions will only serve to strengthen the conservative movement within the country. The strengthening of the conservative movement in Iran will make political reform less likely and result in increased political repression against the Iranian people by the government. Most notably, the demise of the JCPOA makes a joint US/Israeli/Saudi military strike against Iran much more likely. Such a scenario may spark a major international conflict and destabilize the Middle East for generations to come.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the recent anti-corruption purge undertaken by the government of Saudi Arabia. On November 4, 2017, several Saudi Arabian business leaders, governmental figures, and members of the royal family were arrested in a major anti-corruption operation led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS). The detainees were held at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh (the capital of Saudi Arabia) and all private jets were grounded to prevent suspects from fleeing the country. As many as 500 people were arrested and the Saudi government targeted assets worth up as much as several billion. The Saudi government claimed that the anti-corruption purge ultimately resulted in the recovering of over $100 billion in assets and many observers note that the mass arrests resulted in MbS’s complete consolidation of control of all three branches of the security forces, making him the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia since Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia.
Overall, the anti-corruption purge by the Saudi government sparked many reactions amongst commentators and politicians throughout the world. US President Donald Trump expressed a “great deal” of confidence in the judgment of Mohammed Bin Salman and highlighted him a progressive regional leader. Additionally, several commentators expressed the belief that the anti-corruption purge may lead to greater political freedom and openness within Saudi Arabia. Thomas Freidman, a New York Times commentator and expert on Middle Eastern politics stated that the purge is the equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring and that it is reminiscent of the policies of Glasnost carried out in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Gorbachev during the mid-late 1980s.
Despite the fact that many feel that the anti-corruption purges in Saudi Arabia may signal positive change for the theocratic monarchy, others feel that the purges will have a profound and negative effect on Saudi society and within the larger context of Middle Eastern politics. Instead of a genuine effort to fundamentally transform the Saudi political and economic landscape, many argue that the purge only served to cement the power of Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) and prevent any potential rivals from gaining support and influence within Saudi public affairs. During his short time in the public eye, MbS has developed a reputation as a ruthless and cunning leader who is willing to put the interests of himself against the Saudi people. Despite some pro-reform rhetoric, the overall human rights record of Saudi Arabia has declined since MbS was appointed as Crown Prince in mid-2017. Additionally, MbS is a proponent of a hawkish foreign policy that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East. For example, MbS is a supporter of Zionism and Israeli efforts to persecute the Palestinian people, has encouraged the Saudi government to expand its war in Yemen, and promotes an anti-Iran foreign policy, going as far as to compare the current Iranian government to Nazi Germany. Only time will tell of the anti-corruption purge in Saudi Arabia is a genuine effort to improve Saudi society in the long-run, or another attempt by an authoritarian government to continue to cling to power.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week: 1. US Expels 60 Russian diplomats in Response to UK nerve agent attack
The Trump Administration ordered the expulsion of 60 Russia diplomats this week, signaling a harder line approach to Russia.
On March 26, President Donald Trump ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats the US identified as intelligence agents and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle. President Trump took this action after the US joined the United Kingdom in accusing Russia of attempting to murder a Russian dissident and his daughter using a nerve agent on UK soil. The action comes just two weeks after the Trump administration leveled the first sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 US presidential election.”The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies and partners around the world in response to Russia’s use of a military-grade chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom, the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around the world,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.
British Prime Minister Theresa May called the move “the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.”We have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history. But President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values,” she said. “The United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and NATO to face down these threats.” As expected, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced the actions on the part of the US and the UK, arguing that they are in violation of international law and will only worsen the already tense relationship between Russia and the West. As a retaliatory measure, the Russian government ordered the expulsion of 60 US diplomats and ordered the closure of the US Consulate in St. Petersburg for the foreseeable future.
2. Trump Administration Proposes Putting Question on 2020 US Census Asking Individuals Their Citizenship Status
The Trump Administration proposed adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census this week, sparking protest from states such as New York and California.
On March 26, senior officials in the Trump Administration announced that The 2020 census will ask respondents whether they are United States citizens, the Commerce Department announced Monday night, agreeing to a Trump administration request with highly charged political and social implications that many officials feared would result in a substantial undercount. The Justice Department had requested the change in December, arguing that asking participants about their citizenship status in the decennial census would help enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which aims to prevent voting rights violations. “Citizenship questions have also been included on prior decennial censuses,” explained officials. “Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form. Today, surveys of sample populations, such as the Current Population Survey and the ACS, continue to ask a question on citizenship.”
Opponents of the citizenship question have argued in the past that it causes people to shy away from taking the census, and experts believe a drop in numbers could lead to an inaccurate count of the US population. “The inclusion of a question on citizenship threatens to undermine the accuracy of the Census as a whole,” wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA.) and her colleagues in an open letter sent to the Justice Department in January. “Given this administration’s rhetoric and actions relating to immigrants and minority groups, the citizen question request is deeply troubling,” they said. “Such a question would likely depress participation in the 2020 Census from immigrants who fear the government could use the information to target them. It could also decrease response rates from U.S. citizens who live in mixed-status households, and who might fear putting immigrant family members at risk through providing information to the government” said Feinstein and her colleagues in the letter.
In response to the proposed changes, 17 states announced that they would bring suit against the Trump Administration. Led by New York and California, the leadership in the 17 states feel that this proposal would negatively impact the distribution of federal resources to states with large populations of undocumented immigrants and place an unfair advantage to the Republican Party in terms of redistricting efforts after 2020. “The census numbers provide the backbone for planning how our communities can grow and thrive in the coming decade,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “California simply has too much to lose for us to allow the Trump Administration to botch this important decennial obligation. What the Trump Administration is requesting is not just alarming, it is an unconstitutional attempt to discourage an accurate census count.”
3. Protests Erupt Gaza in Opposition to the Continued Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Major protests broke out along the Israel-Gaza border this week, resulting in the deaths of 16 and international outcry against Israeli policies.
On March 30, tens of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip participated in non-violent protests as part of the Great Return March. Palestinian participants soon began walking towards the fence that separates the strip from Israel and were met with live fire from the Israeli military that saw hundreds of people injured and 16 killed.
The protests were held to commemorate Land Day and demonstrate for the rights of Palestinian refugees to be resettled in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Secretary Avigdor Lieberman responded to the protests by claiming that Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007, had sent women and children to the fence as human shields. Rather than expressing the grievances of Palestinians at large, the protests were to be seen in the context of long-standing tensions between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
The Israeli response drew widespread criticism around the world, with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling for an independent inquiry into Friday’s events. Additionally, several countries in the Middle East condemned the response to the protests by the Israeli government. Perhaps the country that most forcefully condemned the actions of Israel was Iran. In a Twitter post on March 31, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif stated that “On the eve of Passover (of all days), which commemorates God liberating Prophet Moses and his people from tyranny, Zionist tyrants murder peaceful Palestinian protesters – whose land they have stolen – as they march to escape their cruel and inhuman apartheid bondage.” On the other hand, the US blocked a UN Resolution denouncing the Israeli response and placed the blame squarely on the part of the Palestinian protestors.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politicsthis week:
1. Florida School Shooting Leave 17 Dead, 15 Wounded
A school shooting in a Florida high school on February 14 resulted in the deaths of 17 individuals and renewed public debate over the issue of gun control.
On February 14, a mass shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. 17 people were killed and 15 were wounded, making it one of the deadliest school massacres since Columbine some 19 years earlier. The shooting was carried out by Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year old high school senior with a known past of threatening his fellow students, posting hate content on his social media accounts, and bragging about killing animals. Additionally, Cruz holds extremist views and advocated the killing of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and the LGBT community. These abhorrent views made Cruz a target for FBI investigation as early as September of 2016.
Politicians on both sides of the political aisle have condemned the shooting and reached out to the victims. In a Twitter post, President Donald Trump offered his prayers and condolences to the victims and their families, stating that, “no child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.” Additionally, President Trump ordered the flags to be flown at half-staff for the entire US and paid a visit to the victims’ hospital. Florida Governor Rick Scott similarly expressed strong support for the victims and went as far as to claim that FBI Director Christopher Wray should resign in wake of the shooting, noting that the FBI had the ability to intervene to prevent the massacre from happening.
My prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of the terrible Florida shooting. No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.
The shooting has also renewed public debate over the issue of gun control. For example, student survivors organized the group Never Again MSD to demand legislative action to prevent similar shootings from occurring again and to call out US lawmakers (mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats as well) who have received campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Additionally, The Alliance for Securing Democracy noted that Russian “sock” (fake) accounts used Twitter over the past few days to inflame tensions by posting loaded comments that support or oppose gun control to divide the American people and by claiming that the shooting was a false flag operation which the US government will exploit to expand gun control efforts.
2. 13 Russian Citizens Indicted in Mueller Investigation On Charges Related To Meddling In The 2016 Presidential Elections
The Trump-Russia investigation took an interesting turn this week with the arrest of several Russian nationals on the charges of election meddling.
On February 16, the special counsel probing interference in the last presidential election charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups with violating criminal laws with the intent of meddling “with U.S. elections and political processes.” The 37-page indictment, signed by Robert Mueller, depicts an elaborate scheme in which the Russians accused came to the US with the deliberate intention of undermining the American political and electoral process, including the 2016 presidential election. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that the Russians charged called their work “information warfare against the United States” with the goal of spreading distrust of candidates and the political system in general. Additionally, many of the accused Russians “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign” without revealing their association with Russia. The new indictment comes amid a wide-ranging probe by the special counsel into Russian meddling in the US election and is also the first set of charges by Mueller for 2016 presidential election interference.
President Donald Trump was quick to denounce the allegations, claiming that the Russians “started their anti-US campaign in 2014” nearly one full year before the Trump campaign launched and that the “results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!” in a Twitter rant post. Despite the President’s blanket denial and dismissal of the allegations, the recent indictments reveal that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 Election is far from a hoax and underscores the vulnerabilities facing the American political system. Moreover, the recent developments in the case have raised the chances of President Trump’s impeachment to perhaps its highest level yet.
3. Israeli Military Bombs 12 Iranian & Syrian Military Sites, Raising Possibility of War
The Israeli Air Force bombed several Iranian and Syrian-military installations on February 10, threatening to further expand the Syrian Civil War.
On February 10, the Israeli Air Force carried out extensive airstrikes inside Syria, targeting air defense batteries, army bases, and several Iranian military positions.The Israeli military said it launched the large-scale attack after one of its F-16 fighter jets crashed under Syrian anti-aircraft fire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli military officials described the initial incursion as an Iranian “attack” and said it was Israel’s right and duty to respond. The Israeli army said the Iranian drone did not cross into Israel by accident and was on a mission but declined to give further details or comment on whether the drone was armed.
The US government responded to the attack with their typical support for the Israeli position. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reaffirmed in a phone call with Netanyahu on Saturday that the US is backing Israel 100% of the time. Additionally, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steven Goldstein stated that “Israel has the right to defend itself” using whatever means possible. The Iranian government was quick to criticize the attack. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahran Qasemi condemned the attack forcefully and said that the Syrian government had the right to defend itself by shooting down the Israeli jet. The Syrian government described the airstrikes as “new Israeli aggression” and stated that any other incursions by Israel would be met with “serious and fierce” retaliation. The Russian government also condemned the strikes, stating that Israel’s actions threatened the Russian military advisors currently stationed in Syria and are, in effect, a violation of all recognized principles of international law. The actions on the part of the Israeli government, as with nearly all other actions that it has taken during the Syrian Civil War, threaten to spark a war in the Middle East that will engulf the major world powers and permanently destabilize the region.
One of the most unstable countries in the Middle East is Lebanon. Officially known as the Lebanese Republic, Lebanon is a parliamentary republic located in the Mediterranean region of the Middle East. Lebanon is bordered by countries such as Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, Jordan, and Iraq, has an area of approximately 10,400 square kilometers and a population of around 4 Million (not counting 1.9 Million refugees mostly from Syria and Palestine). Lebanon plays a significant role in contemporary Middle Eastern politics due to its ongoing territorial disputes with Israel, lack of a strong central government, and the continued influence of neighboring countries such as Syria within its internal and external affairs.
Lebanon was a province of the Ottoman Empire from the early 16th Century all the way up until 1918.
The people of Lebanon (much like the Palestinian people) are descendants of the Canaanites, who first settled in the Meditteranean region of the Middle East around 3000 BCE. Historically, the territory of Lebanon was controlled by foreign powers such as the Phoenicians, the Persians (under the Achaemenid Empire), the Greeks, Romans, the Arabs (under both the Rashidun and Abbasid Caliphates), and the Christian Crusaders during the 12th Century. Most recently, Lebanon was annexed by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I in 1516 and soon became an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, linking the Empire with parts of Southern Europe such as Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal.
Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, France acquired a mandate over the northern portion of the former Ottoman Empire province of Syria. The French named the region Lebanon in 1920 and granted this area independence in 1943. Since 1943, Lebanon has been marked by periods of political turmoil interspersed with prosperity built on its position as a regional center for finance and trade. The Lebanese Civil War (lasting from April of 1975 to November of 1989 and resulting in the deaths of some 120,000 people) was followed by years of social and political instability. Neighboring countries such as Syria have historically influenced Lebanon’s foreign policy and internal policies, and its military occupied Lebanon from 1976 until 2005. The Shi’a Muslim Hezbollah political group and Israel continued attacks and counterattacks against each other after Syria’s withdrawal and fought a brief war in 2006.
The current Lebanese constitution was adopted on May 23, 1926, and most recently amended in October of 1989. The constitution stipulates that Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy that includes confessionalism, in which high-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim, and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Greek Orthodox Christians. This system is intended to deter sectarian conflict and attempts to represent fairly the demographic distribution of the 18 recognized religious groups in government. The confessional system is based on 1932 census data, which showed the Maronite Christians as making up nearly 70% of the countries total population. The Government of Lebanon continues to refuse to undertake a new consensus, for fear that a change in the political system would further destabilize the country.
Michel Aoun is the current President of Lebanon and has served in office since October of 2016.
The executive branch of Lebanon is headed by the President and the Prime Minister. The President of Lebanon is elected by Parliament for a six-year term and cannot be reelected again until six years have passed from the end of the first term. The current President of Lebanon is Michel Aoun, who assumed office on October 31, 2016. Aoun is a member of the Free Patriotic Movement, a political party that is aligned with both the Maronite Christians and the Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are appointed by the President in consultation with the Parliament. The Prime Minister of Lebanon is Saad Hariri, who has been in power since December 8, 2016. Hariri is a member of the Future Movement, a political party aligned with the Sunni Muslims of Lebanon.
Lebanon’s national legislature is called the Assembly of Representatives (Majlis al-Nuwab in Arabic). Since the elections of 1992, the Parliament has had 128 seats. The term for the legislature was recently extended to five years. The parliament is elected by universal adult suffrage based on a system of majority or “winner-take-all” for the various confessional groups. There has been a recent effort to switch to proportional representation which many argue will provide a more accurate assessment of the size of political groups and allow minorities to have their voices heard. Most deputies do not represent political parties as they are known in the West, and rarely form Western-style groups in the assembly. Political blocs are usually based on confessional and local interests or on personal/family allegiance rather than on political affinities. Lebanon’s judicial system is based on the Napoleonic Code. The Lebanese court system has three levels:
courts of first instance,
courts of appeal, and the
court of cassation.
There also is a system of religious courts having jurisdiction over personal status matters within their own communities.
Hezbollah, a Shi’a Muslim political party & militia group founded by Iran and Syria in 1982, is the most powerful political organization in Lebanon.
Lebanese political institutions often play a secondary role to highly confessionalized, personality-based politics. Powerful families still play a role in mobilizing votes for both local and parliamentary elections. Nonetheless, a lively panoply of domestic political parties, some even predating independence, exists. The largest are all confessional based. The Free Patriotic Movement, The Kataeb Party, the National Bloc, National Liberal Party, Lebanese Forces and the Guardians of the Cedars each have their own base among Christians. Amal and Hezbollah are the main rivals for the organized Shi’a vote, and the PSP (Progressive Socialist Party) is the leading Druze party. While Shi’a and Druze parties command loyalty to their leadership, there is more factional infighting among many of the Christian parties. Sunni parties have not been the standard vehicle for launching political candidates, and tend to focus across Lebanon’s borders on issues that are important to the community at large. Lebanon’s Sunni parties include Hizb ut-Tahrir, Future Movement, Independent Nasserist Organization, the Al-Tawhid, and Ahbash. In addition to the traditional confessional parties, new secular parties have emerged, representing a new trend in Lebanese politics towards secularism. In addition to domestic parties, there are branches of pan-Arab secular parties (Ba’ath parties, socialist, and communist parties) that were active in the 1960s and throughout the period of civil war.
Overall, the political system can be described as a “flawed” and an “unstable” democracy. Even though Lebanon has numerous democratic political isnstitutions, a free press system, and is generally on par with international standards regarding human rights, the government itself remains relatively weak and formal governmental institutions are ineffective at best. The lack of strong political institutions within Lebanon is considered to be one of the lingering effects of the Lebanese Civil War, ongoing Middle East conflicts such as the War against ISIS and the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the continued influence of foreign powers such as Syria, Iran, Russia, and Israel within Lebanese domestic politics.
Lebanon is home to members of all three of the Abrahamic faiths, as well as several indigenous religious groups.
In terms of religion, Lebanon is estimated to be 55% Muslims, 40% Christian, and 5% other. An overwhelming majority (~75%) of Lebanese Muslims are Shi’a, whereas only 25% are Sunni. Twelvers are the predominant Shi’a group, followed by Alawites and Ismailis. The Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon are largely concentrated in northern and western Beqaa, Southern Lebanon, Southern Beirut, Tripoli, and Akkar. Most Lebanese Sunni Muslims identify with the ideology of Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative sect of Islam that originated in Saudi Arabia during the 18th Century. A majority of Lebanese Christians are members of the Maronite Catholic Church, though a number of Greek Orthodox and Protestant communities exist as well. Other religious groups within Lebanon include the Druze, a small Jewish population, Baha’i, and several indigenous religions unconnected to any of the three Abrahamic faiths. Arabs are the largest ethnic group in Lebanon and Arabic, French, English, and Armenian are the official languages. Lebanon has a 94% literacy rate (the only country in the Middle East with a higher literacy rate is Iran) and an average life expectancy of 78 years, comparable to countries such as the US.
Lebanon has a GDP of around $50 billion and Human Development score of 0.763 as of 2015. The economy of Lebanon is primarily service-based (73.3%) Agriculture and Industry make up 21% and 5.7% of the Lebanese economy respectively. The unemployment rate in Lebanon is estimated to be at least 10% and the country has a GDP per capita of $19,100. The 1975-89 civil war damaged Lebanon’s economic infrastructure, cut national output by half, and derailed Lebanon’s position as the economic hub of the Middle East. Following the civil war, Lebanon rebuilt much of its war-torn physical and financial infrastructure by borrowing heavily, mostly from domestic banks, which saddled the government with a huge debt burden. Spillover from the Syrian conflict, including the influx of more than 1 million Syrian refugees, has increased internal tension and slowed economic growth to the 1-2% range for the past five years.
Lebanon is an active member of international organizations such as the UN, Non-Aligned Movement, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
In terms of international politics, Lebanon is a member of a number of international organizations such as the Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations and has diplomatic relations with a majority of countries. Some of the countries that Lebanon has close ties with are Iran, Syria, Russia, Palestine, and Pakistan, Additionally, Lebanon has a stable relationship with many Western countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Italy, and France. Lebanon’s main enemy in the Middle East is Israel. The animosity between Lebanon and Israel can be traced back to the creation of Israel in 1948. Lebanon was an active participant in the 1948, 1967, and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars and considers the Shebaa farms area in Northern Israel as part of Lebanon. Additionally, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War in 1976 and began an occupation of Southern Lebanon in 1985, which lasted until 2000. During their occupation of Southern Lebanon, the Israeli government committed numerous human rights abuses such as the killing of unarmed civilians, denying the Shi’a Muslims of Southern Lebanon the freedom to practice their faith, and clamped down on numerous rights such as press freedom, political participation, and freedom of expression. These actions only served to further expand the already tense relationship between the Lebanese people and Israel and made any potential reconciliation between both countries next to impossible.
In conclusion, Lebanon continues to be beset with numerous social, political, and economic issues despite having the potential to be one of the most progressive and stable countries in the entire Middle East. The root of most political issues in Lebanon can be traced back to its confessional system of government, which makes representation in government highly unequal and discourages citizen involvement in the political system. A possible solution would be to move towards a system based on proportional representation an to not restrict offices such as the Presidency and the Prime Minister to members of certain religions. Such a system would reduce the strong levels of political tension within Lebanon and allow it to become a beacon of stability in one of the most unstable regions of the world.
Arguably one of the most stable countries in the Middle East is Morocco. Officially known as the Kingdom of Morocco, Morocco is a Constitutional monarchy located in the Maghreb region of the Middle East. Morocco is bordered by countries such as Libya, Algeria, Sapin, Portugal, and Italy, has an area of approximately 440,000 square kilometers and a population of around 34 million. Morocco plays a significant role in contemporary Middle Eastern politics due to its relative stability in one of the most violent and unstable regions of the world, its ethnically and culturally-diverse population, and efforts to solve pressing regional issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Morocco has a long and rich history going back several thousand years.
The history of Morocco can be traced back to the establishment of the Berber kingdom of Mauretania in 225 BC, which was the first independent Moroccan state. Mauretania became a client state of the Roman Empire in 33 BC and was annexed directly as a Roman province in 44 CE. The decline of the Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries CE resulted in parts of present-day Morocco being reconquered by the Berber tribes, who sought to establish an independent nation free of foreign domination. The Muslim conquest of the Maghreb during the 7th and 8th centuries CE brought both the religion of Islam and Arabic language to Morocco. The indigenous Berber tribes adopted Islam by the late 7th Century, although they retained their traditional laws and customs. By 788, the first of a series of Moroccan Muslim dynasties came to power. In the 16th century, the Sa’adi monarchy came to power and soon sought to make Morocco a significant regional power. Under the Sa’adi rule, Morocco pushed back repeated incursions by the growing Ottoman Empire and a Portuguese attack at the battle of Ksar el Kebir in 1578.
In 1666, Morocco was reunited with the Alaouite Dynasty, who has been the ruling family of Morocco ever since. During this period, Morocco faced much aggression from Spain and the Ottoman Empire, which were both seeking to expand their borders westward. The Alaouites succeeded in stabilizing their position for the time being and reunified Morocco. In 1860, Spain occupied northern Morocco and ushered in a half-century of rivalry among European powers that saw Morocco’s sovereignty steadily decline. In 1912, the French imposed a protectorate over the country. A protracted independence struggle with France ended successfully in 1956. Sultan Mohammed V subsequently organized the new Moroccan state as a constitutional monarchy and assumed the title of king in 1957.
Mohammed VI is the current King of Morocco.
The current Moroccan constitution was adopted on December 14, 1962, and most recently amended on July 1, 2011. The constitution stipulates that Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with three branches of government. The executive branch is headed by both the king and the President of Government. The constitution grants the king extensive powers and states that he is both the secular political leader and the “Commander of the Faithful” due to his status as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. The king presides over the Council of Ministers, appoints the president following legislative elections, and selects the members of the government upon the suggestions of the president. On the other hand, the primary role of the President is to follow through on public policies and to serve as the elected representative of the Moroccan people. The current King of Morocco is Mohammed VI, who came to power in July of 1999 following the death of his father, King Hassan II. The current President of Morocco is Saadeddine Othmani, who assumed office on April 5, 2017. Othmani is a member of the Justice and Development Party.
The legislative branch of Morocco consists of two branches. The first branch is the Chamber of Advisors, which consist of 120 seats. Its members are indirectly elected by an electoral college consisting of local government councils and serve for a 6-year term. The Chamber of Representatives is the second legislative house in Morocco, which consists of 395 seats. 305 of its members are directly elected in multi-seat constituencies by proportional representation vote and 90 are directly elected in a single nationwide constituency by proportional representation vote. In the national constituency, 60 seats are reserved for women and 30 reserved for those under age 40. All of the members serve for a 5-year term. The most recent elections were held on November 25, 2011, and had a 43% turnout rate. The highest court in Morocco is the Supreme Court, whose judges are appointed by the King. The legal system of Morocco is considered to be a mixture of both civil law and Shari’a law.
Overall, the government of Morocco has a mixed record with regards to human rights and political freedom. Under the rule of King Hassan II, regime opponents were subject to heavy-handed reprisals such as torture, executions, and harassment by governmental authorities. The human rights situation in Morocco began to improve once King Mohammed VI came to power in 1999. Under King Mohammed VI, numerous rights such as freedom of speech, press, and expression have been upheld by the government, a new electoral system was implemented, governmental corruption was tackled, and an Equity and Reconciliation Commission was set up to investigate human rights abuses under the rule of King Hassan II. Many international observers credit these gradual reforms as preventing Morocco from descending into the chaos and instability that has been evident in much of the Middle East over the past two decades. On the other hand, some critics argue that these reforms have done little to fully improve the political situation within Morocco and only serve to strengthen the monarchies hold on power.
The population of Morocco is diverse and consists of members of all three of the Abrahamic Religions.
In terms of religion, Morocco is estimated to be 98.9% Muslim, 0.9% Christian, and 0.2% Jewish. An overwhelming majority (67%) of Moroccan Muslims are Sunni and 30% of Muslims are non-denominational. Approximately 3-8,000 Shi’a Muslims reside in Morocco, most of whom are of Iraqi and Lebanese origin. Morocco is home to approximately 400,000 Christians, giving it one of the largest Christian populations in the region (behind Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, and Syria). A majority of Moroccan Christians are members of the Chaldean Catholic church, although a small number of Protestant sects are present as well. Approximately 6-8,000 Jews (mostly Sephardic) reside in Morocco, giving it the third largest Jewish population in the Middle East (behind Israel and Iran). Due to its status as a meeting place of many diverse faiths, Morocco has established a reputation as a pluralistic country that encourages ecumenical dialogue between all religions. Arabs are the largest ethnic group in Morocco and Arabic, Berber, and French are the official languages. Morocco has a 68.5% literacy rate and an average life expectancy of 77 years, comparable to many Western countries such as the US.
Morocco has a GDP of around $281.4 billion and Human Development score of 0.647. The economy of Morocco is primarily service-based (56.8%) Agriculture and Industry make up 13.6 and 29.5% of the Moroccan economy respectively. The unemployment rate in Morocco is estimated to be ~9% as of 2016 and the country has a GDP per capita of $8,200. The economy of Morocco is currently expanding due to the neo-liberal economic policies of King Mohammed VI and expanded investment by countries such as the US, UK, France, and Italy in recent years.
Morocco has close relations with many Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia.
Morocco is an active member of international organizations such as the United Nations, the Arab League, and the Non-Aligned Movement among others. Moreover, Morocco maintains diplomatic relations with a majority of countries and has recently sought to increase its positive role in the international community and become the leading voice for Arab unity. Some of Morocco’s strongest regional allies include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, and Kuwait. Additionally, Morocco has pursued a moderately pro-Israel foreign policy by forming close economic ties with the Jewish state, pushing for a permanent solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and working with moderate voices on both sides of the conflict. Morocco is also critical of the current Iranian government and supports efforts by the Arab states to isolate Iran. The poor relationship between Morocco and Iran can be traced back to the fact that the Moroccan government under King Hassan II strongly backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi during the Iranian Revolution and granted him asylum after his overthrow. Morocco is also critical of Iran’s regional ambitions and feels that increased Iranian regional influence will result in higher levels of instability that will ultimately weaken governments throughout the region.
Morocco and the US have a strong relationship dating back to the late 18th Century.
Outside of the Middle East, Morocco has pursued close diplomatic and economic ties with many Western powers. In particular, Morocco and the US have a strong economic, political, and military alliance. The relationship between Morocco and the US dates back to the late 1770s when Morocco became the first country to recognize the US and an independent nation. The close cooperation between Morocco and the US has grown in recent years due to events such as the War on Terrorism. The US considers Morocco to be a major non-NATO ally and a beacon of stability in the region. As a reward for the close friendship between both countries, Morocco became one of the few countries in the Middle East to extend visa-free travel to American citizens.
In conclusion, Morocco is one of the most important countries in the Middle East due to its relative stability, a strong economy, close ties with numerous world powers, and diverse population. Continued progress is dependent on steady reform of the Moroccan political and economic system and support from the international community.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the background of the current political crisis in Yemen. Yemen is located in the Southwestern part of the Middle East and is evenly divided between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. This central location, the lack of strong governmental institutions, and disputes between both religious sects made a conflict within the county inevitable. The conflict in Yemen began in 2011 and was part of the Arab Spring wave of protests against corrupt and authoritarian governments (often backed by Western powers) within the Middle East. The protests were led by both secular and Islamist opposition groups. Longtime rebel groups such as the Houthis (a Shi’a group primarily supported by Iran, Syria, Russia, and Lebanon) and the Southern Movement participated in the protests. President Ali Abdullah Saleh (who assumed dictatorial control of the country in 1978) responded with a violent crackdown that destabilized the country and made his downfall inevitable. Saleh was almost killed when a bomb went off in a mosque where he and other top government officials were praying in June of 2011. During Saleh’s time receiving medical treatment, he left Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. As acting president, Hadi met with the opposition and expressed support for political reforms. Saleh agreed in late 2011 to resign from power, and the opposition groups subsequently agreed to allow Hadi to stand unopposed for the presidency in 2012.
Hadi’s election was one of the first democratic transfers of power in Yemeni history and was an encouraging sign for Yemen’s political future. Despite the initial optimism surrounding his presidency, Hadi struggled to deal with numerous issues, such as attacks by Al-Qaeda, separatist movements, corruption, unemployment, and food insecurity. The Houthi movement, which champions Yemen’s Shia Muslim community (which has been the victim of much governmental repression despite their near majority in the country) took advantage of the new president’s weakness by taking control of their northern heartland of Saada province and neighboring areas. Disillusioned with the transition, many ordinary Yemenis, including Sunni’s, began to side the Houthis and in September 2014, the Houthis entered the capital, Sanaa.
In January 2015, the Houthis reinforced their takeover of Sanaa, surrounding the presidential palace and other key points and placed political figures under house arrest. The Houthis and security forces loyal to Saleh then attempted to take control of the entire country, forcing Hadi to flee abroad in March 2015. Alarmed by the rise of a group they believed to be backed militarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia and began an air campaign aimed at restoring Hadi’s government. Even though the Saudi-led campaign has received widespread logistical and military support from countries such as the US, Israel, UK, and France, the tactics used by the Saudi military in Yemen are subject to widespread internal condemnation. Many international observers accuse the Saudi’s of indiscriminately targeting civilians, committing a religious genocide against Shi’a Muslims, and leading the country to the brink of widespread famine. Much like with many other conflicts in the region, one can argue that the primary goal of Saudi Arabia through their intervention in Yemen is to weaken the regional influence of the Iranian government and prevent any indigenous political movements in support of independence and political freedom from emerging.
One of the most notable countries in the Middle East is Palestine. Officially known as the State of Palestine, Palestine is a Parliamentary Republic located in the Western Middle East. Palestine is bordered by countries such as Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria, has an area of approximately 2,300 square kilometers (split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip) and a population of around 5 million. Palestine plays a significant role in contemporary Middle Eastern politics due to its ongoing border disputes with Israel and efforts to become an independent and legitimate nation.
Palestine Circa 1900.
Palestine has a long and rich heritage going back several thousand years. The Palestinian people are the descendants of the earliest inhabitants of the territory, the Philistines, and the Canaanites, who originally settled in the areas around 3000 BCE, nearly two millennia before the first Jewish settlers arrived in the region. Historically, the Palestinian territory was controlled by numerous foreign powers such as the Iranians (under both the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires), the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Arabs. Most recently, the Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine from the early 16th Century until the end of World War I. After World War I, Palestine was governed by Great Britain under a Mandate received from the League of Nations in 1920. In 1947, the UN passed a resolution to establish two states within the Palestinian territory and designated a territory including present-day West Bank as part of the proposed Arab state.
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the West Bank was captured by Transjordan (present-day Jordan), and the Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt. Israel gained control of both territories during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 with the intention of becoming the sole representative of the Palestinian people. Yasir Arafat (the founder of the political party Fatah in 1958) became the leader of the PLO in 1968 and soon began to seek regional support in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state and in opposition to the occupation of territories rightfully belonging to the Palestinian people by Israel. The PLO was recognized by the Arab League in 1974 as the representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat ultimately declared Palestine as an independent state on November 15, 1988. Israel ultimately transferred control of Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority (PA) under a series of agreements negotiated and signed between 1991 and 1999. Yasir Arafat was elected president of the Palestinian Authority in 1996 and served until his death in 2004 and was succeeded by Mahmoud Abbas.
Recent Palestinian politics has been characterized by the divide between Fatah and Hamas.
Recently, there has been a high level of tension within Palestine related to the political divide between Fatah and Hamas, an Islamist political party. Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 in elections widely considered to be free and fair by international observers. Despite the formation of a unity government with Fatah, Hamas ultimately took over the Gaza Strip by mid-2007, resulting in a division between the governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that continues to this present day. Despite high levels of political instability, Palestine was recognized as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in November of 2012 and was admitted to the International Criminal Court in early 2015.
Mahmoud Abbas is the current President of Palestine and was first elected in 2005.
Palestine is a parliamentary republic operating under a semi-Presidential system. The current constitution of Palestine (the Basic Law) was adopted in 2002 and is modeled in part on the constitutions of various countries in the region such as Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. The 2002 Basic Law of Palestine states that Palestinians will not be subject to “any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, political convictions or disability.” The law also states that the principles of Shari’a law are the primary source of all legislative proposals. The President of Palestine is directly elected by the Palestinian people in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The current President is Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected in 2005. The Prime minister of Palestine is directly appointed by the President and is not required to be a member of the legislature while in office. The current Prime Minister is Rami Hamdallah, who has been in office since 2013. The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) is the main legislative body within Palestine. The current Speaker of Parliament is Aziz Duwaik, who has been in office since 2006. Due to the ongoing conflict between Fatah and Hamas, elections for both the President and the Palestinian Legislative Council have been postponed since 2006, though local elections were held in the West Bank in 2016.
Palestine is considered to be a “hybrid regime,” or an “illiberal democracy” with elements characteristic of both authoritarian and democratic governments according to a 2016 “Democracy Index” rating. Some of the major factors that have prevented Palestine from becoming a full-democracy include the lack of strong governmental institutions, continued international isolation, and the ongoing conflict with Israel. Even though the Palestinian government has guaranteed freedom of assembly, press freedom, and freedom of speech, the rights of individuals to demonstrate openly have become increasingly subject to police control and restriction over the past few years due to the ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine and Hamas and Fatah. Despite the fact that the 2002 Basic Law mandates respect for other religions such as Christianity and Judaism, Islamic institutions and places of worship tend to receive preferential treatment from the Palestinian government. Additionally, Hamas began to enforce some Islamic standards of dress for women such as mandatory hijab since it came to power in the 2006 election and is alleged by the Israeli government to have established Islamic courts in the Gaza Strip.
Palestine is majority Muslim and Arabs make up the largest ethnic group in the country.
In terms of religion, Palestine is estimated to be between 83-97% Muslim, 3-14% Christian, and 3% other. An overwhelming majority (<95%) of Palestinian Muslims are Sunni and most Palestinian Christians are Greek Orthodox, Maronite, or Roman Catholic. As late as 1900, as much as one-third of the Palestinian population was Christian but declined in recent decades due to the Israeli occupation, the rise of anti-Christian policies by the Israeli government, and the lack of work opportunities. Arabs make up a majority (83%) of the Palestinian population and Arabic, Hebrew, and English are the official languages of the country. Palestine has a 91.9% literacy rate and women have full suffrage in Palestine and made up 47% of registered voters in the 2006 legislative elections.
Palestine has a GDP of $12.6 billion (2015 estimates) and a Human Development Index Score of 0.677 and a GINI Score of 35.5. The economy of Palestinian is primarily service based (81%). Agriculture (5%) and Industry (14%) make up the rest of the Palestinian economy. Unemployment in Palestine is estimated to be around 27% and 25.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Israeli security measures and ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence continue to negatively impact economic conditions in the Palestinian territories.
In recent years, Palestine has sought to gain an active role in international affairs.
Palestine is currently a member of a number of international organizations such as the Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations and also has diplomatic relations with 136 Nations. Some of the main allies of the Palestinian-led government in the West Bank include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco. Additionally, the US government under the leadership of former President Barack Obama sought to improve ties with the Palestinian government during his 8 years in office. On the other hand, the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip is primarily allied with countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Yemen and is not recognized as the true Palestinian government by the international community despite the fact that Hamas won a plurality of the vote in the 2006 Palestinian elections and is considered by a majority of Palestinians to be the legitimate government of the territory.
As a country, Palestine continues to face many daunting challenges that threaten its future success. Arguably the main challenge facing the country is its ongoing disputes with Israel and the dual nature of its own government. Within the ongoing peace process, several different solutions have been proposed. The specific solutions range from a one-state, two-state, or even a three-state solution. Each of these proposals has their own set of strengths and weaknesses and have been promoted at various times by the international community. Despite the high level of support for both approaches, it is unlikely that either a one-state or a two-state solution will be viable given the current situation in the region.
It can be argued that a one-state solution is not a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for several reasons. The main reason is that it would result in the wholesale disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people and deny them the right to self-determination. By denying the Palestinian people the right to self-determination, the Israeli government would risk the creation of a civil war and expand the already existing conflicts between the different ethnic groups within the country. Additionally, a one-state solution may permanently alter the overall face of the State of Israel. For example, the high fertility rate among Palestinians coupled with the return of Palestinian refugees would quickly render the Israeli Jewish community an ethnic minority.
It can also be argued that the two-state solution is not viable given the current political realities within Israel. Even though the two-state solution would allow the Palestinian people to develop their own governmental system and full self-determination, the political divisions within the Palestinian territories make the implementation of this proposal unrealistic. For example, the Palestinian territories are split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and both territories are governed by different political factions (the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip). The differences between both political factions regarding policy make a possible unification difficult at best. Additionally, both the West Bank and Gaza Strip are apart from each other geographically, so the logistics for travel between both locations would be difficult to be implemented.
Considering these factors, a three-state solution is the most viable option for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under such an option, Israel would have its borders set to what they were prior to the Six-Day War of 1967 and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would become two separate Palestinian states. The West Bank would be governed by the Palestinian Authority and Gaza Strip would be governed by Hamas. Additionally, the city of Jerusalem would become a demilitarized zone under the joint administration between representatives from all three states, observers from the United Nations, and leaders from all of the main religious groups within the territory. This approach would reduce the chances of conflict within the region, prevent extremism from spreading, and improve the overall chances for lasting peace in the Middle East.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the decline of the Ottoman Empire during the late 19th and early 20th Century. The Ottoman Empire was an empire founded in 1299 AD in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) by Osman I, a Turkish tribal leader. By 1354, the Ottoman Empire reached into Southeastern Europe and eventually ended the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) in 1453 with the conquest of Constantinople. During its height of power in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational and multicultural empire controlling a majority of the Middle East and Southern Europe (including countries such as Greece and parts of present-day Italy), the Caucuses, and Northern Africa. With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Middle East and Western worlds for half a millennium.
Despite its long track record of success, the Ottoman Empire began to fall behind European rivals such as Great Britain, France, and Russia during the mid-18th century. Additionally, the Ottoman army consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which prompted them to initiate a process of reform in the late 1830s known as the Tanzimat. As such, over the course of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state became more powerful and organized, despite suffering territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where many new states such as Greece and Albania emerged by the 1860s. The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, hoping to escape from the isolation which had contributed to its recent territorial losses, and thus joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to hold its own during the conflict, it began to deal with internal dissent, in particular with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings and the rise of Jewish immigration into the region of Palestine starting in the late 19th century. During this time, atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. The Ottoman Empire ultimately collapsed by the end of World War I and was replaced by the Republic Turkey in 1923. The former Ottoman territories were also divided up into new nations by Great Britain and France after World War 1 and continue to serve as the basis for the modern Middle East.
Islam is the second-largest religion in the world and is becoming increasingly prominent in the United States and parts of Europe. Even though Islam is similar in many ways to Judaism and Christianity and is one of the major world religions, many Europeans and Americans know little about Islam and view it as linked to extremism due to the rise of groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Islam is a monotheistic religion and accepts the same prophets as Christians and Jews, in addition to the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelations from God through the angel Gabriel to address any errors that had made their way into the beliefs and scriptures of Judaism and Christianity.
1. The Text – Qur’an
The main text in Islam is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is considered by Muslims to be the direct word of God because it was recited by Muhammad as it was communicated to him by the angels, and later written in Arabic. As such, all Muslims memorize and recite the Qur’an in Arabic, despite the fact that translations of the Qur’an exist in many different languages such as English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Farsi, etc.
2. The Rules – Five Pillars
The Five Pillars of Islam are the core beliefs of all Muslims. The first two pillars are the bearing of witness to God and daily prayer. The next two are the giving of alms (2.5% of one’s income) to help the poor and fasting during the month of Ramadan. The final pillar is the Hajj, which is the pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim who is well enough must make at least once in their lifetime. In addition, Muslims are forbidden to use intoxicating beverages or to consume pork, blood, or harmful things. To be eaten, animals must be ritually slaughtered and drained of blood. In Islam, Halal means “permissible,” whereas Haraam means forbidden.”
3. The Split – Sunni vs. Shi’a
Islam is split into two sects, Sunni (~85% of all Muslims worldwide), and Shi’a (~15% of Muslims worldwide). Sunni Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of Muslims in many countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Jordan, Palestine, and the Gulf States. On the other hand, Shi’a Muslims make up the majority of the Muslim populations in Iran (~90%), Iraq (~51-55%), Bahrain (~70%), Yemen (~50%), Azerbaijan (~85%), and Lebanon (~75%) and have a sizable presence in Afghanistan (~7-15%), Pakistan (~20-30%), Kuwait (~20-25%) and parts of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the Gulf States.
Even though both Sunnis and Shi’as follow the same fundamental religious beliefs and follow the message of Islam in the same ways, there are some notable differences between both sects. Sunnis believe that Muhammad did not select a successor to lead the Muslim community and that his successor must be selected by the Muslim community instead, whereas Shi’as believe that the leadership of the Muslim community should be heredity and that Muhammad’s successors were Ali and a series of Twelve Imams. Additionally, Shi’a Muslims are generally more progressive in their outlook regarding theological matters
Historically, the Shi’a community has been the target of much persecution by Sunni Muslims and extremist groups due to their status as the minority group in Islam. Additionally, extremist groups such as ISIS have committed ethnic cleansing against Shi’a Muslim communities in Iraq and Syria over the past 3 years.
4. Liberal Islam – Sufism
Sufism is a mystical branch of Islam, in which its followers, or Sufi, are striving to obtain a better relationship with God by leading a more disciplined and less materialistic life. Early founders of Sufism believed there were many mystical overtones in the things the Prophet Muhammad was preaching. Many Sufis reside in Iran, as Iran was home to one of the most influential figures in spreading the ideas of Sufism, the poet Jalal al-Din Rumi. It is often said that the literature and culture that have been influenced by Sufism is second to none, and the followers of Sufism are truly blessed with hundreds of years of traditions and literature. One of Sufism’s most generic and important teachings is the development of love and presence. According to many Sufis, only presence can awaken us from the enslavement to the materialistic world in which many of us live. It is the goal of every Sufi to reject the materialistic love of self, and to find a true balance where the soul and body are one with God.
5. Conservative Islam – Wahhabism
Wahhabism is a conservative form of Islam originally developed by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad Ibn Saud during the 18th Century. Wahhabism stresses a puritanical form of Islam that views the world as composed of either Muslims or non-Muslims and regards Muslims who disagree with their beliefs as heretics. Wahhabism is the state religion in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government and wealthy individuals in both Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States exported Wahhabi theology to Muslim communities worldwide through development projects and other forms of aid.
6. Religious Tolerance – “People of the Book”
Even though the issue of religious intolerance has emerged in several Muslim-majority countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, Islam has historically been tolerant towards other religious faiths. The Qur’an states that “there is to be no compulsion in religion” and considers Christians and Jews to be “People of the Book” who have received a revelation and a scripture from God. Muslims also emphasize that tolerance towards others and cultural diversity is an essential component of Islam. The strong belief in religious tolerance found within Islam was contrary to the values of Christians, who tended to push out foreigners (including Jews and Muslims) from majority-Christian countries and slaughter them throughout the history of Christianity in events such as the Crusades.
7. Gender Equality – The Role of Women
In Islam, men and women are both equal before the eyes of God. Islam improved the status of women in the Arab world and gave them legal and social rights. In only a few instances are the rights of men and women noticeably different in the Qur’an, though these verses are being studied and reinterpreted by both legal and religious scholars.
8. Conflict and Context – Religion of Peace
Islam does not advocate violence and condemns all forms of violence wholeheartedly. Some passages of the Qur’an authorize Muslims to defend themselves from aggression, though they must be interpreted in the context in which they were initially revealed. The Qur’an also underscores that permission to fight an enemy is to be balanced by a mandate for making peace and condemns the killing of innocent civilians.
9. Moral Guidelines – Shari’a Law
The Qur’an provides moral directives describing what Muslims should aspire to do and achieve in life, which are known as Islamic (Shari’a) law. A wide array of differences exists between the Islamic schools of thought that reflects the diverse contexts in which the jurists were writing. Contemporary scholars also face the challenge of addressing the changing demands of modern society in relation to the scriptures of the Qur’an and Islamic law.
10. Legal Directives – Fatwas
A Fatwa is a formal Islamic legal opinion on the nature of things such as the wearing of the Hijab or not. Fatwas can be added over time through scholarship and changes within society. Legal reforms in Islam can be applied on the country basis rather than on the entire Islamic community as a whole.
11. The Struggle – Jihad
Jihad is a term that is misinterpreted in the West. Jihad is derived from the Arabic root, jhd, meaning to “strive,” “exert oneself to the utmost,” “endeavor,” “struggle in the way of God.” It is a way to have Muslims remain faithful to their religion in spite of the challenges they face, internally and externally and the term does not mean “holy war,” which is condemned in Islam.
One major foreign policy issue facing the world over the past few years is the rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). ISIS is an anti-Western militant group whose goal is to establish an independent Islamic state. ISIS currently controls territory in both Iraq and Syria and is seeking to gain more territory throughout the Middle East. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, ISIS has taken advantage of regional instability and publically promoted itself online with graphic videos of threats and violence. The rise and spread of ISIS has further confounded policymakers with regards to their promoting stability in the Middle East. In recent years, there has been much debate at the highest levels of government over ways to combat ISIS and the reasons behind its creation and expansion. As with many other foreign policy issues, the debate over ways to fight ISIS has evoked debate on both sides, with some arguing for a more forceful response and others seeking to stay out of the conflict. The underlying reasons behind the rise of ISIS can be contributed to a number of factors such as the current instability in the Middle East, cultural and religious differences, and intervention in the region by western powers such as the U.S.
The formation of ISIS can be traced back to 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in response to the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. AQI played a major role in the Iraqi insurgency that followed. They reacted to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq with a variety of violent acts that resulted in the deaths of civilians and U.S. soldiers alike. Despite the fact that AQI was weakened after the death of al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, the organization survived and a faction of AQI separated and began to rebrand itself. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as head of this organization in 2010, changed its name to the Islamic State (IS) in 2011, and the group grew more violent as U.S. forces began to withdraw from Iraq.
As the U.S. further withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, IS began to expand its efforts into Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. In 2012, IS established the Al-Nusra Front, a satellite organization of IS headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, establishing a base for IS outside of Iraq. The expansion of efforts into Syria gave IS an opportunity to expand its ideology into a newer territory. In an attempt to prevent a rift between both organizations, al-Baghdadi unified Al-Nusra Front and IS in 2013. The name of the organization was then changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, al-Julani refused to align his group to al-Baghdadi and switched his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of the rivalry between the two groups, Al-Zawahiri announced the unification (between ANF and IS) had been annulled as of June 2014. On January 3, 2014, al-Zawahiri announced he had severed all connections with ISIS. As a result, the disputes between ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front worsened, leading to violent clashes between both groups and further adding to instability in the two countries. As of today ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, and Al-Qaeda all operate in the region.
One of the major underlying reasons behind ISIS’ rise is the instability of the Middle East. Historically, preexisting disputes in the region have been cultural and religious in nature and have only worsened with the addition of western intervention over the past century. One of the main religious disputes has been between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. This dispute causes tension and a desire for dominance in the region between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest and most stable powers in the region. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, whereas Iran is primarily Shia. Interestingly enough, Iraq and Afghanistan, two unstable countries, have sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Furthermore, the recent escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and debate over nuclear proliferation has stirred tension. In addition, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has destabilized the country and made it a prime recruiting ground for ISIS.
Another reason for ISIS’ creation is the Middle Eastern backlash against western intervention and foreign policy. After the discovery of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, numerous western powers sought to gain a foothold in the region in order to meet their need for resources. With the increasing demand for oil, the U.S. began to assert its influence by supporting western-backed dictators in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In addition, the U.S. has intervened on numerous occasions in order to keep these leaders in power in order to preserve its own interests, such as supporting regime change and military action against leaders who reject U.S. goals and interests U.S. policy of intervention in the Middle East is manifested in the Carter Doctrine, which was laid forward by President Jimmy Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address. The Carter Doctrine stated that the U.S. had the right to intervene in order to defend its interests in the Middle East, in particular, to ensure the access to oil. As a result of the Carter Doctrine, the Middle East became a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, resulting in increased anti-American sentiment throughout the region.
The most notable example of the U.S. intervening in the Middle East occurred in Iran in 1953 through Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was the CIA/Mossad backed a coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, giving more power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran as an absolute monarch for the next 26 years, executing an estimated 160,000 political opponents, using secret police forces such as SAVAK to torture and intimidate regime opponents such as leftists and Islamists, and allowing little dissent against his rule. One of the major reasons behind the US/Israeli-backed coup was that Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iran’s oil production and use the profits to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. This commandeering of its oil reserves did not align with U.S. interests. Operation Ajax is considered to be an important factor behind the 1979 Iranian Revolution and another reason Iran and the U.S. have a strained relationship today. This reaction to U.S. intervention resulted in heightened instability in the country, which allowed for the current Islamic Republic of Iran to take control. Similarly, the volatility derived from U.S. actions in Iraq and the Syrian Civil war has now promoted the recent rise of the similarly-titled “Islamic State” of Iraq and Syria.
The main ideology of ISIS is based off Wahhabism, a form of Sunni Islam that follows a strict interpretation of the Quran and promotes violence against non-believers. ISIS’ primary goal is to establish an independent Islamic State in the Middle East and expand its influence into other parts of the world. In order to achieve these goals, ISIS uses several brutal methods, such as mass killings, beheadings and systematic cruelty against those who would challenge their actions, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In addition, ISIS promotes its goals through videos and social media sources, by which the group seeks to gain more recruits. ISIS justifies its actions through religion, as members feel that they have a moral obligation to kill whoever stands in the way of their establishing an independent Islamic State.
ISIS has received funding from a variety of different sources. The main source is from oil smuggling on the Turkish border, through which ISIS sells oil from Syrian oil fields that it controls for as little as $25 per barrel. Another source of funding for ISIS comes from wealthy individuals in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These donors have long served as sources of funding for ISIS as well as for other violent anti-Western militia groups in the Middle East. Between all of those sources, U.S. officials estimate that ISIS is bringing in close to $1 Million per day in order to fund its operations.
ISIS also relies on foreign fighters from a number of countries. Some 20,000 foreign nationals are currently fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with roughly 3,400 from Western countries. In addition, an increasing number of U.S. citizens are seeking to join ISIS. According to Congressman Michael McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee, the number of U.S. citizens seeking to join ISIS this year is 150, up from only 50 last year. McCaul also stated that 18 Americans have already succeeded in joining ISIS and 18 others who have joined the similar Islamic terrorist groups. One of the members included is Douglas McAuthur McCain, a Californian who was killed in August while fighting alongside ISIS in Syria.
There are several possible ways in which the international community can defeat ISIS and restore a sense of stability to the Middle East. At this point, a ground invasion of Syria and Iraq by US troops would only make matters worse because it would result in another major war in the Middle East and directly play into the goal that ISIS has of drawing Western powers into the conflict. One such option to fight ISIS would be for the core countries such as the US to change their economic policy towards the Middle East. If the Middle Eastern Countries become economically interdependent on the United States and each other, the beginning of trade would bring an end to the fighting, leading to increased stability. Stability in the region would help to defeat ISIS because ISIS needs the instability of the region to survive. Furthermore, another thing that would go a long way to help encourage more stability in the Middle East would be for the US and other Western powers to acknowledge their past instances of intervention in the Middle East. Doing so would increase the level of trust between them and the governments of many countries in the region and make them more willing to work to defeat extremism and terrorism. Additional options to fight ISIS include working with local governments in the Middle East in order to identify threats, identify funding for ISIS and similar groups and work to increase public understanding with regards to the reasons why ISIS was created and its stated goals and ideology.
Works Cited:
Cambanis, Thanassis. “The Carter Doctrine: A Middle East Strategy past Its Prime.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC. 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Dassanayake, Dion. “Islamic State: What Is IS and Why Are They so Violent?” Express. Northern and Shell Media Publications, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Dehghan, Saeed Kamali, and Richard Norton-Taylor. “CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iranian Coup.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Dilanian, Ken. “US Intel: IS Militants Drawing Steady Stream of Recruits.” AP News. Associated Press, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 May 2015.
Ghitis, Frida. “Why ISIS Is so Brutal.” CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
“ISIS: Portrait of a Jihadi Terrorist Organization.” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.
Reynolds, Ben. “Iran Didn’t Create ISIS; We Did.” The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
In his most recent Foreign Affairs article “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” political scientist Kenneth Waltz explores the background behind the debate over the Iranian nuclear program. Since 2002, a major discussion has emerged at the international level regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the true nature behind it. Many countries such as the US, Israel and the UK have argued that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, whereas the Iranian government has denied such claims and instead argues that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Additionally, the issue has resulted in increased tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel and serves as a roadblock preventing the normalization of ties between all three countries. In contrast to other political commentators and policy-makers, Waltz argues that that Iran possessing nuclear weapons would restore stability and correct the imbalance of power in the Middle East.
Waltz feels that the Iranian nuclear program crisis could end in three possible outcomes. The first outcome is that Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions in the face of increased international sanctions and diplomacy. The next possibility is that Iran develops breakout capability (the ability to develop a nuclear weapon quickly), but stops short of testing a nuclear weapon. The third scenario is that Iran goes ahead and tests a nuclear weapon. Even though the US and Israel are strongly opposed to the last outcome, historical precedent shows that when a new state develops nuclear weapons, imbalances of power are reduced and regional stability typically emerges.
Waltz argues that Iran is seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons in response to Israel’s nuclear weapon monopoly. For example, Israel has been a nuclear-armed state at least since the late 1970s and is one of 4 nuclear-armed states that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons has served to increase instability within the Middle East, in addition to its hostile relations with its neighbors and support by the US. As opposed to using nuclear weapons offensively against the US or Israel, Waltz states that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons for its own purposes of national security and to correct the imbalance of power within the region.
Waltz also mentions that another concern among Western leaders is that other countries would follow suit in developing nuclear weapons if Iran tests one, but history shows that there has been a slowdown in nuclear proliferation over the past few decades. Waltz further states that if both Iran and Israel are nuclear-armed states, they will deter each other and the chance of a major war between both will be less likely to occur. In conclusion, Waltz believes that the U.S. and its allies should give up their concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons and take comfort in the regional stability that may emerge as a result. The arguments that waltz makes throughout the article present an entirely different picture regarding the Iranian nuclear program and offer an alternative view on the factors behind it.
