President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Health Care Bill Vote Will be Delayed Due to John McCain’s Surgery

On Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the vote on the new health care bill will be delayed. This is the second time a vote on the bill has been delayed. As no Democrats will vote in favor of the bill, Republicans can only afford to lose two votes to pass it. Senators Susan Collins and Rand Paul have already said “nope” to voting for the bill as it is now, and as Senator John McCain is recovering from a Friday surgery and would not be able to attend, McConnell’s only choice was to delay.

McCain had surgery to remove a blood clot from above his eye, but yesterday, medical experts said it could be more serious than what has been previously described. The recovery period from such an operation is normally a few weeks, said an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Nrupen Baxi. He also said that this type of blood clot would not be found in a regular check up, but only if doctors had seen symptoms that prompted a closer look. But many commented on the irony of delaying the health care vote over a health-related issue that could happen to anyone.

We’re going to wait for John McCain to recover from his excellent care so he can help us vote to take yours away. https://t.co/q36beNVl7H

— Jesse Berney (@jesseberney) July 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As the civil war in Syria has escalated, American, Saudi Arabian, and Russian interests have played increasingly larger roles. The Obama Administration adopted the stance, shared by the majority of the U.N., that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of human rights violations and must be removed from power. Russia, on the other hand, has long been an ally of Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported Assad throughout the conflict. This has led to what is in part a proxy war, with Syrian rebels that have been trained and armed by Saudi and American militaries fighting against Assad’s forces, which are armed with Russian weapons and drive Russian tanks. Amid this turmoil has been the growing power of ISIS, opposed in different ways by both the United States and Russia.

As the war has carried on, it has grown increasingly bloody. By the end of 2015, the war had claimed a staggering 470,000 Syrian lives, representing a loss of 11.5 percent of the nation’s population. Even among the survivors, the damage to Syrian national security has been extreme; over half of the nation’s population has been displaced by the war. The Syrian conflict is vast and extremely complicated and both Russia and the U.S. have numerous reasons for their involvement.

However, it’s imperative to analyze one important but under-emphasized element of the war: the role of energy. Both the U.S. and Russia stand to influence the future of the global energy market if their side comes out dominant in this conflict. If the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, it will likely push ahead with current plans to build a natural gas pipeline running from Iran through Syria. The pipeline would be built by the Iranian government in collaboration with Russia’s major gas corporations, and would allow both countries to profit off of the largest gas reserve on earth. On the other hand, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an active interest in preventing this from happening to protect its share in the energy market, as well as the strength of the petrodollar, against Russian and Iranian competition.

President Trump has long denounced America’s anti-Assad position and previously discussed working with Russia, and possibly Assad, against the common enemy of ISIS. However, following the Syrian Air force’s chemical attack in the Idlib Province, Trump at least temporarily reversed his public position on Assad and Russia. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has grown increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia. Future negotiations will tell whether there is still a possibility for Russia and the U.S. to work together in Syria, and Trump’s ultimate stance on the Assad regime will heavily influence whether the Iranian pipeline is built. We are currently at a critical moment in the future of the Syrian conflict, and for the roles of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the global energy market. Read on to see what each side stands to gain and lose as we move forward.

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

The conflict in Syria is fueled by numerous religious and geopolitical divisions within the Middle Eastern Region and energy is far from the only relevant factor in American or Russian involvement. However, the importance of energy within the Middle East and its ever-present role in regional conflict is hard to overstate. Control of the global energy market means being able to exert huge influence on the international economy, and the Middle East’s vast fossil fuel reserves have always attracted the interest of international superpowers. The last two decades of constant regional conflict have been a consistently perilous struggle for power and market control, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest economies in the Middle East.

Syria has attracted international interest because its central location in the Middle East makes it a potential energy crossroads for pipelines that could transport natural gas across the region from the South Pars/North Dome gas field. Because of Syria’s critical position, the results of the war will likely determine who gains access to the gas field, and thus will greatly impact the future of energy sovereignty within the region. The oil and gas trade is very directly related to the strength of the American dollar and both the U.S. and longstanding ally Saudi Arabia are worried that Syria could become the construction site of a pipeline. A new major pipeline could upset the balance of the energy market, and subsequently the power of the dollar and the Saudi Riyal, which is pegged to the dollar.

Saudi Arabia, home to 16 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and the leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has long used whatever means are necessary to ensure that its business never shrinks. Recently, as foreign dependence on petroleum in the last few years lessened due to a boost in gas production abroad, the Saudis chose to ignore their 2014 promise to reduce output and actually increased their production up until 2016. This caused international petroleum prices to drop, keeping Middle East petroleum competitive, despite the fact that the price gouge also sent many of the poorer OPEC countries near collapse.

In order to maintain its status as the largest energy producer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has also spent the last two decades attempting to block energy infrastructure proposals designed to access the South Pars/North Dome gas field. The South Pars/North Dome Gas Field lies beneath the Persian Gulf, with the northern end of the field in Iranian territory and the Southern edge in Qatari territory. It is the single largest gas reserve on earth, and a pipeline that allowed cross-regional transport of its resources could dramatically change the future of the energy market. The first pipeline was proposed in 2009 and would have carried gas from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, although both the late King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria rejected its construction in 2009. It is sometimes falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia supported this pipeline, but the Saudis also opposed its development because a pipeline would have given the E.U. direct access to cheap gas. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with its then ally Qatar had at the time also grown unstable, and the Saudis were skeptical about a large scale business collaboration.

However, in place of the Qatari project, an alternative pipeline was proposed, which would be built avoiding Saudi land and would replace Qatar with Iran as the central supplier of natural gas. Saudi Arabia views Shiite Iran as its primary enemy within the Middle East and is determined to keep it from growing in power in the energy market. However, Assad publicly supported this pipeline, which would give Russian and Iranian business interests primary access to the gas field’s massive resources. Saudi Arabia lacked the veto power it held with the first pipeline, which forced Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to reach directly out to Putin, promising to ensure that the gas reserve would not be utilized in competition with Russia’s business if Putin abandoned his support of Assad’s regime. Putin refused and Saudi Arabia pushed forward with regime change in Syria by militarizing rebel Sunni groups, including the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nursa Front, and the organization that would become ISIS.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia is a tense and complicated one. Saudi Arabia has come under international criticism for its human rights record and the Saudis have continuously funded extremist Sunni groups that threaten the Western world. However, the economies of the two nations are tied together through the petrodollar. Petroleum is the most commonly traded substance on earth by volume, and globally, petroleum has been traded almost exclusively in American dollars for the last 40 years. If a country wants to buy oil, it must first purchase U.S. dollars, which increases demand for the dollar and dollar denominated assets. Because of this, the success of the oil industry and cooperation with Saudi Arabia very directly affects our domestic economy. The United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together in coordination for almost three-quarters of a century to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the establishment of the petrodollar system to the Persian Gulf War to both Yemen Civil Wars and the battle against Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia has also been a central customer of the U.S. defense industry for decades, although Obama ordered a weapons sales freeze following large-scale civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen. Some have accused this freeze of being largely political theater, since overall the Obama Administration sold over $46 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any president in the 71-year alliance. The State Department also went on to grant a pre-planned $3.51 billion initiative to arm and train the Saudi army to defend the Saudi-Yemen border, claiming none of this money would go the actual war it supposedly condemned. While the Obama Administration has been critical of Saudi Arabia, it also continued to support the country and many of its conflicts throughout Obama’s presidency.

While Assad is certainly guilty of human rights violations, the U.S. also has a critical interest in coordinated regime change because the current pipeline proposal would give unfriendly Iran dominant control of the largest source of energy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia’s three largest gas companies will play a large part in the development of the pipeline, meaning Russian interests stand to profit directly off the reserve. Russia and Iran are two of the few countries worldwide that refuse to use the petrodollar, so not only does control of the gas field give them a huge business advantage, the greater their share in the market the weaker the U.S. dollar and Saudi Riyal will become. While the United States and Saudi Arabia disagree on many things, the two nations are united geopolitically in their desire to prevent Russia and Iran from gaining greater regional power and control over the energy market through a coordinated business venture.

In 2014, following a meeting between John Kerry and King Abdullah of Jordan, the United States agreed to work with Saudi Arabia on a military offensive in Syria through Operation Timber Sycamore, with Saudi Arabia funding and arming the Free Syrian Army and the CIA training them in preparation for the war. While the stated purpose of U.S. involvement was to counter ISIS, the choice to fund the rebel group looking to overthrow the ruling Baath party reflects the Obama Administration’s consistent desire for regime change.

“Obama/Saudi Ties” courtesy of Tribes of the World; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Russian Involvement

Currently, Syria is Russia’s oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East, although Iran and Russia have grown increasingly closer throughout the last decade. Aside from representing Russia’s foothold in the region, Syria is also the location of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base. In exchange for this critical regional access, Syria has the support of one of the world’s largest superpowers. The long-standing connection between these countries makes it no surprise that Russia is willing to give political and military support to Assad.

However, Russia also stands to gain significantly moving forward if Assad can suppress the rebel forces. As long as the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, then construction of the Iranian pipeline should move forward as planned. Russia is the second largest producer of fossil fuels globally and recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s top crude oil producer. Together oil and gas exports account for 70 percent of Russia’s $550 billion annual exports. European natural gas imports from Russia dramatically increased from 48 percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2014, and Putin’s long-term plan is to become an even larger energy superpower, spiking production and exports by 2020 by increasing sales in Europe and expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. It is no secret that the E.U. dreads increasing its dependence upon Russia’s major gas giants. Because of heavy resistance to the Russian energy business in the West, Putin has been continuously looking for new projects in the East, notably in China and the Middle East. Iran has long been looking for international investors in its shale business, and in 2013, the Russian state-controlled gas corporation Gazprom signed a deal with the Iranian government to cooperate in ongoing energy infrastructure development. The infrastructure agreement makes Gazprom the third major Russian corporation to be heavily invested in Iranian energy, following Lukoil and Zarubezneft. The construction of the Iranian pipeline would give these corporations new ability to profit off of huge quantities of natural gas. By ensuring that the field is developed and utilized first by friendly Iran, along with Russian gas corporations, Putin can avoid dangerous new competition in the European energy market as was planned in the original Qatari pipeline, thus maintaining Russia’s position of market dominance.

Fear of Saudi Arabia and increased U.S. support for the Syrian insurgency pushed Assad to request greater assistance from Putin, which resulted in Russia joining the conflict in September 2015, mounting a series of airstrikes both against the Free Syrian Army and ISIS. What followed became an increasingly serious proxy war between the Syrian rebels, backed by the United States, and the Syrian military, backed by Russia. The bloodiest of these conflicts has centered around the City of Aleppo, where over 400,000 have died thus far. The FSA has suffered both massive causalities and the loss of members who have defected to join the more radicalized Al-Nursa Front and Jaysh Army. The Syrian Air Force’s chemical attack on Idlib came shockingly during negotiations that were expected to come out in Assad’s favor. President Trump sided initially with the majority of the Western world and voted in favor of a U.N. resolution to launch an investigation into the attack. The resolution was blocked by Russia and we are currently in a pause, waiting to find out how the conflict will move forward.

“Aleppo, Syria” courtesy of yeowatzup;  License: (CC BY 2.0)

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

While Trump has criticized Saudi Arabia in the past for its own role in funding radical Islam, he seems to have recently made a complete reversal on this stance and has even sided with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with U.S. ally Qatar. The Trump Administration and Saudi Arabia have also recently entered into a $110 billion dollar weapons deal, the largest in U.S.-Saudi history. Following the attack on Idlib, it seemed possible that Trump might decide to align with the anti-Assad stances held by the Obama Administration and the Saudi government. However, since the U.S. airstrike and the failed U.N. Security Resolution, the Trump Administration has not publicly emphasized Assad’s removal.

Currently, it’s uncertain whether Trump will side with reestablished ally Saudi Arabia or if his administration still plans to find a way to work together with Russia in Syria. The U.S. warned the Russians prior to the airstrike on the Shayrat base, allowing them to evacuate without casualty. There have also been accusations that the airstrike was essentially political theater to dispel the notion that Trump is compromised by Russian interests, given the fact that Russia chose not to deploy its anti-missile systems, effectively allowing an attack it knew was coming to take place.

While the future of the South Pars/North Dome gas reserve isn’t certain, at this point Assad has successfully dominated the majority of rebel forces in Syria. As long as the Assad regime is still in place, any major cross-regional energy infrastructure utilizing Syrian land will most likely be to the advantage of Assad and his ally Putin. If the Iranian pipeline does end up being built, the reverberations will be felt throughout the global energy market. Saudi Arabia may lose the upper hand in several markets where it competes with Iran and Russia, especially in East Asia where Saudi Arabia has struggled to maintain active business in the face of Russian competition. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Europe will ever be able to utilize the gas field as a cheap alternative to lessen its dependence on Russia.

If Iran and Russia become larger figures in the energy market, the petrodollar will weaken as less U.S. dollars are needed for oil transactions, which would affect the economies of both America and Saudi Arabia. How dramatic these effects will be is impossible to say. Saudi Arabia still has massive hydrocarbon reserves and is in no danger of being pushed out of the global fossil fuel trade. While the petrodollar has played a large part in the strength of the American dollar since the end of the Gold Standard, it is only one of many factors that contribute to and decide the strength and stability of the U.S. economy. We will have to wait and see what direction the Trump Administration takes American foreign policy in the Middle East to learn the answers to these questions.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Pipelines: The Influence of the Energy War in the Middle East appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

On June 5, several Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia announced they were cutting off all relations with Qatar. Although terrorism was used as the main rationale for the fallout, alternative claims abound. Whatever the exact reason, this dissension in the ranks comes at a difficult time in the fight against terror, a fight in which Qatar is a maddeningly prominent player on both sides. It also creates an awkward position for the United States which has an important base in Qatar as well as one in Bahrain–one of the nations that severed ties. Most significantly though, this move may just be one more development in the ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose differing viewpoints of Islam are grappling for preeminence in the Muslim world. Read on further to learn more about the fallout and its various impact on Qatar, the United States, and the region at large.

Why the Split?

In total, nine countries have announced that they would cut ties with Qatar, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Maldives, Yemen, Libya, Mauritius, and Mauritania. According to these countries, the split is over Qatar’s support for terrorist groups and its close relationship with Iran. Specifically, these countries claimed that Qatar has either supported or protected members of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, Qatar has said that these claims have “no basis in fact.” Another related issue that may have sparked the fallout is a massive ransom payment that Qatar reportedly paid to recover a member of the royal family. The payment is rumored to be as high as $1 billion and Qatar’s neighbors fear that the money amounts to direct funding for terrorist organizations. Finally, the decision also comes shortly after the Qatari News Agency reported on comments allegedly made by the Qatari leader in support of Iran. The report prompted backlash from neighboring countries, but Qatar said that the news outlet was hacked and the report was fabricated.

There is some irony to the split, as Qatar is a Sunni-led, Sunni-majority nation, while Bahrain–one of the countries that cut ties–is actually majority Shia, the Muslim sect championed by Iran. As a result of the decision, Qatari citizens and diplomats will be required to leave many of these countries on very short notice.

The video below describes how the recent dispute unfolded:

Impact on Qatar

The Al Thani family has ruled Qatar from the mid-1800s onward. For most of that time, the country was relatively poor and undeveloped. However, with the development of the country’s vast natural gas reserves beginning a little more than half a century ago, the nation was transformed and attained the world’s highest per capita income in 2007. Despite accruing vast wealth, Qatar has had issues in the past due to its support for revolutionary movements and terrorist organizations, which has caused rifts with many of the countries it is currently clashing with in the past, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. (This support may also explain why Qatar was immune from many of the Arab Spring protests experienced by a number of countries in the Middle East.) At one point in 2014, those countries even recalled their ambassadors, but in that case, the differences were ultimately resolved.

In the most recent case, Qatar would benefit from a similarly quick return to good relations. This is true for several reasons. First, because Qatari flights are banned from these countries’ airspace, flight paths to and from Qatar need to be modified to take longer routes, which raises costs and could spell trouble for its airlines. Secondly, Qatar is a peninsula with only one land border, which is with Saudi Arabia. By closing this border, Qatar will have to funnel all food and other supply shipments in by air or sea. This is particularly a problem for Qatar because its climate prevents most domestic food production.

In addition, this move could also hamper Qatar’s construction industry. Qatar was chosen to host the 2022 Soccer World Cup, but many of the materials needed to build the facilities for the stadium and other projects pass through Saudi Arabia, which will now also need to be transported on a less direct route. This will also have consequences on both Qataris living abroad and citizens of other Gulf nations currently living in Qatar, many of whom have been ordered to return home. The impact of these concerns was felt immediately as Qatar’s stock market dropped 7 percent the day after the announcement.

These effects would only pile on the issues Qatar has had to deal with since the price of oil plunged in 2015. Specifically, the country already ran a $8 billion deficit, amounting to 5 percent of its GDP in 2016. To combat these changes, Qatar had already implemented austerity measures such as raising utility rates, levying fines, and scrapping programs, including a proposed national health care system. If this ban is long-lasting, it could have even more deleterious effects on Qatar.

Impact on the United States

As with so many other issues, the decision to ostracize Qatar has implications for the United States as well. One, potentially awkward connection between the recent fallout and the United States, is a speech recently given by President Trump in Saudi Arabia. In his speech, President Trump was very critical of Iran, which many feel emboldened Saudi Arabia to act decisively against Qatar, given its unorthodox relationship with Iran.

This also has a more practical impact on the United States. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Qatar and the United States reached an agreement that brought the countries closer militarily. This commitment was confirmed in 2003 when the United States moved its forward command base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. That base, known as Al-Udeid, is home to more than 10,000 American troops and is the site of U.S. Central Command. Despite the recent diplomatic fallout, the U.S. has reaffirmed its commitment to the fight against terrorism and has pledged to maintain its regular activity at the base. Nevertheless, the dispute puts the United States in an awkward position of being allied with both parties and having a major base in a country that has been ostracized by its neighbors.

Impact on the Middle East

As with many issues concerning the Middle East, Qatar and the countries trying to isolate it are also interwoven. While this move is meant to single out Qatar, it will also affect the entire region. This begins with regional organizations. The largest is OPEC, or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. However, cutting ties with Qatar is less of an issue within this organization given its history of internal conflict. For example, Saudi Arabia’s antagonist, Iran, is also a member and the two have been able to coexist. And at certain points in OPEC’s history, members of the organization have actually fought wars against one another. The conflict does seem to be affecting the price of oil though, as crude oil prices fell the day after the announcement. Investors cited concerns over whether OPEC members could adhere to their pledge to reduce production to drive up prices.

Qatar is also a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait (Oman and Kuwait have maintained diplomatic relations with Qatar). While this alliance is not threatened, some members, namely Kuwait, are calling for a quick resolution to the problem. These sentiments have been echoed by other countries such as Turkey, Russia, and the United States. In fact, although Qatar is the main subject in this situation, the reality, and the likely biggest impact in the Middle East, is to be felt in the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Specifically, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in an unofficial proxy war in countries across the Middle East akin to the Cold War. The two nations have taken opposite sides in a number of conflicts such as the ones in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. They each see themselves as representing the true nature of Islam–the Shiites in Iran and the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia. After the initial decision to cut diplomatic ties was made, Saudi Arabia cited Qatar’s support for “terrorist groups aiming to destabilize the region” as the justification. But at the same time, Qatar has also backed groups fighting against forces that are supported or tied to Iran in both Syria and Yemen.

Conclusion

As the longstanding proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia continues, there are a number of places where conflict has flared up. The most recent example is Qatar, which has complicated ties to both countries. While Qatar certainly seems caught in the middle of something larger than itself, it is not totally blameless. The world’s largest liquefied natural gas exporter has supported groups on both sides of the larger conflict.

The recent fallout will have implications for both the region and other prominent actors, notably the United States. Not only is its largest U.S. military base in the Middle East located in Qatar, some point to recent comments from the American president as a possible cause of the decision to shun Qatar. The complexities of the situation may explain why leaders from around the world are calling for a resolution as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Qatar is caught in a bind. While it attempts to resolve this dispute, it must also remain conscious of its image, especially as it prepares to host the next World Cup in 2022. With all this in mind, and Qatar’s proximity to Saudi Arabia, this conflict may need to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Qatar: How the Tiny Peninsula Became the Center of a Regional Proxy War appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, two deadly terror attacks took place in Tehran, and ISIS has since claimed responsibility. The attackers targeted two symbolically significant places: the Parliament building and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini–not to be confused with the country’s current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

International leaders offered their support for the people of Iran, but it took longer for the White House. Finally White House officials published a statement condemning the attacks on its website, but in the last sentence seemed to say that Iran had itself to blame. It read:

We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized the language and rejected the condolences on Twitter. He called the choice of words “repugnant” and said Iran rejects the United States’ claims of friendship.

Repugnant WH statement & Senate sanctions as Iranians counter terror backed by US clients.Iranian people reject such US claims of friendship

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 8, 2017

The attack on Tehran was the worst in many years, and the first successful terror attack by Islamic State on Iran, if the group’s claims are true. The perpetrators were reportedly disguised as women, hiding weapons and suicide vests under their clothing. Five were men, one was, in fact, a woman. All six were killed. At least 12 other people died in the attacks and 46 were injured.

It seemed like Iran was unprepared for the violence, as it took hours to get the situation under control. Pictures on social media showed how people, including children, fled through the windows of the parliament building. The attackers shot at people on the streets outside, and at one point, one of them ran out on the streets to continue shooting.

Daily Brief: ISIS traps thousands in Mosul; Germany asked to arrest CIA deputy; #StopArmingSaudi; Iran attack; more https://t.co/TJocoOEo67 pic.twitter.com/i5mRQO1ggR

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) June 8, 2017

Even so, the speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, said the attacks were just a “minor incident” and called the attackers “some cowardly terrorists.” And Zarif, the foreign minister, also said: “Terror-sponsoring despots threaten to bring the fight to our homeland. Proxies attack what their masters despise most: the seat of democracy.”

Zarif’s comments seem to refer to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Salman al-Saud’s statements from last month, when he said that Saudi Arabia would bring the battle for regional influence to Tehran rather than fight the fight in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim, while Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia denied being involved in the attacks, but combined with the recent development involving Qatar, tensions are on the rise in the region.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran Dismisses White House Statement on Terror Attack as “Repugnant” appeared first on Law Street.

A handful of Gulf Arab nations severed ties with Qatar on Monday, citing its support for terror groups and accusing the oil-rich nation of working behind the scenes with Iran, a regional rival. Some analysts see the abrupt diplomatic freeze as the result of President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of Saudi Arabia during his first overseas visit last month. The countries–Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Maldives–might have felt emboldened to spar with Qatar, some analysts said, because of Trump’s explicit support of Riyadh.

According to statements from Saudi and Egyptian officials, the coordinated split with Qatar is not related to a recent, isolated event, but rather what they see as a longstanding support of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which the current Egyptian leader ousted from power in 2013.

“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and al-Qaeda,” said a statement from a Saudi state news agency. An Egyptian official similarly said Qatar “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Qatar, for its part, denies the claims of the Gulf countries, saying: “The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications.”

Despite its neighbors’ claims that it is conspiring with Iran, Qatar, one of the region’s wealthiest oil producers, backs groups in Yemen and Syria that are battling Iranian-backed proxies. In Yemen, Qatar supports the Saudi-led (and U.S.-backed) coalition against the Houthi group, which Iran aids. In Syria, Qatar provides support to some of the rebel factions that are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who enjoys Iranian backing as well.

While Gulf Arab states have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in the past, most recently in 2014, they have not taken as drastic steps as they did Monday: land, air, and sea routes were blocked, and Qatari diplomats and citizens expelled. The unprecedented steps could create problems for the U.S. effort to eradicate ISIS–the U.S. military, which partners with Gulf nations to combat ISIS, uses an air base in Qatar.

Whatever the future implications, some Gulf experts see the coordinated stiff-arming of Qatar to be, at least in part, bolstered by Trump’s strong rebuke of Iran last month in a speech in Riyadh.

“You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran,” Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told Reuters. “He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implored the feuding nations to work out their differences, though he remains confident the spat will not affect the fight against terrorism. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” he said, adding that he does not foresee the disagreements having “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the Diplomatic Standoff Between Gulf Countries and Qatar Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia gave President Donald Trump the royal treatment over the weekend, lavishing him with pomp and applause during the first stop in his inaugural overseas trip as president. In a 30-minute speech, Trump gave the Kingdom precisely what it wanted–a strong rebuke of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy and its greatest threat to regional hegemony. Trump signaled a tighter embrace of Saudi Arabia and a more forceful rejection of Iran than his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Iran provides terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump said, adding it’s “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.” Trump piled on:

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region…It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

By calling out Iran while delivering a message of “friendship and hope” to Saudi Arabia and leaders from other Gulf Arab nations like Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and the U.A.E., whose leaders were also in attendance on Sunday, Trump is pivoting to a more traditional U.S. approach to the region than Obama’s.

Obama angered Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with a variety of decisions–or non-decisions–that they saw as deferring to Iran. For one, he negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran; the Trump Administration recently admitted to Iran’s compliance with the controversial agreement. Additionally, Obama’s inaction in the conflict in Syria–he never took direct military action against President Bashar al-Assad, and instead provided support to various rebel factions–upset the Saudis as well.

The Trump Administration, after the Syrian government dropped chemical bombs on its citizens in March, launched 59 cruise missiles at a government air strip. Since then, however, Trump has largely followed the Obama playbook by supporting proxy forces in the fight against the Islamic State. Still, the decisive action heartened the Saudi monarchy, which virulently opposes Iran and its various proxy projects, like its support for militias in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq, and its support of Assad in Syria.

Trump was unreserved in his warm embrace for Saudi Arabia, saying the U.S. “is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture, and commerce” with the Kingdom. He announced that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other high-ranking officials pledged billions of dollars in investments for Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. recently provided the Saudis with over $100 billion worth of arms and other defense equipment.

He also used the speech to highlight two initiatives aimed at combating terrorism–the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, and the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Both will be built in Riyadh. “Today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens,” Trump said.

In contrast to the traditional, largely bi-partisan U.S. approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where personal freedom is heavily policed and human rights are consistently trampled upon, Trump made no mention of improving human rights in the country. In fact, he explicitly rejected calling out potential partners in how they choose to govern their countries.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all,” he said.

A safe, secure, and prosperous Middle East, Trump insisted, must be shaped with the help of Iran, which held a presidential election on Friday. Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani to a second term, rejecting the hard-line Islamic cleric Ebrahim Raisi. Still, in his speech on Sunday, Trump pointed to Iran as the primary font for extremist ideologies in the region, ignoring Saudi Arabia’s own agenda that critics say abets terrorism.

“Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve,” Trump said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Embraces Saudi Arabia and Rebukes Iran appeared first on Law Street.

On May 19, Iran will hold a presidential election, its first since Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013. Rouhani, a relative moderate who helped broker the nuclear deal with the U.S., is running for re-election against five other candidates. The election pits Rouhani against a host of hard-liners, including Ebrahim Raisi, who has secured the backing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard.

During a speech on Wednesday, Khamenei, who holds greater powers than the president, suggested tensions are growing in the weeks before the election. He bluntly said any troublemakers, anybody seeking to disrupt the election “will definitely be slapped in the face.” It seems Khamenei, who has been Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was suggesting that protests would be met with violence.

Many Iranians saw the 2009 election as a rigged affair in favor of then-incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Millions flooded the streets in protest; dozens were killed, hundreds more were arrested. Ahmadinejad, an extremely controversial figure who took a hard stance against the U.S. and Israel (he’s a Holocaust denier and has called for Israel’s destruction), registered to run for a third term in the coming election.

In April, Iranian authorities rejected Ahmadinejad’s bid, along with 1,636 other presidential hopefuls. The pool of six candidates who were chosen include the mayor of Tehran, Iran’s capital city. Rouhani, however, is widely expected to net a second term. His presidency has largely been defined by his promise to kick-start the Iranian economy, which he contends the nuclear deal helped achieve.

Forged in 2015, the deal lifted sanctions off Iran’s economy, thawing billions of dollars worth of assets. Many Iranians, however, have not felt a substantial change in their daily lives. The deal was also opposed by Iran’s hard-line clerics and its Revolutionary Guard, who saw the deal as a threat to their own economic power. Rouhani’s platform rests on the success of the deal, which he contends needs time to pan out.

But Iran’s most powerful figures want a president more in line with their hard-line ideology. Raisi, who is close to Khamenei, is accused of helping to orchestrate a 1988 plot that killed thousands of political prisoners. He is also seen as a potential successor to Khamenei, who is 77. Electing Raisi could heighten tensions between Iran, the West, and Israel.

Iran is currently on the opposing side in proxy wars being fought in Syria and Yemen. It also funds Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group that the U.S. and Israel deem a terrorist organization. Under a more hard-line president like Raisi, who holds virulently anti-Western views, these conflicts could worsen. In addition, the nuclear deal could hold less weight, as a leader like Raisi has less stake than Rouhani in its ultimate success.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What to Expect in the Upcoming Iranian Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

As the House juggled a doomed health care bill on Thursday, lawmakers in the Senate introduced a bipartisan effort to tighten restrictions on Iran–specifically its government and powerful military–through a new round of sanctions. Iran’s ballistic missile program, its material support for foreign terrorist groups, and human rights violations provide the bases for the sanctions, which the Senate has been seeking for over a year.

The last attempt at tightening sanctions on Iran came last July. That bid failed, largely because the Obama Administration was tied up in negotiations for what would become the Iran nuclear deal. Looming over the bill that was introduced Thursday is that Iran deal, which some worry could be violated by stronger sanctions. In contrast to last summer’s attempt however, both Republicans and Democrats that opposed the nuclear deal, and those that supported it, are behind the new effort.

“This legislation demonstrates the strong bipartisan support in Congress for a comprehensive approach to holding Iran accountable by targeting all aspects of the regime’s destabilizing actions,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “These steps will allow us to regain the initiative on Iran and push back forcefully against this threat to our security and that of our allies.”

More than a dozen Senators joined Corker in supporting the bill, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE). The legislation will likely hit the Senate floor for a vote. 

Days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Iran tested a ballistic missile. His administration condemned the test, and said it might have violated the Iran deal, which Trump has promised to rip-up (he has since walked that promise back.) Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” soon after its missile launch, and some worried the administration would take military action, or aggressive sanctions that could destabilize the nuclear agreement.

Those fears did not pan out: the nuclear deal remains in place and, so far, “on notice” has amounted to no more than lofty rhetoric. But the bill introduced on Thursday does represent a bipartisan push to punish Iran not only for its missile tests, but for its support of Hezbollah–a U.S.-designated terrorist group–and its abominable human rights record.

“The spirit of bipartisanship of this important legislation underscores our strong belief that the United States must speak with one voice on the issue of holding Iran accountable for its continued nefarious actions across the world as the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a supporter of the bill, said in a statement. “Iran’s leaders must understand once and for all, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Introduce Bill to Slap Further Sanctions on Iran appeared first on Law Street.

Inauguration Day 2009: President Barack Obama is sworn in as the first black leader of a country yearning for change. Inauguration Day 2017: President Donald Trump is sworn in as the first leader with zero government–or military–experience of a country yearning for change. Aside from the passionate, divisive, and largely unprecedented calls for change, January 20, 2009, and January 21, 2017 had little in common. But what about the subsequent two weeks? Do Obama and Trump have more in common than meets the eye? Let’s take a look.

Executive Actions

In their first week in office, Obama and Trump signed 15 and 14 executive actions respectively. As of Friday, the two-week anniversary of his presidency, Trump has signed 20 total executive actions: eight executive orders, and 12 memoranda. By the end of week two, Obama had signed 20 executive actions as well: 10 executive orders, and 10 memoranda. While both used the power of the presidential pen significantly more than Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the executive actions issued at the beginning of 2009 and 2017 are vastly different.

Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on his second day in office. He directed the interrogations of detained suspects to follow the Army Field Manual, which effectively made torture illegal. Obama called for more funds to help aid refugees from the Gaza Strip. These were largely benign moves that may have ruffled a few feathers, but did not ignite protests around the world.

Trump’s executive actions during his first two weeks irked allies and enemies alike, and galvanized thousands of people to protest in airports and city streets around the country. On day one, Trump ordered Republicans to repeal Obamacare. It had little concrete effect, but it certainly set the tone. Next, Trump ordered “the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border” with Mexico. He called for a crackdown on illegal immigrants. He placed a freeze on federal hiring, and he withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free trade deal involving Australia, Canada, and Japan.

And capping off his first week in the Oval Office, Trump froze the U.S. refugee program for at least 120 days, banned citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. for at least 90 days, and barred Syrians–refugees and immigrants–from coming to the U.S. indefinitely. With the scribble of his signature, Trump revoked 60,000 to 100,000 visas, and kept an estimated 20,000 desperate people from finding refuge in the U.S.

Foreign Policy

When Obama first moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, domestic issues–the recession and the collapse of the automobile industry, for starters–demanded most of his attention. But the world around him still had plenty of issues to address. U.S. troops in Afghanistan were in need of a boost, and Obama tried to give them just that by promising to ship an additional 30,000 troops to the battlefield. Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor, was harboring jihadist militants, and Obama briefly flirted with sending troops there as well.

But he did not alienate allies. He did not blow Twitter kisses to traditional adversaries; nor did he inflame tensions with them. The world was a different place: the European Union was intact and still viewed as an inevitable and vital organ for peace in the region; populism and nationalism did not threaten the decades-long international order; refugees were not gushing out of Syria, desperately seeking refuge and drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.

Trump has inherited a vastly different international reality, and has responded to that reality in ways quite foreign to allies and enemies alike. His first order of business: ordering the building of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, and insisting Mexico pay for it. The move infuriated Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto so much that he canceled his planned meeting with Trump.

A few days later, Trump held a baffling telephone conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Upon learning the U.S. agreed to take in over 1,000 refugees from Australia, Trump reportedly hung up the phone. Turnbull has since disputed that report, and said the call ended “courteously.” On Friday, two days after National Security Advisor Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” for its missile test. Trump warned Iran with a Twitter missile of his own:

Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

Domestic Deeds

Perhaps the most important item on Obama’s to-do list during his first few weeks as president was to resuscitate America’s economy. His nearly $800 billion stimulus plan aimed to do just that, and Obama, attempting to avoid a partisan feud, met with Republicans on the Hill to work out the details. Partisanship won the day however (but did not crush the law), as the stimulus bill ultimately passed with zero Republican votes in the House, and only three in the Senate.

Obama’s opening approval rating, an imperfect if increasingly irrelevant metric, was at 67 percent. After a few days, only 45 percent of Americans approved of the job Trump was doing, the lowest approval rating in the modern polling era. And though Trump has not had to deal with a sinking economy in his first few weeks, his domestic agenda is plenty full.

As Trump begins to steer the U.S. into uncharted waters, bi-partisanship is largely a fable of the past. Hyper-partisanship might have started the day Obama took office, and the years of Republican obstruction that followed, but the country is currently at a boiling point for polarized politics. Trump has taken aim at the “failing” media and at “weak” Democrats, but also at some “lyin'” and “little” members of his own party.

Between Republican infighting, an emboldened far-left, a nascent Tea Party-like progressive movement, and a weakened establishment on both sides, Trump is the king of a castle that is undergoing an intense and disruptive restructuring. Within that context, Trump has moved quick and early in implementing his domestic agenda.

He has taken aim at Obama-era regulations, pledging to erase two for each new rule Trump enacts. On Friday, Trump targeted the Dodd-Frank law which, among other things, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And on Tuesday evening, Trump ended a bitter year-long dispute over the vacant Supreme Court seat by nominating Neil Gorsuch to the position.

Like never before, America seems broken in two. Trump has followed through on a number of campaign promises in the early going, satisfying his base, and enraging opponents who were hopeful he would back away from some of his most divisive plans. His opponents are not only taking to the streets, but to the courtroom as well: as of Thursday, Trump faces over 50 lawsuits, more than triple the amount Clinton, Bush, and Obama faced in their first two weeks–combined.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two White Houses: Comparing the Early Days of Obama and Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today is #GroundhogDay! Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil saw his own shadow, predicting six more weeks of winter. But as last year was the warmest on record and global warming is still a fact, spring-like weather may actually be on its way. Read on for our rants of the day:

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Rattles Relationships With Australia and Iran

President Donald Trump is not on the best terms with Iran or Australia right now. Yesterday Iran said it had test-fired some new missiles, which the White House was not happy to hear. Currently, per a 2015 U.N. resolution, Iran is not allowed to develop any nuclear weapons. But Iran claims it was only testing regular missiles without any nuclear powers, the same kind of test it has performed several times since the resolution went into effect. The U.S. disagrees, claiming that Iran did violate the resolution with these tests. This was also the first test performed since Trump took office and one of his campaign promises was to stop Iran’s missile program. So his national security adviser Michael Flynn said, “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” He gave no indication of what “on notice” means.

Flynn delivers stern warning to Iran for recent weapon testing, saying the U.S. is putting the country “on notice.” https://t.co/lQ7rETgsXp pic.twitter.com/69i7FDzzGE

— ABC News (@ABC) February 2, 2017

Yesterday it was also reported that Trump’s Saturday phone call with Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was no walk in the park. Trump allegedly told the U.S. ally’s leader that he had talked to several international leaders that day already but that their exchange was “the worst call by far.” The two leaders clashed over a previous agreement between the two countries that the U.S. will take 1,250 refugees from Australian detention centers, something that Trump reportedly didn’t know about. In a tweet yesterday he called the refugees “illegal immigrants” and the deal “dumb.”

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Iran’s defense minister confirmed on Wednesday what the U.S. and Israel suspected earlier this week: Iran conducted a missile test over the weekend. Iran has launched missile tests since it struck a nuclear agreement with the U.S. and other world powers last summer, but this was the first to occur under President Donald Trump. At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, delivered an urgent diatribe, calling the missile launch “absolutely unacceptable.”

“The United States is not naïve,” Haley said after the meeting. “We’re not going to stand by. You’re going to see us call them out as we said we would, and you are also going to see us act accordingly.” What, if any, concrete steps the U.S. can take to reign in Iran is unclear. But the council said it would refer the case to its sanctions committee; it did the same after Iran’s missile test last year, which resulted in no further action. 

Iran’s latest missile launch, which according to U.S. officials traveled over 600 miles before exploding, could signal a new tenuous chapter in the Iran-U.S. relationship. During Trump’s first week, he issued an executive order that incensed Iran and many of its Middle Eastern neighbors. The order suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days–refugees from Syria will be barred indefinitely–and keeps citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries (including Iran) from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days.

Last summer, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, along with five other world powers, struck a contentious deal with Iran. Under the deal, sanctions on Iran were lifted, and Iran scaled back its nuclear program. Iran could still use nuclear power for energy purposes, however. Trump has questioned the deal, raising speculations about whether he will enforce it more strictly or abandon it entirely. During his confirmation hearing, James Mattis, the newly confirmed defense secretary, said that while the deal is flawed, the U.S. should stick to it.

Iran contends its missiles are not equipped to carry nuclear warheads, so its test does not violate the agreement or a subsequent UN resolution that directed Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” Iran’s foreign minister said the tests are “exclusively for legitimate defense.” National Security Advisor Michael Flynn responded on Wednesday: “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will the U.S. Respond to Iran’s Latest Missile Test? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

Popular New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker made history yesterday, when he became the first sitting U.S. senator to testify against the nomination of another sitting U.S. senator: Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for AG. Yesterday, Booker said Sessions has “not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens.”

.@CoryBooker testifies against Jeff Sessions: “our country demands a more courageous empathy” pic.twitter.com/Tnr3t9OyPM

— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBookerOffice) January 11, 2017

Booker’s move drew criticism from Republicans. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) said that Booker just wanted some time in the spotlight. Others saw it as a sign that Booker may throw his hat into the ring for 2020.

can we just fast-forward to whenever I get to vote for Cory Booker for president?

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis and NAACP President Cornell William Brooks also testified against Sessions. Brooks said that Sessions has shown “disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country.”

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to those claims, saying that the NAACP is biased and favors Democrats in its Civil Rights Federal Legislative Scorecards. In short: Sessions’ confirmation has turned into a bit of a melee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ease into this Monday with some of Law Street’s top stories from last week. ICYMI, an Iranian civil rights activist’s hunger strike continues, UK approves CBD for medical use, and an attack on female Mexican politician inspires a misogynistic hashtag. Check out the best of the week below!

1. Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

2. UK Officially Classifies CBD Oil as a Medicinal Ingredient

A popular cannabis-based ingredient has officially been classified as medicine in the UK, after healthcare officials scrutinized claims speaking to its effectiveness. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced earlier this week the addition of cannabidiol, or CBD oil, to its list of medicines after reviewing several manufacturing companies’ “overt medicinal claims” that the product provides relief for patients.

3. Attack on Female Politician in Mexico Leads to Misogynistic Hashtag

A few weeks ago, Mexican senator and former Olympic athlete Ana Gabriela Guevara was severely beaten by a group of men. She was riding her motorcycle in Mexico City when a car rammed into her, seemingly on purpose. Four men got out of the car and started to beat her. She said they hit her in the ribs and the head and insulted her for being a female motorcyclist. Guevara was beaten so badly that she had to be hospitalized. She later posted a photo of herself with a black eye, thanking everyone who had supported her and said that she had recently left the operating room after having surgery.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

Sadeghi has said that he was arrested because he supported a group of poor students who had been denied access to education. He also supported left-leaning students, the families of people who had been killed, and peaceful protests against executions and wrongful imprisonments.

His wife was working on a fictional novel about stoning in Iran, which is a common form of capital punishment in the country. But officials didn’t even know about the book draft until they were ransacking the couples’ home while arresting them both for Sadeghi’s “crimes.”

Arash is a political prisoner. He is on his 68th day of hunger strike demanding his wife be released. #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/E2qbBZz2HO

— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) December 30, 2016

As the draft contained a description of burning a Quran, she got the maximum punishment even though it was only fiction and not yet published. In a conversation with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) in October, she said:

I was interrogated dozens of times about the burning of the Quran in my story. Each time I explained: it’s only a story. I told them and I wrote [in my defense statement] that if what I did was a crime, then many scriptwriters and novelists should be arrested for committing the same crime.

Arash Sadeghi Is In “Critical And Worrying” Condition After 64 Days On Hunger Strike In Tehran’s Evin Prison #SaveArash pic.twitter.com/vnKj3qonfM

— Nick Sotoudeh (@NickSotoudeh) December 26, 2016

As Sadeghi hasn’t eaten for over 68 days, his body started to break down a couple of weeks ago. He was taken to the prison clinic on Wednesday night for low blood pressure, heart palpitations, asthma, and was coughing up blood. But he has refused medical treatments ever since he was banned from visiting his wife. In the late stage of a hunger strike it is very likely to fall into a coma or even die. Famous IRA activist in Northern Ireland Bobby Sands died after 66 days of striking in 1981. A source speaking on the condition of anonymity to ICHRI in the beginning of December stated:

Arash has lost a lot of weight and he’s suffering from stomach and intestinal problems. His blood pressure has dropped severely and he has been constantly in and out of the prison clinic during the past week. He spat out blood and he can barely stand or speak. His health is in critical condition and worrying,

Recently the hashtag #SaveArash started trending on Twitter, and several human rights groups have pleaded with the Iranian government to step in.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike appeared first on Law Street.

A hostage exchange with Iran in January depended on a U.S. payment of $400 million, State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday. While “we don’t pay ransom,” Kirby said, the U.S. sought “maximum leverage” because “Iran has not proved completely trustworthy in the past.” He added: “There were opportunities we took advantage of, and as a result we got American citizens back home.”

When the cash element of the exchange was reported a few weeks ago, President Obama and the State Department denied any link between securing the hostages–a Washington Post reporter, a marine, and a pastor–and the payment. Thursday represents the first time the administration addressed the hostages’ return as being contingent on the $400 million. But while Republicans in Congress who oppose the softened stance the U.S. has taken with Iran viewed Kirby’s admission as proof the payment was a ransom, Kirby stopped short of labeling it as such, referring to it only as “leverage.”

Reporter to John Kirby: “It seems like such a ridiculous explanation it shocks me that you’re actually providing it”https://t.co/typHndIq1Q

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 18, 2016

“If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it’s a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation,” said Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Thursday.

Kirby maintains the cash payment–which was part of a $1.3 billion sum the U.S. owed Iran from a botched arms deal in the 1970s–was negotiated separately from the hostage negotiations. The day the exchange took place at an airport in Tehran, January 17, was also the same day the Iran nuclear deal was officially implemented. All three negotiations–the $400 million, the nuclear deal, the prisoner return–were separate, according to Kirby, but it was convenient to carry them all out on the same day.

Obama and the State Department issued statements after the Wall Street Journal first reported the cash element in early August that seem to contradict what Kirby said on Thursday. “This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” Obama said on August 4, the day after the report came to light. “We do not pay ransom for hostages,” he added. And Kirby sent out a tweet the same day that said: “Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false.”

But the way things shook out that day in January, there seemed to be a link between the hostages being released and the payment being made, a point Kirby made on Thursday. The $400 million–denominated in foreign bills like Swiss Francs and Euros–sat on a plane in Geneva as the American hostages boarded a plane in Tehran. State Department officials did not green light the plane with the cash to takeoff for Tehran until the prisoners were confirmed to have departed. Kirby, in front of a group of prodding, aghast reporters, refused to label the transaction as a ransom while admitting the payment was “contingent” upon the prisoner release.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post $400 Million Payment to Iran Connected to Hostage Release, State Dept. Says appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that frustrated the U.S. and has some questioning its adherence to international law, Russia began using a base in Iran to launch airstrikes against targets in Syria on Tuesday. Russia confirmed Wednesday that it launched additional strikes from Iran’s Shahid Nojeh Air Base in Hamedan Province for the second straight day. The U.S. State Department condemned Russia’s actions as “unfortunate, but not surprising,” and added it could be violating a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution by utilizing an Iranian air base.

For roughly the past year, Russia has been supporting the Syrian government with airstrikes against the Islamic State, which continues to maintain a presence in the heavily fractured country. Critics say Russia is bolstering Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, in his quest to exterminate any rebel groups who oppose his rule by deliberately destroying hospitals in rebel-held regions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Syria’s five-year civil war, and millions more have fled the country, seeking asylum in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia said it’s using Iran’s air base strictly to refuel its jets. “In the case we’re discussing there has been no supply, sale or transfer of warplanes to Iran,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister. Lavrov was responding to Mark Toner, the State Department spokesman who insinuated that Russia is breaching UNSC Resolution 2231, which prohibits the supply, sale, or transfer of combat aircraft to Iran without Security Council approval. “The Russian Air Force uses these warplanes with Iran’s approval in order to take part in the counter-terrorism operation,” Lavrov added.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said that Russia did alert U.S. forces of the move to launch jets from Iran, but that didn’t stop the U.S. from questioning the Kremlin’s use of an Iranian airbase as unlawful. On Wednesday, a spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, expressed Russia’s exasperation at suggestions that it’s breaching international law. “It’s hard to resist a recommendation for some State Department representatives to check their logic and knowledge of fundamental documents of international law,” he said, referencing Resolution 2231.

The clash underscores the knotted nature of alliances and adversaries that is crippling any semblance of peace in Syria. Russia is providing military support to the Syrian government, which is also backed by Iran. Those three nations, as well as the U.S. and its primary allies, have a common enemy: ISIS. Assad, the Syrian strongman who has exterminated large swaths of his citizenry, is also pitted against a collection of rebel groups who threaten his hold on power.

Emblematic of the violence that is tearing apart the country at the moment, Aleppo, one of Syria’s largest cities, saw seven civilians killed by rebel-launched airstrikes on Wednesday, according to Syria’s state-run news agency. Nine more were injured. Aleppo is split between the rebel-held east and the government-held west. It’s hospitals are being targeted by the Assad regime. Civilians are effectively trapped. On Wednesday, the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Aleppo should conditions remain the same or worsen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Launches Airstrikes from Iran for Second Straight Day appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump and the $400 Million Dollar Question

The White House rejects claims that a $400 million dollar transaction that took place between the U.S. and Iran is anything more than what it is, a legitimate transaction. In January, the United States delivered $400 million in cash to Iran “a long-standing financial dispute,” according to the White House press secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest spent Wednesday deflecting claims and criticism about the money order from all directions, including news outlets and Donald Trump.

Trump tweeted Wednesday that there was more to the money than met the eye:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

Sounds like hot air, right? But it wasn’t until other top Republicans started speaking up that things started to get a little iffy.

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

Rubio and many others are claiming that the money was a ransom payment for four U.S. soldiers who had been taken hostage in Iran after crossing into its surrounding waters. Earnest says that the money was part of a series of unrelated settlement from a decades-old debt and the release of the hostages just happened to be within the same timeline. Earnest claims that while the scandal rumors “make for a more colorful story,” but that the cash was just a boring debt payment. So opponents of the Iran deal need to shut up.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

People love to joke that the Kardashian/Jenner clan is taking over the world, but some in Iran have genuine concerns.

Iranian officials have accused the family’s top bread winner, Kim Kardashian, of being a secret agent. On an Iranian news program Sunday night, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Organized Cyberspace Crimes Unit (OCCU) accused Kim of conspiring with Instagram to corrupt Iranian women with “un-Islamic photos.”

OCCU spokesman Mostafa Alizadeh explained that the reality star “targets” Muslim women with photos that are contradictory to an Islamic lifestyle:

They are targeting young people and women. Foreigners are behind it because it is targeting families. These schemes originate from around the Persian Gulf and England. When you draw the operational graph, you will see that it is a foreign operation. Ms. Kim Kardashian is a popular fashion model so Instagram’s CEO tells her, ‘make this native.’ There is no doubt that financial support is involved as well. We are taking this very seriously.

This comes just as eight women working as online models for social media platforms such as Instagram were arrested in Iran as part of the country’s larger crackdown on “un-Islamic” photos.

But now that I think about it, this is not the first time Kim K has been accused of espionage-like involvement. I decided to do some digging to see if Kim could in fact be a spy, and came to the conclusion…possibly? So, without further adieu:

Here’s Three Reasons why Kim Kardashian Could Actually be a Spy

1. Kim’s Favorite Television Shows are Very Suspicious

Once, when asked by a fan what TV shows she likes to watch, Kim answered, “I love investigating shows like ‘Dateline,’ ‘Forensic Files,’ [and] ‘I Survived…'” NBC’s “Dateline” regularly airs true crime stories, “Forensic Files” shows how scientists use forensic science to solve crimes, and “I Survived…” profiles people’s near death experiences.

I’m noticing a suspicious theme here.

2. Kim Loves Investigating Her Own Family

If you watch “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” you’d know that Kim has a history of investigating her family and hiring private investigators. In an episode of the KUWTK’s spinoff “Kourtney & Kim Take Miami,” Kim is suspicious of Kourtney’s then-boyfriend Scott Disick, so she hires a P.I. to track him.

Watch her shady sleuthing in the clip below:

If she’d investigate someone she considers to be family, who’s to say she wouldn’t be down for investigating entire countries like….idk IRAN!

3. Tina Fey is Convinced There’s Something Amiss 

Tina Fey joked that the reality star was “made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes” in her comedic bestseller “Bossypants.”

I mean #NuffSaid. You may be on to something, Iranian officials. We’ll have to keep an eye out.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran Officials Think Kim Kardashian is a Secret Agent: Maybe They’re Right? appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the Kurds have been one of the most effective groups when it comes to fighting ISIS. But beyond that, little is known to some in the United States about who the Kurds are and what the history of the ethnic group is. With the United States and the many countries involved in the fight against ISIS relying on the group, it is important to take a closer look at who they are and what the majority want.

Who exactly are the Kurds and how did they become the largest ethnic group without a homeland? Read on to find out who the Kurds are, what their role in the Middle East is, and most importantly, what they are looking for.

History of the Kurds

The history of the Kurds is, in many ways, as convoluted as their present–with no exact date or time for when they first appeared on the world stage as an ethnic group. Some speculate they were part of an ancient group that ruled large chunks of the Middle East more than 2,500 years ago. The first widely acknowledged mention of the Kurds as a people came in the seventh century when they converted to Islam. The Kurds often “fought for other groups that succeeded as regional powers, receiving a reputation for being fierce fighters.”

Along with their fighting prowess, the Kurds were also known for their nomadic lifestyle. According to the Kurdistan Tribune, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds–like many other groups in the region–were guaranteed a homeland by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. But like many other groups, they were lied to. After Kemal Ataturk rose to power and Turkey’s borders were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were not given a country of their own. They were then left in the historically unenviable position of being an unpopular minority in an unwelcoming region. This led to a revolt by Kurdish groups and a subsequent violent crackdown by Turkish forces in the 1920s and 30s.

The Kurds and Turks have had an especially hostile relationship following these failed revolts. For years, the Turks tried to suppress the Kurds’ cultural identity by forbidding them to wear traditional clothes or teach their own language in schools. Not surprisingly then, a Kurdish leader named Abdullah Ocalan rose up and created an organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, to fight the Turks and gain a Kurdish homeland in 1978. Despite years of fighting and guerrilla warfare against Turkey, Ocalan ultimately failed and was eventually captured by Turkish forces in 1999. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization and its campaign to fight the group in the southeast region of the country has escalated recently.

Aside from Turkey, the Kurds also had issues in other surrounding countries where they have sizable minorities. After many years of allowing Ocalan to manage the PKK from within its borders, the Syrian government forced him from the country in 1998 after being pressured by Turkey. In Iran, the Kurds made two attempts, both with little success, to carve out an autonomous region.

Iraq rivaled Turkey in its harsh treatment of the Kurds. Throughout the 20th century, the Kurds in Northern Iraq launched several revolts, all of which ended in defeat. However, the worst situation for the Kurds came after Saddam Hussein took power. Angry over their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein targeted the Kurds with chemical weapons. These attacks stopped after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, however, he crushed another Kurdish revolt soon after.

The video below gives a look at Kurdish history:

Role in the Middle East

Today the Kurdish people live in an area at the intersecting borders of five countries; Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Despite not having a homeland, the Kurds are still an important group made up of as many as 30 million people–the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. So what role does such a large group, spread over a number of countries, play in the region?

Turkey

Currently, Kurds make up 15 to 20 percent of the population of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds have a long and bloody history of animosity. Much of this recent struggle has centered on fighting between the PKK and Turkey. Since the PKK took up arms in 1984, approximately 40,000 people have been killed. However, when the PKK toned down its demands and exchanged autonomy for independence in 2012, a ceasefire was finally reached. Nevertheless, all that work was undone in 2015 following a suicide bombing against the Kurds in Suruc. In response, Kurdish forces lashed out against Turkish authorities reigniting the old feud.

Still, the PKK is not representative of all Kurds and, in fact, many are actually entrenched in the Turkish economy. This group, in fact, is a strong pillar of support for the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Part (AKP).  There is also a third group that splits the middle between the supporters of the Turkish AKP and the militant PKK, the People’s Democratic Party or HDP.

Iraq

The Kurds make up as large of a portion of the Iraqi population as they do in Turkey–between 15 and 20 percent. As in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq have faced years of crackdowns and repression following unsuccessful rebellion attempts. However, they achieved some limited autonomy following the First Gulf War and even greater autonomy after the second in 2003. Since the formation of the new Iraqi government, the Kurds have been constant participants in Iraqi politics. Amid the rise of ISIS and the resulting conflict, Kurdish leaders have gone beyond autonomy and called for a referendum on independence.The Kurds and the Iraqi government eventually reconciled several of their differences and started working together closely in the fight against ISIS.

Kurds in Iraq have made the most significant progress toward autonomy relative to Kurds in other countries. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution actually guarantees the Kurds an autonomous area, in which they have established their own government that operates within Iraq’s federal rule. The Kurds have taken advantage of this arrangement with its involvement in the Iraqi oil industry. The Kurds operate a pipeline between Iraq and Turkey, for which they have a revenue sharing agreement with Iraq. A recent dispute over the revenue sharing agreement disrupted oil transfers pending a new agreement.

Syria

The Kurds make up a sizable portion of the population in Syria as well, accounting for between 7 and 10 percent before the Syrian Civil War erupted. This population was concentrated in urban centers and in the north of the country. Like in Turkey and Iraq, Kurds in Syria were also marginalized through repression from the government, which also denies citizenship to over 300,000 Kurds living there. Once the war in Syria began, however, Kurds began asserting their rights and now plan to carve out autonomous regions for themselves. They have also sought to be actively involved in the peace talks determining Syria’s fate.

The Kurds’ battle against ISIS has been particularly challenging in Syria. Several Kurdish positions were overrun by ISIS, partly because Turkey refused to let Turkish Kurds cross the border to intercede. But in October, Turkey eventually allowed some fighters to help Syrian Kurds push back ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes. However, the Kurds continue to encounter challenges in terms of their relations with Turkey, notably after their recent attempt to establish an autonomous zone in Syria. While they were quick to clarify they are not seeking independence to appease Turkey, this may have fallen on deaf ears. The Turks have worked to exclude the Kurds from Syria’s peace talks, meaning the appeasement may not be enough.

Elsewhere

Kurds make up about 10 percent of Iran’s population, however in total numbers, they rank only second to those living in Turkey. Nevertheless, unlike in other countries Iranian Kurds enjoy no autonomous regions and like in other neighboring countries they are violently repressed. There is also a much smaller Kurdish community living in Armenia; unlike in other places this group does not govern nor aspire to an autonomous region. The accompanying video looks at the Kurds role in the Middle East:

What the Kurds Want

As the world’s largest “stateless nation,” a priority for the majority of Kurds has long been a country of their own. This has been evident since the start of the Kurdish nationalist movement beginning after WWI, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It is also evident today in Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomous areas where it has large populations, which it has in three countries: Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The real question, then, is not what the Kurds want, but how they hope to achieve it.

But it’s important to note that the Kurds are by no means a monolithic group. While they share the same ethnicity, they are a very diverse group. In Turkey, where the largest Kurd population resides, there are three major Kurdish political groups ranging politically from loyal to the state to hostile to it. There are also major divisions in Iraq with one party controlling two of the Kurdish provinces and a different party controlling the other. The leaders of the dominant party have close relationships with Turkey and have even worked with the Turks in fighting the Turkish PKK. The Kurds in Iraq also fought a civil war during the 1990s which lasted three years.

The Kurds are also divided at even smaller levels with sizable differences between those in cities and those still adhering to their nomadic roots. Even in a country as small as Armenia, there are divisions between traditional Kurdish Sunni Muslims and Kurdish Christians. While many Kurds seek a homeland, for now, the best they may be able to get are autonomous regions like the ones in Syria and Iraq. The following video looks at some of the different Kurdish parties at play across the Middle East:

Conclusion

It is easy to characterize the Kurds as just one more ethnic group with deep historical roots wandering the Middle East searching for a homeland, but that characterization is overly simplistic. The Kurds are not a monolithic group, but a diverse set of actors spread mostly across five countries that are bound by a common heritage. Yes, many do want a homeland, but due to the diversity within the group, how they achieve it, or even if they can, varies widely.

In the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Middle East, the Kurds are a recurring actor. Much of what is known or understood about them comes from other generalizations–they are Sunni Muslims, they are searching for a country, etc. This is all true but the reality is more complicated. The Kurds’ situation is emblematic of many other realities in the Middle East, an intricate web of interconnected groups with, at times, converging and differing interests. While the Syrian conflict has actually given them the opportunity to further assert their claims, nothing in the fluid region is certain. Thus, only time will tell if those dreams can amount to more than that.

Resources

Washington Post: Who Are the Kurds?

New Historian: History of the Kurds

BBC News: Who are the Kurds?

The Atlantic: What Exactly Are ‘the Kurds’?

Reuters: Iraq seeks financial agreement with Kurds before pumping crude to Turkey

RT: Turkish fighter jets pound PKK targets in Northern Iraq

BBC News: Iraqi Kurdistan Profile

The New York Times: The Kurds Push for Self-Rule in Syria

TA Central: Kurds

Council on Foreign Relations: The Time of the Kurds

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect sources of information.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Kurds? appeared first on Law Street.

After years of fighting destroyed cities, led to massive waves of refugees, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, world leaders are finally coming to the table in order to reach a peace agreement. On February 1, leaders from around the region and the world met in Geneva, Switzerland in order to lay the groundwork for a deal that might end the conflict.

While even getting this far is an accomplishment, actually achieving a sustained peace is further complicated by the various regional and world powers involved, each of whom has their own agendas to satisfy. Couple that with the role of non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front and the reason why peace has been so elusive becomes clearer. Read on to find out about the origins of the Syrian conflict, what each side wants and how those involved expect to create a lasting peace.

A Brief Overview

The war in Syria marks the last gasp of the Arab Spring. Beginning in March 2011, thousands of protesters took to the streets after government forces arrested, tortured, and killed opponents of the Syrian regime. But doing so escalated the conflict leading to the consolidation of several rebel factions that rose up in violent resistance. Since the conflict devolved into full-fledged civil war, there have been atrocities and war crimes committed by both the rebels and the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. The most infamous were the chemical weapons attacks in 2013, which nearly led to a direct U.S. intervention. The situation was eventually resolved when the United States, Russia, and Syria reached an agreement to dispose of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict has resulted in violence and destruction on a mass scale. As of the start of 2016, an estimated 250,000 people had been killed and 11 million others have been displaced either internally or abroad. The resulting refugee crisis has reached historic proportions, testing the limits of neighboring countries and the European Union.

Who is Involved?

Due to the long-running nature of the conflict as well as the number of people killed or displaced, many of the world’s major powers have also gotten involved. The contingent opposing Assad includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. The countries bolstering Assad are Iran and Russia. Along with these nations are non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al Nusra Front. With all of these groups involved, to understand how the peace process hopes to work, it is first necessary to understand what they each want.

The United States and its Allies

The clearest distinction in what the two sides are hoping to achieve comes in the targets of their respective airstrikes. The U.S.-led collation has focused on targeting ISIS positions while trying not to assist Assad in any way. The coalition’s main goal is to bring the conflict to an end peacefully, ensure that Assad leaves office, and also stop the flow of refugees.

So far, the west has focused almost exclusively on defeating ISIS and not fighting the Assad regime directly. The Obama administration initially authorized a program to train rebels, but it was viewed as a disaster and the program was shut down last October. Aside from logistical problems, one area of contention was Washington’s insistence that rebels focus on fighting ISIS over Assad, which they did not agree with. In its place, the United States began to directly offer arms to the Syrian rebels.

An ideal peace agreement for the United States would involve Assad leaving power and the creation of some form of a cooperative, moderate government to take his place. Doing so would need to also enable displaced Syrians to return home and allow the United States to focus on defeating ISIS exclusively.

Russia

Much of Russia’s interests in Syria run counter to what the United States wants to see happen. This starts with Russia’s airstrikes, which have reportedly been targeting the opposition groups fighting Assad and not terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Like Iran, Russia hopes to keep its client Assad in power in Syria, however, its larger aims in Syria and the greater Middle East are far-reaching and complex. For more information about Russia’s role in the Middle East and its interests there check out this explainer.

So far, Russia has been willing to openly assert its positions even at the expense of a potential peace deal. Most recently, as countries involved in the region agreed to a version of a ceasefire, Russia embarked on an airstrike campaign to support a Syrian government attack on Aleppo, frustrating potential peace partners. For Russia, the best case scenario would be Assad maintaining his power so that Russia maintain its foothold in the area and the stability of one of its longstanding allies.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Two other major players are Saudi Arabia and Iran. While the Saudis are tentatively an ally of the United States, the country has several important interests in the conflict. Iran is similarly situated but on the other side of the conflict, finding itself partially aligned with Russia. Both countries’ concerns with the Syrian conflict center over their expanding proxy war, which pits them against one another on religious and geopolitical grounds. The conflict was already sectarian in nature, pitting President Assad–a member of the minority ruling Shia Alawite sect–against the majority Sunnis. Iran, another Shia country, provides billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Assad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been funneling a lot of support for the Syrian rebels. The escalating feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia has already strained the existing peace efforts–the execution of a cleric in Saudi Arabia causing Iran to retaliate and tensions to rise.

For Iran, it would be a major victory if Assad is able to stay in power. Not only would it mean keeping him as a client, it would also help them maintain influence in Lebanon as well. Additionally, it would serve as a victory over both Saudi Arabia and the United States. For Saudi Arabia, victory would mean Assad losing power and a new government made up of the Sunni majority population. This would give the Saudis a badly needed win in a proxy war that has so far seen Iran gain influence throughout the gulf.

Non-State Actors

Adding fuel to the sectarian nature of this war is the presence of non-state groups such as ISIS and the Al-Qaida sponsored Nusra Front. These groups have battled each other, the other countries acting in Syria, and Assad’s forces. ISIS has proven to be the most successful and prominent group, taking and holding large chunks of territory in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, ISIS is the reason why the foreign powers are in Syria in the first place, although Russia, Iran, and likely some of the Gulf States are clearly there for other concerns as well.

The presence of ISIS and Al Nusra has severely complicated the situation in Syria. The mere presence of these groups makes any effort to arm Syrian rebels much more complicated, as countries fear that their weapons will fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is a member of ISIS and who is just someone fighting against the regime. Aside from ISIS and Al Nusra, Iran-backed Hezbollah and the Syrian Kurdish PYD have also been involved in the fighting.

Syria

Then there’s Syria itself. The ongoing conflict has destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and displaced massive portions of the Syrian population. Estimates indicate that the cost to fix the damage done to the country from a monetary standpoint could be as much as $200 billion. Considering how hard it has been to merely find the funds to help Syrian refugees, it appears unlikely that much money could or would be raised to rebuild an unstable country.

The best case scenario for Syria is hard to pinpoint. Assad’s departure would certainly be in the interest of the majority Sunni population, but doing so could also create a massive power vacuum furthering the rise of extremism. In this case then, perhaps forming some type of coalition which incorporates both the opposition and elements of the Assad regime in to order maintain some sort of peace may be the most that can be hoped for.

With all these parties involved and the constant infighting, little has been accomplished. The reality is, there is more than one war going on in Syria at the moment. To achieve peace in Syria, all these separate conflicts would need to be resolved at once, with the possible exception of the fight against ISIS.

The following video gives a sample of what may be next for Syria:

Peace for our Time?

In mid-December, the U.N. Security Council agreed to create a path that would eventually lead to peace in Syria. After years of violent conflict, peace talks finally began on February 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks started with a U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura meeting separately with the government and opposition representatives. The talks are tentatively planned to last for six months. However, there is not even a preliminary understating of how, let alone if, Assad will give up power.

In fact, the only reason these talks are even taking place now is conditions are so bad in some places as to potentially demand war crime charges. The opposition only considered participating because they were promised that major headway would be made toward addressing these most serious issues. And almost immediately after the process was initiated, it was suspended due to attacks by the Syrian government with Russia’s backing. How much ultimately comes from these talks and whether they even occur as planned remains a mystery. The following video gives a quick look at some of the problems plaguing the peace talks:

Conclusion

After years of fighting, millions displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead, peace talks in Syria must be a good idea, right? Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests that there is very little chance of a sustainable peace agreement on the horizon. While talks may help strengthen diplomatic ties as the conflict rages on, there appears to be very little in the way of progress to stop the violence.

The problem with this peace process is there are too many different parties at play, with very different sets of interests and strategic goals. One side wants Assad to stay, the other will not negotiate unless he is forced to leave. But that is just one of the many questions at hand, as many parties have a wide range of strategic interests in the war. This problem is compounded further, by the fact that the opposition to Assad is a hodge-podge of groups and no one can agree on who to trust. In fact, the strongest opposition group in Syria is probably ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, but neither of them was invited to the peace conference for obvious reasons.

While some sort of peace in Syria may be possible down the road, the possibility that it is favorable for all those involved, especially the Syrian people, is far less likely.

Resources

International Business Times: Syria: Shaky Peace Process to Start in Geneva Amid Deadly Bombings and Sieges

BBC News: Syria: The Story of the conflict

BBC News: Syria Crisis: Where Key Countries Stand

Law Street Media: Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

The Guardian: Future of Assad in Doubt as UN Unanimously Supports Syrian Peace Process

Euro News: Aleppo Assault Threatens Fragile Syrian Peace Process

Al Jazeera: Prominent Syrian Rebel Commander Killed in Airstrike

Al Jazeera: Saudi-Iran Crisis Throws a Wrench in Syria Peace Talks

History News Network: 6 Predictions About What will Happen in Syria

CNN: You Thought Syria Couldn’t Get Much Worse. Think Again

The New York Times: Syria Talks Are Suspended

BBC: Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US Went Wrong

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Does Peace in Syria Remain Elusive? appeared first on Law Street.

While Iran has a parliament and president, like many western nations, its political structure is far more opaque. From the Supreme Leader to influential religious councils, understanding Iran’s leadership presents a challenge in and of itself. This challenge has been highlighted by a number of high profile events where it was unclear who had the final say in important Iranian policy decisions. Read on to learn how the Iran leadership was developed, how it is currently structured, and how that leadership defines itself both domestically and abroad.

The Revolution and Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was years in the making; its origins go back to at least to 1953. During that year, the CIA helped overthrow the recently elected prime minister in favor of the Shah, who had Western leanings and was an opponent of Soviet-style communism. While the Shah honored his loyalty to the United States, he was less kind to his own people, frequently imprisoning and even torturing those opposing him.

This set the stage for the revolution of 1979. This movement was led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned from Paris where he had been exiled during the Shah’s rise. In place of the Shah’s one-party government, the Ayatollah installed his own based on Islamic teachings, placing himself as the country’s Supreme Leader. The new emphasis on strict adherence to Islam meant a rollback on the Shah’s few, more liberal reforms concerning the economy and women’s rights.

The following video details the specifics of the Iranian Revolution:

The Shah, who had come to power following World War II, ruled as the head of a constitutional monarchy with himself as the final arbiter. When he was deposed by Khomeini the democratic institutions that had existed were kept, however, any power they had was drained. In the new system, Khomeini ruled as the unquestioned leader of his own government which focused heavily on instilling Islamic concepts and resisting interaction with Western nations he viewed as corrupting Iran. The next sections will detail the unelected and elected elements of Khomeini’s Iran and how they are structured so that his power is virtually unchallenged.

Unelected Officials

Similar to the U.S. government, part of Iran’s government is appointed, independent of any elections. In the Iranian case, however, this aspect of the government is unquestionably the most powerful part, including many important institutions.

The Supreme Leader

As the final decision maker, the Supreme Leader has either direct or indirect control over nearly the entire government because his primary responsibility is to maintain the continued existence of the Islamic State of Iran. To ensure this, the Ayatollah has power over all three branches of government, the military, and even the state-run media. He also has power or influence on virtually every other political institution, the economy, and major policy decisions. In other words then, the Supreme Leader is the undisputed power in the Iranian regime.

The person who spearheaded the 1979 revolution and the first to hold this all important office was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini founded the state and defined his role in it by championing four key characteristics, “justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islamic Piety.” Khomeini also offered a religious justification for the office, believing he held the place on earth of a 12th Imam, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed who has since gone into hiding. Khomeini died in 1989 with no appointed successor.

The man who succeeded him and the current supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has served in this position since 1989 making him the second longest current ruler in the Middle East. Khamenei was a longtime loyalist to Khomeini and also served two terms as Iran’s president before outmaneuvering rivals for the coveted Supreme Leader position.

The Guardian Council

Next in Iran’s unelected hierarchy is the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is arguably the most important Iranian institution aside from the Supreme Leader. The council has the final say on legislation passed by the parliament and maintains the ability to determine which candidates are eligible to run for public office in the parliament, presidency, and the Assembly of Experts. There are 12 members, six chosen by the Supreme Leader and six chosen by the judiciary and confirmed by parliament. The members of this group serve six-year terms. This group’s ability to evaluate legislation is part of its role that is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court evaluates laws based on their adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the Guardian Council determines whether laws are compliant with both Iran’s constitution and Islamic law.

The Expediency Council

The Expediency Council serves as advisors to the Supreme Leader, much as the cabinet does to the president. This assembly is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and consists of highly regarded political, social, and religious authorities. Aside from advising the Supreme Leader, this body’s main responsibility is to act as the final arbiter in disputes between the Parliament and Guardian Council. In 2005, it was also granted sweeping powers by the Supreme Leader over all branches of the government.

The Judiciary

Iran’s judiciary is a multi-tiered system of courts tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the law and settling grievances among Iranian citizens. The Supreme Leader has a considerable amount of control over the judiciary as he appoints its leader, who then appoints the head of the Supreme Court and the top public prosecutor. There are three main branches of the judiciary, the public courts, the revolutionary courts, and the special clerical court. While the public court deals with criminal and civil matters, the latter two courts deal with everything else.

Based the structure of the judiciary and its position beneath the Supreme Leader, many believe that it is often used as a political tool to squash dissent and maintain strict control over the people of Iran. Critics also note that the trial process in Iran is often very opaque and restrictive, allowing greater government influence.

The Revolutionary Guard

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is yet another body whose leadership is appointed by the Supreme Leader, along with the regular army. This group was created following the revolution to defend its key figures and fight its opponents. Unsurprisingly, this group only answers to the Supreme Leader. Aside from being in charge of militia branches in every town in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard has widespread influence throughout Iranian life.

The Revolutionary Guard’s special place both within the military and within Iran itself comes from its initial purpose of serving as an armed body loyal to the revolution as the regular army that had been loyal to the departed Shah. Since its inception, the guard has acquired billions of dollars from a variety of activities such as shipping, construction, defense contracts, and oil production. The group uses many of these assets to fund militant or extremist groups abroad such as Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guard is so powerful, in fact, that some of the American and E.U. sanctions have targeted the IRGC specifically.

The two other major components of Iran’s defense forces are the army and the ministry of intelligence and security, which is essentially the Iranian CIA. All three of these groups are under the direction of the Supreme National Security Council. While this agency is again tentatively under the control of the president, in reality, the Supreme Leader possesses most of the control.

Elected Officials

Also similar to the United States, a portion of the Iranian government is elected by the people. Anyone over 18, including women, is eligible to vote. Also like in the American system, the different branches have some checks on one another.

The President and Cabinet

The presidency in Iran shares some of the characteristics of the same position in the United States. Namely, the presidential term is four years, and a president can only be elected for two consecutive terms. However, while the president, in theory, is the second most powerful person in Iran behind the supreme leader, reality suggests that the office’s power is drastically curtailed by unelected leaders. Not only does the president answer to the Guardian Council, which chooses who can run for the position in the first place, but the Supreme Leader retains final authority over most major political decisions. In fact, the President of Iran is the only executive in the world to not have control over the country’s military.

Parliament

Iran’s parliament has 290 members and is similar to most western legislatures. Notably, this body has its membership determined through popular elections. Once elected, members have the power to introduce and pass laws as well as summon and impeach cabinet ministers and the president. Once again, though, Parliament’s power and even who is eligible to run for office is determined by the Guardian Council. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian legislature is a unicameral body whose members serve four-year terms. The Iranian parliament’s sessions and its minutes are open to the public.

Assembly of Experts

The final part of Iran’s leadership that is directly elected is the Assembly of Experts. There are 86 members of this body and each one is elected to an eight-year term. To be considered, each member must be a cleric or religious leader. This group has the critical responsibility of appointing and subsequently monitoring the Supreme Leader. Members of this group are vetted first by the Guardian Council, the primary check on its influence. This group meets for only one week each year and although it has the power to depose the Supreme Leader it has never challenged any of his decisions since the Islamic Republic of Iran formed. The accompanying video gives a concise explanation of how the Iranian government is organized:

Major Challenges Facing Iran’s Leadership

Domestic Dissent

Protests in Iran became particularly significant in the 20th century, as Iranian citizens frequently spoke out against the government. For the first half of the century, this was aimed at the decadent dynastic government and later colonial masters. The resistance then focused on the Shah, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution. Following the revolution, discontent emerged in 2009 when people took to the streets to dispute then President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In 2011, another flare-up of protests occurred concurrently with the Arab Spring revolts in nearby countries. Much of the protest again focused on the contentious 2009 elections and were led by the Green Movement.

International Relations

Political decisions in Iran are often the result of a complex process that is typically driven by the Supreme Leader. Given the nature of the Iranian government, several international concerns have significant implications for the country and how its government responds.

Possibly the most pressing concern facing Iran is its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. The two countries have effectively positioned themselves as the defenders and standard bearers of Islam, but champion different denominations. This is especially true of the Supreme Leader who feels it is his mission to lead Islam and who also views Saudi Arabia as an obstacle in the way of that. This proxy conflict threatens to turn into more direct action if Iran reneges on its nuclear deal. The video below details the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:

The recent nuclear deal between Iran and the United States brings up another important challenge for the country. While the two groups have worked together to finalize the deal, a conflict remains. Aside from the history of distrust between both countries, Iran’s support for a number of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas–which are considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department–and its anti-Israel policy remain hurdles.

Conclusion

Iran has a large and complex leadership structure, which originated in the aftermath of the revolution in 1979. On one hand are democratic institutions such as the president and parliament, which are similar to American and Western models. On the other are a series of appointed offices that wield a significant portion of political power in the country. At the heart of this system lies the Supreme Leader who has control over many of the appointments and final say over virtually all of the country’s affairs. This system itself is a reaction to the previous secular regime of the Shah, which was founded upon a greater emphasis on Islamic law as well as inherent animosity toward the United States.

Iran is a mixture of theocracy and democracy, and understanding how Iran is governed and run is critical to understanding how to effectively deal with it. As history has shown, many countries, particularly the United States, have misinterpreted or misjudged the nation’s leadership.

Resources

The New York Times: 1979: Iran’s Islamic Revolution

United States Institute of Peace: The Supreme Leader

BBC News: Guide: How Iran is Ruled

Your Middle East: Iran’s Century of Protest

Global Security.org: Pasdaran: Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The Guardian: Iran Protests See Reinvigorated Activists Take to the Streets in Thousands

Politico: The Hidden Consequences of the Oil Crash

The New York Times: U.S. and Iran Both Conflict and Converge

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi

United States Institute of Peace: The Oil and Gas Industry

PBS: The Structure of Power in Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran’s Leadership: Inside the Complex Regime appeared first on Law Street.

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East.

History in the Middle East

Russia’s intervention in Syria is not the first time that the country has been involved in the Middle East. In fact, the country has a long history in the region. The Soviet Union was a major supplier of the Arab forces who fought against Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kuppur War. The USSR later invaded Afghanistan in 1979, occupying the country for nearly 10 years. In 1990, it lost a key ally in the region when what was then South Yemen merged with the North. Growing U.S. influence in the region further hurt the Soviet Union’s control of the region, particularly after the success of the Operation Desert Storm, a significant victory for the United States over Saddam. Shortly afterward, the Soviet Union collapsed and its influence in the Middle East largely receded.

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

Russia worked its way back into the region as an alternative arms supplier to the United States. Many Middle East countries saw Russia’s more lenient human rights perspective as an appealing reason to do business with the country. This shift allowed Russia to attract many Middle Eastern countries away from their traditional supplier, the United States, which was quick to abandon authoritarian leaders during the Arab Spring.

While the Arab Spring helped Russia increase its arms exports, the region was already an important market for Russia. Between 2006 and 2009 Russia’s largest arms buyers were in the Middle East. While the Arab Spring increased demand for weapons in the Middle East, Russia did not immediately expand its sales to new countries. However, its traditional customers did significantly increase their demand–most notably Syria, which increased its purchases by 600 percent.

The breakthrough for Russia came later in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, as countries who were normally loyal customers of the United States began looking to Russia. This movement started with Egypt, whose relationship with the United States soured during the Arab Spring and the subsequent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Morsi. Seeing an opportunity, Russia secured a deal with Egypt. A potential deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States’ closest ally in the region outside of Israel, highlights Russia’s ambitions for its weapons industry. However, the Russians also supply Iran, Saudi Arabia’s most significant regional enemy.

The video below details Russia’s displacement of the US in formerly pro-Washington areas:

Current Operations

In addition to expanding its weapons exports in the Middle East, Russia recently started conducting military strikes in Syria, making the ongoing civil war even more complicated. At the end of September, Russia began a controversial airstrike campaign, which largely helped the Assad regime by targeting Syrian rebels. These actions have had an impact on the relationship between Russia and several key nations within the region as well as observers in the west.

The accompanying video provides an in-depth look at Russia’s actions in the Middle East:

Turkey

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is potentially its most complicated. Turkey relies on Russia, as well as Iran, for energy and trade, which amounted to $31 billion in 2014. The leaders of the two nations are often compared to each other, with President Erdogan reminding many of Putin based on his leadership style and his motivations to remain in office.

However, the relationship has been strained recently with Russia’s bombings of anti-Assad rebels and its repeated violations of Turkish airspace. There is also a historical legacy hanging over the two countries dating back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, which repeatedly fought the Russian Empire.

Syria

Even before Russia’s recent intervention in Syria, the two were close allies. This relationship has existed for years based, initially, on military contracts that Russian arms dealers had with Syrian buyers. Their relationship was strengthened back in 2010 after Russia’s U.N. Security Council veto–Russia, along with North Korea and China, blocked a resolution to force President Assad to step down. Since then, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer outside of the Middle East. Russia also successfully negotiated the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in 2014, diffusing a particularly controversial issue with the United States.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia’s recent incursion into Syria and its civil war. It started with Russia sending advisors and fighter planes but has continued to include ground troops, artillery, and stationing ships off Syria’s coast. Russia’s intervention in Syria has been particularly controversial because of the targets that the country has chosen to attack. While Russia initiated its air campaign with the intention to focus on ISIS and fight terrorism, many of the strikes have benefited the Assad regime.

Iran

Russia’s relationship with Iran is also particularly complex. Recently, Russia played an important role in securing the deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program. But after the deal, Russia quickly unfroze an $800 million deal–previously suspended during negotiations–to give Iran a missile defense system. Additionally, it approved an oil-for-goods deal, which allows Russia to buy up large amounts of Iranian oil in exchange for food and other goods. But oil is also an area that could create conflict between the two countries. Iran’s now-unsanctioned supply of oil, when dumped on the market, could lower the international price of crude oil even further. Lately, the falling price of oil has hurt Russia’s economy, particularly in light of sanctions after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Since the Iranian Revolution, the two nations have been joined by their desire to keep the West at a distance. Even as sanctions are lifted on Iran, this relationship is likely to endure, allowing Iran to continue its anti-western rhetoric. Both nations are also united in strong support for the Assad regime in Syria. However, this shared sentiment flies in the face of more distant history–one that involved Russia either trying to acquire Iranian territory or intervening in the country’s affairs, as it did in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. More recently, Russia continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies and has gone along with American sanctions on the nation.

Iraq

Along with its collaboration with Iran and the Assad Regime in Syria, Russia also recently agreed to share information with Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Doing so has put the United States in a challenging situation, as it has been sceptical of Russia’s increased presence in the region, but has also advocated for international action against the Islamic State.

Russia also has a history of supporting Iraq, most notably in the form of funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the American invasion in 2003, it has also worked to normalize relations with the new government, especially in order to re-secure lucrative energy contracts.

Conclusion

So why is Russia wading back into the Middle East, especially given its history in the region? For most, an interest in the Middle East generally relates to the wealth of oil found there, but for Russia it is more complicated than oil alone. While Russia has worked to get energy contracts there, it is also one of the leading producers of crude oil and is widely regarded as having the largest proven reserves of natural gas. Traditionally, the Middle East had been a major market for Russian weapons, but as the politics of the region changed the United States took hold of the market. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, Russia has been working to expand its weapons exports, while also strengthening ties to its regional allies, like Syria and Iran. The revenue from arms sales is even more important considering the growth of sanctions from the west and the falling price of oil, a crucial source of revenue for Russia.

While a more involved position in the region may help Russia economically, either through energy or weapons, that does still not seem to be the major impetus for its invasion in Syria. Ultimately, Russia’s growing role in the Middle East may simply be a product of its efforts to grow its influence around the world. Russia seems to be positioning itself to be an effective alternative to the United States and its recent actions best reflect that goal. This move, while viewed critically in the West, has also been welcomed by leaders in the Middle East as a counterweight to American influence. Russia’s recent involvement in Syria, combined with its important role in the Iran nuclear deal, lends it even more regional significance.

Resources

The National Post: Why is Russia further expected to increase its presence in Syria?

Washington Post: Russia’s move into Syria upends U.S. plans

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

Al-Monitor: New Russian arms deals could shakeup Mideast market

New York Times: Russia’s military actions in Syria cause rift with Turkey

New York Times: For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep

Wall Street Journal: Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria is completed

CNN: NATO Secretary General questions Russia’s aim in Syria

The Washington Post: Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of opportunity

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

Financial Times: Iraq and Russia to collaborate in fight against ISIS

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East? appeared first on Law Street.

In light of concerns about state-sponsored hackers going after American technology, Facebook will now warn users it believes are falling victim to these types of attacks.

The warning will take the form of a notification that pops up on Facebook. It doesn’t warn individuals that their Facebook accounts are being hacked, but rather that their computers, smartphones, tablets, or other devices have malware on them that indicate that hackers may be trying to access their accounts.

According to Facebook, the notification will prompt a user to “Please Secure Your Accounts Now” and contain the following message:

We believe your Facebook account and your other online accounts may be the target of attacks from state-sponsored actors. Turning on Login Approvals will help keep others from logging into your Facebook account. Whenever your account is accessed from a new device or browser, we’ll send a security code to your phone so that only you can log in. We recommend you also take steps to secure the accounts you use on other services.

Facebook also recommends that if possible, people who get these notifications should consider replacing or rebuilding their systems, because this type of breach is probably too strong to be wiped out by everyday anti-virus software. Facebook has also made it clear that it won’t be sending out these notifications willy-nilly, but only if there’s strong evidence that a breach is coming from a foreign government hack.

Obviously not all hacks come from state-sponsored entities, but Facebook is clear on why it is focusing on warning its users specifically about these kinds of attacks. Alex Stamos, the Chief Security Officer at Facebook, explained in the announcement about the policy change:

While we have always taken steps to secure accounts that we believe to have been compromised, we decided to show this additional warning if we have a strong suspicion that an attack could be government-sponsored. We do this because these types of attacks tend to be more advanced and dangerous than others, and we strongly encourage affected people to take the actions necessary to secure all of their online accounts.

War waged via technological means is certainly a legitimate concern–there have been either allegations or outright evidence that unfriendly actors such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and ISIL have attempted to hack American accounts.

There are some criticisms of the new alert–Tech Crunch pointed out that the phrase “state-sponsored actors” may not be in everyone’s vernacular, and could be confusing. Additionally, Maddy Crowell of Christian Science Monitor points out that we don’t know exactly how Facebook is getting the information to conclude that someone has been the victim of a state-sponsored attack. While that’s not necessarily a criticism, it is a viable inquiry about Facebook’s privacy features. 

So, essentially, you don’t want to see this notification pop up on your Facebook–it means that your information is under attack, most likely due to malware that has infected your computer. Facebook is doing right by its users by letting them know–it may be an indication of the kind of security we’ll see moving forward as cyberwar remains a serious concern.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook to Warn Users of Potential State-Sponsored Hackers appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Barbra Mikulski of Maryland came out in favor of the Iran deal Wednesday morning, and with that the deal’s opponents will no longer be able to stop it from going forward. With Mikulski’s support, the deal to scale back the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the removal of U.S. sanctions is essentially final.

First things first: the Iran deal was already going to happen. But what was at stake prior to Mikulski’s announcement was the deal’s opponents’ ability to pass a resolution disapproving it–which would prevent the president from lifting sanctions, but would still not stop the entire agreement. Because the negotiations involved several other countries, who have already promised to lift their sanctions, many aspects of the deal would have gone forward regardless of what Congress does.

Now that it is impossible for Congress to override an Obama veto, there is nothing stopping the deal. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority from both chambers of Congress–67 in the Senate and 290 in the House of Representatives. Senator Mikulski is now the 34th senator to support the deal, creating enough support to maintain a veto from the president. Traditionally, Congress would not have the power to stop an agreement like this, but it passed a bill in May that mandated a 60-day review period during which Congress could stop sanctions relief with a disapproval resolution.

Despite the clear path to the deal, there remains some politics to play. The fact that an Obama veto can no longer be overturned frees up several Congressional Democrats to oppose the deal for purely political reasons, as their opposition will not impact the deal. So far only two leading Democrats, Senators Schumer and Menendez, have come out against the deal. But now that the bulk of the pressure is off other Democrats to fall in line with the President, others may begin to oppose the deal.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans may still decide to hold a vote on a disapproval resolution, which while symbolic, would end up getting vetoed. While Obama can stop any action by Congress, having to use his veto would be slightly embarrassing and politically damaging. The Iran deal will likely remain fodder for Republicans in the upcoming election and as a counterpoint to the White House’s foreign policy agenda going forward.

The deal has already prompted a response from several presidential candidates:

Partisan minority should not block bipartisan effort to stop bad deal that will fund mullahs, destabilize region, & pave Iran’s path to bomb

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 2, 2015

When I’m President, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 2, 2015

Great news that the Iran Deal has enough votes; as POTUS, I would aggressively enforce it and counter Iran’s other malicious activities. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

The Iran deal was already a hot topic in the upcoming election, but now that it is moving forward the debate will likely intensify. Beyond the election, the deal will be important for Americans politics–especially if Congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to pass a resolution of disapproval, which they have until September 17 to do. While action from Congress will likely not effect the future of the deal, it could cost the President some influence.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whether You Like it or Not, the Iran Deal is Happening appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

The United States found itself facing criticism from the international community in regards to concerns about its human rights record this week. The criticisms were levied during the U.S.’s second universal periodic review in front of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. Listed among the concerns that other nations presented about the U.S.’s human rights record included the American failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and the prevalence of sexual violence against Native American women. But one of the biggest focal points of the criticism was the culture of police violence and militarization, particularly against young black men, in the United States.

This is no surprise–during the recent flurry of media activity over the protests in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the Baltimore police, I came across a Washington Post article that posited “How Western media would cover Baltimore if it happened somewhere else.” While the writer of that piece, Karen Attiah, certainly wasn’t the only one I saw pose that question, I found her take particularly compelling, as she wrote it from the point of view of another nation’s media outlet. Take this passage for example:

Black Americans, a minority ethnic group, are killed by state security forces at a rate higher than the white majority population. Young, black American males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than white American males.

Sounds pretty bad when it’s phrased like that, doesn’t it?

The point is that if we, as Americans, saw coverage of the racial discrimination and police conduct in this country the way that we see coverage of human rights abuses in other nations, we would be appalled and outraged. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that we received some criticism at the United Nations review.

At the same time, it also didn’t surprise me that the response that many Americans had to the criticism has been less than graceful. The main complaints appear to be twofold–some are upset that we even allowed ourselves to be reviewed by the UNHRC, calling it “farcical.” In a very similar vein, there are complaints that during the United States’ presentation in front of the council, the Obama administration even admitted to having to work on some of the aforementioned issues. There was also anger over which nations criticized us, countries including Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia. Critics of the review have been very quick to point out that those nations have very long histories of horrible human rights abuses themselves.

That’s completely true. Human rights abuses in Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, among many other nations, are apparent, horrendous, and deserve high levels of criticism and attention. But I don’t quite get how that fact invalidates concerns about human rights abuses in the United States. Two wrongs don’t make a right–just because another nation is committing a wrong, our wrong isn’t suddenly rendered right.

Moreover, what happened to being a good example? How can we demand that other nations be accountable for their human rights abuses when we can’t even talk about ours in an open forum with humility and respect? It’s not easy to admit that there’s a problem in this country when it comes to racism and police violence. But criticizing other countries for pointing it out certainly won’t do anything to fix it. Instead, we need to work together as a nation to combat these systemic problems, and become the very role model we purport to be.

—

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United Nations Criticizes U.S. Over These Human Rights Issues appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window.

The controversy leading up to the speech was, to put it bluntly, a total mess. It all started with House Speaker John Boehner extending an invitation to Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress. However, the White House was not consulted in this matter. Democrats called that a slap in the face to President Obama, given that it’s highly unusual for the legislative branch of one nation to interact with the head of state of another. Democrats argue that it undermines the President’s autonomy when it comes for foreign policy decisions.

The Obama Administration–including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Obama himself–refused to meet with Netanyahu. The official reason given centered on a concern that Obama didn’t want to interfere with Israeli politics in the period of time leading up to the imminent Israeli elections.

For a very long time, Israel has been one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States. Almost ever politician, regardless of party, has at some point declared his or her commitment to Israel. Americans in general have a consistent history of supporting the country. We as a nation have given Israel more than $121 billion in foreign aid since 1948. A Gallup poll found a plurality–42 percent of Americans–thought Israeli actions against Hamas were justified this summer. Moreover, 62 percent of Americans sympathized with the Israelis. The United States and Israel have long had a close relationship, regardless of which American political party is holding office.

That being said, in today’s toxic political environment, no issue can every really truly be bipartisan. The scuffle over Netanyahu’s appearance today shows that. Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu was just the beginning–many other prominent Democrats who are actually members of Congress refused to attend the speech as well. Seven senators, all Democrats (with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent), sat out the speech. A pretty long list of House members, again all Democrats, didn’t attend either.

In addition, Obama spoke about what Netanyahu said. While he didn’t necessarily criticize it, he basically lamented “same old, same old” about Netanyahu’s concerns over the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. According to NPR:

Obama, speaking at the White House, said, ‘as far as I can tell, there was nothing new’ in Netanyahu’s speech, adding, ‘the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.’ He said he didn’t watch the speech because it coincided with a video conference with European leaders.

Other Democrats had more overt reactions. Representative Nancy Pelosi stated:

I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech—saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

I think what we saw today can be best described as a low-key game of political chicken. Republicans took one of the few sort of bipartisan issues and made Obama pick a political side. Had he gone along with the Republican Congress’ power play he would have kowtowed to his political rivals. Yet openly slamming them or Netanyahu could anger an American populace that has consistently supported a friendly relationship with Israel. In a lot of ways, it was a lose-lose situation. While Obama has said that he’s more than willing to keep working with Netanyahu if he wins the upcoming Israeli elections, the relationship may be more frayed moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue appeared first on Law Street.

A few weeks ago, Saudi Arabian monarch King Abdullah died. At the time of his death Abdullah was 90 years old, which made him the oldest living sovereign. While his country’s place on the world stage has changed dramatically over the course of his life time, his death leaves many questions unanswered. Read on to learn about the Saudi monarchy, and the problems plaguing the new ruler.

The Al-Saud Family

The site of modern day Saudi Arabia has been settled in some form for approximately 20,000 years. The region was a key trading corridor for the ascending civilizations of the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia, following the invention of agriculture.

The area’s first era of prestige, however, came hand in hand with the founding of Islam. Two cities, Medina and Mecca, located in present day Saudi Arabia, served as two of the birthplaces of Islam. They remained vital and began attracting thousands of pilgrims as the Muslim world expanded from North Africa to China.

The first developments of modern Saudi Arabia came in the seventeenth century when Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud formed an agreement promising to return to the original teachings of Islam, which culminated in the first Saudi state. The state proved prosperous and quickly covered much of what is now modern day Saudi Arabia. However, this prosperity drew the attention of the Ottoman Empire, which crushed the aspiring nation in the early nineteenth century. A second Saudi state was established soon after, but also met a similar fate. This time the current patriarch, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal Al-Saud, was forced into exile in the Empty Quarter, a desert region in the east, before finally fleeing to modern day Kuwait.

Faisal Al-Saud’s son, Abdulaziz, began to reverse the family fortune, when in 1902 he led a daring raid into the current capital of Riyadh, and with a small force was able to take over the city. Abdulaziz gradually reestablished control over the whole territory, two of his most symbolic conquests being of Mecca and Medina in 1924 and 1925, respectively. Finally, the modern nation of Saudi Arabia was established in 1932 by its first monarch, the same Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

The Road to Succession

King Abdulaziz wanted one of his sons to succeed him on the throne; however, he had approximately 45 sons from which to choose. Thus it is no surprise then, that every ruler of Saudi Arabia since the death of Abdulaziz has been one of his many sons. This trend continued, as the recently deceased King Abdullah was succeeded by another of his brothers, Crown Prince Salman. The next in line after Salman is his brother, Crown Prince Muqrin.

While so far all of Abdulaziz’s successors have been one of his sons, this is likely to end soon. Crown Prince Muqrin is the youngest of Abdulaziz’s sons, but youngest is a relative term, as he is in his sixties. Therefore, if he actually ever ascends to the throne of Saudi Arabia, Muqrin is likely to be the last son to do so. The next ruler of Saudi Arabia after Muqrin therefore, assuming he outlives all his brothers and half-brothers, is one of the many grandsons of Abdulaziz.

While the proverbial changing of the guard has the potential to cause trouble, since the death of Abdulaziz the line of succession has never been an issue. Power has continued to pass down the line of brothers. The only change to the succession formula in fact, was the creation of the deputy crown prince position, formerly occupied by Prince Muqrin, which was put in place precisely because all of Saudi Arabia’s leaders are so old.

The smoothness of the succession process can be attributed partly to this familiar formula, as well as the Allegiance Council, which was created by King Abdullah in 2006. The council, made up of his brothers and nephews, is responsible for deciding the next monarch.  While the sons of Abdulaziz still reign, the council has a smaller pool to choose from, however once the next generation rises to prominence, the decision of the council could be potentially much more difficult politically.  For now though, the council followed the traditional track and declared Salman, the oldest living son of Abdulaziz, the new king and Prince Muqrin his successor. The video below summarizes this succession process.

Challenges for the New King

Oil Prices

While the succession to Saudi Arabia’s throne seems clear, the challenges facing King Salman are anything but. The first and most obvious problem plaguing Saudi Arabia is how to handle plummeting oil prices. In November, contrary to conventional wisdom, OPEC, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia, decided not to cut production even as prices were already dropping dramatically.

The reason why the Saudis may be willing to flood the market with cheap oil is geared more to the long run. By driving costs so low, the Saudis can put many of their competitors, such as upstart fracking operations, out of business, because the cost to access the oil is more than it is being sold for.

Not only may Saudi Arabia be forcing the price of oil down to eliminate its competition, there are also political factors at work. There’s a worry that Saudi Arabia has been working behind the scenes with Russia, a country that cannot afford low oil prices, offering to decrease production that would then raise prices again. In return, the Saudis would most likely want Russia to rescind its support for the regime of Assad in Syria.

Regardless, as the landscape of the global oil market changes, the role that the Saudis play in it will continue to change. How King Salman handles the oil market is certainly something to watch.

ISIS

ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist organization that has carved out a large swath of territory for itself in Iraq and Syria, and whose ultimate goal is to establish a new caliphate. ISIS’ goals pose several problems for Saudi Arabia.

First, the areas under its control are close to the eastern regions of Saudi Arabia where a large number of Shi’ites reside in the predominantly Sunni nation. This is also the part of the country where Saudi oil is centered. The Saudis are wary of ISIS rhetoric creating discontent in the Saudi Shi’ite community, especially if it affects oil production.

Second, as part of ISIS’ would-be caliphate, it would have to conquer the two holiest places in Islam, Medina and Mecca. These two places are both located inside Saudi Arabia, meaning ISIS would have to invade the nation at some point if it hopes to rule either site.

Not surprisingly then, Saudi Arabia has already joined the coalition, led by the United States, which has riddled ISIS with constant airstrikes; however, unlike most other Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia has gone even further, attacking ISIS in Syria and even allowing the U.S. to train Syrian insurgents within its borders.

Saudi Arabia’s Neighbors

Aside from attempting to undermine ISIS, Saudi Arabia’s efforts in Syria are also calculated to inflict damage on a proxy state of its chief rival. Saudi Arabia has already poured large amounts of resources into the fight in Syria in the hopes of deposing Assad, viewed to be a client of Iran. However, the proxy war between the two extends far beyond Syria.

The recent coup in Yemen, located on the southwest border of Saudi Arabia, was led by a group known as the Houthis. This group is also purportedly under the influence of Iran. The interference of both Saudi Arabia and Iran in the affairs of their neighbors have led to a sort-of proxy war between the two powers.

While neither side can claim victory yet, geographically Saudi Arabia finds itself encircled. Normally this would not be too serious as Saudi Arabia traditionally has had the support of the US, the strongest military power in the world.

Recently though the strength of this relationship has come into question. U.S. talks with Iran over nuclear weapons have begun. While Saudis may fear the talks could lead to a closer relationship between the two, if Iran were to instead to go nuclear that could also have major consequences for the region and the proxy conflict. It is widely assumed that if Iran does go nuclear, Saudi Arabia will quickly follow suit, acquiring weapons from Pakistan whose program it originally helped fund. King Salman must prepare for that possibility.

Internal Struggles

Lastly, the new monarch of Saudi Arabia must consider what is going on inside the kingdom itself. Although government did very well in preventing the mass protests that plagued other nations during the Arab Spring, it can’t just throw money at all its problems. The list of potential problems is extensive, including human rights violations, xenophobia, and discrimination against women and non-Muslims. While these problems have yet to flare up, there certainly exists the potential for them to do so.

Domestically, the situation in Saudi Arabia is unlikely to change dramatically. While the late King Abdullah made some minor changes, the established order remains virtually unaltered. That is an order in which women are second-class citizens and wealth is concentrated among the few. For this to change anytime soon, Saudi Arabia would probably require some strong external pressure forcing it to alter the country’s way of thinking.

Conclusion

Following the death of King Abdullah, many experts have speculated there could be a succession crisis in Saudi Arabia; however, as of right now the succession seems to be about the only thing that won’t present problems in the future.

That is about the only well-established factor currently in the nation. While the succession is clearly laid out, Saudi Arabia has a number of other concerns: dropping oil prices, ISIS, its proxy war with Iran, and unrest among its own people. These concerns are only further exacerbated by the U.S.’s waning commitment. Thus while choosing a new king was relatively easy, maintaining the kingdom of Saudi Arabia may be potentially much more difficult.

Resources

Primary

Embassy of Saudi Arabia: History of Saudi Arabia

Additional

BBC: Saudi Arabia: Why Succession Could Become a Princely Tussle

Al Jazeera: The Question of Succession in Saudi Arabia

Daily Star: For Saudi Arabia Problems Abound All Around

Economist: Why the Oil Price is Falling

Business Insider: The Saudis Floated the Idea of Higher Oil Prices to Get Russia to Stop Supporting Assad in Syria

Huffington Post: Saudi Succession Raises Questions For ISIS Fight

Washington Institute: Nuclear Kingdom: Saudi Arabia’s Atomic Ambitions

Middle East Monitor: Saudis Most Likely to Join ISIS, 10% of Group’s Fighters Are Women

Al-Jazeera: Saudi Arabia, Iran and the ‘Great Game’ in Yemen

Guardian: Iranian President Says Nuclear Deal With the West is Getting Closer

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Arabia: Succession in the Chaos appeared first on Law Street.

Former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling was convicted on Monday of charges under the Espionage Act, closing a four-year case in which the government accused him of giving a reporter classified information about covert operations. This information included a plan that gave Iran officials flawed nuclear plans. Sterling allegedly gave author and New York Times reporter James Risen the information for his 2006 book, “State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.”

Sterling was hired in 1993 and fired in 2001 after suing the CIA for racial discrimination, according to a 2002 New York Times article written by Risen. Prosecutors said that being fired gave him a motive to leak the information to Risen as revenge, according to the Washington Post. Having been interviewed by Risen before, the government argued that Sterling was also the only CIA employee who had a relationship with the reporter in addition to a motive.

Sterling pleaded not guilty in 2011 to 10 counts, including unauthorized retention and disclosure of classified information, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. His defense attorneys argued that there were other CIA employees who could possibly have leaked the information to Risen.

To establish the connection between Sterling and Risen, prosecutors spent a large chunk of the the four-year ordeal trying to subpoena Risen to testify. Risen, however, vigorously fought back all the way up to the Supreme Court, saying that he’d rather go to jail than give up a source. He lost, but the government eventually let up. Attorney General Eric Holder guaranteed that Risen wouldn’t go to jail for refusing to reveal a source.

So, Risen did walk away from having to submit testimony against his will, but did hold up the case. Ultimately, that didn’t help Sterling, whose jury convicted him in an Alexandria, VA, U.S. District Court after deliberating over the course of three days. He is set to meet the jury again for his sentencing hearing in April and is free until then. Defense attorney Barry Pollack told the Washington Post that they plan to appeal the verdict.

Including the James Risen fiasco, the Sterling’s trial itself was “a daily spectacle worthy of fiction,” as the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky put it. By choosing to prosecute Sterling, a former CIA employee privy to classified information, the government put itself in the pickle of having to use the classified information against Sterling without revealing too much of it in the process, which would partially defeat the purpose. Several witnesses testified while hidden behind a gray screen in the courtroom and only used their first names and last initials. A Russian scientist involved in the faulty nuclear plans was asked to respond in only “yes” or “no” answers so as not to disclose more information than needed.

Despite the government’s risk of leaking information itself while prosecuting leakers, the Obama Administration has pursued many such cases. However, there is a contradiction between pursuing so many leak cases and Obama’s pledge of a “new era of openness” early in his first term.

Former government employees John Kiriakou and Stephen Kim are serving prison time for leak cases that didn’t go their way. Former NSA official Thomas Drake settled for a minor charge after a four-year court battle for giving Fox News classified information about North Korea. Even former CIA director David Petraeus might get the leak treatment for allegedly giving classified files to his biographer.

Whether or not the Obama Administration ever truly does welcome a “new era of openness,” it doesn’t appear to define a clear line between whistle-blowing and illegal leaking. When a government makes mistakes, citizens of a country with freedom of speech and of the press ought to know whether or not they’re going to be tried under the Espionage Act. Better yet, the government could commit to its own pledge to openness.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former CIA Employee Jeffrey Sterling Found Guilty of Leaking Information appeared first on Law Street.

Politics in the Middle East have long been as fluid as the sands which make up much of the region. From the crusades to colonialism to the present, many political players have vied for power and found at best only temporary success. Since the discovery of oil in the region in the early twentieth century, politics have become mixed with business; however, other considerations have more recently come into play such as extremism, revolution, and non-state actors. Couple these with the long-standing animosity between major regional powers such as Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the Middle East seems like a political powder keg waiting to explode. In addition, there has been almost constant intervention by foreign countries, most notably the United States. Together all these events have turned the politics of the region into one of the world’s most difficult jigsaw puzzles. Learn more about the most pivotal issues currently embroiling the region–although this is by no means an exhaustive list–as well as their root causes and possible solutions.

Brief History of the Middle East

The history of the Middle East is extremely rich. As one of the starting points for civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, settlement has existed continuously for thousands of years. These years saw the rise and fall of several empires such as the great Caliphates, and more recently the Ottoman Empire.

The region is also home to three of the world’s most prominent religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Islam in particular has played a pivotal role in shaping the region’s politics. So too did the great schism in Islam when it split into two factions–Shiites who viewed Muhammad’s true successor to be his son-in-law Ali and Sunnis who believed the next leader of Islam should be elected. Sunnis eventually won the struggle and today are the majority worldwide.

More recently the Middle East has been home to incursions from western powers, from the time of the crusades to the present. In fact, the way the present Middle East is constructed probably owes more to European influence, namely through the Sykes-Picot treaty between Britain and France that divided the region controlled by the Ottomans into respective spheres of influence of those two nations following WWI. When those powers eventually left, the power vacuum was filled by another western nation–the United States–which has had seemingly endless involvement there for the last century.  The video below provides a historical view of the powers that have ruled the Middle East for the last 5,000 years.

All this activity has done a lot to shape the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is still unclear at this point what the Middle East even is. The term itself originated from British field commands in Egypt during WWII. Today it includes places as far apart as Libya and Iran. Others go even further, including nations such as Algeria and Pakistan despite those two places being very dissimilar except for their Islamic faith. It is not surprising then that a place with a long history, heavily influenced by outsiders and home to disparate groups has a number of complicated political issues.

Political Climate

Like its history, the current political climate in the Middle East is extremely complicated and not easily discerned. Thus a few particularly important flash-points will serve to highlight the major political issues currently affecting the region.

Israel/Palestine

This is one of the world’s longest ongoing and seemingly intractable conflicts. For the uninitiated, the root issue here is that two groups, the Israelis and Palestinians, have claims going back millennia embroiled in a seemingly endless struggle for a small strip of land nestled in between Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west, Jordan to the east, and Lebanon and Syria to the north.

The country of Israel is relatively young–it was just founded in 1948. Founding the nation was no easy feat however, after years of European Jewish immigration to what was then British Palestine, the United Nations in 1947 divided the area into two zones: one Israeli, one Palestinian. This decision led to continued violence between Jewish settlers and Palestinians, as well as other nations including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When the dust finally settled, a Jewish homeland had been created, while a Palestinian country had yet to materialize.

The history of the conflict has only been made more complicated by a series of wars between Arab nations and Israel that branded an image of mistrust in the minds of the neighbors. Nonetheless, even these wounds may have healed if not for the continued violence between the two sides. This included frequent attacks by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which governs Palestinian territories. The PLO finally called off attacks on Israel in 1993 when its leader and founder Yasser Arafat reached an agreement with Israel in which both sides acknowledged the other’s right to exist.

Second were the intifadas or uprisings by Palestinians. Two such instances have occurred, one in the 1980s and another in the early 2000s. In both cases what started as relatively peaceful protests turned violent when protesters encountered Israeli military personnel, which then led to long and bloody struggles. Also in both cases, the number of Palestinian dead has far outpaced the number of Israelis killed, prompting the claim of disproportionate response by Israeli military leaders.

Third is the tactics of Hamas. Hamas is, in essence, a Palestinian terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, which it does not recognize. Hamas does garner support in Palestinian areas though, in fact in 2006 it won a majority of seats in Parliament. However, its inability to reconcile with Israel or that of the rest of its party led it to break away and rule Gaza separately from the rest of the PLO. Hamas’ political gains have not totally softened its edges, as just this past summer it was engaged in small-scale war with Israel.

The issue then at its core is somehow devising a solution that pleases both sides. Not helping matters further are Israeli settlers’ moves to live in areas long claimed by Palestine and frequent rocket attacks from Palestinian-controlled zones into Israel. At this point though with Israel in effect walling off and totally controlling Gaza something has to change dramatically for this situation to have any chance of improving.

Unfortunately however, this issue is unlikely to be solved for a number of reasons. On Israel’s side its continued building of settlements, strong political opposition to reconciliation, dubious military tactics, and inability to be recognized by its neighbors are some of the biggest obstacles. Conversely for Palestine, its support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and unwillingness to compromise on territorial demands make lasting peace appear illusive.

Iran Nuclear Program

A second major political flashpoint in the region is the Iranian nuclear program. The program already has a long history; however, it is nearing a point of no return. The Iranians can either finalize preliminary negotiations with the United States, stop trying to enrich uranium, and take a step toward normalizing relations, or they can continue and risk an attack by the United States, Israel, and potentially Saudi Arabia that would be far more destructive than the Stuxnet Virus was. The Stuxnet Virus a computer virus that disabled the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago.

There is hope though, as Iran and the United States have already outlined a framework for Iran shutting down its program, but only time will tell. Both sides missed a key deadline before the New Year and seem entrenched in their respective positions so a deal may still fall apart. Nevertheless it does not help to have American Congressmen threatening more sanctions. Iran clearly already feels threatened by the United States as well as by its ally Israel, and likely started a nuclear program in the first place to deter against a possible U.S. attack.

Iran-Saudi Rivalry

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, much of its position also hinges on what Iran decides to do. As a predominately Sunni nation, Saudi Arabia views Iran, a predominately Shiite nation, as its main rival both theologically and militarily for influence in the Middle East. Any Iranian deal or further recalcitrance would likely impact the relationship between Saudi and another major political player in the Middle East, the United States.

Nevertheless, such a deal is quite possible as long as cooler heads prevail. An Iran deal has significant ramifications for Saudi Arabia. If Iran goes through with its nuclear enrichment program and is not then directly attacked by the United States and Israel it is quite possible that Saudi Arabia attempts to purchase a weapon of its own to counter its rival.

Conversely if Iran does agree to shutter its program that too could also have a major impact on Saudi Arabia. In this case the impact could have more to do with its relationship with the United States. Already with increased American energy production, the reliance on Saudi Arabia as a key partner has become more debatable. Factor that in with Saudi Arabia’s repressive government and extreme religious views, such as Saudi’s support of Wahhabisism, and the United States might find itself wanting a different partner in the region that is more in line with its own belief systems.

The video below provides a look at the Iranian-Saudi relationship.

 Extremism, Non-State Actors, and Revolutionaries

While dealing with countries is hard, at least they have things like delegates and embassies. Non-state actors are a whole different issue. Particularly difficult in this region are the extremist beliefs of many of the non-state actors such as ISIS and Hezbollah. To satisfy these groups and even others like Hamas, which is only nominally associated with a state, many concessions would have to be made, which could give these groups free reign and could jeopardize the future of US allies in the region such as Israel.

To address these challengers, drastic changes would have to be made from the ground up. This would include extreme economic reforms to create jobs and thus leave fewer disenchanted people ready to fight. It would also call for the reform of institutions such as Madrassas, or schools where extreme views of Islam are often taught and which have also served as breeding grounds for future extremists.

The political climate in the Middle East thus was not created overnight and cannot be fixed that quickly either. Nevertheless, however muddled it is, there are a number of possibilities that could ultimately lead to the end of conflict but also a complete reordering of the region.

Future Concerns

As the rise of ISIS and the continued existence of other like-minded terror groups in the region have shown, a wave of discontent and extremism is unlikely to end anytime soon. Furthermore, the success of ISIS may not only embolden extremists but other groups to seek greater self-determination. The most obvious example is the Kurds in northern Iraq who are already essentially operating autonomously of the government there. Once the ISIS threat has passed, it’s unlikely they would rush back into the Iraqi fold. Instead, it is much more likely the Kurds would seek to finally establish their own nation. This then would have a ripple effect across the region particularly to the north in Turkey, which has a sizable Kurdish population that has long been a source of problems for the ruling government there. The issue would only be further clouded if the two sides became embroiled in a conflict as Turkey is a member of NATO while the Kurds are a major ally of the U.S., as well.  The video below explains Kurdish aims and the impact of the ISIS assault.

Unrest would likely be found in other places, too. With falling oil prices the heads of state in places such as Saudi Arabia might have a harder time fending off revolutionaries than they did during the Arab spring. This may only be exacerbated further by the demographics of this region. Much of the population is below 30 years old and as history has taught us frustrated young men without jobs are not good for stability. Of course before most of these issues can be settled defeating ISIS is a primary goal and what that may entail is particularly fascinating.

Already the U.S. has bombed ISIS in Syria, which in many ways helps beleaguered president Assad. Would the United States ever dream of formalizing an alliance with the man it stated before should step down? Even further along the line of possibility, would the U.S. ever come to some agreement with the likes of Al-Qaeda in order to squash that group’s splinter cell and now main rival for the hearts and minds of disenfranchised Muslims? While it seems unlikely it is definitely possible and maybe necessary if the U.S. and its allies wants to stomp out ISIS once and for all. For a comparison one need only look at Afghanistan where the U.S. has openly suggested including the Taliban in the government.

There are no easy solutions and these are not the only problems plaguing the Middle East, after all the aftermath of the Arab Spring could potentially flare up if extremist groups fill the gap left by those nations’ deposed strongmen. Regardless of the issue however, several possibilities remain that could change the nature of existing conflicts and turn friends into foes or vice versa.

Conclusion

The Middle East is one of the oldest continually inhabited places on the planet and the complexity of its politics reflect this situation. Empires and religions have risen and fallen in this region over the past thousand years and it seems this trend is likely to continue now only with countries and leaders serving the roles previously mentioned.

Whatever happens, change seems imminent in one way or another; there are just too many groups tugging on the proverbial rope to hope it won’t snap. When change does come it is unclear what the new order will be and what alliances will form. Much remains to be deciphered and only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

Brookings Institution: Pakistan’s Madrassas

Additional

Vox: 40 Maps that Explain the Middle East

Vox: What are Israel and Palestine? Why are they fighting?

Encyclopedia Britannica: Middle East

History: Britain-France Conclude Sykes-Picot Agreement

The New York Times: Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Guardian: Saudi Arabia Urges

BBC: Middle East

Economist: The Arab Spring

Fox News: In Dueling UN Speeches

Rand: Iran After the Bomb

The New York Times: Nuclear Accord With Iran

Press TV: US Moving Away From Saudi Arabia and Israel

Today’s Zaman: Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the New Equilibrium in the Middle East

Progressive: Six Steps Short of War to Beat ISIS

Council on Foreign Relations: Islamic Extremism and the Rise of ISIS

Guardian: Kurds Again Dare to Dream of Uniting in their Own Country

Financial Times: Saudi Billionaire

Forbes: Youth in Revolt

Quartz: Why Partner With Assad

Huffington Post: How to End Afghanistan War

Press TV: Republicans in Congress Threaten Iran With More Sanctions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Middle East Politics: What Issues are Affecting the Region? appeared first on Law Street.

The Iranian government executed a woman on Saturday for murdering a man who she said attempted to sexually assault her. After several delays of her execution and despite condemnation from human rights organizations, the Iranian government went forward with hanging Reyhaneh Jabbari.

Jabbari, 26, admitted in 2009 to killing 47-year-old Dr. Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi in self-defense, claiming that he tried to rape her. Sarbandi was killed in 2007, when Jabbari met with him on the pretense that she, an interior designer, would evaluate his office for a renovation, the New York Times reported.

Under Iranian law, Jabbari technically should have been in the clear for killing Sarbandi. As a Slate article explains, the Iranian death penalty doesn’t have to apply in a murder case if the murder was in retaliation to another crime punishable by death, such as rape. Jabbari maintained that she killed Sarbandi after he attempted to rape her. However, the judges are given very broad discretion in interpreting the facts of the case – so broad, in this case, that Jabbari was found guilty.

Beyond the fact that Jabbari’s is technically innocent even if she killed Sarbandi, that shouldn’t even matter considering the circumstances of her admission. Jabbari admitted to the murder “under duress possibly amounting to torture,” U.N. human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed said in a press release, adding that acts of sexual violence should always be fought, no matter what. Shaheed said that if Jabbari was telling the truth, she was attacked by the Iranian justice system in addition to her assault:

If her allegations are true, Ms. Jabbari may have been doubly victimized; first by her attacker, and then by the judicial system, which is supposed to protect victims of intended and actual sexual and physical assault.

An online petition in March bore more than 240,000 signatures urging Iran not to execute Jabbari. The government then delayed the execution from April until this month. As the new date approached, supporters of Jabbari took to Facebook and Twitter to get attention to stop the execution. The day before the execution,  Amnesty International wrote that Jabbari’s side story wasn’t fairly judged. “Her claims do not appear to have ever been properly investigated,” Amnesty wrote in a blog post.

Iran has one of the highest execution rates in the world. According to an August United Nations report, the country executed at least 852 people, including at least eight who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, during the period from June 2013 to June 2014. The report says Iranians can face the death penalty for “adultery, recidivist alcohol use, drug possession and trafficking” plus “enmity against God,” which is viewed by the Iranian government as when “a person brandishes or points a weapon at members of the public to kill, frighten and coerce them.”

All this might leave some wondering how hard it is not to get executed in Iran. In the larger scheme of things – for the Iranian justice system, that is – Jabbari is just another number.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured Image courtesy of [The Pondering Moose via Flickr]

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reyhaneh Jabbari: Another Victim of Iran’s Harsh Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

Iran and the major world powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) have less than two weeks to come to a deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As talks continue in Vienna, here’s your guide to everything you need to know about why the United States doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, whether or not a deal will be worked out, and what options remain if talks fail.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

How long has Iran had a nuclear program?

Iran has had a nuclear program in some form since the 1950s. Oddly enough, the United States helped Iran lay the foundation for their programs with President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace initiative. Atoms For Peace exported nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium. This program was merely for developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy around the globe. Eisenhower did not intend to develop a nuclear weapons system in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear energy program was supported by the United States in some capacity until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran was then left without international support and continued to develop its nuclear program.

Iran has always insisted that its program is merely for energy, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the leaders of many Western nations have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons.

Is Iran allowed to have nuclear weapons?

If Iran is making nuclear weapons, and most signs point to this being true, then it would be violating international law. Iran is a signatory, along with every country but North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the South Sudan, to the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty holds signatory nations to three main points:

1. The signatory nation must not create nuclear weapons.
2. Signatory nations must disarm themselves of all nuclear weapons.
3. All signatory nations have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

It is important to note that the NPT labels the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear-weapons states. This means that they do not have to disarm. They only have to negotiate in good faith to work toward disarmament.

Iran often cites point three in its defense, while critics argue that the country is violating points one and two.

Here is a NATO overview of the NPT:

Why does the United States not want Iran to have nukes?

There are few reasons the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the United States and Iran have not been on good terms in the past few decades.

In 1953, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and replacing it with the Shah, a monarch who was friendly to the interests of the United States. The Iranian people remembered this when they overthrew this government during the Islamic Revolution. This, plus the fact that the United States took in the Shah after his exile from Iran, is why revolutionaries held diplomats hostage at the American embassy in Iran  for 444 days. Relations have been cold ever since. This video provides a more in-depth summary of U.S.-Iran relations:

There’s another big reason the United States does not want Iran to have nukes: Iran is geographically close to Israel, a close American ally. The Iranian government does not like Israel, and the Israeli government does not like Iran. For emphasis, these two countries really do not like each other. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the worst kept secrets in international politics, and letting its  adversary also have nuclear weapons is a recipe for trouble.

A third concern is that Iran could spark a domino effect of sorts in the region. If Iran has nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want nukes, which will motivate another Middle Eastern country after another to get nukes until the Middle East, a rather unstable region, is covered in warheads.

How has America tried to stop Iran?

For now, the United States, and many other countries, has used economic sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear problem. According to the State Department, these sanctions target the Iranian sectors of finance, transportation, shipping, energy, and more.

Why is Iran willing to talk now?

There are two reasons that Iran is willing to come to an agreement with the world’s powers.

First, the sanctions worked. The economic punishments vastly increased the average Iranian’s cost of living and increased Iran’s inflation rate to a staggering 40 percent. This can be mostly attributed to the American and European embargoes on Iranian oil. In 2012, when the sanction took effect in Europe, Iran’s exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1.53 bbl/d. The Rial (Iran’s currency) also collapsed, dropping by 80 percent between 2011 and 2012.

Second, Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, is much more reasonable than the last one. You might remember former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the crazy guy who said he wanted to wipe Israel “off the map” and that there were no gay people in Iran. This was not a man who would be willing to negotiate with America. Rouhani, on the other hand, ran as a reformer and campaigned on working with the West to ease the sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy.

The President is not the most powerful actor in Iranian. That distinction goes to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the fact that Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run and win shows that he is willing to negotiate.

What has already been agreed upon?

In November 2013, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, came to an interim agreement. Iran halted parts of its nuclear program and in return Western nations eased some of the sanctions. This was a six-month deal that halted progress at every nuclear facility in Iran, and also prevented the building additional facilities. The idea was that a more comprehensive deal would come about in six months.

Here is an ABC News report on how this deal played out in Iran and the United States:

There is debate over whether or not this deal was a good idea. Watch CNN’s Crossfire discuss the issue. The introduction is obnoxious, but the rhetorical arguments are an accurate representation of both sides of the issue:

Six months will be up on July 20 of this year. That means Iran and the world powers have less than two weeks to come to a comprehensive agreement. While the option to extend the deadline is on the table, American diplomats have stated that they are unlikely to support such an extension.

What is still left to agree upon?

The main sticking point for a comprehensive deal is the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain. Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges. Western powers would like to see that number reduced to the low thousands, while Iran would like to someday have 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges are not the only problem that negotiators will face over the next two weeks, however. While Iran has accepted tougher inspection requirements and limits on production of enriched uranium, the country does not want its ballistic missile system to be on the table. It also wants more sanctions to be removed and is not interested in dismantling nuclear facilities.

Iran will resume nuclear production and the world powers will resume crippling sanctions if the two sides cannot resolve these differences.

What should the United States do if talks fail?

Continuing sanctions without any chance of an agreement would be foolish. In 2003, Iran approached the Bush administration under crippling sanctions to discuss a deal. Bush passed, believing that the sanctions would just lead to the collapse of the regime. Iran had 164 centrifuges at that time, which has increased by more than 11,000 percent to its current cache of 19,000.

Sanctions alone will not deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. If talks do not work, military force seems to be the only option left.

Should the United States bomb Iran?

This debate is best personified by Matthew Kroenig and Colin H. Kahl, two contributors to Foreign Affairs. Watch them debate the issue here:

For those of you who do not have an hour of free time, here is a summary of their arguments:

Advocates of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities argue that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for America and its allies. A nuke would give Iran too much leverage in the region. Worse, Israel and Iran would be at constant odds without the safeguards that prevented nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. Kroenig claims that military action in Iran could be contained to just nuclear sites, involve few civilian casualties, and inspire little retaliation. As long as America assures Iran that it is only attacking nuclear facilities, Iran will react calmly.

Kahl argues that a surgical strike would be a disaster and that the United States should merely contain Iran as a nuclear power. Even if the strike succeeds, which is not a given, Kahl envisions a massive retaliation from Iran that includes closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military forces in the Gulf, and providing lethal assistance to terrorist groups that the West is currently fighting throughout the region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz alone would send a shockwave through global markets, but Iranian attacks against American troops would be devastating. Plus, given how unstable the region is, there’s no telling what kind of violence this could cause in other Middle Eastern nations.

Even worse, Kahl does not believe that a military strike would deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Such a strike would only set the program back by a few years, and has the potential to rally Iranians around rebuilding. It’s not as if America can remove the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons from the Iranian people.

Conclusion

Iran and the West have until July 20 to come to an agreement. If diplomats fail, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program and the Western world will continue to cripple the country’s economy with strong sanctions.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

On July 18, negotiators in Vienna agreed to extend the deadline by four months to November 24, 2014. Negotiators also agreed to extend the terms of the stop-gap agreement. Iran will still halt its nuclear program and the United States will continue to suspend sanctions. Iran and the world powers have made some progress but they are still struggling to agree on how large the country’s nuclear program should be.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Iran Sanctions

Energy Information Administration: Energy Information Administration on the Iranian economy

Additional

Reuters: U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Rebukes Iran

Cold War: CIA Overthrows Iranian Democracy

CNN: Facts About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

NPR: Iran’s Economy Key in Nuclear Deal

Economist: A Red Line and a Reeling Rial

LA Times: U.S. Threatens to End Iran Nuclear Talks

Foreign Affairs: Not Time to Attack Iran

CNN: Final Talks Before Deadline Begin

CNN: What Critics Are Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

Foreign Affairs: Time to Attack Iran

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iranian Nuclear Talks: Final Deadline Looming appeared first on Law Street.

When is a line more than just a connection between two points? A line, a border, can limit the encroachment of and define a culture, language, religion, and laws. It can also be blurred, changing constantly, like that of India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. When playing jump-rope with those lines, what laws apply?

Making recent global headlines is the story of the White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite — the British born and raised converted Muslim woman who’s now-dead husband was involved in London’s 7/7 jihad attacks. Although initially condemning her husband’s actions, she seems to have joined his cause. She forged a Somali passport under the name Natalie Webb, and crossed African borders, seamlessly entering Kenya. Now, she is a major suspect in a Nairobi mall bombing, and has been given a Red Notice by INTERPOL. The Red Notice means that the 190 member countries of INTERPOL, an international police organization, are participating in manhunt for her. For her search, other methods Kenya could have taken would have been to reach out to INTERPOL’s close alliance, the United Nation, work in solitude with Kenya’s own national security, or extend for help to independent Kenyan alliances rather than the large coalition, INTERPOL.

From one conservative extremist Muslim, to one liberal extremist, different people with radically different views, are found in similar situations— they are both being sought by authorities. Acclaimed author Salmaan Rushdie, as a result of his unapproved writings about Islam, had a fatwa placed upon him by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989. A fatwa, unlike the a notice by INTERPOL, is less tied with the government and more with the religion. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a religious order commanding the Muslim population worldwide to do an action. In the case of Salman Rushdie, the action was to kill the author.

A more domestic situation that deals with this issue is the anecdote of Edward Snowden. After receiving treason charges in America, Snowden was granted limited asylum in Russia, tarnishing the relationship between the two nations. A stemming problem is the extradition of Edward Snowden. By avoiding America, he was able to avoid his prosecution. Like America, Kenya anxiously awaits the return of the potential criminal, using the Red Notice to catalyze the extradition process.

All of these cases echo the same question about borders that was posed by the Dred Scott Case in 1857: Do the laws of a land no longer extend to you once you step over the line? Is it the responsibility of nations to carry out the jurisdiction of the native ruling county?

[cfr.org] [ Interpol.int]

—

Featured image courtesy of [hjl via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post The Thin Line appeared first on Law Street.