Implications of the Iraqi Crisis

By Jordan Morris

Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Within the last few weeks we have watched a paradigm shift in Middle Eastern foreign relations. With The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham on Baghdad’s doorstep, the US is confronted yet again with the prospect of becoming involved in one of the most turbulent states of the Middle East. ISIS’s conquest in Northern Iraq and Syria has already led to President Obama doing something no one thought he would ever do: send American troops back to Iraq. The limited deployment brought some 300 military advisors to assist the Iraqi army in fighting the lingering ISIS militants who have stopped just short of Baghdad, but have explicitly stated their intent to take Iraq’s capital city. ISIS fighters, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, will find that Baghdad is not Mosul or Tikrit, and at that the Iraqi government’s last stand will not be taken alone. 

Iraq has pleaded for help from the US and received a limited response, one that is unlikely to be followed up with any significant US presence or even the air-strikes that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had petitioned for. Even without major assistance from the US, Maliki’s government may still stand, thanks to Iran. On June 18th Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, gave a speech at the Iraq-Iran border, pledging to do whatever it took to protect Shia populations and holy sites in southern Iraq (a move reminiscent of Vladimir Putin, who invaded Crimea citing his government’s duty to protect Russian nationals in Ukraine). At the eleventh hour, when an ISIS attack on Baghdad is imminent , we may very well see an anomaly of world politics take place—cooperation between the US and Iran. Both Iran and the US have been clear that there will be no conventional military coalition between the countries, but undoubtedly both recognize a common interest in protecting the current state of Iraq. Consequently, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has condemned cooperation, and suggested that the US is using this issue to further sink its teeth into Middle-Eastern affairs. 

The ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ scenario is an optimistic look at the future of relations between the US and its historical adversary, but some, and specifically Israel, are wary of cooperation with the Islamic Republic. Understandably the small Jewish state is highly skeptical of and opposed to its biggest ally cooperating with a government that has time and time again threatened to destroy it, but Iranian action supported by the U.S. could actually benefit Jerusalem. ISIS has been clear its vision of al-Sham includes the lands of Palestine. The militants announced the development of a special unit, the Al Quds Unit, whose mission is to destroy the “Zionist regime occupying Palestine,” according to an article on CounterPunch.org. 

Update on Iran

By Leela Gilbertson

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

After the last few weeks of financial crisis in Iran, it does not look like it will let up any time soon. Now European countries have increased their sanctions against Iran. The sanctions are coming from the European Union. Their hope is by creating sanctions on travel, oil and shipping it will stop Iran’s nuclear program. Their sanctions also increase the pressure on the Central Bank of Iran, which has also been struggling since the currency crisis of last several weeks. 

Another aspect of the meeting of the European Union the want “room for negotiation.” This will be between the P5+1 and Iran. “The P5+1 have asked Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20 per cent.” (Al Jazeera) Since the demands have not been meant yet, more sanctions will be placed against Iran to encourage them to talk. "In the last couple of months Iran has not budged on any of the key issues and we must therefore increase the pressure through sanctions," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in Berlin. (The Jerusalem Post) 

Iran's Border with Afghanistan and Pakistan

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke up against sanctions. He used words to describe the West like “illogical” and “barbaric.” Khamenei was ralling his supporters. "They may create problems. Mismanagement may even increase these problems..." said Khamenei. (Huffington Post) He went on to say that the West is struggling themselves with recession and Iran can handle their problems by themselves. He wants to tell his people that he is listening and understands their problems. 

In a New York Time article, discussing Iran’s drug problem. Afghan and Pakistani drug gangs are smuggling drugs across the boarder. Iran has been trying to stop this drug problem that has caused many deaths of Iranian border officers. Iran would not let other countries come in to the country to access their drug problem, but now with the nuclear program being looking into, it may open the door for other problems in the country to be looked at. 

Sanctions on Iran: Effects and the Future

By Weston Lofdahl

Last week I covered the recent protests that broke out in Tehran as a result of the crumbling value of Iran's currency, the rial. One of the factors that have caused the rial to drop in value has been the sanctions placed on Iran from the United States, the United Nations, and other nations around the world, but how large of an impact have these sanctions actually had on Iran? This article from BBC does an excellent job at showing how different aspects of the Iranian economy have been impacted as sanctions were put in place and shows how the Iranian economy reacted to certain events through its history. 

The first graph to the right is from the BBC article above. It shows a decrease in oil production in Iran since 2005. The dark vertical line marks the first round of UN sanctions placed on Iran. Each dotted line after that point is another round of UN sanctions. The second graph shows a similar decrease in GDP growth since the first round of UN sanctions, marked again by the dark vertical line. With oil production decreasing it is no surprise that GDP growth is also decreasing since oil exports make up about 60% of Iran's revenue. There is no doubt that the sanctions Iran is facing have had an impact on their economy. What must be asked now is if the international community will continue to create more sanctions or let the current sanctions play out more. 

Next Monday there will be a meeting of ministers from the European Union to discuss whether or not there will be stricter sanctions placed on Iran. Philip Hammond, the defense secretary in the British government, said that the sanctions should be tightened on Iran in an attempt to generate, "potentially regime-threatening disruption and dissent," that could threaten the current Iranian government. Hammond also noted that there has been talks between the UK and the US about launching a trade embargo that would stop any imports and exports coming through Iran's central bank. Hammond's statements show the very real possibility of much broader sanctions being imposed on Iran in the coming months. Critics of the sanctions say that the sanctions are already causing enough pain to the citizens and don't need to be extended.

Obama, Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu at the UN

By Katie Hollander

On the week of September 25th, Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program took center stage at the United Nations. The leaders of the United States, Israel, and Iran all made speeches giving their point of view regarding Iran’s desire to develop a nuclear weapon.President Obama gave the first address on September 25th whereby he stated that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. President Obama thinks that allowing Iran to be a nuclear power would risk the state of “Israel’s existence, start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and risk the global economy.” President Obama declined giving a specific timetable for military action. On September 26th, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also gave a speech at the UN declaring his point of view on the conflict. Earlier in the week, he used strong words when talking about “Israel and their right to exist”. In his speech to the UN, he toned it down, but he feels the U.S. is using “nuclear intimidation” against his country. In his speech, he denied that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and is only using their “nuclear program for peaceful purposes.” On September 27th, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made the final speech at the United Nations. In his speech, he said again that he wants the world to “draw a red line that Iran can’t cross.” “If they cross the line, the world would use military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.” He used a “childlike” drawing of a bomb to illustrate how far Iran has come in their development process. According to his drawing, Iran is at a 70% enrichment level and he thinks Iran shouldn’t get further than 90%. The analyst at Foreign Policy Magazine thinks that the speech was also directed at the U.S presidential candidates to try and force them on a timetable for action.

Iran and Israel

Owen Wirth

The history of these two countries is one entrenched in hatred. Iran and Israel have been two states based on religions in the Middle East, the region where religion has its most profound influence. Israel has been called the Western outpost in the Middle East by Iranian leaders, and they have made damning comments about the nation. This has lead to an anticipated increase in tension between the two states as the question remains about Iran's eventual nuclear capabilities. 

While Israel has maintained the position that it would be unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear state, Iran continues to not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect its potential militarized nuclear material in the site at Parchin. Without diplomatic means to ensure Israel's security, the country has been left with few options. The killing of scientists in Iran has left all fingers pointing to Israel or groups backed by Israel, particularly by Iran. Iranian officials have claimed that these attacks were backed by the Israeli Regime and they responded by formally filing a complaint to the UN Security Council. The claim is that Israel had financially and logistically supported the Muslim group in Iran called the People's Mujahedin of Iran which advocates the overthrow of the Iranian government. The specific targeting of nuclear scientists suggests that a role is played by a country with strong national interest against Iran becoming a nuclear power, with Israel being at the top of that list. 

On the flip side, Israeli officials have accused Iran of several attempted assassinations on ambassadors and Israeli embassies around the world. These attempts have been attributed to Iran by Israel and others but no formal allegations have been made. There has even been mention that the "attempts" may be simply planned by the Israeli government to draw sympathy towards the country and to gain international support for a military intervention in Iran. The attempts on Israeli officials' lives give cause for concern to the growing tension within the region, as it seems as all sides are heading down a path to war in the region. War has seemed likely in that region for years now and it just seems to be forcing the issue into a more sinister realm.

Iran: Signs of Change?

By Jason Syrmopoulos

There was an election in Iran last week whereby Grand Ayatollah Khamenei solidified his power base and tamped down any factionalization of the Iranian political system. The domination of the election by hardliners will actually unify the message of Iran to the US and make for a likely more stable process in negotiations between Iran and the west. The six major world powers have agreed to hold talks with Iran. This may signal a shift in the conflict, as Iran has also agreed to inspections of a suspected secret nuclear weapons site. Consider this statement by Supreme Leader Khamenei: 

"The purpose of the uproar they [the West] cause is to stop us. They know that we are not after nuclear weapons. They already know this. I do not have any doubts that in the countries that are opposed to us, the organizations in charge of decision-making are fully aware that we are not after nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not at all beneficial to us. Moreover, from an ideological and [velayat-e] faqih perspective, we consider developing nuclear weapons as unlawful. We consider using such weapons as a big sin. We also believe that keeping such weapons is futile and dangerous, and we will never go after them. They know this, but they stress the issue in order to stop our movement"

This shows that Iran is, and intends to be, a rational actor. I believe that has given the Obama administration a renewed strength to challenge Israel on a military option and to push for diplomacy that is may be now taking shape. Although Israel has not made a decision whether to attack or not, they have made it clear they will do what is in the perceived Israeli interest. I suggest the US learns this lesson and chooses to do the same, and does not blindly let Israel lead us down a path to war of aggression. If they feel that is what is necessary for their stability then so be it but let it be without US assistance if they don't want to follow our lead on the issue.

Politicking Iran

By Owen Wirth

In dealing with the potential conflict in Iran there has clearly been a lot of discussion from political elites in America as to what the proper course of action should be. This being an election year this discussion has also come with a dose of pandering to the public. Republican candidates for president are pandering mostly to the base of the party, while trying to have general election appeal; meanwhile much of what is heard from President Obama has been talk of justification for his actions, mainly that he remains adamant that the effect of the sanctions has had an impact on the situation and it is not clear if more pressure, political or military, is necessary. 

President Obama warned the Republican party about the dangers "loose talk of war" while giving a speech to the AIPAC, the most influential Israeli lobby group in the country, saying that throwing around the idea of military conflict with Iran will only bolster their craving for an active nuclear program. In this address he says that both Israel and America are in agreement that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and that sanctions still have the possibility of working, but the option is ultimately on Iran to "choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end." 

Republicans on the other hand have taken a more militarized approach to Iran. According to Mitt Romney's website, if he were president the option of military intervention would always be on the table (just as it is for Obama), but he would insist on shoring up the Arab alliances the U.S. has in the Middle East and also actively having aircraft carriers present in the region. Romney also supports sanctions on Iran but says they "are not ends in themselves." Rick Santorum's website lays out a plethora of options that he would carry out if elected, including treating nuclear scientists as enemy combatants in the Iranian regime and developing a military attack to have available if it becomes necessary. 

Michael Walzer's concept of sufficient threat becomes a thought provoking concept after discussing these three positions. According to Walzer, an attack is only justified as non-aggressive when three conditions have been satisfied by an outside sovereign nation: there must be a manifest intent to injure, there must be active preparation towards this action, and waiting must greatly magnify the risk. 

Looking at the situation from Iran's position, Barack Obama's position immediately does not satisfy the first prong because he has explicitly stated that military action, though on the table, is not something the U.S. should be actively preparing for. Under these policies an Iranian attack or aggressive action would be unjustified. 

If Mitt Romney were current leader, it would seem that America would have an intent to injure because it would be reassuring alliances and increasing military presence in the region while simultaneously stating stark opposition to the Iranian nation and its policies and constantly insisting that military action is the best option. Romney's position does not entail the third prong of waiting increasing the risk because the only thing that would increase the risk is continued preparatory nuclear acts by Iran. 

On the flip side, Iran's actions have not satisfied all three prongs of the Walzerian principle either, because exaggerated threats don't qualify as a manifest intent to injure, and although they have resisted any inspection so it is impossible to know for sure, we cannot assume they are actively preparing for attack. However, with the stake of nuclear weapons it could be argued that the third prong is more than satisfied because waiting can increase the risk tenfold by Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Sanctions on Iran

By Owen Wirth

At the end of last year, late December, the US and the European Union announced widespread sanctions on Iran as a result of its questionable nuclear program. These are not the first sanctions laid upon Iranian institutions in recent years however, and also not the first time world governments have feared a nuclear Iran. Iran has been on America's watch list since the Cold War as a political interest and now an interest for its role in global terrorism. The sanctions imposed have been mostly directed at Iran's Central Bank and focused on its oil market. However, since the 70's there have been various sanctions against the different institutions in Islamic Iran to try and reduce the possibility of their attaining a nuclear missile. In 1987 President Reagan issued an Executive Order that limited all Iranian imports to pertaining strictly to news material or petroleum products refined from Iranian crude oil in a third country. This was followed by President Clinton's executive orders in 1995 and 1997 that prohibited all individuals from trading or investing with Iran. These steps were seen to be directly stunting the growth of Iran's nuclear development program, but now in recent months sanctions have been taken to cripple the national economy of Iran in an effort to stop their nuclear proliferation by any means necessary. 

Of the three entities actively sanctioning Iranian business (The U.S., The U.N. and the European Union) the United States has the broadest range of general restrictions prohibiting business with any national institutions and even disallowing business with foreign investors in anything Iran. The European Union has sanctions against more organizations than the U.S., but all are involving organizations that contribute to the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile the U.N. has the least sanctions because countries on the Security Council (China and Russia) are able to veto measures that impede their trade alliance with Iran. The most crippling of these sanctions are those pertaining to its crude oil industry. Because so many countries have limited imports from it, Iran is now seeking to enhance its exchange of oil with Pakistan and also to construct a gas pipeline across the border of the two countries. Both countries are having troubling economic times so it is possible that the move could backfire and cost both countries millions of dollars. The move to Pakistan simply emphasizes the effects these sanctions are having on the long term goals of Iran. The sanctions limit the output of oil on the international market, but government officials say that there are enough reserves to deal with the embargo effectively, with countries like Saudi Arabia pledging to increase the amount of oil exported. 

Iran is the fourth ranking country in amount of oil produced per day, with half the amount produced by the US, but over 200,000 more barrels a day than China. The cumulative sanctions have reduced the value of the currency in Iran by half, and have greatly reduced capital goods available in Iran. The idea is now that the U.S. wants to wait to see if the sanctions will be enough to stop the development of a militarized nuclear program, but countries like Israel are trying to force the hand of the U.S. to use military action to bring Iranian development to a halt before it is too late.

Iran: The Drum Beats On

By Jason Syrmopoulos

IAEA inspectors have once again come to Tehran and have again been  denied access  to any suspected nuclear sites. On another front, the spy wars between Iran and Israel have increased in lethality as of late as Iran has decided to engage in retaliation for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. There has been an ongoing campaign of assassination of scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program over the last few years with the most recent occurring a couple of weeks ago in Tehran. Subsequently, attacks on Israeli diplomats abroad were carried out in New Delhi, Tblisi, and Bangkok with varying degrees of success. This draws attention to the fact that it looks as if Iran has decided that they will no longer allow themselves to be the passive victim in this campaign but will look to a strategy of using proportional responses to aggression.

What is also of interest, is that the US and British are becoming increasingly vocal in opposition to a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. Iran is now also taking a page out of the Bush Doctrine, claiming that they have a right of pre-emption. With so many divergent interests, and lack of dialogue between Iran and the west, the prospects of avoiding war seem very slim.

Update on Iran

By Owen Wirth

Iran has been a major player in Middle Eastern Relations for a long time now and has been the focal point of many international conflicts that have occurred there. There have recently been headlines surrounding Iran concerning their nuclear development program. Most nations have signed a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which holds each nation accountable for their actions when pursuing nuclear capabilities. This treaty has not been signed by a few countries because it is said to favor those countries which already have the ability to weaponize its nuclear material. It is a condition of the treaty that all countries that had nuclear weapons when it was signed (those being the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China) that they will not distribute their nuclear weapons to those countries without them, and it is an ultimate goal to achieve complete disarmament. To ensure that the NPT is maintained to a respectable level, there is an organization called the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that conducts inspections of nuclear facilities. 

When word leaked out that Iran was trying to produce enriched uranium the IAEA was sent to Iran by the UN to investigate the safety of such a program. Now, it is detailed in the NPT that countries may pursue enriched uranium for so-called "civilian" purposes, like nuclear reactors and radiation treatment. These are legitimate reasons for a country to strive for nuclear power, but the IAEA revealed in their report that some aspects of Iran's nuclear development program only make sense if they are planning to weaponize their nuclear material. This is a direct violation of the NPT (which Iran has signed) and warrants collaborative action on the part of the international community. This action has come in the form of economic sanctions from the United States and the European Union. President Obama signed a law punishing any financial institution that would conduct business with Iran's central bank. And recently the EU just declared that it will not purchase any of its oil from Iran, with South Korea and Japan making similar pledges. The EU accounts for about one fifth of Iran's oil buyers and South Korea and Japan make up about another fifth. We still have to wait and see what will be the response by Iran in the next few weeks.

Source Articles:
The Economist 
New York Times