Iran has clearly been a hotbed of issues for thousands of years; however, recent developments have proven that the Supreme Leader has little to no fear of outside interference. The tide has turned in such a way that rouge states have the upper-hand simply because they believe that the only viable options on the table for the UN or the US are empty threats and meaningless sanctions. With other terror threats spreading US militaries thin and wearing on home moral, Iran threatens to spit nuclear paper wads while the teacher is busy in the hall.
The single largest issue in play is the erosion of ‘Western’ supremacy. Whatever your opinion of American foreign policy, a century of dominance kept Iranian tension inside its borders (though with some local exceptions). While the US never actually had direct control of Iran, the model of periphery decay applies much the same as it does with many great imperial powers of the past. Ancient Rome began its downward slide many decades before its final ‘fall.’ A good example of this is their control of what is now much of Great Britain. When Rome was strong, they could afford to bulk up military assets on the island and wage a long-term pseudo cold-war. As tension at home in the form of infighting, poverty, and often poor leadership shifted the policy of strength and offence to one of preservation, local peoples rose to drive out the weak Roman forces along with many of their cultural attributes in an effort to restore what they felt had been overshadowed or taken from them for so many years by a foreign power. Later, the same islands saw the decline of the British Empire with the gradual independence of colonies into the mid-20th century. As Imperial power weakened, local nationals could vie for freedom (or slowly rip the decaying limbs of the empire apart, depending on your perspective).
As American power weakens – or is even perceived to have weakened abroad, there will be more nations like Iran. While the belief of American exceptionalism may still be true for some of us, President Ahmadinejad and others are no longer intimidated by the world police force that had belonged to the United States for so many years.
By Mark Fugitt
A blog designed to examine the historical background behind contemporary political and religious issues facing real people, right now.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
We Three Kings: 50 Years of Egyptian Revolution
Rarely is the ancient history of a society more engrained in the common knowledge of the world than its modern one, but this is obviously true of Egypt. If you are one of the millions of people who heard about the turmoil in the streets along the Nile and scratched your head, you are not alone. Until recently, almost no American could tell you the background of the Egyptian government and only a few more could identify its long-term leader, President Mubarak. Perhaps the 2011 Egyptian Revolution is not isolated frustration with an authoritarian state, but a continuation of a failed hope began in the 1952 Revolution that racked the same ancient streets 59 years ago.
While a constitution insuring some liberty and balance of power was installed in 1923, Egyptian governments continued to fall short of expectations and this dissatisfaction created the perfect storm for revolution in the early 1950s. When revolution finally happened, civilian governments proved unstable and a group of 9 men known as the Free Officers took charge. They ferreted out communists and extremists including the Muslim Brotherhood. (In fact, the Brotherhood has been illegal since 1954). On June 18, 1953 General Mohamed Naguib became the first president. His tenure was short-lived and ended in confusion. By 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser officially became the second president of Egypt. The nation grew stronger and more westernized under Nasser, and this included Western styles of entitlement programs that stabilized some of the unrest. They also moved towards modernization with the building of modern infrastructure such as the Aswan High Dam as well. The apparent social advances appear to have temporarily pacified the general population but failed to address true progress and created a false hope and reliance on the state. When the government failed to deliver to the same degree, the unrest began to ripen once again.
When Nasser died in September of 1970, his VP Anwar el-Sadat took control and was officially elected in on October 15, 1970. The administration continued to focus on a secular state, angering the many religious fundamental groups despite a war with Israel that ended in a peace treaty. On October 6, 1981, Islamic extremists assassinated Sadat during a military parade. 11 others were killed including four American military liaisons. The soon-to-be fourth president, Hosni Mubarak was injured but the then vice president was elected president later on that same month. He had been vice president since 1975 and faced many of the same problems that had been tied to Sadat.
Here’s the bottom line: Since 1956, the people of Egypt have seen only three presidents – all of whom served as vice presidents for their predecessors (in comparison, the US has had 11 different leaders beginning with Eisenhower’s 1956 successful re-election bid and there have been six shifts in political party). Consequently, the three Egyptian leaders carried on the ideals of their mentors/groomers essentially creating a monolithic persona for over half a century. This pseudo monarchy seemed to work well enough when the programs of Socialized Islam provided security and peace but failed when held up to the international standard of freedom in wake of the overthrow of the Tunisian President. So, when choosing sides, ask yourself if you would be happy with the Dwight Eisenhower administration in 2011 America. Love him or hate him, Ike would have needed to adapt to fit the modern world and that is exactly what the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations indeed are failing to do. Adopted in 1971, Egypt’s current constitution extols the power of the people: “The dignity of every individual is natural reflection of the dignity of his nation, for each individual is a cornerstone in the edifice of the homeland. This homeland derives its strength and prestige from the value of each individual, his activity and dignity.” Hopefully, the country that produced the Pyramids can once again realize the value of the human cornerstone before it is too late.
(http://www.parliament.gov.eg/English/Constitution/AnnouncementDocument/)
While a constitution insuring some liberty and balance of power was installed in 1923, Egyptian governments continued to fall short of expectations and this dissatisfaction created the perfect storm for revolution in the early 1950s. When revolution finally happened, civilian governments proved unstable and a group of 9 men known as the Free Officers took charge. They ferreted out communists and extremists including the Muslim Brotherhood. (In fact, the Brotherhood has been illegal since 1954). On June 18, 1953 General Mohamed Naguib became the first president. His tenure was short-lived and ended in confusion. By 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser officially became the second president of Egypt. The nation grew stronger and more westernized under Nasser, and this included Western styles of entitlement programs that stabilized some of the unrest. They also moved towards modernization with the building of modern infrastructure such as the Aswan High Dam as well. The apparent social advances appear to have temporarily pacified the general population but failed to address true progress and created a false hope and reliance on the state. When the government failed to deliver to the same degree, the unrest began to ripen once again.
When Nasser died in September of 1970, his VP Anwar el-Sadat took control and was officially elected in on October 15, 1970. The administration continued to focus on a secular state, angering the many religious fundamental groups despite a war with Israel that ended in a peace treaty. On October 6, 1981, Islamic extremists assassinated Sadat during a military parade. 11 others were killed including four American military liaisons. The soon-to-be fourth president, Hosni Mubarak was injured but the then vice president was elected president later on that same month. He had been vice president since 1975 and faced many of the same problems that had been tied to Sadat.
Here’s the bottom line: Since 1956, the people of Egypt have seen only three presidents – all of whom served as vice presidents for their predecessors (in comparison, the US has had 11 different leaders beginning with Eisenhower’s 1956 successful re-election bid and there have been six shifts in political party). Consequently, the three Egyptian leaders carried on the ideals of their mentors/groomers essentially creating a monolithic persona for over half a century. This pseudo monarchy seemed to work well enough when the programs of Socialized Islam provided security and peace but failed when held up to the international standard of freedom in wake of the overthrow of the Tunisian President. So, when choosing sides, ask yourself if you would be happy with the Dwight Eisenhower administration in 2011 America. Love him or hate him, Ike would have needed to adapt to fit the modern world and that is exactly what the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations indeed are failing to do. Adopted in 1971, Egypt’s current constitution extols the power of the people: “The dignity of every individual is natural reflection of the dignity of his nation, for each individual is a cornerstone in the edifice of the homeland. This homeland derives its strength and prestige from the value of each individual, his activity and dignity.” Hopefully, the country that produced the Pyramids can once again realize the value of the human cornerstone before it is too late.
(http://www.parliament.gov.eg/English/Constitution/AnnouncementDocument/)
Labels:
Egypt,
Middle East,
Mubarak,
Muslim Brotherhood,
Nasser,
Revolution,
Sadat
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Crisis in Tunisia and its International Significance
The once thriving North African nation of Tunisia continues to languish in near chaos. Former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali remains in self-preserving Saudi exile after his January 14, 2011 resignation and flight. During his longtime administration, he was first elected in 1987, the president made efforts to Westernize the nation and to effectively utilize and market the Tunisian oil fields. The tiny nation had seen an effective relationship with the European Union and especially with the nation of France who was vital in the development of nuclear power plants though they were not to be completed for some time. Now these plans lay in tenuous indecision as cries of unfair elections and long-term corruption ring out against the backdrop of burning train stations. The most recent election of 2009 saw Zine El Abidine Ben Ali apparently win by a landslide. And as Americans it is right to side with the people of Tunisia against a de facto dictator. The danger lies in the power vacuum.
While the interim government fights to regain order and maintain civil peace, the implications are massive for the United States. If a Western friendly nation can be installed and maintained, the fallout may not reach beyond the borders of the tiny nation itself, but clearly another failed nation in northern Africa presents a formerly uncharted safe haven for potential and established terror organizations. One has only to compare the collapse to Tunisia to the rogue nation of Somalia to cause immediate nervousness on the parts of US diplomats and policy makers. Couple this with the nuclear research set to transform into peaceful power stations by 2019 and you create a nation that cannot be allowed to fail. Perhaps the Tunisian nation will look forward from this experience and realign itself with European allies to forge a better future for this historically volatile region rich in cultural tradition and natural resources. In the meantime, the rest of the world, both good and bad, will closely watch their progress.
While the interim government fights to regain order and maintain civil peace, the implications are massive for the United States. If a Western friendly nation can be installed and maintained, the fallout may not reach beyond the borders of the tiny nation itself, but clearly another failed nation in northern Africa presents a formerly uncharted safe haven for potential and established terror organizations. One has only to compare the collapse to Tunisia to the rogue nation of Somalia to cause immediate nervousness on the parts of US diplomats and policy makers. Couple this with the nuclear research set to transform into peaceful power stations by 2019 and you create a nation that cannot be allowed to fail. Perhaps the Tunisian nation will look forward from this experience and realign itself with European allies to forge a better future for this historically volatile region rich in cultural tradition and natural resources. In the meantime, the rest of the world, both good and bad, will closely watch their progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)