President Obama and the Islamic World: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Many analysts consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the chief focus of the Islamic World in the Middle East. Historically, the Arab World has perceived the United States as the supporter of Israel. Thus, if President Obama wanted to shift the public opinion in the Arab World he had to alter this policy.
On the one hand, President Obama had a different approach towards Israel in the peace process. The huge pressure over Israel for freezing its settlements caused the bitterness of the U.S.-Israeli relations up to the extent that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not even take the common photos with President Obama while visiting the White House. Although the tension now seems to be eliminated, its presence was historical. The fundamental outcome of this policy was a freeze in the settlements which was a positive step towards the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Nevertheless, some scholars such as Reza Aslan argue that in depth the settlements were not fully frozen. Similarly, President Obama had several times insisted on the necessity for a change in the Palestinian language towards Israel.
One the other hand, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, argues that President Obama went too far in supporting the Arab World. Meanwhile President Obama gave memorial speeches in Ankara and Cairo, there was no such speech in Israel. Indyk argues that the lack of communication with the Israeli government and society and unusual pressures on Israel from the United States created a huge gap between President Obama and the Israeli government and society rendering it challenging to cooperate to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is necessary to ask whether President Obama had any other options rather than pressuring Israel when the ongoing settlements are a complex problem of this conflict? Nevertheless, Indyk believes that a more balance approach from the Obama administration is required to reach conclusions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mark Lynch, a professor of social sciences at George Washington University, questions the creativity of President Obama’s policy towards the conflict. He states that meanwhile there was the expectation of a new agenda; President Obama took similar steps to President Bush. He argues that the Obama administration did not spend a great focus on solving the Gaza blockade or the reconstruction of the Palestinian territory. He believes that President Obama had to consider Hamas as a key player of this conflict; thus using similar policies such as Turkey’s approach to engage Hamas more actively. Yet, one has to consider the role of public opinion in the policies of the governments. The perception of the Turkish society towards Hamas is certainly not the same as the United States’. The role of the public opinion will be specifically analyzed in another section of this series. President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian agenda was not designed without any creativity. The unique pressure on the Israeli settlement was certainly an evidence of a new approach. But, perhaps the engagement of Turkey as a partner favored by both sides, the Arab world and Israel, could have been another creative option.
Overall, President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian approach had certain new elements. Nevertheless, there are no signs of a major, positive impact of this approach in this dilemma. Did President Obama’s approach fail due to the policy itself or due to the negative response of the Palestinian and Israeli partners? Although decreasing, hope is still alive as the Israeli and Palestinian authorities hold direct negotiations in a few weeks.

President Obama and the Islamic World: Introduction

After Barack Obama took office as the new President of the United States, the world expected an innovative approach towards the Islamic world from the new administration. President Obama’s historical speeches in Ankara and Cairo demonstrated a new agenda towards the Islamic world. The language of the U.S. administration radically changed and either a term such as the “global war on terror” was eliminated or terrorism was often replaced by extremism. Indeed, President Obama’s agenda created a great deal of optimism and hope for the U.S.-Muslim relations. The polls illustrated an enormous support for the new U.S. administration in the Islamic World.
However, more than 16 month after taking the office, President Obama is facing rapid decrease in the initial optimism towards his administration approach to the Islamic World. This reduction is vey essential in the U.S.’s foreign and even domestic policy. Outside the borders the United States is involved with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, extremism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran among many other crucial issues related to the Islamic World. Domestically, the decrease can illustrate the efficacy of his approach to fundamental issues such as closing the Guantanamo prison. Hence, this series of analysis aims to discuss the extent to which the Obama administration was successful with its policy towards the Islamic World by assessing the administration’s approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran and the role of the public opinion in applying the policies. Nevertheless, the analysis will be limited as it does not consider the role of other crucial factors such as Iraq and Afghanistan in judging President Obama’s approach towards the Islamic World.

Iranian Economy: Tehran's Baazar's Strike

In the first week of July, after the government tried to increase the taxes by 70%, the usually blasting Tehran’s Grand Bazaar went on a strike. Despite the government’s offer to reduce the initial 70% increase to 15%; the strike spreader to Tabriz’s Grand Bazaar as well, creating a major and historical crisis for the Ahmadinejad’s government. Although the strike is now over, the enduring news of the Iranian tax reforms maintains the concern among the merchants in the bazaar.
The heavy pressure of the International sanctions and the low prices of oil have persuaded the Iranian government to reconsider its tax policy. “Iran imposes valued added tax (VAT) at 3% on large corporations but not on smaller” (The Economist) business, leaving out the bazaar’s merchants. Historically, Tehran’s bazaar had a significant role in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Their financial support for the anti-shah movements was a crucial assistance for Khomeini’s supporters. In fact, the cost of Khomeini’s historical flight from Paris to Tehran after the victory of the revolution was provided by the bazaar’s merchants. The influence of the Tehran’s bazaar within the country’s politics has rendered any reforms related to the bazaar’s business challenging.
The slow economy, increasing inflation, the concerning influence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in the domestic economy and President Ahmadinejad’s policy of reforming the tax system has increased the number of his oppositions among the bazaar’s merchants. This means that as the critics of President Ahmadinejad are increasing, he has to fight on more fronts. If he is not able to diplomatically compromise a solution for such crisis, either his policies will be left incomplete or President Ahmadinejad has to rely on the influence of the Revolutionary Guard, increasing the militarization of the Iranian economy.

-Joy-

Joy is the words of an aching,sleepless brain on an early Tuesday morning.

-Joy-

Living in dreams:
I rule the lord
I own a world
I sense the joy

Living in reality:
I chase the wave
I own a cave
I sense the joy

Is Iran Moving Towards a Military Dictatorship?

While Iran has continued its nuclear enrichment, the United-States has used unilateral and UN sanctions to alter the Iranian policy. Most significantly, the new UN and U.S. sanctions have a strict focus on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG). It appears; that the increasing role of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard within the country’s political matters has become a fundamental concern of the Obama administration. Describing the situation of the Iranian politics, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran is “moving towards a military dictatorship”. Hence, it is crucial to assess the state of the Revolutionary Guard in the Iranian politics.
The Revolutionary Guard has been severely criticized for the crackdown of the opposition movement, following the June 2009 Iranian presidential elections. Although initially its role was not fully clear, the comments of the commander of the Iranian Police, Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam, shed light on the crucial position of the IRG in maintaining Tehran’s security after the elections. In an interview with Soroush Magazine on June 16 he said: “After the elections the Iranian police passed on all its authority to the Sarallah station of the Revolutionary Guard and this station was in charge of the security of Tehran.” Despite the authority of the Iranian police in controlling the urban security, the increasing role of the Revolutionary Guard gave it the power to replace the police. The post-election era was a critical period for the Iranian regime, thus they appeared to use military means to preserve power. Nevertheless, this illustrates the reduction of the power of the police and amplification of the influence the Revolutionary Guard.
In addition, the Revolutionary Guard created a “cyber army” to fight against “cyber terrorism”. Initially, this clash had started by arresting many opposition bloggers. However, after the elections the cyber clash entered a new era. The Revolutionary Guard created a website posting pictures of demonstrators and asking the ordinary citizens to help arresting them. Furthermore, a group of hackers attacked several opposition websites. Shortly the Revolutionary Guard confirmed its relationship with this group. Meanwhile this demonstrates the increasing fear of the current government from the role of technology in the strategies of the opposition movement; it exemplifies the increasing power of the Revolutionary Guard. Moreover, it can be observed as a warning for the opposition movement. If the government observers any threat to its authority, it is ready to use any means for maintaining its power.
The Iranian constitution denies the right for the military to participate in any political and economical matters. However, there are no signs of this law in practice. After the June 2009 elections, President Ahmadinejad was supported by the Iranian Parliament in appointing, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, a veteran of the revolutionary Guard as the interior minister. Although Mr. Najjar was not anymore officially involved in the Military matters, it is difficult to imagine that he does not have any connection with his ex-colleagues. In addition, on June 25th, the cultural minister of Iran appointed Bahman Dari, the head of Revolutionary Guard Publications, as his cultural adviser. A fundamental position of the cultural adviser is holding book exhibitions and publication sensors. Thus, this is a significant example of the crucial position of the Revolutionary Guard in the Iranian culture. This can give the capacity for producing the necessary propaganda to the Revolutionary Guard and enable it to reject any opposition publications.
Furthermore, the Revolutionary Guard has boosted its position in the Iranian economy. An Iranian legislation requires the privatization of governmentally owned companies. However, in a major economical transaction, after a private company was rejected due to security reasons, two companies connected to the Revolutionary Guard bought major shares of the Telecommunication Company of Iran in Tehran’s Stock Market. As this was against the legislation, it was heavily criticized by the Iranian Parliament. This exchange led to rumors regarding the control of Revolutionary Guard over the private phone lines. Although it has never been confirmed, it is a possibility.
Four years ago, President Ahmadinejad gave two sections of the Iranian “South Pars” gas project to the Revolutionary Guard. Furthermore, after the restrictions created by the U.S. unilateral sanctions for the petroleum companies to deal with Iran, President Ahmadinejad gave an enormous section of the “South Pars” project to the Revolutionary Guard. For many years, different Iranian governments had been negotiating with variety of international companies, including Shell and Total, to sign the best possible deal for this project. But, it seems that the recent sanctions convinced the government to pass the project to the Revolutionary Guard. This can be also considered as a political move by the Ahmadinejad administration to undermine the efficacy of the sanctions. Additionally, as the petroleum industry plays a crucial role in the Iranian economy and politics, such positions can increase the influence of the Revolutionary Guard in the Iranian politics. Therefore, it appears that although the sanction might limit the Iranian Revolutionary Guard internationally, it is increasing its influence domestically. Consequently, one should not be surprised if the IRG supports further sanctions and isolation of the Iranian politics; rendering it extremely challenging to conclude a diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear program.
Nonetheless, one should question the technological capability of the Revolutionary Guard in organizing complex petroleum projects. At last the IRG is a military organization with significant economical power and not a petroleum firm. On June 16th, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard dispensed the “South Pars” gas project which was dedicated to it by President Ahmadinejad four years before. On the one hand, this might be because of technological difficulties. One the other hand, it can be due to accepting the second project following the the U.S. sanctions on June 25th. Overall, if the IRG does not have the knowledge to arrange petroleum projects, in the long term the Iranian economy and society will be facing severe damages from it.
It has to be mentioned that this is analysis is limited to the information available publicly. However, observing these evidence one can clearly illustrate the raise of IRG’s power. The amplification of the authority of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can have singular affects on the Iranian politics, society and economy. The increasing role of the IRG has an opposite relationship with the Iranian democratic dream. It is crucial for the opposition movement to inform the society of the possible catastrophically consequences of this influence. It is also up to moderate conservatives in the Iranian Parliament to prevent the increase of the Revolutionary Guard’s power. Otherwise, their authority as elected officials will be challenged.

The Ban of the Burqa in France

On July 13th, the French parliament voted overwhelmingly to ban the full-face-covering niqab and burqa in public. While President Sarkozy himself lobbied for it, this law considers a 150 Euros fine for women violators and heavy penalties for the men enforcing female relatives to cover their face. As this wave of burqa ban is moving towards other European countries and the provincial government of Quebec, it is essential to take a moment and consider the arguments surrounding this issue and its potential implications.
The French lower house passed this legislation on the grounds of the necessity to maintain the French values of individualism and human dignity. Moreover, various women rights activists demonstrated burqa as a symbol of women’s suppression and saw this law a victory for gender equality. Although one might observe this legislation in favor of individualism, one can also illustrate the opposite. If individualism stands upon independence and self-reliance, then one has to be permitted to choose how to live. Based on this value one should not be forced to wear burqa, but one should not be forced to not wear burqa either. It is challenging to distinguish whether one is forced or volunteered to wear the niqab, but this legislation does not solve this problem. Its broad application ignores the details and builds upon a general ground of individualism rendering it hypocritical.
One might argue that the secular nature of the French constitution does not permit the usage of religious symbols. As the Christian cross is not permitted in the public, so should the Islamic symbols. This drives the discussion to the question of whether burqa is a religious or a cultural symbol. “Grand sheikh of al-Azhar in Cairo, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, described the niqab as a "cultural tradition that had nothing to do with Islam”” (Council on Foreign Relations). As a limitation of this article, I am not in a position to judge if burqa is cultural or religious. Nevertheless, if the Islamic sheikh is biased, so are the secular French MPs.
Some supporters of this law argue on the bases of security. As the face of an individual is covered, identification becomes impossible. However, the national security of any European country has never been threatened by an individual wearing a burqa. None of the terrorist attacks has occurred using niqab as a cover. It might prevent the usage of niqab for any threat for the French national security in the future. But there are far more significant areas related to security for the French government to focus on, including the French crime rate.
Polls show 82% support of the public for the ban (Pew Global Attitudes Project). However, among the 5 to 6 million Muslims living in France, fewer than two thousand wear the full veil. This low number raises major questions about the necessity for such a controversial legislation. The contemporaneous of this legislation with the “war on terror”, can assist the understanding of the reasons for the public’s support. Extremism is not the way to fight fanaticism. It is just a method creating justifications for further fanatic actions.
Edward R. Murrow once said: “History is what we make. If we go on as we are; history will make its revenge and retribution will not limp in catching up with it.”
Image: abc.net

Is It the Right Time for Direct Negotiations?

After the recent meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama at the White House, both sides insisted on the unique ties between the countries and expressed their serious concerns on the Iranian nuclear program. In addition, they emphasized their desire to resume the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiation. Meanwhile the Palestinian and Israeli officials are preparing for the upcoming discussion; there are no evidences suggesting a major shift in either of the side’s policies.
One of the significant concerns of the Palestinian officials has been the issue of the boarders, including East-Jerusalem as their capital. Despite the Palestinian requests, speaking at the White House and the Council on Foreign Relations, Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed that he is not willing to extend the freeze on the settlement’s construction any further than his previous date in September. As the Palestinians want to build up their state in the West-Bank, the Israeli settlements in that region is problematic. In the short term, it is seen as an invasion of their land by the Palestinians, increasing the popularity of radical solutions. In the long term, it can decrease the support for a two-state solution, rendering peace more challenging as the sides then have to think of a solution for moving hundreds of Israeli settlers. Furthermore, the argument regarding Jerusalem maintains. Although the Palestinians claim East-Jerusalem as their capital, Israelis continue to declare Jerusalem as their capital.
Moreover, despite the emphasis of President Obama on the necessity for a change in the Palestinian official's language, President Abbas maintains to include incitement against Israel. Speaking after the death of Mohammed Oudeh, mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks, he said: “The deceased was one of the prominent leaders of the Fatah movement and lived a life filled with the struggle, devoted effort, and the enormous sacrifice of the deceased for the sake of the legitimate problem of his people.” Considering that Oudeh was remembered by the Israelis as a terrorist killing Israeli civilian, one can regard this speech as a fundamental provocation. This can lead to similar reactions by the Israeli society and politicians.
Hence as both sides appear to sustain their previous positions, what is the necessity for a direct peace negotiation? From an intrastate perspective, President Obama has been criticized for his Middle-East policies. As the Senate elections are coming up, it is crucial for President Obama and Democrats to show a progress in their Middle-East agenda to counter the criticism. In addition, the matters surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not get solved unless both sides negotiate over their desirable outcomes. Thus this direct conversation can be an opportunity for them to share their views on the conflict and attempt to achieve a solution. However, the failure of these negotiations can fundamentally disturb President Abbas’ credibility. While President Abbas fails to progress in solving the conflict, more Palestinians can start supporting Hamas to achieve a solution. This will increase the power of Hamas and can seriously damage the authority of President Abbas. Therefore, it appears that time is playing on the side of Hamas. The failure of negotiations between Fatah and Israel increases the necessity to start negotiations with Hamas. Talking about the position of Hamas in the peace negotiations, Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas, recently stated: “We are patient.”
Image: The Economist

Now that McChrystal Is Out, Can Petraeus Save U.S. in Afghanistan?

General Stanley McChrystal has been one of the most influential U.S. military leaders in Afghanistan. After his successes in the Iraq war (e.g. arresting Sadam Hussain), he was appointed as the head of the American forces in Afghanistan. Initially, he requested additional forces, insisting that a victorious war in Afghanistan requires more troops. Despite major economical pressures, the Obama administration accepted this request. Gradually, he became known as the “master of counterinsurgency (COIN)”. Fundamentally, he strived to reduce the civilian casualties by decreasing the airstrikes. Moreover, he was frequently meeting with tribal elders and President Karzai’s military generals to provide a platform for Afghan military and police to take over. His popularity in Afghanistan raised to the extent that after his recent disappoint interview the the Rolling Stone, President Karzai asked President Obama to maintain General McChrystal in power.
Although there are different arguments measuring the efficacy of his strategies, McChrystal’s resignation due to his interview with the Rolling Stone has been a crucial event. This has persuaded many to ask: if it was essential to fire such an important leader at this point of the war? On the one hand, some argue that at this period President Obama should have had a different reaction towards McChrystal’s interview to prevent any negative effects on the Afghanistan War. However, McChrystal’s resignation appears to be a necessity not only to maintain President Obama’s strong leadership as the commander-in-chief, but also to sustain the unity of the his administration. In the interview, General McChrystal’s aids had undermined many of the high-ranking U.S. administration staff: “The national security adviser of the world’s greatest superpower is a “clown”, its vice-president a nobody and its president “uncomfortable and intimidated”” (The Economist). One can hardly expect these people to sit in front of one another in crucial meetings and plan a unified strategy for the success in Afghanistan. Furthermore, similar to firing General McArthur by President Truman, the resignation of General McChrystal was illustrating the power of politics over military in the United States.
Meanwhile the Taliban leaders are cheering for General McChrystal’s resignation and President Obama is more than any other time under pressure for his Afghanistan policies, General Petraeus has been replacing the old commander. After the resignation of General McChrystal, President Obama emphasized that the strategy in Afghanistan will remain the same. The upcoming operation in Kandahar will be a challenge for the Obama administration and General Petraeus to prove their capability of maintaing the previous strategy. The time is running and the media is labeling Afghanistan as the second Vietnam. Thus “Operation Kandahar” will be one of the last opportunities for the NATO forces to mark the history for themselves.

Image Source: The Economist

Ban and A Unique Opportunity, Can He Use It?

Following the increasing international pressure due to the Israeli forces clash with the activist on the Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza, Israel announced last Thursday that it will ease the land blockade on Gaza. Although it has not yet specified the list of the banned items, the Israeli government promised that it will allow the humanitarian aid, food and the building supplies to enter the territory. The Israeli blockade is aiming to pressure Hamas, the Islamist movement governing Gaza and to increase the Israeli national security by preventing the rockets fired from the territory. However, the Israeli government has been criticized for increasingly pressuring the civilians in Gaza by banning items such as children’s toys, chocolate and coriander.
The Israeli clashes with the flotillas lead to the death of nine of the activists causing the condemnations of many nations and UN Security Council requesting an investigation on the event. Meanwhile a Lebanese ship containing humanitarian aid is preparing to leave for Gaza, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, held a meeting with Ban Ki Moon in New York, attempting to persuade him on holding the International investigation requested by the Security Council on the recent clashes. Talking after his meeting, Mr. Barak expressed his concern on the news of the Lebanese flotilla’s preparation and argued that “as long as new flotillas are in preparation, it is probably better to leave it [the investigation] on the shelf for a certain time and we are moving ahead with our independent investigation.” Previously many officials, including the Turkish ones, have expressed their distrust in the biased of the Israeli investigation.
It appears that a combination of different events is creating a unique opportunity for Ban Ki Moon to request a better deal for the upcoming banned list by Israel. As the list has not been publically announced yet, Ban can hold the UN international investigation instead of a more humanitarian blockade on Gaza. This can socially reduce the pressure over the Gaza civilians and politically give Israel what he requested. Perhaps, if the list is publically announced sooner rather than later, using backchannel negotiations the UN might be able to stop the Lebanese flotilla. The Israeli officials have expressed their serious concerns on the connection between this flotilla and Hezbollah. These concerns and the recent clashes with the Turkish flotilla illustrate the potential of another major crisis. This can not only be socially devastating, but also it can disrupt the recent negotiations between Israel and Fatah, the Palestinian political party ruling the West Bank. Although this all depends on the details of the new banned list and whether Israel is willing to negotiate upon altering any elements of it.

Morality of War

Responding to the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated a “War on Terror”. A campaign designed by the United States and supported by the other NATO allies to eliminate terrorist organizations threatening the U.S. and global security. Along this path, many civilians have been arrested and accused of “terrorism”. The suspects have been tortured to collect further information about their possible connection to any terrorist organization. This has created major scandals such as the “Abou Ghoraib”, challenging the legitimacy of the treatment of the suspects by the Bush administration. Meanwhile the war on terror has started a new phase after Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential elections, the last terrorist attack in the Times Square by Faisal Shahzad, confirms the difficulty facing the U.S. government in maintaining its national security in the “War on Terror”.
One of the centers for holding the terrorist suspects, classified by the U.S. as the “enemy combatants”, in captive was Guantanamo Bay. The unique geographical position of this shore enabled the U.S. justice department to argue that the Guantanamo Bay is neither part of the Unites States territory nor Cuban territory. Hence it is outside the U.S. legal jurisdiction zone. Following the arrival of the first detainees to Guantanamo, U.S. Supreme Court recalled that the United States government is responsible for the minimal protection of the prisoners under the common article three of the Geneva Conventions.
Aside from the treatment of the detainees, the method used for arresting them has been a serious question. Only 7% of the terrorist suspects kept in captive in Guantanamo have been arrested by the NATO forces. The remaining 93% have been captured through the denunciations of the Iraqi, Pakistani or Afghan warlords who often received cash awards in response to their cooperation. On the surface, this helped the U.S. government to respond to the public lobbies by providing statistics of the number of imprisoned suspects. In depth the accuracy of these denunciations are concerning.
Dilawar, an Iraqi taxi driver, is an example of a wrong denunciation. Through the information provided by one of their informers, the U.S. army arrested accused and captured him for using rockets against the U.S. forces. Tutored under the hands of inexperienced U.S. soldiers, Dilawar died after few days. The case was not made public, until a New York Times journalist collected sufficient information on Dilawar’s torture and innocence. Afterward it was publicly announced that the denouncer of Dilawar was the person behind the rockets against the U.S. forces.
Supporting his policies, George W. Bush criticized the oppositions of his “War on Terror” campaign, arguing that the men in uniform are doing their job for the U.S. national security. However, arresting suspects through wrong denunciations or gathering inadequate information from the suspects using torture does not provide the right means for the U.S. national security. Nevertheless, along this path many civilians have died and when the cases wear revealed the inexperienced, traumatizes soldiers have been charged. The expectation from the Obama administration is to have a more effective, legal and moral approach to this case. Wars might be cruel, yet they still include morality as a fundamental element.
Image Source: The New York Times

-Little Darling-

Step by step
Walking the distances
To an empty land

Concrete on concrete
Building a tower
On a shaky earth

Blown away!

Poor
You little darling

-Ramtin (June 17,2010)-

Challenges of the Oil Spill

Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig leased by British Petroleum exploded on 20 April. It was only earlier this month that BP was able to cap the leaching oil pipe. The pollution created by this event has been causing major economical and environmental affects which, according to the officials, will be staying for decades in the gulf. Environmentally, many species lost their lives and it is expected that in the long term the ecosystem will be highly affected by this pollution. Economically, many careers, such as the fishermen who work in the area, are facing serious economical difficulties as a result of this incident. Politically, it is the responsibility of President Obama’s administration to deal with this issue.
The major challenge for the U.S. government is enforcing BP to pay the economical and environmental costs caused by the oil leak. More significantly, it is an opportunity for Barack Obama to lobby for the usage of the clean energy sources, what he has promised in his campaign. Domestically, clean energies can decrease the U.S. government’s dependency on the oil companies. Internationally, be beneficial for the U.S. National security enabling the U.S. diplomats to have a more extensive strategy. Moreover, modern clean energy resources can be more environmental friendly than fossil fuels. However, the challenge facing the President Obama’s administration is to convince the nation of the necessity for such costly plan at the time of major economical pressure. This will be perhaps an issue which President Obama will tackle today, in his addresses to the nation on the BP oil spill.
Source of the image: The Economist

The Efficacy of the new Sanctions Against Iran

On June 9th, UN Security Council passed resolution 1929 with 12 states voting in favor of the sanctions against the Iranian atomic program. The fourth round of sanctions has a major focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) as well as the arms restrictions. Although the new resolution is an accomplishment against the Iranian atomic program, the setting of it has raised doubts regarding its efficacy.
Meanwhile the new sanctions mentions the IRCG and IRISL, it only “calls upon all States to exercise vigilance over those transactions involving the IRGC that could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems” (text of the resolution 1929). Thus on the one hand, “it falls short of actually mandating international action against these entities” (Christopher R. Wall, Foreign policy Magazine), unless they were contributing to the Iranian nuclear activity. One the other hand, any further blockade appears to be unreasonable at the moment as it will render it extremely difficult to convince other Security Council members to set aside their economical ties with Iran and blockade every Revolutionary Guard or Iranian Shipping Lines activity. Furthermore, a total blockade can carry the potential of a military conflict in the current chaos of the middle-east.
Moreover, the resolution targets the Iranian financial system by prohibiting Iranian banking activities such as “opening new branches” or “establishing new joint ventures” to prevent financial services if there are “reasonable grounds to believe that these activities could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems” (text of the resolution 1929). Thus it does require evidence of the relationship between the financial actions and Iran’s proliferation-sensitive activity for applying the sanctions. However, as the Iranian central bank has been previously accused of supporting the countries proliferation program, it opens new grounds for stronger sanction against the Iranian financial system.
Crucially, the resolutions text sates “that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology.” This can effectively limit Iran obtaining uranium from Venezuela and Bolivia. Although the sanction forbids “uranium mining” and the IAEA magazine states that the uranium ore can be produced from the “underground mines” and the “open-pit mines”, it is not fully clear if uranium mining includes ores.
Most significantly, the sanction sets new arms restrictions, such as banning activities involving “ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” However, the resolution does not prohibit Russia from “selling S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran because those weapons are not covered by the resolution's technical definition of a missile listed on the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms” (Foreign policy). Despite the recent comment of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton on the union of major powers against the Iranian nuclear program, this major gap in the sanctions determines the lack of a united agreement between Russia and the U.S.
Despite President Obama’s trip to Lebanon and his new policy on the Islamic world, Lebanon was the only country with an abstained vote. On the surface, this can undermine the effectiveness of the modern Obama policy. In depth, this is highlighting the influence of pro-Iranian Hezbollah on the Lebanese foreign policy.
Resolution 1929 is certainly an achievement for the Obama administration after month of diplomatic negotiations. One the one hand, one can question the efficacy of the sanctions and require stronger restriction to prevent a nuclear Iran. One the other hand, although that does not seem to be a current strategy of Iran as it can gives rise to the possibility of a military confrontation, one has to remember that as Robert Gates said, an overwhelming pressure can persuade the Iranian hardliner politicians to adopt a more isolationist policy by quitting the IAEA and closing further diplomatic options; a threat which the Iranian parliament is seeking to use by announcing that it will “reconsider relations with the UN nuclear watchdog, following the latest round of UN sanctions” (BBC News). If preventing a nuclear Iran is the current policy of the United States and sanctions, a method to apply this policy, then other methods are required for adaptation of this policy. Unilateral, U.S. sanctions and espionage appears to be the most reasonable options.

Memorial of a Vicious Leader

A new memorial monument of the D-Day, unveiled in a ceremony last week in Virginia, contains the head of Joseph Stalin. The justification for this statue can be the alliance between the United States, Great Britain and Russia during the Second World War, to victoriously overcome the Axis. Despite the suspicion created by the opposite ideological reasoning of the Soviet Union and the United-States this alliance seized until the end of the war. However, Stalin’s World War II history has not only been about his alliance against Nazis, it also caused the death of millions. Aside from the approximate ten million soldiers, roughly fourteen million civilians lost their lives. On the one hand, World War II was the deadliest conflict in the human history in which millions of Russians died among other citizens. On the other hand, many of the ordinary Russians lost their lives directly due to Stalin’s economical and social leadership.
Creating a chaos using the fear of a potential foreign attack, Stalin started his economical agenda using the ‘Five Year Plans’. To catalyze the industrialization and secure his own leadership, he accused many Russians of a broad term called “Kulak”. Initially Kulaks were defined as a class of rich peasants who owned lands. Further, the definition this term went beyond the initial boundaries and many ordinary citizens were suspended to concentration camps in Siberia and often never came back.
Outside the Soviet borders, after occupying Germany under the control of Stalin, Russian soldiers cruelly rapped many of the German citizens. Additionally, to create his buffer zone for securing his power, Stalin not only caused the separation of many nations, but also halted migrations from the East to the West after 1950. Stalin was the same leader that not only did not permit a fully democratic election in many of his satellite states, but also brutality enforced his power over other nations in cases such as the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état.
These were only examples of the viciousness of Stalin. Currently many European diplomats in the U.S. are expressing how they are “shocked as a European citizen and as a European diplomat” (Foreign Policy magazine). This memorial is illustrating how the officials of Virginia singularly interpreted Stains leadership by only observing his alliance with the United States. In a global world, it is essential to understand and value the international society. It is crucial to respect millions who died under Stalin’s order. It is urgent for the Virginia officials to apologize and alter this memorial in respect to millions of humans.

Will Israel Lift the Gaza Blockade?

While Turkey has been holding funerals for the nine activists killed after the Israeli attack on the flotilla, several countries including Israel’s allies, have been condemning the violence causing the death of the activists. Although the Israeli government and the activists are blaming one another for the violence, another ship has left Ireland, carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. The recent attack of the Israeli army on the flotilla in international waters has created major diplomatic challenges for Israel, increasing the political and social pressure for lifting the Gaza blockade. Reacting to this incident, after condemning the violence, the British foreign minister asked for the lifting of the blockade.
The United States, a major ally of Israel, chose a more careful response. Although President Obama called the incident a “tragedy”, the U.S. has been asking for an American investigation and the reduction of pressure over Gaza. Perhaps the economical, political and social ties with Israel and the recent crisis between the Obama administration and Israel over the settlements had a considerable affect on the carefulness of the U.S. response.
As the Irish ship is on its way, many are asking themselves if Israel is capable of handling the increasing international pressure or if it instead will it lift the blockade. After fully supporting Israel’s military reaction to the flotilla, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that he would not allow “Gaza to become Iran’s port”. Although Iran has been a close supporter of Hamas, it was not involved in sending the flotillas. Then why does Netanyahu name Iran in his speech responding to the Israeli confrontation with the activists?
Placing this speech and the U.S. reaction beside one another completes the puzzle. It appears that as the international request for lifting the blockade increases, Israel with the cooperation of the U.S. is building a political fence to justify its further actions. If in the next few weeks there is no diplomatic space for the blockade, Israel might have no options except altering its Gaza policy. Thus to prevent illustrating its loss, Israel can follow the United States' request by decreasing the pressure over Gaza. Using this method, on the one hand Israel does not appear to be a total loser of this series of political incidents. On the other hand, it will follow what its ‘big brother’ requested, symbolizing the U.S. and Israel close brotherhood despite the recent confrontations.
However, as Israel has been holding a unique policy over its security due to its special history and geopolitics, the concerns of a security threat can justify many of its actions. Netanyahu mentioned his concern of an Iranian influence supporting Hamas. This can work as a justification to hold control over Gaza’s borders. The current lobbies might decrease the pressure of the blockade, however Israel is seeking to emphasize the threat to its security by Hamas, supported by the Iranian government, to maintain some sectors of the blockade. Hence it will uphold the control over Gaza rather than losing it all. This will be a security guarantee for Israel and it will keep the dependency of Gaza on the Israeli government.
Once more the threat of Iran is being used/abused to create a chaos justifying one’s actions. Mao Zedong was indeed right when he said: “great chaos will lead to great order”, an order that the creator of chaos desires.

Bitter Truth

The news about the resignation of Kohler from the presidential post of Germany reminded me of the old stereotypical image of the politicians, people who just open their mouth and lie. Rather than focusing on the short and long term causes of this action on the German politics, it is also essential to ask to what extent it is necessary for a politician to lie?
To seek the answer to this question, one has to primarily define lie. One the one hand, lie can be considered as an untruth statement. The role of Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair can be a good example for explaining this type of lie. After being fully aware of the arms embargo to Iran and funding the contras in Nicaragua, he publicly denied his direct involvement. Further, despite the possible connection of the arm embargo to Iran, who was in a war with Iraq at the time, with the release of the American hostages in Lebanon; Reagan fully denied this relationship. Declassified document have shed light on many of the aspects of this event.
On other hand, one might define lie as covering the truth. As an example, although Kissinger wrote Crisis to deeply discuss his role in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, he fully ignores his first trip to Israel after the initiation of the war. Ironically, it was in the first trip that Kissinger committed slight mistakes with the major costs. A communication misunderstanding in setting the time of the cease-fire with Israel caused the continuation of the war and created a possibility of an atomic war. Depending on the definition of truth, one might call this a lie or hiding the facts.
The question remaining is if the politicians are able to say the truth? Will our political system function on the bases of truth? Kohler lost his position because he argued that Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan is due to economical reasons. I certainly support this argument and suggest that economical factors are major reasons for NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. However, neither the German public liked this statement (even my German friend fully disliked this honest statement) nor the politicians. So should the politicians be honest when their honesty costs their career? Should we know the truth when its taste is so bitter that we will hate it? To what extent should politics be an open game? Where is the border between propaganda and the facts? I am still thinking…

Further reading on Kohler's resignation: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16261428&source=features_box_main

-Father and Son-

Lalayi*
melody of entity
harmony of honesty
orchestra of certainty

Sleep
dark dream of heaven
-----Walk
white road of hatred
----------Run
timeless young bloom
---------------Fly
free like wingless birds

Lalayi
melody of care
harmony of chaos
musicless orchestra

-Ramtin (May 23, 2010)-


*Lalayi: Lullaby in Farsi.

Ode to The Homeless Man and His Bear

I see you every day, every morning, every evening and every night. I do not know you. But you have become part of my life. Perhaps I am only a human to you but, you are the guy with the sweet bear to me.
You do not seem to have a house.
I see you every morning. I want to stop and say: "Can I bring you some bread and cheese and Salami?" But my unconscious tells me "shame on you. Have some respect for this guy. Do not make him feel even worse." After I pass you, my conscious answers: "Shame on you couldn't you just owe a second of your day to someone that is part of your life?"
I see you every Evening. I want to invite you for a warm dinner, perhaps with some wine and a nice music. But then my unconscious says: "Are you sure?" My conscious answers: "aren't you?" Then I am lost in this debate that it is already late for any sort of dinner.
I see you every night. I want to ask you to sleep a night at my place. Perhaps, it would be warm and possibly your bear can sleep on my carpet. Then my unconscious says: "You hardly have a place for yourself!"My conscious too tired to reply. The day ends with the victory of my unconscious. Like every other day.
Image:http://www.metapedia.com/wiki/images/BANKSY-beggar-m.jpg

"Killer whale drowns SeaWorld trainer in Orlando."

This was the title of several new agencies yesterday. Meanwhile it shocked everyone; the investigations are taking place to clarify the details which caused the death of the trainer. The doubts are whether the “trainer either slipped or fell” into the water which caused serious injuries and eventually her death. This news made me wonder about the selfishness of humanity.
Imagine how day and night thousands of whales and dolphins ask themselves: “Why am I here?” There is no one to answer them. I want to answer them.
My dear beautiful whales and dolphins,
You are all imprisoned because we are humans and you are not, because we are selfish enough to close our eyes and be cruel for millions of dollars that you make for us. We are egocentric enough to watch your pain and laugh. This is all because we, humans can be really selfish and ignorant. My dear beautiful whales and dolphins, it is partly your fault too. You have a happy, charming smile. You are able to jump up and down and enlighten our day. It is your fault too!!!
My dear beautiful whales and dolphins, I hope a day comes that you have the power to imprison us so we understand what it feels to live in a small cell and be the puppet of someone. I hope a day comes that we make freedom rather than money. I hope….
Maybe before blaming the retailer for the retaliation, we have to think why did it all happen?
Image:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/362405199_e16f93e821.jpg

After finishing The new John Lewis Gaddis book, "The Cold War, A New History",I have two statements from millions of conclusions in my head to write:
1. Gorbachev was one of the ONLY politicians ever deserving to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
2. I truly enjoyed reading Gaddis.

It might appear that with this two statements, I have reached an absolutely naive conclusion out of the complex history of the Cold War. But these were only two of my many conclusions and indeed the most emotional ones.
F.T.Image from:http:http://i.biblio.com/z/956/119/9781565119956.jpg

Last year I was talking to a fellow friend of mine who was applying for different universities. When I asked him: “How come you are only considering UBC and SFU?” he responded: “I want to be here for the Olympics!”
After The Canadian Olympic Association was able to overcome South Korea and Austria on July 2, 2003 and officially announce Vancouver as the host of 2010 Winter Olympic, several critics supported or opposed this action. The supporters mentioned the social and economical benefits of the Olympics. Aside from all the excitements that the Olympics generate among the Vancouver residence, it would also peruse the British Colombia’s government to consider a certain budget for updating the city and its transportation system. Indeed, few weeks before the Olympics opening ceremony, there are obvious changes within our community. The new Canada Line which connecting Richmond to Vancouver is an example of one of these rapid changes. Moreover, the supporters argued that the Olympic Games would increase job opportunities for a short period and it would also have considerable economical benefits.
On the other hand, the oppositions argued about the high cost of such event. Meanwhile, Canada is struggling with the economical crisis, only one billion dollars is being spent on the security of the Olympics. Thus the oppositions questioned the reasons behind such a costly event. They proposed that other ways of spending billions of dollars could have been on major programs for creating jobs or solving old but fundamental issues such as homelessness in Vancouver. Lastly, Vancouver will be hosting one of the biggest sport events of the year regardless of all the supports and opposes. Although the only hope remaining is that in the long term the government would use the economical profit of the Olympics to solve fundamental issues such as homelessness, the doubts remaining is whether a government that previously did not plan a major program to solve such problem, would do that now? Only time can answer this question.
F.N. Image from: http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/april09/images/vancouver-olympics-2010-language-test-online.jpg

Dream of light (A comment on volunteering at Villa Carital)

Everyone can’t enter it. You have to be able to enter the special code before opening the door. You step in and the door closes behind you. Then a sudden mysterious alternation happens and you walk into a dream. In the dream people look similar to ordinary humans but their heart is made of light. They are so different that it makes you act differently. They are so kind that it makes you kind. Hope flies around the air of the hopeless dream. Their countdown has started but they still smile, laugh, and love. They don’t belong to the darkness. Their heart is made out of light.
The time tells you to leave. You open the door and step into the darkness….

Ode to the Book

When I close a book
I open life.
I hear
faltering cries
among harbours.
Copper ignots
slide down sand-pits
to Tocopilla.
Night time.
Among the islands
our ocean
throbs with fish,
touches the feet, the thighs,
the chalk ribs
of my country.
The whole of night
clings to its shores, by dawn
it wakes up singing
as if it had excited a guitar.

The ocean's surge is calling.
The wind
calls me
and Rodriguez calls,
and Jose Antonio--
I got a telegram
from the "Mine" Union
and the one I love
(whose name I won't let out)
expects me in Bucalemu.

No book has been able
to wrap me in paper,
to fill me up
with typography,
with heavenly imprints
or was ever able
to bind my eyes,
I come out of books to people orchards
with the hoarse family of my song,
to work the burning metals
or to eat smoked beef
by mountain firesides.
I love adventurous
books,
books of forest or snow,
depth or sky
but hate
the spider book
in which thought
has laid poisonous wires
to trap the juvenile
and circling fly.
Book, let me go.
I won't go clothed
in volumes,
I don't come out
of collected works,
my poems
have not eaten poems--
they devour
exciting happenings,
feed on rough weather,
and dig their food
out of earth and men.
I'm on my way
with dust in my shoes
free of mythology:
send books back to their shelves,
I'm going down into the streets.
I learned about life
from life itself,
love I learned in a single kiss
and could teach no one anything
except that I have lived
with something in common among men,
when fighting with them,
when saying all their say in my song.
Pablo Neruda

Another Iranian Revolution?

(The photo from "The New York Times")

After the Iranian elections in June 2009, meanwhile President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started his second term with the majority of votes, the opposition candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi challenged him by questioning the validity of the elections. Since then, a series of protests erupted in Iran at irregular intervals which have become known as the “Green Movement”. Immediately following the creation of this movement, the international observers doubted the likelihood of a serious impact of the demonstrations. However, after the recent December 28th demonstrations in which without any previous announcements by their leaders, a vast number of opposition supporters took to the streets of Iran on the holy day of Ashura, various political analysts started to reflect on the possible long term outcomes of the “Green Movement” rather than its persistence.
During the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, it was highly possible that after the revolutionaries overcome the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s regime, they would create a fundamentalist government. But after several months of demonstrations it is still uncertain what the outcome of the demonstrations will be.