On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it would be blacklisting eight Iranian officials for their role in last year's violent suppression of anti-government protesters after Iran's disputed election. Among the sanctioned are the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the minister of welfare and social security, and several intelligence officers. As part of the sanctions, the US will freeze foreign assets and deny visas to these eight people. Additionally, this is the first time that the US has cited human-rights abuse as the grounds for sanctions.
After reading this article (read here) by Mark Landler, I am left with mixed feelings on the matter. For starters, I applaud the Obama administration in its new "pressure campaign" against Tehran, for when Iranian mobs first protested the election last year, the administration did little in publicly criticizing the Iranian government. Certainly, this may seem like a small step to many (especially over the course of a year), but it is at least some progress forward.
I also like this move because I think it sends a message to the Iranian population that human-rights issues are a concern of those in Washington. Those blacklisted have been accused of "ordering the arbitrary arrests, beating, torture, rape, blackmail and killing of Iranian citizens" since the 2009 election. These sanctions tell the people that these actions aren't being ignored, that they do have some form of support in Washington. This is good.
With that said, however, I am forced to question just how effective these sanctions will be. Of course, the US (along with the UN and Europe) have placed tougher sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, but the results of these have been mixed. So how effective can sanctions against eight officials be? As Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour points out, the sanctions are likely to be scoffed at by those blacklisted, for these men have little interest in visiting the US and don't have significant assets within American jurisdiction.
Furthermore, will the Iranian public see this move as any help in their effort to improve human rights? It's all well and good to punish those responsible, but these punishments don't seem to be harsh at all. It's not like we removed them from their positions. We are merely providing minimal support to their movement but from thousands of miles away and without any real threat to the Iranian goverment. Thus, these sanctions could be seen by Iranians as a collective slap-in-the-face.
Of course it's hard to see these sanctions amounting to much, but that remains to be seen. So while it's true that the sanctions are mostly symbolic, it is a step in the right direction. But will Washington take that next step (whatever it may be) or will it sit back, content with what it has done?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The "War on Terror"
Is the "war on terror" winnable? What would winning look like? While these questions are far from easy to answer, I think I'll try and put in my two cents. Feel free to critique.
For those of you who think that the total elimination of terrorism is possible, I have to say that I think you're mistaken. For starters, given that these terrorists are non-state actors and thus aren't "confined" by geographical borders, it's quite unlikely that we would be able to locate all of them in order to properly eliminate their threat. In addition to that, we don't even know how many there are. One solution (albeit brash) could be strategic carpet bombing of a hotspot where terrorists are thought to be located, but it's also unlikely that that would result in a complete success. Even if such an act would prove to be somewhat successful, it would also likely trigger more acts of violence towards the US (for the prolonged and aggressive nature of our presence in the region). It's also reasonable to think that this use of force would result in an increase in the number of terrorists as opposed to a decrease. Even if some were killed, others would use the bombing as ammunition to recruit new members. When all is said and done, if eliminating the threat of terrorism through force were easy, it would have already been accomplished.
While I don't think that the complete elimination of the threat posed by terrorists is possible, I do think that success can be achieved. However, success will be minimal if our armed forces continue to occupy various locations in the Middle East. It's probably correct to say that some of the problem is caused by a deep-rooted hatred for the US, but to say that goes for all isn't true. I'd say many terrorists act in such a manner in order to get the US to change its policies regarding the Middle East. While I don't necessarily like the idea of "giving in" to these people, I don't think terroristic acts are going to stop until we make some concessions on our own, and that includes removing ourselves from the region. These people are threatened by our presence and see it as selfish and imperial, given our desperate need for oil, and they'll continue to act violently until we leave. Sure, attacks may continue even after we're gone, but my guess is that they'll be less in number and not as severe, for many of the terrorists would have gotten what they wanted (a change in US policy). This view may sound weak in nature or bleak, but until we can find a way to effectively locate and destroy all terrorists, we are wasting our time and resources with our current attempts to seek and destroy. To me, "winning" against the terrorists is more or less cutting our losses and accepting the draw.
For those of you who think that the total elimination of terrorism is possible, I have to say that I think you're mistaken. For starters, given that these terrorists are non-state actors and thus aren't "confined" by geographical borders, it's quite unlikely that we would be able to locate all of them in order to properly eliminate their threat. In addition to that, we don't even know how many there are. One solution (albeit brash) could be strategic carpet bombing of a hotspot where terrorists are thought to be located, but it's also unlikely that that would result in a complete success. Even if such an act would prove to be somewhat successful, it would also likely trigger more acts of violence towards the US (for the prolonged and aggressive nature of our presence in the region). It's also reasonable to think that this use of force would result in an increase in the number of terrorists as opposed to a decrease. Even if some were killed, others would use the bombing as ammunition to recruit new members. When all is said and done, if eliminating the threat of terrorism through force were easy, it would have already been accomplished.
While I don't think that the complete elimination of the threat posed by terrorists is possible, I do think that success can be achieved. However, success will be minimal if our armed forces continue to occupy various locations in the Middle East. It's probably correct to say that some of the problem is caused by a deep-rooted hatred for the US, but to say that goes for all isn't true. I'd say many terrorists act in such a manner in order to get the US to change its policies regarding the Middle East. While I don't necessarily like the idea of "giving in" to these people, I don't think terroristic acts are going to stop until we make some concessions on our own, and that includes removing ourselves from the region. These people are threatened by our presence and see it as selfish and imperial, given our desperate need for oil, and they'll continue to act violently until we leave. Sure, attacks may continue even after we're gone, but my guess is that they'll be less in number and not as severe, for many of the terrorists would have gotten what they wanted (a change in US policy). This view may sound weak in nature or bleak, but until we can find a way to effectively locate and destroy all terrorists, we are wasting our time and resources with our current attempts to seek and destroy. To me, "winning" against the terrorists is more or less cutting our losses and accepting the draw.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Research Topic
Hey folks,
This will be a quick little post about my research paper topic. I just recently posted the topic on the class wiki, but in case it's easier for people to give feedback via my blog, I'm posting it here as well.
In general, my paper will be on Israeli-Iran Relations, but more specifically, the question I will attempt to answer goes as follows: "What effect have Israel's undeclared possession of nukes and Iran's presumed attempts to secure nukes had on the policies of their Arab neighbors/or on the stability of the region?".
Obviously, I intend to inspect how Israel and Iran have reacted to one another's presumed successes with/attempts at nuclear proliferation, but the goal is also to look at how the other states in the region have responded to this threat to their security levels. Anyways, I'll try and keep people posted as I do more research, but any feedback or advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much!
This will be a quick little post about my research paper topic. I just recently posted the topic on the class wiki, but in case it's easier for people to give feedback via my blog, I'm posting it here as well.
In general, my paper will be on Israeli-Iran Relations, but more specifically, the question I will attempt to answer goes as follows: "What effect have Israel's undeclared possession of nukes and Iran's presumed attempts to secure nukes had on the policies of their Arab neighbors/or on the stability of the region?".
Obviously, I intend to inspect how Israel and Iran have reacted to one another's presumed successes with/attempts at nuclear proliferation, but the goal is also to look at how the other states in the region have responded to this threat to their security levels. Anyways, I'll try and keep people posted as I do more research, but any feedback or advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Thoughts on Devji and the validation of terrorism
In regards to this Thursday's readings, I found the portion of Frederic Volpi's article Framing Islamism: Understanding the Dynamics of Globalized Violence and Politics that dealt with Faisal Devji's book The Terrorist in Search of Humanity: Militant Islam and Global Politics quite interesting. In the book, Devji puts forth a new spin on the motives behind the actions of Islamic terrorists. He argues that instead of the motive being to terrorize non-Muslims for the simple facts that they are "natural enemies" or that they want to instill fear in the hearts of the attacked, these terrorist attacks are actually a defense of "humanity." In other words, these "global terrorists" are aware of Muslim suffering in the world and believe their sacrifices to be for the collective good, for they will help the great powers of the system to recognize their own mortality. The thought is to put Muslims and non-Muslims on the same level, for we all are capable of suffering equally. As Devji puts and supports it, "militant rhetoric is marked most forcefully by the logic of equivalence: you kill our civilians so we kill yours, because we suffer so must you" (p. 46).
Personally, I find this view to be compelling. Certainly, I do not condone the acts of Islamic extremists by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's always a good practice to try and understand from where the other side is coming be it friend or foe. Thus, I don't really see this argument as completely far-fetched or off the mark. When one considers the meaning of jihad, it's not hard for me to see why these people might believe as Devji describes. As you may already know, jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims, one that can entail the internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war. The latter is probably what most Americans think the meaning of jihad to be (if they know what it is at all, and admittedly, the concept along with the Islamic religion are still not completely clear to me), and because of that, they see terrorists-and maybe even all Muslims-as solely militaristic and perverted in their ways. And maybe there are some truths to that but certainly not with regards to Muslims in general. However, the second part of jihad above is the most compelling, for like Christian Americans-and Americans of all faiths for that matter-Muslims are people too and seek to improve the world in which they live, and in that world, their way of life is seriously threatened. So while I may question the act, I can therefore see the pursuit of societal improvement as a potential reason for international terrorism.
Devji goes on to argue that these acts of Islamic militancy are just as much a result of the Western world's counterterrorist movement as they are personal beliefs within the Islamist camp. This view doesn't seem to me as controversial, for I agree that we are just as much to blame as those other guys. While I believe leaders in the Islamic extremist movement to have a genuine hatred for Americans and the West, I don't think that all possess this hatred. But I do think our policies and presence in the Middle East do their parts in provoking these people to do what they do. Thus I think it's time for us Americans to recognize that we aren't playing the role of the innocent bystander. We need to educate ourselves in regards to the ideals, cultures, and religions of these peoples and understand them and then we make judgments from there. But until then, we need to stop encouraging and provoking them through our ignorance. That's easier said than done, though, and if I had the answer, I'd be getting money and getting paid.
Personally, I find this view to be compelling. Certainly, I do not condone the acts of Islamic extremists by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's always a good practice to try and understand from where the other side is coming be it friend or foe. Thus, I don't really see this argument as completely far-fetched or off the mark. When one considers the meaning of jihad, it's not hard for me to see why these people might believe as Devji describes. As you may already know, jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims, one that can entail the internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war. The latter is probably what most Americans think the meaning of jihad to be (if they know what it is at all, and admittedly, the concept along with the Islamic religion are still not completely clear to me), and because of that, they see terrorists-and maybe even all Muslims-as solely militaristic and perverted in their ways. And maybe there are some truths to that but certainly not with regards to Muslims in general. However, the second part of jihad above is the most compelling, for like Christian Americans-and Americans of all faiths for that matter-Muslims are people too and seek to improve the world in which they live, and in that world, their way of life is seriously threatened. So while I may question the act, I can therefore see the pursuit of societal improvement as a potential reason for international terrorism.
Devji goes on to argue that these acts of Islamic militancy are just as much a result of the Western world's counterterrorist movement as they are personal beliefs within the Islamist camp. This view doesn't seem to me as controversial, for I agree that we are just as much to blame as those other guys. While I believe leaders in the Islamic extremist movement to have a genuine hatred for Americans and the West, I don't think that all possess this hatred. But I do think our policies and presence in the Middle East do their parts in provoking these people to do what they do. Thus I think it's time for us Americans to recognize that we aren't playing the role of the innocent bystander. We need to educate ourselves in regards to the ideals, cultures, and religions of these peoples and understand them and then we make judgments from there. But until then, we need to stop encouraging and provoking them through our ignorance. That's easier said than done, though, and if I had the answer, I'd be getting money and getting paid.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Initial Thoughts
Hello, POSC 277ers (and anyone else out there willing to take the time to read this). Since I'm new to the whole blogging world, I figured the best way to get my feet wet would be to write about something fairly simply; thus I apologize if what I'm going to say isn't too profound or original. However, whilst reading our first assignment from William E. Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East (3rd ed.), I was particularly struck by the section that dealt with Muhammad ibn Abdullah and the foundations of Islam. To start, I can't say that I'm really that religious, pious, or God-fearing at all, so it's not as if I know the ins and outs of the Christian religion, either, but I found the similarites between Islam's roots and the beginnings of Christianity to be quite interesting, nevertheless. For starters, each of these religions were started (so to speak) and taught by two individuals seemingly cut from the same (or similar) cloth. Muhammad was a humble, ordinary man who worked various everyday jobs in his community and was widely respected as well. Likewise, but not completely the same, Jesus Christ, too, lived quite simply, performing jobs that could be considered "blue-collar" in nature. These two simple men, however, would become (I guess this may be more true for Muhammad as Jesus was technically born a King of Kings.) the main spokesmen/prophets for their respective religions. The similarities don't really stop there. As mentioned in Cleveland's book, on the so-called Night of Power, Muhammad is presented with divine messages and given his mission from the angel Gabriel. From Sunday school classes of my past, I do remember the very same Gabriel playing a crucial role in many Bible stories. Then we get to more run-of-the-mill similarities, but I still feel that there is something to be said in mentioning them. Of course, we know of Jesus and his 12 disciples and how after Jesus' death, these disciples wrote what they had learned (i.e. the word of God) from their late teacher in what we all know as the Bible. However, in Islam the story is not dissimilar, for Muhammad indeed had a direct group of followers who, like the disciples, collected and recorded stories, lessons, and verses into one definitive book called the Quran, which unsurprisingly was also supposed to be the word of God (well, Allah, which means God). Furthermore, both of these books chastisted those who lived lavishly and without morals and promised those who lived according to God's word an everlasting afterlife. There are more similarities in Cleveland's book (and certainly some that don't make it), but I think you can see roughly my point. Now, as to be expected, Islam and Christianity have their differences, but I think I find it so surprising/upsetting that the peoples who follow these two religious views can be so hateful towards one another. To be sure, there are other factors that play a role in this "religious war" of sorts, but I don't quite understand how people can be so unaccepting of another religion, especially one that, at least superficially, is quite similar to their own. I understand that everyone wants to be right and refuses to think that his/her religion could possibly be the wrong one, if that even is a possibility, but I don't see why we feel the need to act so strongly or violently towards others just because they worship a "different" or the "wrong" God. This is especially confusing given that one fundamental rule (that seems to be fairly universal) demands that an individual love his/her neighbor. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I don't seem to remember that passage reading, "Love thy neighbor, unless he/she happens to be a Muslim/Christian." Anyways, I don't think I need to labor on with this; I just wanted to share a few of my thoughts while reading this particular section of Cleveland's book. If there is anything I mentioned that is just blatantly wrong, please, don't hesitate to correct me; there won't be any hard feelings. Well, unless you're a Buddhist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)