A Saudi Arabian prince has been arrested after a series of videos emerged online that appear to show him abusing people. The short clips posted on YouTube and Twitter allegedly show the prince pointing a rifle toward a bleeding man who is pleading for his life.

One clip, that has been viewed over 760,000 times, shows 18 bottles of Johnnie Walker whiskey and a pile of cash. Consuming or selling alcohol is forbidden in the strictly Muslim country. Another clip shows the prince, Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Musaed bin Saud bin Abdulaziz, beating someone who is sitting in a chair.

After the videos went viral, King Salman ordered the arrest of the prince on Wednesday. He also ordered the arrests of any associates that could be seen in the footage. The king reportedly won’t allow the release of anyone involved in the case until a ruling is ready.

Royals Not Exempt From Punishment

Even though royals have a very special status in the country, they are not above the law. Last fall, a prince was executed after he was found guilty of killing another man. The beheading was carried out on the direct orders of King Salman.

WATCH: The moment when a Saudi prince was arrested.
More here: https://t.co/QAF4pRC1pA pic.twitter.com/ZA87JMsnks

— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) July 20, 2017

The extended royal family is conservatively estimated to be some 6,000 members. King Salman has tried to make it clear that royal family members don’t get any special treatment. In an effort to rebuild its reputation on an international level, Saudi Arabia has hired U.S. lobbying firms to push its agenda. Impeding Iran’s influence in the Middle East and isolating Qatar have also been part of that same strategy.

Double Standards on Social Media?

While Saudi Arabia may have found support online for its handling of the prince’s videos, it was only a few days ago that social media was in an uproar over a girl being arrested for wearing a short skirt in the country.

The country is lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to human rights and women’s rights. Women are still prohibited from going outside or driving a car without the company of a male guardian, and the law even dictates what they can wear.

Last weekend, a Saudi social media personality was arrested and questioned by the religious police after she walked around a historic Saudi fort wearing a short skirt. The arrest sparked outrage from people in other countries, and she was later released without facing any charges.

“Saudi Arabia’s purported plans to reshape society and advance women’s rights will never succeed as long as authorities go after women for what they wear,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch in the Middle East.

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 Saudi Prince Arrested After Videos Allegedly Show Him Abusing People 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.

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 Thursday, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in wartime on an ISIS target in Afghanistan, says a Pentagon spokesman. The GBU-43/B, or Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, is often referred to as the “Mother of All Bombs,” likely due to its acronym. The name seems fitting considering it weighs about 21,600 pounds. The bomb’s target was a ISIS cave and tunnel complex in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in the northeastern part of the country.

According to U.S. officials, the bomb was developed during the Iraq war but this is the first time it has ever been used on the battlefield. It was dropped from an airplane around 7 p.m. local time. The bomb is designed to explode in the air above its target and the overpressure crushes tunnels below it and everything in them. This could make it very difficult to determine if there was any civilian casualties.

Just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. Massive Ordnance Air Blast is a concussive bomb … the father of all bombs (nonnuclear). pic.twitter.com/fW5UE1r2QA

— Saman Arbabi (@SamanArbabi) April 13, 2017

The bomb focused on the underground tunnels that ISIS fighters use to move around freely in the area.

“The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction” to the militants, said a statement from Pentagon.

The bombing comes just five days after Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Maryland, was killed in combat with ISIS in the same province. He was the first American service member killed in combat this year in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would “bomb the s**t” out of ISIS, and Thursday’s strike seems to have done exactly that. But many people were confused about why an 11-ton bomb was needed.

Was use strategically necessary? Most efficient and effective option? Did it accomplish objective? Was there collateral harm?

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) April 13, 2017

Another U.S. airstrike Thursday targeting ISIS killed 18 Syrian rebel fighters allied with the United States. The strike marks the third time in just a month that U.S. forces have accidentally hit allies or civilians. The Pentagon is already investigating two earlier airstrikes that hit a mosque complex in Syria and a building in Mosul that both killed several civilians.

Now many people are questioning what the White House’s policy for the Middle East really is, and whether President Trump just wants to show off his powers and “play war.”

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 U.S. Drops One of the Largest Non-Nuclear Bombs in the World on ISIS Target appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed it, a super cool music video of Saudi women doing everything they are not supposed to do has gone viral. The video has been viewed millions of times in the past few weeks alone.

At the start of the video, several Saudi women enter a car with a little boy in the driver seat, since women are not allowed to drive. They are wearing full niqabs covering everything but their eyes. But when the camera cuts back to them outside the car, it turns out they were wearing colorful patterned clothes underneath. They start skateboarding, playing basketball, riding toy cars, and dancing. The women still wear the niqabs over the other layers throughout the video but they also wear Converse shoes and lots of eye makeup. And all of them seem to have a great time.

“The name of the song is ‘Hwages,’ which means something like ‘concerns’ or ‘obsessions,’” said NPR Music’s Anastasia Tsioulcas. “And the lyrics are pretty subversive. They start out, ‘May men disappear, they give us psychological illnesses/none of them are sane, each one has an illness.’” Also, in the middle of the video, there is a cutout of Donald Trump at a podium, with a sign saying “The House of Men” in Arabic.

Tsioulcas said that no one knows who the women are, but that the video’s director is Majed Alesa, who has millions of followers in Saudi Arabia. She also noted there has been more positive feedback than negative, despite the controversial content. Maybe it is time for the most gender-segregated country in the world to start to change?

During the fall, there was a campaign in Saudi Arabia aiming to end the guardianship system that requires women to have male permission before doing many important tasks. More than 14,000 women signed a petition and submitted it to the government. Some of the things women can’t do in Saudi Arabia include drive a car, wear revealing clothes or makeup, interact with men, go to public swimming pools, or even try clothes on when shopping. They are also not allowed to compete in sports at home, but the country did send female athletes to the London Olympics. Conservative clerics then called the athletes “prostitutes.”

Many believe change is within reach, and this music video might just be a proof of that. Check it out!

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 Saudi Women Skateboard and Criticize Men in Viral Music Video appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations recently passed a resolution regarding Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. The most significant takeaways from this development are that the United States allowed the U.N. resolution to be passed and the specific language included in the resolution. This is particularly true when coupled with the language used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to criticize the United States and President Barack Obama after the resolution’s passage. Read on to find out what exactly the resolution means for Palestine, Israel, and the United States as well as the history of the conflict that led to the resolution in the first place.

The Resolution

So what does this resolution do and why has it made the leadership of Israel so upset? The U.N. resolution declares that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law and calls for an immediate end to all settlement activities. The actual determination in the resolution is nothing new, in fact, it has been the view of the international community for some time. What is new is that the Obama administration allowed it to pass without vetoing it as well as the emerging context surrounding the dispute–many are now starting to doubt whether the long sought after two-state solution is still a viable option.

After the resolution was passed, Palestinian leaders indicated that they would use the resolution to support their case against Israel in international courts, a move strongly opposed by Israel. While the condemning language and the reaction of Palestinian leaders are significant, they pale in comparison to accusations leveled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against President Obama. Netanyahu has effectively accused Obama and his administration of plotting against Israel and even crafting the resolution in the first place, which the Obama Administration denies.

The resolution that did pass is not actually binding; while it may condemn Israel’s actions it cannot forcibly stop them. Additionally, President Donald Trump has already vowed to veto any resolution that would actually force Israel to cease and desist settlement activities. The video below looks at the U.N. resolution:

The History of the Conflict

The origins of the conflict between the two sides go back to the 19th century. Initially, the territory in question was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, during World War I, when it was clear that the Ottomans would lose, Britain and France created their own plan for the region following the war with something known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement effectively carved up Arab lands in the Middle East between France and the U.K., which went against earlier promises for an Arab state following the end of the war.

In 1917, the U.K. issued the Balfour Declaration, in which it announced its support of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. British responsibility for creating an Israeli homeland was reaffirmed by the Palestinian Mandate in 1921, which gave it control over former Ottoman lands along the terms agreed upon in Sykes-Picot. However, neither the mandate nor the earlier Balfour Declaration mentioned anything about creating a Palestinian homeland, despite the wishes of the Palestinian population.

This resentment, coupled with earlier broken promises to create an independent Arab state and the continuing and increasing Jewish migration, led to persistent conflict. In the 1930s Jewish militias helped the British put down the Arab uprising hoping to rekindle support for their independent state. Instead, they were betrayed again by yet another British agreement known as the White Paper of 1939, which would limit further Jewish migration, even as the Holocaust occurred in Europe.

After World War II the British ended its mandate in the area, transferring the land and the problems that went with it to the United Nations. The U.N. then attempted a two-state partition that instead led to more fighting and eventually the first Arab-Israeli War, which ended with an armistice in 1949. Per the terms of the agreement, Israel took control of 77 percent of the original mandate, Jordan received control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt acquired the Gaza Strip, Palestinians did not control any territory following the fighting. This also led to a mass exodus of Palestinians and a huge refugee problem that continues to this day. The biggest flare of violence between Israel and its neighbors after this, until 1967, was a joint British-French-Israeli effort to take back the Suez Canal after it had been nationalized in 1956.

While the root of the general conflict can clearly be traced back further, the root of the modern conflict can trace its most direct route to the 1967 war, known most commonly as the 6-Day War. After a series of Palestinian attacks from surrounding countries and Israeli retaliation, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq started mobilizing their militaries. However, Israel then took a surprise early offensive, decimating much of its adversaries’ air force and went on to capture a dominant victory. As a result of the victory, Israel won and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the process of the war, hundreds of thousands more refugees were forced to leave their homes and more than a million Palestinians fell under the direct rule of Israel.

Another conflict emerged in 1973 when Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. The attack prompted the United States to step in and seek a diplomatic resolution. After several years, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that included the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

However, since 1967, there has been an almost unstoppable pace of settlement in occupied territories by Israeli settlers. As of 2013, there were over 200 settlements and outposts of Israeli settlers in lands occupied since the end of the 6-Day War, namely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These settlements, even the outposts that the Israeli government considers illegal, are encouraged and supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks on housing, education, and opening new businesses.

Apart from incentives, Israeli settlers also enjoy many other advantages over their Palestinian neighbors in the occupied territories. One is a separate legal system that greatly benefits settlers over Palestinian natives who instead are governed by military law. Another is access to resources such as water, transportation, and electricity, which settlers get from the Israeli government. The settlements have led to perpetual conflict, despite numerous efforts at peace. The following video gives a good description of the roots of the conflict:

The United States, Israel, Palestine and the History of Peace Talks

Since the end of the 6-Day War, there have been several efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israel and Palestine and establishing some framework in which both peoples can have states of their own. This started with two other U.N. resolutions, namely 242 and 338, which put an end to the 1973 War and also called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied. Building off of the 1973 War were the Camp David Accords, which led to Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt recognizing it as a state. But these talks did not involve the Palestinians.

The Madrid Conference in 1991 was aimed at similar goals, namely ensuring recognition of the state of Israel. Ultimately, it led to peace between Israel and Jordan, but none of the other combatants. While the Palestinians were represented at the Madrid Conference, the first deal to actually incorporate them was the Oslo Accords in 1993. In exchange for promising to incrementally withdraw Israeli troops from Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Opposition groups in Palestine and settler groups in Israel opposed the deal, which led to violence. The agreement was never fully implemented.

Probably the closest the two sides ever came to lasting peace was the second Camp David Accords in 2000 when both sides offered land swaps, however, they were not quite enough to entice the other to agree to a peace resolution. A last ditch effort in Taba in 2001 and an Arab Initiative in 2002 both also failed. In 2003 President Bush submitted his road map to peace and became the first president to call for an independent Palestinian state. Unfortunately, another set of negotiations, the Geneva Accords of 2003, attempted to fix the same problem from another direction. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Two more rounds of talks in 2007 and 2010 seemed close to reaching deals at times but both ultimately fell short as well.

This history led President Barack Obama to seek some positive action before his term ended. Without having to worry about reelection, he allowed the recent resolution to pass. While his actions are not unprecedented, they are still controversial. Other resolutions have been passed regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, but this was the most recent one to condemn settlements since 1980. Additionally, while Obama is not the first U.S. president to allow a resolution related to this conflict to pass without a veto, it is the first time in his presidency. The accompanying video looks at the peace process as it currently stands and the remaining inherent trouble:

Moving Forward

While the resolution is non-binding, it is not entirely toothless. What it does is create a template for future negotiations and potentially other resolutions that would be binding. While a January 15 International Peace Conference seemed to offer a forum to draft that kind of resolution, no such progress was made. Instead, the focus was mainly on reopening dialogue between the two parties and reiterating support for past ideas, such as a two-state solution and the return of land occupied by Israel to Palestine.

Aside from creating guidelines, the recent U.N. resolution also eliminated many of the legal arguments Israel could have used to justify settlements. The resolution may also lead to subsequent efforts to apply sanctions on Israeli goods made in the occupied territories or force Israel to go to the International Criminal Court.

President Trump has already denounced the resolution and promised to repeal it. However, that seems unlikely as he would have to introduce a new resolution and, like the current one, get it through the Security Council without a single veto, which is unlikely. However, Trump and the Israelis can cut funding to the United Nations, which would be significant, as the U.S. supplies 22 percent of the organization’s budget. Israel can also go after the nations who voted for the resolution, summoning ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution.The U.S. embassy, notably, was not among those targeted by Israel.

In the meantime, the settlements continue to be built and expand further into Palestinian occupied lands. There are now 600,000 Jewish Israelis living in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank where once there were none. In other words, nearly 10 percent of the country’s Jewish population lives beyond the borders established in 1967 and in territory recognized as Palestinian.

As a result, Palestinians view these settlements as an unjust seizing of the land that they would receive if a two-state solution ever came to fruition. The Israelis view these settlements as a necessary buffer and feel justified through scripture. They also contend that since Jordan, which once laid claim to these areas of land, is no longer interested in the lands, there is no sovereign power who has control over them. However, even Israel will not go so far as to claim the disputed lands in the West Bank as part of its own sovereign territory. Any solution to the problem will likely have to include land swaps, among other things, something that Israel has shown it is not totally against, such as when it abandoned a settlement in the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Conclusion

The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not going to be resolved by one U.N. resolution. However, that was never the point as the resolution was non-binding. The idea behind the resolution was to create some type of momentum for negotiations–or possibly block the momentum of efforts that many believe run against the interests of a peace settlement. In this circumstance, the onus was put on Israel, as the international community sought to make a strong statement on settlement building.

The likelihood of reaching an actual deal depends on more than just these two countries. While the rest of the Security Council, and the world in general, have an interest, the United States has played a key role in many past peace attempts. This U.N. resolution then could signal an important step forward if all sides involved are willing to look past politics and are serious about achieving some sort of two-state solution. However, it appears unlikely that the incoming president will take the same line on Israeli settlement building, which could cause many to question the negotiation process given that most view settlements as an important obstacle to a lasting resolution.

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 What a Recent U.N. Resolution Means for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, and welcome to the first ICYMI of 2017. Check out our top three articles this week, and enjoy the start to your year.

Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest. Read the full article here.

U.S. Returns 10,000 Acres of Land to Okinawa

The U.S. military handed back nearly 10,000 acres of land to Okinawa on Thursday, the largest land transfer since the U.S. occupation of the Pacific island ended in 1972. Belonging to the 19,300-acre Jungle Warfare Training Center in the northern part of Okinawa, the land equaled 17 percent of the American-owned land on the island, according to the military. Read the full article here.

John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

Here at Law Street, we cover the big issues that matter to our readers–from entertainment, to politics, to the law. ICYMI, check out our top issue briefs of the last year, and make sure you start 2016 just as informed as you were in 2015.

#1 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Image courtesy of eric pakurar via Flickr

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem? Read more here.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Issues of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) recently met in Vienna to discuss an official output quota. By the end of the meeting, however, the member countries did not agree on a quota and oil production remains near record levels. While this may not seem like breaking news, the group’s decision will have major ramifications far beyond its members. That is because this decision comes at a time when the price of oil is falling to lows not seen since the Great Recession. It is also coming at a time when a massive over-supply of oil exists in the market.

Read on to learn more about OPEC’s decision based on its past and future plans. Why does the group refuse to turn off the pumps when the wealth of supply seems to be hurting the bottom line?

History of OPEC

OPEC was founded in 1960 by its five original members: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Since then, nine members joined the group: Qatar, Indonesia, Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola, and Gabon. The organization’s stated objective is to “co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers,” but the group has historically faced criticism for trying to control the price of oil for political and economic reasons. OPEC’s members meet regularly to agree upon oil production quotas, which in turn influence the price of oil internationally.

While many have a negative perception of OPEC, the organization’s roots were generally good-intentioned. The group formed shortly after many oil producing countries emerged after colonial empires were split up. Its inception, in part, explains OPEC’s desire to set a price as a means to control and benefit from its member nations’ natural wealth.

Criticism of the group peaked in the 1970s after two high-profile events: namely, its 1973 embargo on oil exports to the United States and the fallout from the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Oil prices eventually dropped dramatically in the 1980s only stabilizing in the 1990s. This happened because of a variety of factors including a burgeoning interest in the environmental impact of oil. Oil experienced another boom in the late 90s through to the mid-2000s. However, it once again experienced a sharp decrease as a result of the 2008 Global Recession.

Following the recession, oil prices started rising, reaching a peak in 2014. Since the middle of last year, the price of oil has dropped precipitously, causing a flurry of responses from countries that are dependent on the oil industry for survival. The video below provides a detailed history of OPEC:

What is OPEC up to?

The most recent drop in oil prices brings us to where we are now. On December 7, oil prices hit their lowest levels in seven years. In fact, since June 2014 when the price of oil peaked at $108 per barrel, the price of oil has lost two-thirds of its value. The underlying driver behind the recent price drop is primarily an over-supply of oil. One explanation for the drop is the American shale boom, which significantly increased oil production in the United States. Another is the decision by OPEC not to cut its production but to keep it at near record output levels.

If a good’s supply increases but demand stays the same or decreases then its price will go down. The overall goal then is to find the equilibrium somewhere in the middle, where sellers can offer their goods at a price they feel is reasonable and at which consumers are willing to pay. OPEC’s recent decision to continue to keep production levels high has contributed to the massive drop in the global price of oil. Doing so challenges OPEC members’ ability to cover their expenses and profit off of high prices.

The question then is why? The simple answer is market share and scale of production. Saudi Arabia, a major player in OPEC, is willing to take a loss on oil in the short-term in an effort to disadvantage its competitors. The relatively long period of high oil prices that occurred over the past few years made new, more expensive means of getting oil profitable. This led to a rise in oil extraction methods like deep-water drilling and shale oil production (including fracking) in the United States. This method of getting oil is notably difficult and expensive, but with high oil prices, companies were able to spend more to extract oil because they could still turn a profit. Now that the price of oil has fallen dramatically, such efforts are becoming too expensive and shale oil production has gone down. If the price of oil stays low for a long period of time this could significantly hurt the shale industry helping OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia in the long run. This would play into the Saudis’ long-term goal of gaining back its market share, once the playing field has been thinned. But while a decrease in U.S. production has already started to happen oil prices have not yet gone back up, putting oil producers in a tricky place. The accompanying video gives a look at OPEC’s actions:

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC also have to contend with other established nations in the oil industry, namely Russia. While the Saudis have started to make their way into traditional Russian oil markets, Russia has fired back by temporarily becoming the largest supplier to Asia, an area typically dominated by OPEC.  The struggle between these two has also added to the oversupply in the market, as neither wants to concede its customers.

Further Trouble Ahead

OPEC’s strategy is decidedly risky for reasons beyond temporary loss in revenue due to lower prices. First, there’s the return of Iran to the forefront of the global oil market. Iran is currently under sanctions and its oil exports are limited to roughly 1.1 million barrels a day–about half of its peak production in 2012.  However, international sanctions on Iran are now going away in light of the Iran nuclear deal, and the country plans to produce 500,000 more barrels a day with the ultimate goal of reclaiming its market share–as Saudi Arabia and Russia are doing–no matter the cost.

Second, demand for oil could also start contracting next year, as some analysts think demand could shrink by up to as much as one-third. While drivers typically do more driving when oil is cheaper, the economic slowdown in Asia, particularly in China, threatens to cause an even larger over-supply of oil on the world market. But foreseeing changes in demand can be particularly difficult. Other analysts argue that the recent changes in China could lead to even greater demand for oil as the country shifts to a more consumer-driven economy.

Ramifications

OPEC

The concerns listed are less true for Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s de facto leader, which the IMF estimates can last about five years with oil prices at current levels before it needs to make significant changes to its budget. The Middle Eastern countries in the worst shape, however, are Iran and Iraq. While Iran’s refining costs are not particularly high relative to other countries, its economy suffered a significant blow from international sanctions. Its neighbor, Iraq, is in even worse shape, facing not only mounting debt but also the specter of ISIS operating and controlling a large swath of its territory. Forgone revenue from unusually low prices could start to hurt oil-exporting countries without large cash reserves.

The consequences of low oil prices could be just as bad, if not worse, for members of OPEC outside of the Middle East. Countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Algeria are extremely reliant on oil for government revenue, often for the majority of their budgets. Low prices have already sparked fear of unrest in areas such as Nigeria and Venezuela, which like Saudi Arabia use oil revenue to maintain social and economic stability. In Ecuador, these fears have already been realized–thousands have gone to the streets to protest government cost-cutting as a result of the falling price.

Russia

Outside of OPEC, perhaps no country is feeling the effects of the declining value of oil as much as Russia. Like many of the OPEC nations, it is very dependent on oil for income. In fact, oil and gas make up roughly two-thirds of Russian exports and half of all government revenue. With prices dropping so low, the nation has subsequently felt the effects–Russia’s economy will contract by about 3.8 percent this year and is expected to shrink further in 2016.

United States

Unlike Russia and the OPEC nations, the United States is not particularly dependent on oil production for government revenue, but the drop in prices will have some impact. If OPEC and Saudi Arabia hope to keep prices low to eliminate American competitors, evidence suggests that may be working. The number of oil rigs in the United States has fallen slightly and domestic production has decreased. In fact, for some U.S. states that rely on the oil industry for jobs and revenue, like Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, falling prices can pose a notable economic challenge.

However, the price plunge is certainly not all bad news for Americans. The average price of gasoline per gallon is now considerably lower than this time last year. Additionally, according to the United States Energy Information Administration, the average household is also likely to save $750 on gas this year. These savings are especially helpful for lower-income people who spend more of their income on gas and heating. Similar savings will likely occur in many European countries as well. The following video looks at some of the effects of low oil prices:

Conclusion

The members of OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, are taking a notable gamble with their decision to keep oil production high despite low prices. If oil-exporters reduce their production they could lose their market share, but if oil prices remain low they could face fiscal crises and possibly unrest. Yet the decision could pay off in the long run as more expensive forms of oil production slow down and prices go back up.

While OPEC is notably pumping too much oil, an issue that will likely become worse when Iran increases its exports, nearly all oil producing countries find themselves in a race to the bottom. Oil producing countries are already experiencing the consequences of low prices, but that will likely worsen if the status-quo continues. Meanwhile, the United States and most oil-importing Western nations stand to benefit.

Resources

CNN: OPEC is at War and it’s Sending Shockwaves Around the World

OPEC: Brief History

CNN: Oil prices dive below $37 to Lowest Level in Seven Years

Library of Economics and Liberty: Supply

Bloomberg View: Saudi Arabia’s Oil War with Russia

U.S. News and World Report: Iran to Add 500,000 Barrels of Oil Exports After Sanctions are Lifted Through Nuclear Deal

The Wall Street Journal: Global Demand Growth for Oil May Fall by a Third in 2016

CNN Money: Saudi Arabia to Run Out of Money in Less Than 5 Years

New York Times: From Venezuela to Iraq to Russia, Oil Price Drops Raise Fears of Unrest

Reuters: Russian Government Sees 2015 GDP Down 3 percent, More Optimistic Than Other Forecasts

International Business Times: Oil Price 2015 Russia Forced to Make Additional Spending Cuts, Official Says

Guardian: OPEC Bid to Kill off U.S. Shale Sends Oil Price Down to 2009 Low

New York Times: Oil Prices What’s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

The Christian Science Monitor: Can Canada’s Oil Sands Survive Low Oil Prices?

U.S. News and World Report: Energy Stock Winners and Losers When U.S. Oil Exports Go Global

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 An Over-Supply of Underpriced Oil: Explaining the New Energy Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

On Halloween night, a Russian plane leaving the Egyptian town of Sharm al-Sheikh crashed mysteriously in the Sinai Peninsula. While the conversation quickly shifted to whether this was a result of a bomb or not, it is just one more in a series of events that depict the chaos on-going within Egypt. The start of this chaos coincided with the Arab Spring that upended a decades-old dictator only a few years ago.

Read on to see the political evolution in Egypt, beginning with the Arab Spring, through its messy post-revolution transition, to the current government under military leader Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. How have these events shaped the country, and what role do countries like the United States and groups like ISIS play in the shaping of Egypt’s recent political turmoil?

Background

The Arab Spring

Fresh on the heels of widespread protests in Tunisia, a similar uprising emerged in Egypt over the rule of Hosni Mubarak, which was characterized by oppression and poverty. After the protests grew, President Mubarak eventually offered to step down at the end of his term and appoint a vice president for the first time in his reign. However, these changes did little to placate Egyptians who continued the protests in Tahrir Square. After continued dissent and the government’s failed attempts to  violently end the protest, Mubarak ultimately resigned, leaving power in the hands of the military. The following video provides a good insight into the Arab Spring and aftermath in Egypt:

Hosni Mubarak

Egypt’s longtime ruler came to power during a time of chaos as the vice president succeeding Anwar Sadat, who was killed by Islamic extremists during a military parade. Upon ascending to the presidency, a role he would maintain for the next thirty years, Mubarak declared a state of emergency which was in effect until he stepped down in 2011. While Mubarak at points seemed untouchable, eventually even his time would come. After finally ceding power, the longtime ruler was also arrested and subsequently put on trial. Mubarak was charged with embezzlement, corruption, and complicity in the killing of protesters.

In 2012, he was convicted for being complicit in killing protesters and was sentenced to life in prison. He was later granted a retrial in 2013 and was acquitted in 2014. Then, he was convicted of the other two charges as well, granted a retrial for these in 2013, acquitted of corruption in 2014 but found guilty of embezzlement. Mubarak’s final retrial will take place in January 2016.

Post Revolution

Following Mubarak’s forced resignation, power passed to a military consortium known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. This group vowed to draft a new constitution and eventually cede power to a democratically elected government. However, during the transition period, the military cracked down on protests and dissolved the previous government. The council also began gradually taking on greater powers, including the ability to pass new laws and regulate the budget. Concurrent to the presidential election, the council dissolved the recently elected parliament, which at the time was dominated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt eventually elected Mohamed Morsi president, setting up a power struggle between the elected government and the military.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood originated in 1928, combining political activism with charitable work based on Islamic principles. The brotherhood was initially banned in Egypt after trying to overthrow the government, but in the 1970s it renounced the use of violence. Instead, it sought to provide social services for Egyptians, which built up public trust and support. The group became so influential that President Mubarak banned the Brotherhood from competing in elections. However, after he left power, the Brotherhood won majorities in both Egypt’s lower and upper houses and eventually the presidency.

Mohamed Morsi

The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the presidency in 2012 to become the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Morsi campaigned on his desire to rule on behalf of all Egyptians, and not just Islamists who favor the Muslim brotherhood, but after his election much of the criticism claimed that he did just that. Critics argued that after his election Morsi consolidated power for himself and the Muslim Brotherhood and did little to spur economic growth. But Morsi argued that he had to take dramatic action in light of Egypt’s recent turbulence. Egyptians quickly became dissatisfied with Morsi’s rule and protests emerged. The dissenters intensified their efforts and eventually clashed with the government. After a period of large-scale uprisings, the military stepped in and ousted Morsi from power. His presidency lasted for just over a year.

After being forced out of office, Morsi was charged with a number of crimes, ranging from espionage to terrorism. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to death. After several legal battles, the court reaffirmed the sentence in June.

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi came to power in the elections following Morsi’s ouster, in which he ran virtually unopposed. Upon al-Sisi’s election, Egyptians thought they were getting a strong nationalist leader who would rid the country of the Brotherhood’s radical Islamism and reinvigorate the economy. Instead, al-Sisi has unleashed a crackdown on dissent, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Under al-Sisi’s presidency, the economy continued to falter, only staying above water thanks to support from nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States. Assessments of his presidency cite human rights violations and a crackdown on free expression and dissent.

The video below shows life in Egypt under al-Sisi:

Other Actors

The United States

Egypt has long been an important country to the United States because of its large population and the presence of the Suez Canal, one of the major avenues for world trade. The importance of this relationship can be quantified by the $76 billion in aid given to Egypt since 1948, including $1.3 billion annually for Egypt’s military.

Recently, however, this relationship has taken a different direction. In light of the forced removal of Mohamed Morsi’s government in 2013, the United States has been reevaluating its relationship with Egypt. The United States began withholding certain military equipment in 2013 to express dissatisfaction with the political trend in Egypt–although military cooperation continued.

As the Congressional Research Service notes, Egypt later signed arms deals with France and Russia and after terrorist attacks in the region earlier this year, the United States resumed its shipments. However, this aid is subject to continued evaluation and beginning in 2018 it will be directed for certain missions instead of being given as a blank check to the military. Egypt’s governing issues and changing U.S. policy priorities, like a nuclear deal with Iran, have reduced Egypt’s long-standing importance as an American ally.

The accompanying video gives a good look at Egypt-U.S. relations:

ISIS

Like other parts of the Arab world, Egypt has become a home for Islamic extremists loyal to the Islamic State. In Egypt, the group is based out of the Sinai, which has been loosely governed since it was returned to Egypt from Israel in 1979. This group has been responsible for a number of attacks and has claimed responsibility for the recent plane bombing that killed 224 people. Despite several military offensives, Egypt has been unable to rid itself of the terrorist group.

In addition to ISIS affiliates, other actors are also making a play in Egypt. Russia reached a preliminary agreement to provide Egypt with $3.5 billion in arms, a deal seen as filling the gap left by the United States. France also signed a major arms deal with Egypt that is valued at nearly $6 billion. Saudi Arabia and Iran are also competing for Egypt’s favor in their on-going proxy war. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of Egypt’s largest supporters helping keep the al-Sisi regime in control.

Conclusion

Like many other countries that experienced a change in leadership following the Arab Spring, Egypt has found itself stuck in place and may possibly be reverting to its old ways. While the prospect for democracy in Egypt looked bright shortly after the uprising in 2011, the military has successfully managed to maintain control. Mohammed Morsi’s brief rule was quickly followed by the election of a military leader. The current president, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, has continued the consolidation of power that led to Morsi’s ousting and will likely continue to do so, justifying it with the threat of terrorism.

While the United States may not approve of the recent governing issues in Egypt, other countries have stepped in to provide military aid to the al-Sisi government. Egypt now presents a challenge to both itself and its traditional allies. As the threat of terrorism grows in the region, a democratic Egypt is becoming less of a policy priority for the west. As a result, there is little pressure on President al-Sisi to uphold liberal principles. We’ll  have to see if that conundrum holds true in the new year.

Resources

Reuters: Russian Officials Believe Sinai Plane Brought Down by Bomb

Council on Foreign Relations: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Encyclopedia Britannica: Egypt Uprising of 2011

BBC: Hosni Mubarak

Frontline: What’s Happened since Egypt’s Revolution?

BBC: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

BBC: What’s Become of Egypt’s Morsi?

Biography: Mohamed Morsi

Al Jazeera: President Sisi’s very bad year

CNN: ISIS beheading an ominous sign in struggling Egypt

Reuters: Russia, Egypt seal preliminary arms deal worth $3.5 billion

Al-Araby: Saudi Arabia and Egypt friends or foes?

Congressional Research Service: Egypt Background and U.S. 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 How Has Egypt Changed After the Arab Spring? 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.

The nation of Turkey sits at a crossroads. Stretching from Europe to Asia, the country serves as the major path between the two continents and has done so through one form or another for centuries. The nation is also proverbially stuck between two competing forces as well. While it has advanced economically, politically, and through foreign policy much further than many of its Middle East neighbors, recent setbacks have shown just how far this process has yet to go. On top of this is the continued threat of ISIS and homegrown groups that recently reached such a fevered pitch that Turkey has called on its NATO allies for assistance. Read on for a look at this critical junction for Turkey, examining its past, politics, economy, and security situation.

History

Present day Turkey was formerly known as Anatolia in ancient times and was part of many of the world’s strongest and longest-lasting empires such as the Romans and Byzantines. Beginning in the 11^th century however, it was invaded by a number of Turkic tribes from the Asian Steppe. These groups spent the next 200 years warring with each other, as well as with the Byzantines. Through this fighting the region gradually came to have an overwhelmingly Turkic population, leading to the origins of the nation’s present name, Turkey.

Out of that chaos rose the Ottomans, who slowly expanded the borders of the burgeoning Anatolian state and moved to finally crush the Byzantium Empire to the west. Finally in 1453, after nearly 100 years, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine capital Constantinople. The city was renamed Istanbul and rechristened the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Following this rapid rise, the Ottomans then spent the next 300 years building and consolidating their empire.

The tide of history began to work against them though, in the 18^th century, as the empire was pinned in under threat from all sides; the Austrians to the west, the Russians to the north, and Persians to the east and south. This led a gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was soon dubbed “the sick man of Europe.” Ironically, the empire survived only through efforts of European nations, which were anxious to maintain it as part of the balance of power.

This weakness was exacerbated by defeat in the Crimean War and the independence of a number of the regions under Turkish rule in the late 1800s. This also led to a reform movement, which culminated with Ataturk and the Young Turks who took control over the country in a bloodless coup in 1909 and ushered in a modern European-style democracy.

Aside from imitating European democracy, Ataturk also modernized Turkey in other ways including through farming, education, and even the Turkish language. His most lasting objective though and the most divisive to the present day, was to make Turkey a secular nation. While its inhabitants are still overwhelmingly Muslim, the country is modeled more after others in which the church and state are separate.  The video below provides an in-depth look at Turkey’s history.

Turkey and the EU

When Ataturk imitated European life he dreamed of one day ingratiating Turkey into the continent or at least being strong enough to challenge it. This has translated through the years into a desire by Turks to join the European Union. In fact, it has been a candidate for membership since 1999. The partnership would be a natural one for a number of reasons including Turkey’s growing economy, as well as its existing partnerships within NATO and the G20.

Nevertheless, after more than 15 years, Turkey remains on the outside looking in. Despite its strong economy and its capital, which is technically in Europe, the Turks have not been able to convince the EU it is worthy of membership. This is due to a number of reasons that extend beyond Turkey’s Muslim population, which it alleges is the main problem.

To start, while Turkey is wealthy, that wealth is unequally concentrated at the top. Thus while Turkey’s economy overall is growing and there are extremely wealthy people, the majority live in poverty. This could be problematic for the EU because it would bring a population even larger than Germany’s into the fold, which might need extensive government help. This is even more of a concern in the wake of the repeated bailouts of Greece, a much smaller country than Turkey both economically and population-wise. Additionally, Turkey brings further baggage through its problems with the Kurds, the contentious issue of who rules Cyprus, and its democracy, which looks increasingly less representative and more like a dictatorship.

Perhaps most importantly though, in light of Greece’s recent issues, is the slowing Turkish economy. Since its rise from the ashes of the IMF bailout it received in 2001, the economy of Turkey boomed averaging between five and ten percent annually. However, this growth has stalled and plummeted the last few years, averaging closer to three percent.

This is a result of less innovation and deregulation of the economy, regulations which helped it climb out of its earlier hole. At the center of much of this, is former Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Erdogan has been criticized for intervening too much in the nation’s economy, particularly concerning its central bank. Erdogan claims that the central bank acting as if it is under a foreign authority has reduced confidence in the economy and the government.

The Turkish Government

Speaking of its government, since the founding of the modern state by Ataturk, Turkey has made a concerted effort, unlike its neighbors, to be secularist and not become dominated by Islamists. This attempt has been carried out, historically, by the military, which has initiated a number of coups to preserve the country as is.  The following video depicts the military’s role in the government.

However, these efforts are under threat of being rendered moot, thanks to Turkey’s most powerful politician since Ataturk, Recep Erdogan. Erdogan built his political career piece by piece, rising from professional soccer all the way to the position of Prime Minister. After serving the maximum allowable 12 years, he became the first ever directly elected president in the country’s position.

While Erdogan has been immensely popular during his rule, many view him as a threat to Turkey’s secular identity. This is due to many factors, including his religious upbringing, laws he has attempted to pass that prohibit certain freedoms with regard to Islamic doctrine, and his political leanings. The fear is growing because Erdogan is now attempting to alter the constitution in a way that grants the president far-reaching powers, which would be a massive shift for a position that until now has been mostly ceremonial. Erdogan has also had a combative foreign affairs history, including alienating a once-close ally in Israel and in failing to live up to promises offered to Kurds living in the south.  The accompanying video details Erdogan’s political career.

Security

The Kurds represent just one of the two major threats to Turkey emanating from its south. The other is ISIS whose power base in Syria and Iraq touches the nation’s southern border and threatens to spill over it.

The Kurds

Turkey’s longest term enemy is within its own borders. The Kurds are led by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Since the party was outlawed by Turkey in 1984, 40,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Erdogan negotiated a tentative peace with the group, however when the Kurds asked for assistance in fighting ISIS they were met with indifference.

The issue came to a head again recently when Kurdish members of the PKK ambushed and killed two Turkish police officers. This has led Turkish officials to state that they see no difference between groups such as the PKK and ISIS, in that both are viewed as terrorists. This explains recent air strikes then, against Kurdish positions in Iraq and Syria by Turkey, which effectively ends the ceasefire.  The video below discusses the issues between the Kurds and Turkey.

ISIS

For the most part Turkey has tried and been successful in avoiding conflict with the barbaric terrorist group, but recent signs suggest this may be ending. Following a recent attack by militants and in light of the nearly two million refugees flooding into Turkey from Iraq and Syria, the country is no longer able to sit on the sidelines.

On July 26,  Turkey, as a member of NATO, called for a meeting under Article 4 of the treaty organization’s charter. It was only the fifth such time since the organization’s inception that such a meeting has been called. The Turks proposed a buffer where no militants will be allowed to operate within 68 miles of their border. In return for the assistance, the Turks will also give greater access to U.S. troops and aircraft fighting ISIS.

While the coalition fighting ISIS has long desired a foothold in Turkey for targeting the group, any agreement would come with strings attached. Not only would it mean condoning attacks by the Turks on the PKK, it would also condone many of the other undemocratic actions taking place within the country.

Conclusion

Turkey is literally a land at a crossroads between Europe and Asia, Christianity and Islam. For nearly a century, the country has maintained this tenuous position by adhering to the principles of the founder of the modern Turkish state, Ataturk. He called for a secularist nation and when the country strayed from this path, it was and has been repeatedly corrected through military intervention.

Secularism was made easier following the turn of the millennium as Turkey’s economy hummed, its relations with the Kurds improved, and a path to joining the E.U. looked open. However, life has a way of presenting obstacles and Turkey has begun to encounter several, ranging from its flat-lining growth and its power-hungry leader to its continued assault on minorities within its borders and beyond. It is this intersection that now presents Turkey with its most difficult decisions in the future to come. The choices it makes could very well change its direction.

Resources

BBC News: IS Conflict NATO to discuss Turkey-Syria border crisis

History World: History of Turkey

All About Istanbul: Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey

European Union: EU Relations With Turkey

Debating Europe: Arguments For and Against Turkey’s EU Membership

Telegraph: How Turkey’s Economy Went From Flying to Flagging and Could Get Worse

Reuters: Turkey’s Erdogan Says New Constituion a Priority After Elections

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 Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads 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.

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 bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness 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.

It’s an all too familiar occurrence: violence has broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. This time, the fighting is over the murder of three Israeli boys and the apparent subsequent revenge killing of one Palestinian boy. Read on to learn more about the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

Why is there tension between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for nearly a century over the rights to the land known today as Israel. Like many contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts, Britain shoulders some of the blame.

It all started in 1916 when Britain convinced the Arab people to turn against the Ottoman Empire during World War I by promising them an independent Arab state, including Palestine. One year later, however, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour declared that Britain supported a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. These contradictory promises laid the groundwork for the current fighting. The two have fought violent battles ever since the United Nations gave Israel the majority of land in 1947, and Israel has gradually gained more land through these wars.

For a full recap and explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, click here, or watch the video below.

Today, Israelis and Palestinians fight over a variety of issues. Palestinians argue that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are a violation of human rights, and that Jewish settlements in these lands are illegal acts by Israel to gain more land from the Palestinian people. Israelis argue that they live under constant fear from Hamas rocket strikes and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, and that these occupations are meant to protect themselves.

Who are the major players in this conflict?

There are three major organizations interacting with each other in this story.

First is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has control over the Jewish portions of Israel.

Second is Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is the largest political party in the Palestinian regions of Israel, mainly the West Bank. The West Bank is land east of Israel that belongs to the Palestinian people. Jewish people have routinely settled in the West Bank. The legality of these settlements often come under question and are a major sticking point in peace negotiations

Third is Hamas, which took large control over the Gaza Strip after intense fighting with Fatah. Gaza is a small strip of land on the Western border of Israel. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by many governments across the globe and is responsible for rockets fired from the Gaza border into Israel.

Recently, Fatah and Hamas created a unity government to more effectively branch the West Bank and Gaza together. This has infuriated Netanyahu, who was previously working with Fatah to try to maintain peace.

What happened to these three Israeli boys?

On June 12, 2014, Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel went missing in the West Bank. A massive search ensued to find the boys. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which led the search, detained 400 Palestinians suspected of terror activities in the process.

The boys were found buried in shallow graves on June 30 in the West Bank city of Hebron, apparent victims of an execution.

One of the teenagers made an emergency phone call shortly before he was killed. You can listen to parts of that call here:

Who kidnapped and killed them?

Israel has identified Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Eisheh, two members of Hamas, as primary suspects. The two have since fled and are being searched for by Israeli and Palestinian forces. For a good profile on the family deemed responsible for this tragedy, click here.

Hamas has denied responsibility for the attacks and is claiming that the two men acted alone, not as representatives of the organization.

How has Israel’s government responded?

The Israeli government does not believe Hamas’ claim distancing itself from the killing. Netanyahu has said that Hamas will pay and referred to the killers as “beasts.” Watch his full statement below:

Hours after the boys’ bodies were found, Israel launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip. Israel says that these are retaliation for both the murder of the three Israeli boys and for the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The homes of the suspects were also destroyed.

Israel has moved ground troops to the Gaza border, but claims it is not seeking escalation, but rather that this is a defensive tactic.

How have the Israeli people responded?

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians have not reacted to this tragedy with racism and violence; however, those who have reacted this way are threatening to ratchet up tension and violence in a country that already has high levels of both.

On July 2, 2014, 16-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammad Abu Khieder was found murdered and badly burned in a forest section of Jerusalem. Authorities in the area have concluded that Kheider was most likely killed by Jews in an act of revenge.

Many Israelis have come out strongly against the killing, including family members of the Israeli victims. The Frenkel family released a statement that said, in part, “There is no differentiating between blood and blood, murder is murder, whatever the nationality or age.”

Shelly Yachimovich, an Israeli politician, referred to the killing as “a barbaric challenge to the sovereignty of the state, to the army, the police, the courts, and the government.”

This revenge killing is not the only example of a visceral reaction from Israeli citizens. Watch this rally of mourners turn into an angry protest. The protesters are screaming “death to Arabs.”

Thousands of Israelis have posted on a Facebook group calling for vengeance over the death of Israelis. The moderators of the group claim that they are not calling for the murder of innocents, but for the murderers of the three boys to be brought to justice. Some comments, however, appear to support the revenge killing of Khieder.

This, along with reports of random attacks against Palestinians by Israelis, has created a very tense environment.

How are Palestinians responding?

Palestinians are outraged over the revenge killing of Khieder, and the protests are already getting violent. Some have responded by clashing with Israeli security forces. Protesters have been throwing molotov cocktails and stones at security, who have been responding in kind with tear gas and stun grenades.

Watch this Associated Press report about the clashes:

There are also reports that hundreds of Palestinians lit train stations on fire in east Jerusalem.

Hamas has stated that they are also uninterested in escalating the conflict, but are having trouble convincing rogue militants to hold their fire.

Conclusion

The execution of three Israeli children, the revenge killing of a Palestinian boy, and the return of Gaza rockets are all dangerous developments for Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides need to exercise caution and restraint in order to spare more lives.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

On July 8, Israel began Operation Protective Edge, a military offensive that has attacked more than 450 targets in Gaza. Different sources report different casualty numbers, but according to public health officials in Gaza, 35 people have been killed by these attacks, including 16 children.

This operation is a response to a massive number of rocket attacks on Israel coming from Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has fired more than 160 rockets at Israel in the past week. These rockets are reaching further into Israeli land than they ever have before. Warning sirens have sent Israelis running for bomb shelters, and many schools have canceled classes.

All observers agree that this is the worst violence the region has seen since 2012. The Israeli military has called up 40,000 reserve troops, 10,000 more than were called up in 2012. With Netanyahu’s supporters pressuring him to use ground troops and Hamas trying to prove they can stand up to Israel, the death toll and number of rocket strikes are likely to rise.

Resources

Primary

Jewish Virtual Library: The British Palestine Mandate

Additional

Global Issues: The Middle East Conflict: a Brief Background

Guardian: Air Strikes Hit Gaza as Israel Blames Hamas

Breaking Israel News: Bodies of Three Kidnapped Teens Found by IDF

Buzzfeed: Who Are the Kidnappers?

The New York Times: Deeply Divided Israel Unites in Grief

The New York Times: Israel Mobilizing Forces Around Gaza

Jerusalem Post: US Says Hamas Involved in Death of Three Boys

Yahoo: Hamas Member Killed After Death of Three Boys

The New York Times: US Envoy Blames Distrust for Problems

The New York Times: Arab Boy’s Death Escalates Clashes

Buzzfeed: Revenge Attack on a Palestinian

Fox News: Palestinians Clash With Israeli Police

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 Kidnapping and Revenge: The Latest Chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared first on Law Street.

Iraq, the country America spent over eight and a half years nation building, is in a state of chaos, and a group called ISIS is responsible. Here’s everything you need to know about the sources of conflict in Iraq, who is to blame, and what America can do about it.

Update: June 19, 2014

What is ISIS?

ISIS stands for Islamic State In Syria, and is also known as the Islamic State In Iraq and Levant. It is a Jihadist militant group that lays claim to land in Syria and is rapidly gaining territory in Iraq. Their stated goal is to create an Caliphate (Islamic state) ruled by a caliph (successor to Muhammad) that includes large regions of Syria and Iraq.

The group has taken advantage of the chaos of the countries they operate in to become one of the most powerful and well-financed militant organizations in the world.

ISIS used to be Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria and Iraq, but Al Qaeda disavowed the group this past February after months of feuding.

They are now fighting with the Iraqi government for control over many key cities.

What is ISIS’s problem with the current Iraqi government?

Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, is a member of the Shia branch of Islam. He has been accused by his critics of exacerbating tensions between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds by appointing hardline Shiites to government positions.

What’s the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?

Sunni and Shia are two separate branches of the Islamic faith. After the Prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, Sunnis believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be decided based on merit, whereas Shiites believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be a descendant of Muhammad. The two branches split and there has been tension as well as bloodshed between the two ever since.

This is a very simple explanation of the divide. A whole article would be necessary to accurately explain why these two groups are still causing so much violence in the world today.

Iraq is home to three major ethnic groups: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. None of these groups like each other, and that tension has been the cause of sectarian violence ever since the United States invaded in 2003.

Who is winning?

ISIS, by a long shot.

They have complete control over Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, and ISIS is already fighting over Baghdad, the nation’s capital.

Iraqi soldiers have been dropping their weapons and fleeing from ISIS, and the ones who have not run away have been brutally executed (WARNING: Graphic images).

What impact is this having on the region?

This is pretty much the worst case scenario for a post-U.S. invasion Iraq. The Iraqi government is collapsing quickly. Iraqis have lost confidence in their government and have joined militias to protect themselves. A top Shiite cleric has called upon all Iraqi Shiites to take up arms and repel the Sunni militants. This combination of a power vacuum and ethnic tension has all of the makings of a major ethnic conflict and, if ISIS is that powerful and brutal, a genocide.

Ethnic violence has reached the point of a humanitarian crisis. On June 15, ISIS claimed to have executed 1,700 Iraqi soldiers and posted gruesome photos to their social media profiles. Government forces shot 44 Sunni prisoners in their cells on June 16. That same day, a suicide bombing killed 16 Shiites.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is known to back ISIS has created even further tension throughout the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other, and a Sunni militant organization taking so much land near the Shia Iranian border does not make the Iranian government feel safe. Things are so upside down that Iran, who often refers to America as the “Great Satan,” has spoken with American diplomats about working together to stabilize the crisis.

This tweet from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seems to say that Iran will not wait if the United States does not respond. Iran is ready to “protect” holy Shiite sites in Iraq, most likely with force.

Iranian nation will protect #Iraq's holy shrines & they aren't alone. Iraq's Sunnis, Shias & Kurds all ready to defeat terrorism #solidarity

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) June 18, 2014

Meanwhile, the Kurdish population in the Northern regions of Iraq have taken advantage of the chaos by strengthening their hold over their land. While this region has always been somewhat autonomous, Kurds believe they have a real chance to take this land away from Iraq entirely and claim it for themselves. Of course, there are disputes over which lands are Kurdish, which are Sunni, and which are Shiite, so this independence will not take place peacefully. Kurds have already started a militia called the Peshmerga to claim and protect these territories. Here is a Vice News report about the Peshmerga, ISIS, and their respective strategies:

The impact on Iraq’s oil exports could send shockwaves through the global economy. While most of the ports in Iraq are safe in the Southern region of the nation, there have already been clashes over the nation’s largest refinery. An oil conflict in OPEC’s second largest exporter could have a major impact on the market as a whole.

Who is to blame for this mess?

It’s Britain and France’s Fault

At this point you are probably asking yourself, “what idiot drew the borders of Iraq to include three ethnic groups that despise each other to the point of taking up arms?” The answer to that question lies in your high school history curriculum, all the way back to World War I. In 1916, both Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which split the Ottoman Empire between the two powers after they won the war. This map ignored tribal lines and instead drew borders that would benefit the imperial powers.

There is no footage of this agreement being drawn out, but The Daily Show gives us a pretty good idea of how it probably went down.

These borders have stayed roughly the same, until now. ISIS is ripping apart the Sykes-Picot map in favor of their own borders. The problem is that Sunnis and Shiites do not live in different parts of Iraq. They are a heterogeneous population. If ISIS wants a Sunni-only population, they will have to kill or force the migration of a lot of people.

It’s Obama’s Fault

President Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 after a war that had lasted almost nine years. Despite multiple debates with Maliki, Obama was unable to secure a deal that would leave a small number of troops in Iraq that would help keep order and train the military. It is this lack of any residual forces that the Republican party is blaming for the current unrest. In their eyes, Iraq was in a good spot before the United States withdrew. Crime was down, elections were taking place, and insurgents were effectively counterbalanced by U.S. forces.

Obama made the political choice to withdraw from Iraq without thinking about the consequences or planning for an Iraq in a post-war environment.

Obama’s decision to stay out of Syria has also been criticized, as this allowed groups like ISIS to form in the jihadist hotbed.

The GOP has been hammering Obama on Sunday talk shows and in newspaper columns over this mess. Even former Bush Administration officials, most notably Vice President Dick Cheney, have piled on in the past week.

It’s Bush’s Fault

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that Bush Administration officials have some serious nerve blaming Obama for a problem they created. These are the same people that got us into Iraq (under false pretenses) in the first place. They removed Saddam Hussein from power, destabilized the country, and spent almost nine years, billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives trying to hold the place together.

Liberals have been heavily critical of those who they believe were wrong about Iraq in the first place. This quote from a Paul Waldman column in the Washington Post is particularly strong:

They’re the ones who swore that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, that he had a terrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that the war would be quick, easy and cheap, that since Iraq was a largely secular country we wouldn’t have to worry about sectarian conflict, and that democracy would spread throughout the region in short order, bringing peace and prosperity along with it.

Bush, much like the British and French of the World War I era, ignored centuries of ethnic conflict in the Middle East, opened a huge power vacuum, and assumed that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds would just work it out peacefully.

From a liberal point of view, Cheney giving fault to Obama for the current crisis in Iraq is blame avoidance at its worst.

It’s Maliki’s Fault

Observers of Iraq argue that this is not the fault of Obama or Bush, but a political failure on the part of Maliki. During his tenure as Prime Minister he has stifled Sunni protests, refused economic concessions to Kurdish regions, and generally ignored a large plurality of the population. ISIS is gaining influence not because of their radical Islamist views but because they provide an opposition to Maliki that is powerful. Those who are fighting are not necessarily joining ISIS but are merely battling alongside them against a common enemy. Obama and Iran have been trying to get Maliki to start discussions with Sunni and Kurdish leaders, but it might be too little, too late. There is no good will between himself and Sunnis for Maliki to use as a way to get anyone to the table. A moderator of any diplomatic settlement would have to be an outsider, and a precondition to talks would most likely be Maliki’s resignation.

What can the United States do?

The United States has already sent 275 troops back to Iraq, but they are only there to protect the U.S. Embassy. They will not be fighting for the Iraqi government.

However, there are ways that Obama could assist Maliki in repelling this militant invasion. The New York Times is reporting that he is considering selective airstrikes on the militant groups using drones.

Beyond that, few people have any concrete ideas about what the United States should be doing to solve the crisis. Some in Congress are arguing that the United States should do “something,” but will not specify what that “something” is.

Retired Marines Lt. Col. Oliver North seems to be one of the few people arguing for sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS.

Should the United States do anything?

If you ask the American people, the answer is no. According to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, 74 percent of Americans oppose sending troops to Iraq. 46 percent of Americans in a Rasmussen poll support air strikes, but that is still not a large mandate.

Lawmakers are unsure about whether or not they support any military action in Iraq. Congressmen who supported the war 12 years ago are suddenly unsure about even using air strikes.

These signs point to a public and a government that is wary of war in the Middle East. The wounds of the Iraq War are too fresh to reopen.

“After a decade of war, we’ve all had enough,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The last time Obama considered military action that the public opposed and Congress was unsure of was in Syria. He ended up not bombing Assad’s regime.

An airstrike would give Obama one benefit: If it succeeded, and helped Maliki conduct a successful counterattack, it would give him the leverage he needs to negotiate a peace deal and make his government more inclusive.

However, without spotters on the ground, it is difficult to accurately strike the right target and not strike any civilians. Effective air strikes would require at least some troops in Iraq.

As General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it at a recent Senate panel, “it’s not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then striking it […]These forces are very intermingled.”

Conclusion

Iraq is falling, and there is not much that the United States can do about it. Centuries of sectarian conflict, a decade of U.S. occupancy, and incompetent Iraqi leadership have all led to this moment. ISIS is on the verge of tearing apart the Sykes-Picot borders and establishing a caliphate in the Middle East. The inevitably bloody upcoming civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds might bring about the end of Iraq as we know it.

Update: On June 19, Obama announced that 300 military advisers would be sent to Iraq. Obama will also provide Iraq with counterterrorism equipment and two joint operations centers to give Iraqi forces the intelligence they need to fight ISIS. However, in the same announcement, Obama made two things clear: these military advisors will not engage in direct combat and that United States will not provide support to one Islamic sect at the expense of another. He still insisted that ground troops would not be sent to the conflict.

American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again,” Obama said. “We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended.

Obama also mentioned that other military options were still on the table, and pressured Maliki to create a new, more inclusive government.

 Resources

Primary

Yale Law SchoolThe Sykes-Picot Agreement

Additional

BBC: Profile: Islamic State In Iraq and Levant

Merced Sun-Star: Congress lacks consensus on Iraq

The New York Times: US and Iran signaling new joint effort in Iraq Crisis

The New York TImes: Obama considering selective airstrikes

The New York Times: Massacre claim shakes Iraq

News 4: Oliver North: Boots on the ground only viable option

Hill: American troops in Iraq might be inevitable

CBS News: GOP: Iraq disintegrating because of Obama’s withdrawal

Foreign Policy: Who lost Iraq?

Atlantic: Let’s not ignore those who got Iraq wrong

Reuters: Timeline of the Iraq War

LA Times: Kurds see historic opportunity in Northern Iraq

Foreign Policy: How does ISIS fund their operations?

Foreign Policy: Three major worries about Iraq

Mediaite: Is Iraq more or less stable without Hussein?

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 Crisis Hits Iraq: The Rise of ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.