The US and Iran: Periphery Decay Creates Nuclear Spit-wads

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.

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/)

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.

Mistrust Thrives at the Mideast Table

The background of recent Mideast peace talks in Washington, D.C. is notably long and complicated, but few could trace it to its modern day political origins. You could credit President Carter with taking the first step in formal peace talks with the Camp David Accords in 1978 but this agreement came after decades of tension and warfare and we’ve all seen how well it worked. To find the true origin of the 20th century conflict as we know it, one must look deeper into the aftermath of the First World War. As the Ottoman Empire, based in modern Turkey, crumbled after their ill-fated alliance with Germany, the great Western powers carved up this last vestige of the classic empires of old. Both France and Great Britain hoped to gain large portions of the newly available countries rich in history, and a newly desirable product: oil.
Representatives of both nations met behind closed doors to develop an agreement that divided the Middle East into “spheres of influence.” French representative François Georges-Picot and Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain signed the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 essentially ending all hopes of Arab sovereignty that had been dangled in front of many local fighters in exchange for their aid in WWI. (You may remember the agreement if you paid close attention at the end of the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia). This ‘gave’ Syria and parts of Turkey to the French, and Jordan and Iraq to the British while allowing Allied control of today’s Israel. This set up the later creation of the nation of Israel in 1948, but also significantly marked the lack of concern for Arab interests by Western powers.
The hard fact is that Arab nations and peoples do not trust the West, yet we continue to hold the exclusive reigns of any peace effort bandwagon. We should certainly not give up what we believe to be the noble cause because it is difficult, but America needs to look beyond the typical methods and make an effort to bring new negotiators to the table. The unanswerable problem remains that the nation of Israel was established by mandate of the West thus usurping local Palestinian control. Consequently, Israel can never break free of this ‘buddy’ status with the West. They are hated by many pro-Palestinian groups simply for existing, and regardless of your opinion on this issue, this prejudice makes the peace efforts truly a process that America is hardly helping by continuously reminding everyone of the privileged relationship of Israel. I have no good solution here but merely an observation. If you have 4 children and chose a favorite one publically, you would hardly be the person to sit down and discuss fair justice when they all got in a fight. Palestinians believe that the Americans will always side with Israel and that they are merely being pandered to. They need to believe that their presence and opinions are valued and that we are not merely listening just to say we let them talk.

Presidential Requirements? Because Everyone Keeps Wandering Into That Job, Right?

Two men have proposed requiring new United States presidents to present the Chief Justice a hand-written copy of the US Constitution prior to being sworn in. They state that this would make the president’s pledge to uphold and defend the framework of our government against all enemies more real for them. (Read the article) If nothing else it would be a tangible sign they had read it at least once. But whether manually copying the document is a good idea or not, this shows evidence that people are worried about who leads our country and if there are enough requirements for elected officials.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states the only current requirements imposed on a president of the US: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The 22nd amendment added term limits in 1951 rounding out who cannot be the Commander in Chief.
The bottom line: if anyone can survive the American political process at the national level, raise millions of dollars, speak hundreds of times, and get elected, we deserve what we get. Some are angry at our current president and some fear the Sarah Palin’s of the Conservative movement, but individuals on both sides wanting to restrict the highest and hardest to obtain office in the world more than it is already are straining with these ridiculous gimmicks. If you can give a speech that makes chills run up legs or raise millions through $20 online donations you can certainly read well enough to write something word for word out of a book. Instead, the defense should be the American voter. If you don’t believe someone has read the Constitution, or doubt they will truly support it, let people know and vote against them. The founders of our nation placed a few reasonable restrictions on our leadership but understood that the real decision came from the power of the electorate. On a side note, it wouldn’t do us any harm to give that Constitution a look ourselves once in a while even if we aren’t running for office.

Quran Fire Not Quite Out...Maybe

If the vacillating of the reverend Jones teaches us anything it is that his decision to put a hold on the Quran burning event scheduled for Saturday September 11 was not a sincere faith-reasoned judgment. Some believe he cooked the whole thing up with full intentions of using it as a bargaining chip to move the “Ground Zero Mosque.” However, his fervent and erratic statements do not support this theory. Who’s to say what will happen only two short days from now, but there seems to be no genuine change of heart and recognition of error. While a graceful exit would still be possible if the church stated that they were simply driven forward with zealous patriotism and faith and took it too far, I do not believe anyone thinks this will happen. The church simply does not regret its actions and regardless of the impending outcome, their ideas have entered the minds of America and there are always people willing to take up where they left off...if they do leave off, that is.

Quran Burning: Murder with a Match

Modern America touts it toleration above all other nations in the world. You can believe what you want and say almost anything without fear of retribution thanks to stiff language of the Constitution insuring these basic freedoms and rights. And that’s good. In fact, this freedom is what drove people to the American land of opportunity over the past centuries. But we must always remember to use our freedom wisely. We have the great responsibility to be prudent in the exercise of freedom and everything must be weighed against this simple rule: just because it is not illegal does not mean I should do it. As ethical decisions are based in individual hearts, the government cannot legislate morality.
To the issue of religious demonstrations against other faiths: this is never wise. Recently, a Florida pastor announced his plan to publically burn the Quran in an outcry against the September 11, 2001 attacks. This ignited a firestorm of outcry on both sides about the rights of his church and the value, or danger, of such actions. Churches of all stripes believe that they should bring others into agreement with them and they must recognize that over-the-top demonstrations will achieve nothing but hate. Most people agree that a sincere and intelligent dialogue goes much further than angry rhetoric. Some conservatives site the burning of Bibles among some Muslims as a legitimate excuse for burning the Islamic holy text, but any parent of an elementary child could remind them that the egregious disrespect of another does not make it right for you. Sadly, this debate is nothing new.
Historically, society should learn from the mistakes of the past. Book burning in the Middle Ages was common as heretical, or ‘crooked,’ teachings were rounded up and torched along with their owners. Despite a highly intolerant climate across most of the European continent during this time period, the land that would become medieval Spain shown as a beacon of what many scholars describe as the most tolerant society ever. They didn’t all agree and participate in some form of national, ambiguous religion. Instead, the Muslim controlled state of al-Andalus allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religion freely under an old Islamic respect for these other faiths. The phrase Ahl al-Kitābor, or ‘People of the Book,’ is used in the Islamic tradition to describe members of faiths that also rely on religious texts that Muslims believe have been directly revealed by God. To quote the book itself from chapter 29 verse 46, the Quran states: “Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters’” (from the Authorized English Edition). While Christians do not agree that their text is the inspired word from God as they do of parts of the Bible, this climate of respect had value in the 800s, 900s, and 1000s and it has value today in the 2000s a millennium later.
There were instances of tension when people overstepped the allowed actions and infringed on the other faiths. One story includes a Christian man intentionally blaspheming Allah in front of the religious and governmental authorities in an effort to gain martyrdom and incite anti-Muslim fervor. Sound familiar? Today’s religious conflicts often lack fuel until misguided people prop up a burning straw-man to give them a rally cry. We need to look closely at our political and religious leaders. Are they upholding their long-held values or are they using us and our passion to whip-up an out of place and unusual anger? Modern America could learn from Islamic Spain. We do not need to endorse all faiths but simply respect them if they uphold certain moral standards and recognize their members as valuable parts of our collective society. If burning a book in spite has no effect on your personal safety, it is very easy to do and you have that right. Just remember that someone will be blown up and the perpetrators will credit you with pushing the button. It may be a farming family at the food market or an American in uniform. Either way, it should keep you up at night for a while.