President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

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 and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

A day after North Korea launched yet another missile test, the Pentagon tested a missile defense system on Tuesday, its first in three years, in recognition of the closer-than-ever reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. The system, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is designed to thwart inter-continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, that can strike the continental United States.

Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, suggested Pyongyang is nearly capable of launching such a missile, and its recent flurry of medium and short-range missile tests has proved Kim’s rhetoric is more than mere words.

Here’s how the $244-million defense system works:

A test missile is launched off an atoll in the Marshall Islands. Concurrently, a so-called “interceptor” launches from an underground airbase in California, spitting out a “kill vehicle” that collides with the missile–hopefully destroying it–mid-air before it can hit the earth. The system, which launched its first test in 2004, is far from a sure thing: it has been successful in four of nine attempts.

According to the Associated Press, Tuesday’s test was a success:

BREAKING: Pentagon says it has shot down mock warhead over the Pacific in key success for US missile defense program.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 30, 2017

“This is part of a continuous learning curve,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, recently said. “We improve and learn from each test, regardless of the outcome. That’s the reason we conduct them,” he added. “We look forward to understanding the results so we can continue to mature the system and stay ahead of the threat.”

That threat is perhaps more pressing than ever before. North Korea has launched a handful of missile tests since President Donald Trump took office in January. Trump has vowed to stop the threat, and has looked to China, the North’s neighbor, largest trading partner, and primary benefactor, to pressure Kim to cease his provocations. Trump, meanwhile, reacted to North Korea’s latest test on Twitter:

North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2017

In addition to Tuesday’s interceptor test, the Pentagon is deploying two U.S. aircraft carriers to the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, for a few days of training. Despite the training sessions taking place hundreds of miles off of the Korean Peninsula, one U.S. official told CNN, “how can we say it’s not sending a message?”

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear that the U.S. is taking the North Korean threat seriously. He said: “They have been very clear in their rhetoric — we don’t have to wait until they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on it to say that now it’s manifested completely.”

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 Pentagon Tests Defense System Designed to Thwart North Korean Missiles appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Alabama banned judicial override in capital cases, Canada readied to legalize recreational marijuana, and China and South Korea teamed up against a nuclear North Korea. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street below!

Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court?

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Canada Set to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in July 2018

By the summer of 2018, recreational marijuana in Canada could be legal. Later this week, Parliament will take up a bill that would satisfy a popular campaign promise of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party: legalizing recreational marijuana in Canada. Medical marijuana is already legal in the country. But some government officials think the target date for legalization, July 1, is too ambitious, and implementation is more likely to begin in 2019.

Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite?

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

Alexis Evans

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

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

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? appeared first on Law Street.

In a passing-of-the-torch meeting weeks after the election, President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump of the gravest threat facing America today: North Korea. Not a belligerent China. Not an adventurous Russia. Not terrorism. But North Korea, a tiny, starved nation led by a portly 33-year-old who launches ballistic missiles every now and then. 

A few months after Obama and Trump met, the North Korean threat remains as stark as ever: Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, claims his country will soon have the capacity to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon; on Monday, North Korea tested four ballistic missiles simultaneously; and China, North Korea’s longtime security blanket, is wavering in its support. As North Korea continues to pursue nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, a dark cloud is slowly expanding over the Korean Peninsula, and the looming threat of potential conflict grows with each passing day.

Missile Tests

For the past year or so, North Korea has been flaunting its military capabilities for all the world to see. It tested a nuclear missile last January, and again in September. It has unleashed a flurry of medium and intermediate-range missile over the past few months. And on Monday, the North sent four missiles east toward Japan; they fell into the Sea of Japan, three of them dropping within the boundaries of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called Monday’s test a “new stage of threat.” According to Abe, he spoke with Trump for 25 minutes to discuss a response to the threat. Last week, the North warned a test was on the horizon: “New strategic weapons of our own style will soar into the sky,” read a piece in the North’s state-run newspaper. Monday’s missile launch was a response to the annual joint-exercise between U.S. and South Korean military forces, a show of force that often draws an aggressive response from the North.

America’s Response

On Wednesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S ambassador to the U.N., said Kim Jong-un is “not a rational person.” Speaking after an emergency U.N. meeting on North Korea, Haley hinted the U.S. might be considering a military response to the North’s latest missives. “All the options are on the table,” she said. Sanctions imposed by the international community, while crippling for North Korea’s economy, have not had much success in reigning in its nuclear program.

The U.S. has already responded more forcefully to the North’s threat, deploying its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) system to South Korea months ahead of schedule. Mounted on the back of a truck, Thaad detects incoming missiles and intercepts them mid-air. While the move might placate South Korea’s and Japan’s fears, it has heightened tensions with China, who sees Thaad as a check on its own missile launches.

China’s Response

China, for decades, has been the linchpin to North Korea’s survival. Beijing’s support for Pyongyang could be wavering, however, as it recently announced a year-long freeze on imports of North Korean coal. But while China traditionally responds to North Korean missile launches with a gentle “don’t do that again,” it has yet to show the appetite for anything stronger. On Wednesday, China issued its sternest warning to date, advising the North to cease its missile and nuclear launches in order to “defuse a looming crisis.”

In exchange, however, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested the U.S. and South Korea could end their joint-exercises. Both sides have balked at that suggestion, citing past failures in trying to engage North Korea diplomatically. What happens next is anyone’s guess–will China retaliate for the Thaad deployment? Will South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities? What Obama told Trump in that private meeting in January may be slowly shifting from prophesy to a concrete global reality.

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 Is the U.S. Considering a Military Response to North Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

No, not literally. But on Thursday, a group of scientists moved the hands of the symbolic clock 30 seconds closer to midnight as a result of threats posed by climate change and President Donald Trump.

So what is this clock, if not an instrument used to tell time?

It was created in 1947 by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project–an effort led by the United States to develop atomic weapons during World War II–to warn people about potential disasters caused by nuclear war. The closer it is to midnight, the greater the possibility of an impending catastrophe.

The hands now sit at 2.5 minutes from midnight, the closest they have been since 1953, when they were moved to 2 minutes from midnight as a result of Russia and the United States testing hydrogen bombs during the Cold War.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which oversees the clock, said in a release that “world leaders have failed to come to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats: nuclear weapons and climate change.”

Specifically, the Bulletin cited Trump’s “disturbing comments” about nuclear weapons, dismissal of climate change, and the rise of “strident nationalism” as factors that affected the decision to change the time.

A statement from the Bulletin’s Science and Security board referenced growing nuclear arsenals in North Korea and Russia, as well as in Pakistan and India where relations have been tense for decades. Although it praised the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal to limit nuclear programs in Iran, the board questioned how long the deal would last under Trump’s administration.

Additionally, the statement criticized the lack of progress made at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, following the Paris Accord.

Another issue the board took into account was the risk posed by new, autonomous technologies, like self-driving cars. The scientists described a troubling hypothetical scenario in which such machinery could be used for weapons that  “make ‘kill’ decisions without human input or supervision.” The statement also warned of threats to democracy, like fake news and election hacking.

So how do we turn the clock back?

The board called upon leaders across the world, including Trump, to consider expert opinions and scientific evidence as they make decisions and create policies regarding the environment and use of nuclear weapons.

But it also urged average citizens to pressure their leaders, particularly on social media, to reduce nuclear arm programs, commit to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and consider the consequences of new technologies.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean When the Doomsday Clock Ticks Closer to Midnight? appeared first on Law Street.

Woo—it’s the day before Christmas Eve! RantCrush will take a short holiday break but we’ll be back again on December 27. Now go read today’s rants and then focus on all that yummy holiday food. We all deserve a little vacation after this crazy year. Happy Holidays! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Messy Foray into Nuclear Weapons

Donald Trump tweeted yesterday that he seemingly wants the U.S. to expand and strengthen its nuclear powers. Nuclear experts were shocked, and rightfully so–no president has proposed a buildup in nuclear capabilities in a long time.

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016

“Can a tweet start an arms race? This one may just have done that,” Joseph Cirincione from global security foundation Ploughshares Fund told NBC. In what seems to be the new routine for Trump, his spokespeople tried to explain and clarify what he meant after the fact.

Jason Miller said Trump meant that we need to prevent nuclear proliferation among terror groups, and strengthen American deterrent capability. Kellyanne Conway had a similar explanation last night on Rachel Maddow’s show when she said: “He is making the point this is about nuclear proliferation in the face of rogue nations and regimes that are stockpiling weapons.” Still…many people worry that the Trump gang’s explanations after the fact aren’t going to be good enough.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest attempt to cripple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed new restrictions on its coal export industry. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the new sanctions, which were unanimously approved by the 15-member council on Wednesday, “the toughest and most comprehensive” yet.

The sanctions are a direct rebuke to Pyongyang’s largest and most recent nuclear test that occurred in early September. They will aim to trim $700 million from the insulated country’s coal revenues, which UN member-states hope will lead to diplomatic discussions. The sanctions limit North Korea to exporting up to 7.5 million metric tons of coal in 2017, or to bringing in $400 million in revenue, whichever figure is reached first.

“So long as the DPRK makes the choice it has made, which is to pursue the path of violations instead of the path of dialogue, we will continue to work to increase the pressure and defend ourselves and allies from this threat,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, referring to the country’s official title, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

China, perhaps even more so than North Korea, will be responsible for ensuring the new sanctions are enforced. As the foremost customer of North Korean coal, and its chief financier and source of aid, China cannot lean on the vague language of previous sanctions to skirt around the new limits. The last round of sanctions, imposed in March, also aimed to curb the country’s coal exports, but with an exception: exports could surpass the imposed limits if they supported “livelihood purposes.”

China used that language as a license to continue importing North Korean coal in copious amounts. In fact, after the sanctions took effect in April, China imported a record amount of coal from its nuclear neighbor. The new sanctions clarified the “livelihood” exception as being reserved only for North Korean citizens.

North Korea responded to the sanctions through its state-controlled Korean Central News Agency. “Obama and his lackeys are sadly mistaken if they calculate that they can force the DPRK to abandon its line of nuclear weaponization and undermine its status as a nuclear power through base sanctions to pressurize it,” the statement said, adding that the sanctions came from the instructions of the U.S. The statement had an ominous conclusion, saying the U.S. will “be held wholly accountable in case the situation on the Korean peninsula and in the region is pushed to an uncontrollable phase.”

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 UN Hits North Korea with “Toughest” Sanctions Yet Over September Nuclear Test appeared first on Law Street.

With its recent series of missile tests and blustery rhetoric, North Korea is cultivating an atmosphere of paranoia in the Pacific and prompting America to collaborate more closely with its Pacific allies. The nuclear nation’s latest provocation came at dawn on Wednesday, when two Rodong missiles launched from a province in the west toward the Sea of Japan in the east. One missile fizzled quickly and plunked down into the sea, while the other continued on for 620 miles, South Korean and Japanese officials said, making it one of the North’s furthest reaching missile tests yet. The most concerning element of Wednesday’s launch: the second missile landed within Japanese maritime territory, as it flew well within Japan’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ.

The latest round of missile tests comes at a tense time between North Korea and the U.S. North Korea took umbrage with the direct sanctions the U.S. recently placed on its Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un (they also targeted other high-ranking members in Un’s cabinet), as a former diplomatic corridor between the two nations was shuttered. The North Korean diplomat who used to head that channel said the U.S. sanctions amounted to a “declaration of war.” Heightening tensions between North Korea and the U.S., South Korea recently agreed to deploy the U.S.-built THAAD missile system–a truck mounted missile interceptor–that has also angered China.

Wednesday’s launch of two mid-range missiles–Pyongyang is thought to possess an arsenal including 300 Rodong missiles, which have a maximum range of 800 miles, far enough to strike mainland Japan–were condemned by government officials in Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan called the episode a “serious threat to Japan’s security” and an “unforgivable act of violence.” Japan recently released its annual defense report, which, according to South Korea media, refers to North Korea’s nuclear threat as “grave and urgent.”

Washington, which maintains strong economic and military ties with Japan and South Korea, also denounced the North’s most recent test. “This provocation only serves to increase the international community’s resolve to counter [North Korea’s] prohibited activities, including through implementing existing U.N. Security Council sanctions,” said Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman and naval commander.

In June, North Korea sent a series of Musudan missiles to an altitude higher than it had in the past, signaling its readiness to strike U.S. military bases in Japan, or its southern neighbor, South Korea. The North’s increased military flexing might be a pre-emptive response to joint military exercises set to take place between the U.S. and South Korea later this month, as it usually amps up its weapons testing in the months leading up to the annual military exercises. In an interview with The Associated Press, Han Song Ryol, the North Korean diplomat who said the U.S. had already declared war on Pyongyang with their sanctions, said if the August exercises go as planned, North Korea has a “self-defensive right and justifiable action to respond in a very hard way.”

And indicating just how serious this latest threat is being taken by the international community, the U.S. and Japan called an emergency meeting with the United Nations Security Council for Wednesday afternoon.

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 North Korea Continues to Test Missiles; Emergency U.N. Meeting Called appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the U.S. sanctioned North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un for human rights abuses for the first time. There are already sanctions on the country for its nuclear activities, but this is a unique step since it names the dictator himself, as well as 10 other prominent figures, by name. These sanctions are seen as a stepping up of the United States’ efforts to control and isolate the Asian nation. Now North Korea has offered a denuclearization plan–if the U.S. agrees to its demands.

Only one day after the news about sanctions on Kim Jong-un, Pyongyang released terms for a deal. North Korean leaders want the U.S. and South Korea to give them information about American nuclear weapons in South Korea, pull out those weapons, and a guarantee from Washington that it will not use nuclear weapons against North Korea, reports news agency TASS, among other terms.

However, in the statement cited by TASS it also says that unless the U.S. agrees to these conditions, North Korea will continue to build up its nuclear forces—both in quality and quantity.

South Korea has welcomed the U.S. sanctions and hopes that they will raise international awareness of how serious North Korea’s human rights violations are.

South Korea welcomes first US sanctions against Kim Jong-un https://t.co/KiVbJH3bup #UFO4UBlogAsia

— UFO4U@NEWS (@UFO4U) July 7, 2016

The Human Rights Abuses

North Korea “continues to commit serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced labor, and torture,” said the State Department in a statement about the human rights sanctions.

It goes on to describe the political prison camps that are still in use in the country, holding family members and even children of those accused of crimes. The State Department estimates the number of prisoners to be between 80,000 and 120,000. Freedom of speech, media, expression, and religion are heavily restricted and guarded.

North Korean workers are often sent abroad to make money to send back to the homeland, in order to get around different sanctions, according to human rights groups cited by Huffington Post. These workers go to countries without much control over companies’ conditions, such as Poland or Russia. People work up to 70 hours a week without proper pay—most of the money is sent to the government—while their wives and children are held “hostage” in Pyongyang. If a worker defects, the family members are punished, or in a few extreme cases, killed.

What Do The Sanctions Mean?

The sanctions toward Kim Jong-un and the 10 other men are mostly symbolic, but mean that U.S. companies are prohibited from collaborating with any of the people on the list. U.S. companies can also not do any business with Kim Jong-un or any international companies that are under his control. Any assets belonging to Kim Jong-un in the U.S. will be frozen.

This could be the start of a wave of additional sanctions and have a worldwide effect, according to USA Today, since it would be risky for any international companies or banks to have anything to do with the individuals on the list. Hopefully it will push North Korea in the right direction. But analysts doubt it will have any effect on the leader, who just created a new State Affairs Commission that will take care of all national and foreign affairs. Who’s in charge of that? Kim Jong-un himself, of course.

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 North Korea Replies to U.S. Sanctions on Kim Jong-un appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday May 9^th a transformer fire broke out in New York. While this was a seemingly innocuous event, there was more to the incident than just a fire. It broke out at the site of a nuclear power plant, located only about 35 miles from Manhattan. While the fire never spread to the nuclear power plant itself and there was no immediate threat of a nuclear meltdown, the potential danger was concerning. Yet these risks are just part of the balancing act that is required to harness nuclear power for energy. Read on to learn about the development of nuclear energy, its risks, and its rewards.

History of Nuclear Power

Developing the Technology

The first notions of atoms can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who philosophized about tiny, unseen elements which combine to form the world around us. But the real work on nuclear energy essentially started in the early years of the 20th century. In the late 1930s, German scientists, following the previous example set by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, bombarded uranium with neutron, causing it to split. The experiment and subsequent efforts revealed that during the fission process some mass is converted into energy.

In 1942, Fermi took the next step by achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction underneath the University of Chicago’s athletic stadium. This step effectively ushered in the nuclear age. During WWII this field was mainly focused on harnessing the power of the fission reaction into some type of weapon. However, following the war focus returned to producing energy from the reaction, as part of the Atomic Energy Commission created by Congress in 1946. The first reactor to produce electricity was in Idaho on December 20, 1951. The first nuclear powered plant that created power for public use in the United States was in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957.

How do nuclear power plants work?

There are two types of nuclear power plants and they work in separate ways to generate power. In a pressurized water reactor, water is pressurized but not allowed to boil. The water is then streamed though pipes and turned in to steam which powers the generators. In this type of reactor, the water creating the steam and the water in the reactor do not mix.

The other type is known as a boiling water reactor. As the name implies, in this case the water is allowed to boil and turns into steam through fission. The steam, like in the pressurized reactors, turns the generators, which create electricity. In both systems, the water can also be reused once it has been reconverted from steam back into its liquid form.

The Nuclear Power Industry

Following the opening of the plant in Pennsylvania, the industry continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1960s as corporations across the U.S. saw the possibility of a power source that was viewed as a cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly than traditional sources, such as coal. However, this trend began to reverse in the 1970s and 80s as the popular opinion of nuclear power became negative and many of the strong selling points of nuclear energy became areas of concern.

Nevertheless, as of January 2015, 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power plants worldwide, although the number of operating plants can fluctuate slightly based on different definitions of the term “operable.” The United States has the most plants at 99, almost twice as many as the next country France, which has 58. The plants themselves are located predominately in what are commonly considered the more developed countries. One of the major explanations for this phenomenon are the high costs required to build a nuclear power plant. Another major factor in the peaceful use of nuclear power is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of bedrocks for peacefully spreading, and at times hampering, the spread of nuclear power worldwide. The first step can probably be traced back to a speech given by President Dwight Eisenhower. This speech, coined the “Atoms for Peace” speech, provided a blueprint for effectively managing nuclear proliferation following WWII. It also paved the way for spreading nuclear technology in a positive way.

While many of the suggested measures from Eisenhower’s speech were not taken, the International Atomic Energy Agency was born out of his ideas. This agency provided the prospect of nuclear knowledge in exchange for agreeing to safeguards and arms limits. While it worked in some cases, it could not halt the military aspect of nuclear research. It did however help give rise to the NPT.

The NPT divided countries into the proverbial nuclear weapon haves and have nots. Its requirements were also essentially the same, in return for allowing inspections countries were giving technical knowhow. While there are many criticisms levied against the NPT, it did work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, while helping some nations gain nuclear power as an energy source.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Despite all the efforts made to safeguard nuclear energy, there are still many concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants. This danger has manifested itself several times over the course of the nuclear power age, both internationally and abroad.

The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history was in Chernobyl, Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union. During the disaster, 50 people were killed at the plant and as many as a million more were exposed to the radiation. The amount of radioactive fallout released into the air, as a result, was 400 times more than what had been released in the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Domestically, the worst nuclear energy disaster was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. During the crisis on an island in Pennsylvania, a full nuclear meltdown was narrowly avoided and no one was killed. Nonetheless, the stigma created from the ordeal was a key contributing factor to the decline of new nuclear plants in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s.

The most recent disaster came in 2011 in Fukushima, Japan. During this disaster a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami, damaged the nuclear reactors in Fukushima. This led to a nuclear meltdown that killed as many as 1000 people trying to evacuate the area.

These are just three examples, but there are more, both in the U.S. and abroad. While nuclear energy has been lauded for its sustainability and limited impact on the environment, the threat of a nuclear meltdown is a major consideration in regards to expanding the technology going forward.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

With last week’s fire at a nuclear facility rekindling fears over the dangers of nuclear technology, what exactly is the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad? In answering that, two aspects need to be considered, namely nuclear waste and security.

Waste

Although nuclear energy is often touted as a clean alternative to other energy sources, such as coal and natural gas, it has its own waste issues. In the U.S. alone each year approximately 2000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste are generated. Troublingly, there is no permanent repository for this nuclear waste so it remains stored on site, potentially vulnerable to attack and leakage.

The waste issue continues further down the supply chain as well. The mining of uranium, which occurs mostly outside of the U.S. and therefore also partly nullifies any argument in relation to energy independence, is a very harrowing experience. A number of chemicals are used to mine Uranium which poison both the surrounding environment and the workers involved in the extraction.

Security

Along with waste is the issue of security. It has already been shown that the security of a nuclear power plant can be jeopardized by human error and natural disasters. However after 9/11 there have been fears of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. While the nuclear plants are supposedly protected by measures designed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there are acknowledged vulnerabilities.

Air and sea attacks could be problematic, as well as multiple coordinated attacks on a facility at once. Spent nuclear rods are particularly vulnerable to attack as they sit outside of controlled nuclear reactors. While the NRC has made strides in some of these categories, especially in regards to potential air strikes, concerns remain that it still falls short in other categories such as potential land and sea assaults. Furthermore, force on force tests–staged attacks on nuclear plants–showed at least 5 percent of plants are still not adequately protected even after changes were made to increase protection following 9/11.

These fears include other worries that stem from the Soviet collapse of the early 90s. These are centered on what are termed as “loose nukes”– unaccounted nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Similar concerns may also arise as civil wars continue in countries such as Iraq or Syria who at one time were known to be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Staying the course?

Coupled with waste and security concerns are also cost considerations. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to maintain and suffer a failure rate, in regards to financing, of over 50 percent, meaning tax payers are often required to bail them out. In light of all these considerations and with other truer sustainable energy sources it would seem the days of nuclear energy would be numbered.

This assumption is wrong however, as already 70 new plants are under construction with 400 more proposed worldwide. While many of these will never leave the drawing table, the rise in construction and planning of new nuclear plants points to nuclear power’s proven track record in at least one regard–battling CO2 emissions and producing power on a scale that currently far exceeds any other renewable options.

This option is particularly attractive to countries with state-run governments that can commit to long term investments and are desperate to move beyond major polluters such as coal-power plants, such as China. Meanwhile in Western democracies while some construction is planned, many are working toward phasing out nuclear power altogether. In this regard Germany is leading the pack and has pledged to be completely nuclear free by 2022. The following video explores the future of nuclear power:

Conclusion

Nuclear energy seems to be the ultimate compromise. While it is cleaner than coal or gas plants, it still produces radioactive waste that has no long term storage location and takes thousands of years to decay. Conversely it has a proven track record and while it may cost more to build new nuclear facilities than any other energy source, the energy produced far outpaces many alternatives. Thus, the world with its ever growing energy demands is left to maintain the delicate balance. We are still in the nuclear age, although how long we’ll stay here remains uncertain.

Resources

Primary

Department of Energy: The History of Nuclear Energy

Additional

United States History: International Atomic Energy Agency

Physicians for Social Responsibility: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive The Truth About Nuclear Power

CNN: After Explosion at Nuclear Plant, Concerns of Environmental Damage

Duke Energy: How Do Nuclear Plants Work?

European Nuclear Society: Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide

Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today

Foreign Policy: Think Again Nuclear Proliferation

CNBC: 11 Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters

World Nuclear Association: Fukushima Accident

Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Plant Security

BBC News: Nuclear power Energy for the Future or Relic of the Past?

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 Nuclear Energy: Worth the Risk? appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Deal

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

Iran’s Requirements

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

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

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

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

Roadblocks to the Deal

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

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

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

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

Impact of the Agreement

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

National Importance

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

Regional Importance

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

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

Global Importance

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

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

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

 Conclusion

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

Resources

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

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

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

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

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

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

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

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

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

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

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.

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.