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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Involvement

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

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

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

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

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

Kyle Downey

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

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

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

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 The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorist Targets Muslims in London, Muslim Girl Killed in Virginia

Late last night, a van rammed into people leaving a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London. One person died and 10 were injured in what police are investigating as a terror attack, as it was “quite clearly an attack on Muslims.” A white, 48-year-old man has been arrested and is being investigated for attempted murder. According to eyewitness reports, the man who died collapsed after the van hit people–it’s not clear whether his death was a direct result of the attack. The attacker struck just as people were leaving the mosque after evening prayers and breaking their Ramadan fast. Eyewitnesses said the man got out of the van after hitting people and said, “I want to kill Muslims,” repeatedly. He tried to flee the scene, but several people held him to the ground until police arrived.

This quote at #FinsburyPark station by @TfL is a fitting reminder that in tragedy we become a more unified, stronger force always pic.twitter.com/1Htakvuy2p

— Yasmina (@animsche) June 19, 2017

Also yesterday, a 17-year-old Muslim girl was found beaten to death in a pond in Virginia. The girl, identified as Nabra Hassanen, was reported missing after leaving a mosque in the early morning hours. She was with her friends on their way to get food after prayers, when two men with baseball bats started attacking them. In the chaos that followed, Nabra disappeared. Her body was found later that afternoon. A 22-year-old man was arrested. Although police aren’t investigating this murder as a hate crime, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States–according to CAIR, there was a 44 percent increase just from 2015 to 2016.

if you believe muslim women face less violence in the west, youve been blinded. nabra, 17, murdered with baseball bat last night in virginia pic.twitter.com/zlZJclJ3qT

— Amani (@xoamani) June 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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 to Comey: “You’re Fired”

Last night, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the investigation into his campaign’s connections to Russia. Comey’s firing was almost unprecedented–usually, FBI directors serve for 10 years, regardless of political affiliation. The only previous firing of an FBI director was in 1993, when President Bill Clinton fired William S. Sessions. Comey found out that he lost his job when it was broadcast on the news while he was meeting with FBI employees in Los Angeles.

A lot of people think this is very suspicious, especially since Trump cited Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a reason to let him go. Trump himself praised the FBI’s investigation into Clinton during the campaign and said that she should be imprisoned. The move had many people drawing parallels to events during the Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was investigating him. Now everyone is assuming Trump wants to hide something about the Russia collusion affair, and both Democrats and Republicans are calling for an independent investigation.

An incredibly ominous sign, no matter your view of Comey. He investigated + was removed by Sessions, who is implicated in interference case. https://t.co/zNgMqkCnus

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Capping off a years-long pursuit of power, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan strengthened his rule on Sunday, as a referendum passed that changes the constitution from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. While supporters claim the new system will stabilize a government that faces growing internal and external threats, detractors say it will effectively give the Middle East yet another authoritarian leader. With the constitutional change, Erdogan could lead the country until 2029.

The referendum passed by a much narrower margin than many observers–including Erdogan–expected: 51.4 percent of the country supported the system change, while 48.6 percent opposed it. The narrow result shows just how divided Turkey is at a time of growing tensions both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the country is coping with the fall-out from last July’s coup attempt. Erdogan’s government has purged at least 100,000 workers from their jobs, and has jailed thousands of others, all accused of being followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan accuses Gulen, a onetime political ally, of fomenting the coup. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania.

Turkey has also gone from being a potential member of the European Union to being a thorn in its side. As the campaign for the referendum heated up in recent months, Erdogan sent over his ministers to Europe to drum up support among its millions of Turkish citizens who were eligible to vote–Germany alone has about three million Turkish citizens. The Netherlands, Germany, and others barred Turkish officials from campaigning; Erdogan likened their governments to Nazis. The relationship has soured ever since.

In addition to its domestic concerns, Turkey is a key player in the Syrian conflict. It holds small slices of territory in Syria’s northern border with Turkey, and cooperates with the U.S.-led coalition in airstrikes against Islamic State militants. Though differences remain between the U.S. and Turkey’s goals in the region–Turkey considers the Kurdish fighters, a U.S. ally, terrorists–the two remain vital partners in the fight against ISIS.

Sunday’s referendum result concerns those that see Erdogan as being on a mission to tighten his grip on the country’s politics. Since taking the presidential post in 2014, Erdogan has effectively swapped the job titles of prime minister and president. The presidential perch was designed to be ceremonial, and the prime minister–a position he held for ten years following his switch to president–was the position meant to wield power.

Among other sweeping changes, the new presidential system scraps the prime minister position altogether. It also allows a president to serve for up to two terms of five years each, with a possible extension to three terms. The president can directly appoint top public officials, including judges, and also has the authority to intervene in judicial decisions. New presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for November 3 2019.

Some observers saw Erdogan’s campaign as unfair–the main opposition party is calling for a recount. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) derided the tactics of the government.

“The campaign rhetoric was tarnished by some senior officials equating ‘No’ supporters with terrorist sympathizers, and in numerous cases ‘No’ supporters faced police interventions and violent scuffles at their events,” said OSEC in a  statement.

Immediately after the results came in, Erdogan gave a speech to his supporters in Istanbul. “We are enacting the most important governmental reform of our history,” he said. Erdogan also suggested that he would hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty to Turkey, which would effectively end its bid to become an EU member-state.

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 Turkey Passes Referendum Giving President Erdogan Unprecedented Power appeared first on Law Street.

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

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Populism takes on a different flavor depending on the soil in which it takes root. Last November’s stunning election in the U.S., and the rising profile of anti-establishment figures across Europe brought populist forces back to the fore of the Western political conversation. President Donald Trump captured the frustrations of Americans who felt left behind by globalization, whose wages have stagnated, whose communities have suffered from the flight of factories, and who are feeling robbed of stability and identity.

Populism has also taken hold across the pond: Last June, Britain shocked the European continent when it voted to separate from the world’s largest and oldest bulwark of liberal democracy in the West, the European Union. And while Dutch voters recently thwarted the ascent of the populist, anti-Muslim candidate Geert Wilders, upcoming elections in France, Germany, and possibly Italy could see populist forces surge again. But while populism is undoubtedly on the rise in Europe and the U.S.–and, frankly, in many other corners of the planet–the forces propelling populism’s rise are not identical.

An Ailing Social Contract

To Constanze Stelzenmuller, a fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institute, German populism is fueled by the fragmentation of society, and insecurity following the influx of nearly one million refugees in 2015. Germany’s populist sentiment is “more about people worrying about the stability of their institutions and the ability of the state to control a situation,” than a flailing economy, Stelzenmuller said at a recent Brookings event in Washington.

At the end of 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened her country’s doors to about one million Syrian refugees. That gesture flooded a country not only with human beings, but with a real or perceived threat to social cohesion, according to Stelzenmuller. Initially applauded by Germans and the international community, a year of major terrorist attacks across Europe, and some small-scale attacks in Germany, have brought a feeling of unease to a country that prides itself on stability.

“Germans have always taken social cohesion extremely seriously,” Stelzenmuller said, adding that “a lot of attention is paid to the health of the social contract.” But of course, not all of Germany’s social woes can be attributed to the arrival of some beleaguered refugees. Traditionally, Stelzenmuller said, Germans were defined by their membership in three institutions: religion, trade unions, and political parties. “All three of these institutions for the last two decades or so have been bleeding membership,” she said, “and that’s truly a significant thing.”

France, which will hold the first round of its presidential election in two weeks, might be experiencing a similar force that is turning populism’s gears. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which was once unabashedly anti-Semitic and racist under the leadership of her father, is attracting hordes of voters to her anti-EU, anti-immigrant message. She is widely expected to reach the second round run-off, featuring the two highest vote getters, on May 7.

Le Pen has tapped into the insecurity of voters who feel unmoored by globalization an the rapid flow of technology, people, and cultures. According to France’s ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud, France’s populist moment, similar to Germany’s, reflects a feeling of social uncertainty. “A lot of French feel that they are lost in the society today,” Aruad, the ambassador since 2014, said at the Brookings event.

A Flailing Economy

This rising thirst for populism, in Europe and the U.S., cannot be illuminated solely through a cultural lens. Economic forces–like globalization’s redistribution of jobs and economic systems transitioning from industry to service–play a large role as well, especially in the U.S. Trump’s ascension to the White House relied largely on white voters from rural swaths of the country. He parlayed their frustration at the loss of manufacturing jobs and plateauing–or dropping–wages into a narrow victory.

Nicholas Eberstadt, an author and a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, points to the long decline in work for men and a drop in workforce participation rates. This, combined with “an explosion of crime and punishment,” Eberstadt said, color America’s unique brand of populism. On the surface, the economic malaise that many feel is discordant with the country’s overall economic health. Wealth has been on the rise since 2000, for instance, and the unemployment rate is falling.

But, Eberstadt said, men in rural, predominantly white communities have not felt the windfall. In fact, the labor force participation rate among men ages 25 to 54 in the U.S. has precipitously dropped over the past few decades. Today, it is just above 85 percent, one of the lowest among developed countries, including France and Germany. This, Eberstadt said, combined with the rise in felony rates and the fatal opioids that help ease these pains, has led to “the feeling that people are stuck in a system which isn’t working for them.”

At the Brookings Institute, from left to right: Ambassador Araud, Stelzenmuller, Eberstadt. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

Given that it’s inherently global, interconnected, and far-reaching, the consequences of globalization are a shared element of European and American populism. “I think there is a general rebellion against free trade,” Araud said. Free trade, once-accepted as hugely beneficial for growing societies, can no longer be force-fed to people as a means for good. “You have to prove it to our citizens,” Araud said. Automation, he added, is another uprooting force.

For France, Araud said, the cultural and economic crises have bred an “unhealthy quest for authority.” Le Pen is the candidate that best suits the authoritarian mold, while Emmanuel Macron, the left-leaning candidate who is expected to oppose Le Pen in the May run-off, embodies the liberal democratic values of the EU. In addition, Araud argued, automation has spurred job loss in the manufacturing sector, and, perhaps equally as important, people “underestimated the destabilizing effect of the 2008 [financial] crisis.”

Despite the building populist clouds, Eberstadt sees silver linings. “I think that there is a lot of room for hope,” he said. Some prescriptions he has in mind include: encouraging the growth of small businesses; reforming the country’s “awful” disability programs; and reforming the criminal justice system, which, he said, has far-reaching effects in communities across the country. But initial steps in countering populism’s rise, he suggested, should start at the ground level. “The first step in hope is to be able to empathize with, and to understand the arguments of, those that are in the populist camp.”

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 Why is Populism on the Rise in the U.S. and Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, some Arabs praised President Donald Trump on social media after his attack on Syria. On Thursday night, Trump authorized America’s first direct military action against Syria, in retaliation for the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack against its own people. It was an unexpected move that brought forth condemnation from Russia, praise from fellow Republicans, and a whole host of other reactions worldwide.

Many Arab social media users called Trump Abu Ivanka–“Father of Ivanka.” The nickname is a sign of respect and endearment. Some also referred to him as Abu Ivanka al-Amreeki–Father of Ivanka the American, and photoshopped a picture of him so that it looked like he had a full beard.

More Abu Ivanka al Amreeki hilarity from Syrian friends pic.twitter.com/j72ewXjIiJ

— Kareem Shaheen (@kshaheen) April 7, 2017

One Facebook user gave Trump another kind of makeover wearing a traditional tarboosh hat and wrote, “We love you.” Another one called him a “man of his words” and said that he managed to do what Obama couldn’t in eight years.

Arabs thank President Trump for airstrikes & give him new nickname: Abu Ivanka Al-Amreeki. https://t.co/hjwug8BVEi @BBCWorld pic.twitter.com/V0Vc7m1LDo

— Tara Hamawandi (@TaraHamawandi) April 7, 2017

It may seem bizarre that many people in majority Muslim countries are praising Trump after he announced a ban on Muslim refugees and immigrants. But U.S. allies across the Middle East that were angered when Obama didn’t act more forcefully against Iran to limit its nuclear program or stand against the Syrian government now may see Trump as a more decisive leader.

Many lavished Trump with praise, seemingly with the hope that this marks a shift in the U.S. approach to the conflict in Syria. Israel was also complimentary. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Trump’s actions would send a “message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions.” However, U.S. officials have not indicated the missile launch is a part of a bigger program–instead the move may just be considered a warning.

“People are jubilant in the Gulf right now,” said Saudi-Arabian Mohammed Alyahya, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, to the New York Times.  “What is clear is that Trump understands what American power can change and is willing to use it.”

“Everyone here in Khan Sheikhoun is happy. It is revenge for the families of the victims,” said Yasser Sarmini, a rebel fighter in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun that was hit by the latest chemical attack.

However, despite an unusual amount of international support for Trump, many people also criticized his actions. One blogger named Karl Sharro wrote that Trump, in the true tradition of U.S: politics, had discovered that when things go wrong at home you can always “start a military venture 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 Donald Trump Receives Some International Praise After Syria Attack appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

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

President Trump Launches Missile Attack on Syrian Government

Last night, President Donald Trump ordered a missile strike on the Syrian government in retaliation for the chemical attack on civilians earlier this week. Almost 60 missiles were fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aimed at the airfield believed to be where the chemical weapons originated from. Russian forces were warned and no Russian soldiers died but President Vladimir Putin denounced the move this morning, calling it “an act of aggression” and claiming the strike violated international law.

First time I’m not totally opposed to Trump. Action needed to stop strikes on civilians. EU & US must continue to work for pol. settlement.

— Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt) April 7, 2017

Trump announced the order right before his dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. Although an unexpected and seemingly rushed decision, NATO and international leaders have expressed their support for Trump’s move and said that it was an appropriate response to the horrifying chemical weapons attack. Trump previously blamed the Obama Administration for the chemical weapons attack, arguing that if Obama had intervened more thoroughly during his presidency, it wouldn’t have happened. But many people pointed out that Trump asked Obama to not intervene back in 2013. Also, a majority of Republicans in Congress disapproved of a military strike when Obama sought approval to conduct one.

President Trump repeatedly used Twitter to tell Obama in 2013: Don’t attack Syria https://t.co/1PNNa8SgAA pic.twitter.com/eJ3enCG2ru

— CNN International (@cnni) April 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday, thought to be carried out by government forces, killed as many as 100 people and wounded hundreds more, according to some witnesses. Hours after the attack, at a press conference at the White House, Press Secretary Sean Spicer blamed the Obama Administration’s “weakness and irresolution” for the gruesome attack, the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since August 2013.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Spicer said. “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.” He added: “The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.”

According to monitoring groups, medics, and rescue workers, chemical weapons were dropped from jet planes in Idlib, a rebel-held area in the north. Witnesses described victims choking, with some foaming at the mouth, telltale signs of a chemical attack. A government source told Reuters sarin gas was likely used in the attack, which was “almost certainly” carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

These children can’t breathe. This is the aftermath of a suspectedchemical attack in Syria. pic.twitter.com/6CHTocDaeV

— Alberto Hugo Rojas (@albertohrojas) April 4, 2017

In a statement soon after the attack, the Syrian army denied responsibility: “We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the statement said, referring to the town in Idlib province where the attack took place. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to discuss the attack.

The White House response echoed a familiar sentiment that critics often repeat about the Obama Administration’s policy in Syria. President Barack Obama’s inaction, critics say, has allowed the Syrian government, along with its allies Russia and Iran, to continue committing grievous acts against its citizens. Many Republicans, along with some Democrats, thought Obama did not do enough to help the rebel forces, a fractured and largely undefined amalgamation with some extremist elements.

In 2012, in a briefing at the White House, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” In August 2013, the Syrian government killed scores of citizens in a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Despite crossing Obama’s stated “red line,” the administration took no military action.

It did, however, reach an agreement with the Syrian government to dispose of its chemical weapons stockpile. Assisted by the Russians, the effort was thought to be successful. But soon after, despite its claims and promises, the Assad regime launched chlorine gas attacks. And although the White House pointed fingers at Obama for Tuesday’s attack, President Donald Trump’s past statements seemed to be against military action as well. In September 2013, he tweeted:

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

It is unclear how, if at all, Trump will change the current strategy in Syria as a result of the attack. While he will be sending up to 1,000 more ground troops to bolster the fight against Islamic State, which holds splotches of territory in the north of Syria, Trump’s strategy has not strayed much from the Obama Administration’s. And while Obama’s strategy in Syria focused on defeating ISIS, rather than unseating Assad, he still hoped Assad would be toppled. That is something that the new administration has signaled is not a top priority.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” And Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, suggested ousting Assad is not a primary focus of the Syrian strategy. “Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes,” she said. “Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No.”

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 White House: Chemical Attack in Syria is Obama’s Fault appeared first on Law Street.

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

Chemical Attack in Syria Kills Dozens of Civilians

A chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province has killed at least 58 people, including many children. Human rights groups say either the Syrian government or Russian jets perpetrated the attack. Chemical weapons cause a horrendous and painful death–victims essentially choke to death. According to witnesses, the attack started early in the morning when they saw airplanes flying overhead and a series of loud explosion. Shortly after, civilians on the ground started displaying symptoms of a gas attack.

Horrible pictures of chemical weapons attack in Idlib. The world could have protected these kids years ago, but is still refusing to. #Syria

— James Sadri (@halfiranian) April 4, 2017

The Syrian government and Russia both deny all involvement, but some international leaders have already condemned the move as a war crime. Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan told President Vladimir Putin that this could complicate their upcoming peace talks.

This attack comes just a few days after U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said that ousting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is no longer a priority.

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: April 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s campaign proposal of a “Muslim ban” is coming back to haunt him yet again: on Wednesday, two federal judges blocked Trump’s new travel ban, which would have restricted travel from six largely Muslim countries. The ban was set to go into effect at midnight. These rulings mark the second time Trump’s attempts at implementing such an order–essentially a veiled “Muslim ban”–have failed. 

Both judges ruled that the executive order amounted to religious discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, on the grounds that it was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Hours later in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the purpose of the ban was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Trump repeatedly invoked during the campaign. The plaintiff in Honolulu was Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh argued that the ban would have barred his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him. Syria is one of the six countries–along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran–included in Trump’s order.

The Maryland ruling was based on complaints by a cohort of nonprofit groups who work with refugees and immigrants. At a rally in Nashville after the Hawaii judge announced his ruling, Trump said he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He also suggested scrapping the second order, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries, and instead pursuing the first one in court.

“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.” While there is an argument that Trump was within his executive authority in issuing the order, there is not much tangible evidence that the order would alleviate a clear danger to U.S. national security. Americans have never been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from one of the six affected countries.

The government’s next move is likely going to be similar to what happened with the first order last month. An appeal of Watson’s ruling–which was broader than Chuang’s–would be heard by the same federal appeals court in San Francisco that upheld the legal challenge to Trump’s first order. That appeal followed a ruling by a judge in Washington.

Since the issuance of his first travel ban in January, Trump has faced stiff resistance from Democrats, advocacy groups, and even some members of his own party. The Trump Administration contends the order–which freezes travel from the six countries for at least 90 days, and pauses refugee admissions for at least 120 days–is legal, and is based on guidelines the Obama Administration originally set.

But so far, Trump’s argument has been defeated by his own backlog of statements that seem to undermine his claim that his actions are just meant to protect national security. The legal battle is sure to continue, but for now at least, Trump might need to go back to the drawing board.

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’s Travel Ban Defeated in Court Once Again appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court late Thursday night affirmed a lower court’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that banned travel from seven countries to the U.S. The ruling is a blow to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on refugees and immigrants from “terror prone” countries the White House says pose a threat to U.S. security. Trump said the ruling was a “political decision,” and pledged to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

For now, refugees and visa-holders–who have already been vetted and admitted to the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security–from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya will be allowed to travel and settle in the U.S. Trump’s executive order, issued on January 27, barred refugees from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days, and visa-holders for at least 90 days. Syrians–refugees and travelers–would have been blocked indefinitely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, deliberated for two days before coming to a conclusion. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the executive order could violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The three judges, appointees of Presidents Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, said: “we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Trump tweeted his disapproval just moments after the court’s decision:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

The road to the appeals court began last Friday, when a district court judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order on the travel ban. That judge, James Robart, sided with the states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, and said that because of the travel ban, the states “are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” The White House immediately appealed to the court in San Francisco, and after a day of oral arguments and two days of deliberations, the appeals court affirmed Robart’s ruling.

The appeals court was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that the judiciary has no authority to question executive actions involving national security. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” The court did say the government should enjoy deference in matters of national security, but reiterated that those decisions are not “unreviewable.”

The Trump Administration will likely file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court within the next few days. With the pending confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the court has eight justices, which many consider ideologically split 4-4. If the case ends up in their docket, a 4-4 vote would keep the appeals court’s ruling in place. A Supreme Court hearing and decision could come as early as next week.

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 Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

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

Amnesty International: 13,000 People Secretly Executed in Syrian Prison

A new report from Amnesty International, called Human Slaughterhouse, reveals the horrific conditions in Saydnaya prison near Damascus. According to the report, in a secret crackdown on dissent, the regime hanged up to 13,000 people between 2011 and 2015, often executing groups of 50 prisoners at the same time. Amnesty outlines how prisoners are systematically deprived of food, water, and medical care, and are physically and mentally tortured. According to Amnesty, if prisoners spoke while they were being tortured or looked at the guards, they could be sentenced to death. Most of the prisoners are ordinary citizens opposed to the brutal regime. The report states that these kinds of atrocities are probably still going on today, authorized by the Syrian government.

Syrian authorities are systematically exterminating civilians in #Saydnaya prison. Let’s hold them accountable: https://t.co/n9jkJZYpL9 pic.twitter.com/D4aHpauX1a

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) February 7, 2017

“The horrors depicted in this report reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorized at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population,” said Lynn Maalouf, Deputy Director for Research at Amnesty International’s Beirut office.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

At almost 5 p.m. on Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, a travel ban, restricting entry to the United States. It has been dubbed by many a “Muslim ban” because of the countries it singles out and Trump’s consistent campaign promises to that effect. Chaos reigned Friday night and into Saturday, as permanent U.S. residents from those seven countries who were traveling abroad were prevented from returning home, protests were launched at numerous domestic airports, and late last night, a federal judge stayed the order for individuals with valid visas who are already in transit or being held in the U.S.

What does the Order Say?

The order is in almost every way a unilateral move by President Trump. It prevents citizens of seven countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–from entering the U.S. for 90 days. There are some narrow exceptions, but they’re limited mainly to diplomats. The order heavily invokes memories of 9/11, despite the fact that none of the countries listed were ever tied to those attacks.

Refugees, from any nation, are banned for 120 days. And per the executive order, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. When refugees are allowed back in, Christian refugees will be prioritized. According to the order:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

Despite claims from the Trump Administration that this is not a “Muslim ban” Rudy Giuliani claims that Trump asked him how to legally create a “Muslim ban.”

Giuliani admits Trump asked him how to “do a Muslim ban legally.” So they focused on nationality. Start at 3:00. https://t.co/9orjNwQBGy

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 29, 2017

For a closer look at the order, check out an annotated version by the New York Times.

How Does it Work in Practice?

It’s very unclear how this order is supposed to work, and from the second it was signed, it sparked confusion. Reportedly, the Department of Homeland Security–the department that has to implement it–was not consulted until right before the order was signed. Certain norms, like consulting the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, appear to have not been undertaken. And once the order was signed, the Department of Homeland Security’s legal understanding of how to deal with it was allegedly overridden by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, a top policy aide. The “two Steves” insisted that legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, from the listed countries be stopped from re-entering the U.S.

That implementation began. People who are legal permanent residents from the seven countries and had left the U.S. for whatever reason–students, individuals visiting family, vacationers–were restricted from coming back in to the U.S. Protests swelled at airports:

“No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here”

— Protests at JFK airport where people have been detained after Trump’s executive order pic.twitter.com/SvXba2C0r5

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 28, 2017

The #MuslimBan airport protests. #NoBanNoWall #Resist @realDonaldTrump @POTUS pic.twitter.com/Ulw8xcOARN

— Maxim Dmitriev (@max_dmitriev07) January 29, 2017

Airport protests at #JFK, #LAX, #SFO, Dulles, O’Hare and growing. #NoMuslimBan #NoBanNoWall #RefugeesWelcome #ResistOften pic.twitter.com/OZZ9dexGXo

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) January 28, 2017

Lawyers began suing to block the order, and last night Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled that the government cannot hold legal residents who are already in the U.S., or restrict those who are in transit from entering. This still leaves a lot of people in flux, and the legal battles are sure to continue. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security said it would continue to comply with Trump’s directives.

National Outrage

The ban was immediately met with outrage.

We will not allow a Muslim ban in the United States of America. Here’s what I said at Logan Airport tonight. #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/XqeS9Iy14e

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 29, 2017

If you do support the #MuslimBan today, remember this: you will be remembered as the villains of our children’s history books tomorrow.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 28, 2017

I want to repeat: Green card holders were handcuffed, their social media was reviewed, and they were asked their views on Trump#MuslimBan

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017

It’s unclear what’s next. But the outrage is warranted–this is an unprecedented move on the part of the Trump Administration. It separates families. It screams isolationism and bigotry. It’s likely unconstitutional. And for many, it’s a nightmare.

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 Confusion, Chaos, and Court Orders: What’s Going on With Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) ruffled some feathers in Washington on Wednesday when she announced that during a recent “fact-finding mission” to Syria, she met with President Bashar al-Assad. In an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead” and in an essay on Medium, Gabbard defended her trip against criticism for engaging with Assad, a tyrannical leader whose six-year civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

“In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possible viable peace agreement to occur, there has to be a conversation with him,” Gabbard, 35, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “The Syrian people will determine his outcome and what happens with their government and their future.”

The House Ethics Committee approved Gabbard’s trip, she said, which included stops in Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, as well as Beirut, Lebanon. She also said her trip was not funded by taxpayer money, but by the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, or AACCESS. During the weeklong trip, Gabbard met with many of the actors involved in the conflict: refugees, opposition leaders, business owners, students and, of course, Assad.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard wrote in her account of her trip. She added that her visit showed her that U.S. policy in Syria “does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”

In her first-person account, Gabbard concluded that there is no difference between the brutal jihadist groups like Islamic State or al-Qaeda and “moderate” rebel groups that the U.S. has helped in the fight. “This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that the people she met with wish the U.S. and other countries would “stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.”

Gabbard’s meeting with Assad was condemned by a number of people, including former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin:

Part of Moscow’s effort to undermine democracy in Europe and the US is to support the extreme left and right. @tulsigabbard @realDonaldTrump

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 26, 2017

Josh Rogin, a political analyst with The Washington Post, saw Gabbard’s trip as a propaganda effort by the Assad regime:

.@TulsiGabbard says the Syrians she spoke to all support Assad. Maybe because her trip was arranged by the regime? #facepalm

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 25, 2017

Whatever the response to her trip, Gabbard said she comes back to D.C. “with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.” Calling on Congress and the Trump Administration to end U.S. support for some Syrian rebel groups, Gabbard added: “We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

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 Why Did Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that fulfilled, at least partially, his campaign promise of building a “beautiful wall” on the Mexican border. According to Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer, the order will direct the Department of Homeland Security to use existing funds and resources to begin work on the wall, perhaps as early as next month. Drafts of another executive order signal Trump will enact strict visa bans for immigrants from “terror prone” nations. He is also expected to temporarily bar refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Those executive orders have yet to be signed, but they imply Trump will follow through with his promise to clamp down on immigration, whether from Latin America or the Middle East and Africa. Trump signed the executive action on the Mexican border wall at the DHS headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Any additional funding for the wall, which Trump has promised will ultimately come from Mexico’s coffers, would need congressional approval.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

According to another executive order draft on immigration and refugees, Trump will authorize a freeze on refugees fleeing civil wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Exceptions will be made for religious minorities who are escaping persecution. The order will also temporarily block visas for immigrants from Muslim-majority countries–Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–until stricter vetting procedures are in place.

“To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban.” It is unclear if Trump will block Muslims from other Muslim-dense countries–Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others–from coming to the U.S.

A draft of another executive order Trump is considering reviews bringing back CIA “black sites,” all of which President Obama shuttered during his first week in office in 2009. But the draft is clear that the Trump Administration will not bring back water torture, a move he flirted with on the campaign trail. The draft states: “no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as described by U.S. or international law.”

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 Makes Good on Mexican Border Wall Promise appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

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

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

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

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

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

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a ceasefire deal for the Syrian government and some rebel factions during a speech in Moscow on Thursday. The deal does not include the Kurdish groups that control swaths of territory in the north, or certain Islamist groups, including the Islamic State (ISIS), which holds patches of land throughout the country. Putin acknowledged that the truce is “fragile,” but signaled peace talks could take place next month in Kazakhstan. The ceasefire is set to take effect Thursday at midnight.

Negotiations for the agreement have been going on for the past few days between Syria, Russia, and Turkey. Two parties that are usually privy to such talks were noticeably excluded: the U.S. and the United Nations. Both have failed to broker sustainable ceasefire agreements over the course of the six-year conflict, so Syria, its foremost ally Russia, and Turkey decided it was time to forge a consensus agreement without them.

Under the deal, fighting will come to a halt in areas controlled by the government, including the recently conquered city of Aleppo, and rebel-held territory in the northern province of Idlib. Russia will guarantee the Syrian army’s compliance, along with Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, while Turkey will guarantee compliance from the rebel groups. All sides expressed optimism that the latest ceasefire will succeed. With rebel-held parts of Aleppo retaken by government forces this month, rebels have less leverage than they had when previous agreements were forged.

Reflecting the tangled web of alliances in Syria, and the muddy definition of “rebel group,” Russia and the Free Syria Army, an umbrella group for the opposition, gave conflicting statements on the rebel participants included in the ceasefire. Russia said seven distinct rebel groups supported the ceasefire, excluding ISIS and other hard-line jihadist groups, but it included Ahrar al-Sham, a group with ties to Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. The Free Syria Army said 13 rebel groups would participate in the deal.

A statement from the Syrian Army said the ceasefire agreement followed “the victories and successes that our armed forces accomplished in more than one place,” likely referring to its decisive and swift takeover of Aleppo earlier this month. Furthering the fragility of the agreement, Turkey demanded Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group that the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, evacuate Syria.

And although the Obama administration was not invited to take part in the talks that preceded the agreement, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “after the Donald Trump administration takes office, it will also be able to join these efforts.” The U.S. State Department called the ceasefire a “positive development.” Steffan de Mistura, the UN envoy for Syria, said the agreement “should contribute to inclusive and productive intra-Syrian negotiations to be convened under UN auspices.”

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 Putin Announces Ceasefire for Syrian Government and Rebel Groups appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, during the opening of an exhibit at an arts center in Ankara, Turkey, an off-duty police officer shot and killed the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov. Witnesses said the man, who wore a suit and tie during the attack, yelled: “Don’t forget about Aleppo, don’t forget about Syria” and “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great.” The assailant, before he was shot and killed by Turkish Special Forces, also wounded three other people.

A reporter with Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper said the gunman shot into the air, and then shot Karlov in the back. Turkey’s police forces swarmed the arts center, and promptly evacuated the attendees, many of whom crouched in the corner of the exhibition hall. The walls of the hall were covered in photographs from the “Russia as seen by Turks” exhibit, which opened on Monday with a speech from Karlov, minutes before he was killed.

The moment before: The Russian Ambassador to Turkey looks at a painting at a gallery in Ankara earlier today. Behind him, his assassin… pic.twitter.com/sZyJsTnAYo

— Tunku Varadarajan (@tunkuv) December 19, 2016

Melih Gokcek, the mayor of Ankara, Turkey’s capital, said the attack was intended “to ruin Turkey-Russia relations.” Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry said the diplomat “will remain in our hearts forever,” adding: “Terrorism will not pass! We will fight it resolutely.” The motive for the attack is unclear at this time. A top-ranking member of Russia’s parliament, Leonid Slutsky, said relations between the two powers will not weaken because of this incident. “There are differences between us,” he said. “It’s a horrendous tragedy, but relations between our states will not suffer.”

Soon after the attack, CNN Turk reported Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone. One possible motive for the killing: the unraveling of Aleppo, Syria, where government forces, heavily backed by Russia, mowed down the city in a matter of weeks, killing  hundreds of civilians and displacing thousands more.

Turkey and Russia back different sides in the Syrian conflict, but brokered a ceasefire agreement and collaborated to evacuate rebel fighters and civilians out of Aleppo. On its state-run news channel, Syria condemned Monday’s “cowardly terrorist act.” Karlov began his diplomatic career in 1976, and became Russia’s top diplomat to Turkey in 2013. According to his biography page on the Russian Embassy website, Karlov spoke English and Korean. He is survived by his wife and son.

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 Off-Duty Policeman Kills Russian Ambassador to Turkey appeared first on Law Street.

The locks left in the chain links of Paris’s iconic Pont des Arts bridge have long been contentious–they were seen as an eyesore, a tourist trap, and a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge, as the weight of hundreds upon hundreds of metal locks weighed down the balustrades. Romantics see the love locks as a symbol of commitment, but locals see them as a form of littering. The city began removing the locks en masse last year but the “love lock trend” still exists across Paris and has spread to practically every major city with an attractive set of bridges. Yet as of this month, the Parisian locks will take on a new identity–they are being bundled together and auctioned for charity, specifically to raise money for refugees living in Paris.

The auction is slated for the spring of 2017 and Bruno Julliard, first deputy mayor of Paris, expects to raise approximately 100,000 euros for the refugee community–but there have been no specific plans released for which organizations will receive the profits. Nor has there been a clear outline of what specifically the money would go toward. Refugees are in need of shelter, food, medical care and supplies, legal representation, job training and placement–which of these efforts will be prioritized when the love lock funds roll in?

Julliard has essentially two options before him: donate a massive sum to a single organization, or donate multiple small amounts to the various charities working to secure housing and employment for the thousands of refugees living in Paris. The general statement Julliard released made a vague reference toward funding “organizations” (plural not singular) working to support refugees in Paris but gave no information about whether that means local, neighborhood organizations or larger, international charities. If several different organizations are going to receive funding, then orchestrating the auction becomes a much more challenging task. What if those bidding on the locks only want to give to certain charities that are benefitting from the funds and not others?

While several small donations to multiple causes can help with immediate issues like purchasing supplies, there is an economic argument that a one-time large donation to a single organization will be more impactful in the long run. However, the true efficacy of the donation has more to do with how the organization spends it money than the sum itself. The websites Givewell and CharityNavigator  only exist because we have seen charities mishandle funds time and again, making us wary of where we donate our money.

At the moment, the sale of the love locks may read as a feel-good publicity stunt but if the auction truly does raise the money that Julliard expects, the funds will become an object of public debate, with every non-profit that even tangentially works with refugees looking for a grant and every anti-refugee National Front supporter arguing that the funds should be spent elsewhere. Unless there is a clear plan of which charity the money is going to and how it will be spent when it gets there, the love lock auction will be, at best, a shallow gesture that does not effectively help Paris’s refugees.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Auctioning the Love Locks: The Challenges of Charity appeared first on Law Street.

At a rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania on Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump cycled through his usual talking points, like “America first,” but also spoke about an ongoing tragedy on the other side of the world: “When I look at what is going on in Syria, it’s so sad,” Trump told the raucous crowd at the Giant Center. “It’s so sad, and we’re going to help people,” he added, by building “safe zones” in Syria.

Trump added that he would ask Persian Gulf countries to help pay for the project. Many military analysts and experts view “safe zones” as being too difficult to manage and protect, and warn that they could come with extreme risks as well. For one, the effort would require U.S. boots on the ground to protect Syrians within the “safe zones.” Some also point to a potentially deadly consequence of establishing “safe zones:” the implication of “unsafe zones,” or the area outside the protected “safe zone” which the Syrian regime or jihadist groups could abuse and pummel as free-for-all areas with an unhinged license to kill.

Thursday’s rally was Trump’s second of the week, and was a part of his “thank you” tour of battleground states that were key to his Election Day victory. He was the first Republican to win Pennsylvania since 1988. He won 44,292 more votes than Democrat Hillary Clinton, winning by less than one percent of total ballots cast in the state. And while he recapped his election triumph, and ran through his usual themes, his mention of “safe zones” in Syria was unusual, and perhaps signals his policy plans for the war-torn nation.

Trump is not the only notable leader to call for “safe zones” in Syria. In April, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been trying to stave the building tides of Syrian refugees into Europe by brokering a deal with Turkey, said she is in favor of “safe zones.” But the UN and other human rights groups oppose such a move, as does President Barack Obama. “Sadly, it is very difficult to see how it would operate short of us essentially being willing to militarily take over a big chunk of that country,” Obama said at the time.

The situation in Syria has deteriorated since April, and it’s unclear if Merkel would stand by her remarks from then. After a three-week offensive, Aleppo is officially in the hands of government forces, as hundreds of civilians have been killed, and thousands more displaced from their homes. Refugees from Syria might find it difficult to emigrate to the U.S. once Trump is in office. In his rally on Thursday, Trump reiterated that he will restrict immigrants from countries that have a history of Islamic extremism from entering the U.S.

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 At PA Rally, Trump Says He’ll Implement “Safe Zones” in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, the once-vibrant World Heritage city in northwest Syria is in ruins, its residents trapped, its buildings folded over, its streets smoldering, littered with decaying bodies. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia and Turkey on Tuesday, aimed at allowing civilians and rebel fighters to be evacuated to the rebel-held city of Idlib, or to government-held territory in Aleppo. But by Wednesday afternoon, that small glimmer of hope was snuffed out as Turkish officials and activists on the ground reported more airstrikes and shelling.

Civilians who had gathered their belongings on Tuesday, hoping to pack into buses and flee the crumbling city, were stuck, with as many as 50,000 trapped in a small eastern pocket of Aleppo still held by rebel forces. It is unclear who exactly initiated or participated in Wednesday’s attacks. Turkey’s Foreign Minister said the Syrian regime and “some forces” were responsible, possibly alluding to Russia and Iran, two of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s closest allies.

It is unclear how many residents were able to flee Aleppo before it was razed and absorbed by the government. Russia says at least 100,000 people left; the UN put the figure at 37,000. Bana, the seven-year-old girl who began tweeting from Aleppo in September, appears to be still trapped in the city with her mother. On Tuesday, Bana tweeted: “This is my last moment to either live or die.” On Wednesday, Fatemah, Bana’s mother, pleaded with the international community to intervene:

Dear world, there’s intense bombing right now. Why are you silent? Why? Why? Why? Fear is killing me & my kids. – Fatemah #Aleppo

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) December 14, 2016

Syrian forces entered the eastern, rebel-held flank of Aleppo on November 27, and quickly began gobbling up neighborhoods, and indiscriminately bombing apartments, buildings, and markets. The United Nations reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed since the government launched its offensive. When government forces announced their uncontested control of the entire city on Tuesday, a ceasefire was reached, and an evacuation plan, for rebels and civilians alike, was laid out.

Rebel fighters were to be bussed to rebel-held areas, either in Idlib to the west, or in rural, isolated areas throughout the country. Civilians had an option: to join the rebels or to be ushered into government hands. The evacuation process was set to begin before dawn on Wednesday morning, but buses were stalled and airstrikes and shelling eventually continued. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group with activists on the ground, said 6,000 civilians had been conscripted by the Syrian government, forced to join the army.

“I hope you can remember us.”

This teacher in Aleppo shares a harrowing “last call” video as government forces take control of the city. pic.twitter.com/2CMzZplvav

— AJ+ (@ajplus) December 13, 2016

Others were simply executed. The UN reported that on Tuesday, Syrian troops and Iraqi militant groups killed 82 civilians, including at least 11 women and 13 children. Speaking to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international body’s “immediate task is to do all we can to stop the carnage.” He added: “Aleppo should represent the end of the quest for military victory, not the start of a broader military campaign in a country already ravaged beyond all recognition by five years of war.”

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 Ceasefire in Aleppo Breaks Down: What’s Happening on the Ground? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, we’ve officially all made it halfway through the week. Celebrate with a new RantCrush entry as a reward! 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:

Aleppo Ceasefire Broken a Few Hours After it Was Reached

Last night, Russia declared that the battle over Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, was over. Rebel fighters and government forces reportedly reached a deal, which meant that evacuations were set to start this morning at 5 A.M. and the remaining rebels were to be transported to rebel-held territory. But this morning, fighting resumed and the evacuations were delayed.

An end to the fighting in Aleppo would be a huge development in the five-year-long war in Syria. The deal came just as the remaining citizens in Aleppo had lost all hope, and many sent out videos saying their goodbyes on social media. There have also been reports that government forces have entered buildings and executed civilians. It’s unclear what will happen next.

This is Aleppo: https://t.co/iresAnLQ55

— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) December 14, 2016

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 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As Iraqi Security Forces, with the help of U.S. air support and the Kurdish Peshmerga, continue the effort to retake Mosul, a major city in Northern Iraq, a new push is underway in Syria. This push is led by the American-backed Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) and is targeting the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Northern Syria. In addition, the United States and Turkey agreed to help develop the plan to take and then hold the city once ISIS has been defeated. Read on to find out more about the importance of Raqqa to ISIS, the SDF, the role of the United States and Turkey, and the consequences that taking back the city could have.

ISIS’s Conquest of Raqqa and Life Afterward

Raqqa was actually the first major city in Syria to be freed from regime control during the Syrian civil war. However, like many of the violent conflicts that emerged in the wake of the Arab Spring, gains in Syria were quickly co-opted by extremists. Initially, the struggle was between local activists and the Al-Nusra front, both of which were attempting to fill the void left by regime forces. After the city was taken from the Assad regime, the Free Syrian Army rebels and the extremist groups competed for political control.

While these two groups were bickering, ISIS moved in and swiftly forced out the Al-Nusra front, setting the stage for its own showdown with the rebels. The Free Syrian Army, which was actively fighting the Assad government, did little to confront ISIS as it took control of the city and began a brutal crackdown on the residents there.

As in other places under ISIS control, life in Raqqa has been extremely harsh. It started with violent executions and crucifixions in public spaces. Next, schools were closed, drinking and smoking were forbidden, and women were forced to adhere to strict dress codes or face violence. Children were also abducted and forced into ISIS’s ranks. ISIS fighters, on the other hand, particularly those from western nations, have had access to luxury goods. The accompanying video looks at life under ISIS in Syria:

Raqqa’s Importance to ISIS

Along with Mosul, Raqqa is one of just a few major cities that remains under ISIS control. Raqqa also operates as the group’s capital, making it a particularly important target for decreasing the group’s ability to carry out attacks outside of the shrinking area that it controls. While Raqqa and Mosul are both very important to the group, Canadian Brigadier General David Anderson recently said, “I think that probably Raqqa matters more.”

Efforts to Retake Raqqa

The group leading the assault into Raqqa will be the Syrian Democratic Force or SDF, in an operation dubbed “Euphrates Rage.” The SDF is a coalition of militias made up primarily of Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Syriac Christian fighters. While the group is a hodge-podge it is dominated by the Kurdish army in Syria (the YPG) and its all-female units (the YPJ). The coalition is also supported by American airpower, as it was in the Battle of Kobane where ISIS was handed its first defeat on the battlefield.

While the Kurds are the main actors in this group, the United States also has hope that Sunni Arab militias will be able to play an important role in efforts to take ground from ISIS. The United States has selected a few of the militias to support its efforts, dubbed the Syrian Arab Coalition. The hope is that these groups can continue the fight against ISIS when the Kurds are no longer willing or when they enter territory where their presence creates political complications.

The SDF has also set up its own political party, the Democratic Syrian Assembly or DSA, which incorporates both Kurdish and Sunni Arab elements. The assembly also allows the United States to interact with the Kurds while providing a buffer between the U.S. and PKK, the Kurdish Workers’ Party in Turkey, that is designated as a terrorist group by the United States. The video below looks at the SDF and the gains they have made:

The United States and Turkey

Speaking of Turkey and the United States, balancing the relationship between the NATO allies and the SDF fighting on the ground has been difficult. Currently, the SDF is the only legitimate force on the ground with any hope of pushing ISIS out of Raqqa. Unfortunately, the group is also closely linked with the YPG, which Turkey also considers a terrorist organization.

Unsurprisingly, following on the heels of the SDF’s announcement, the Department of Defense announced an effort to forge a long-term plan that incorporates Turkey into any attempt to retake the city. The plan will not only cover the retaking of Raqqa but also holding it and subsequently governing the city after as well. The main discussion currently is over the makeup of the forces involved in the attack. The U.S. and Turkey are both pushing for more local fighters, which they hope will make for a more stable government when the city does ultimately fall. While the parties involved are working on some sort of post-ISIS solution, it is important to understand how difficult politically and militarily it will be to take and govern the city.

The following video looks at the difficult relationship between the SDF, Turkey, and the United States:

Impact

While Turkey may be the greatest concern, it is certainly not the only concern when considering Raqqa after ISIS. As is the case in Mosul, the impact of ISIS losing a major city will reverberate beyond the city itself. This will be particularly true if the group loses both cities, as it will no longer hold a substantial population center. What will be their next move be when they have no city-sized safe-haven to launch attacks from?

Read More: The Battle for Mosul: The Fight for ISIS’s Stronghold in Iraq

While ISIS forces are being beaten back in Mosul they have become entrenched in smaller groups around the city, planning on surviving the offensive and continuing to fight as part of an insurgency. It is worth noting that in the fight for Mosul, ISIS has the luxury of retreating to Raqqa, but if Raqqa falls there is no such option.

In addition to ISIS itself, there are also the three principal actors in the effort: the Kurds, Turkey, and the United States. As mentioned previously, the United States has already announced a plan to include both the Turks and the Kurd-dominated SDF in taking and later governing the city. However, the details of this plan have not been revealed, which may be troubling to those familiar with secret deals concerning governing parts of the Middle East.

Additionally, the Assad regime, the Russians, and the Iranians also play an important role in the conflict. Although these groups are not involved in the planning and assault on Raqqa, so far at least, if ISIS lost the city it would change the nature of the fight in Syria. Instead of having ISIS to keep them occupied, the allied powers could then shift their focus to Assad. This could lead to any number of things, from more concerted peace talks to a full-on proxy war between the Assad regime’s supporters and the U.S. and its allies. The only certainty seems to be that if and when ISIS is pushed out of Raqqa, a power vacuum will be created and someone will have to fill it.

Conclusion

The SDF recently announced its intentions to take ISIS’s capital Raqqa, coinciding with the push to remove them from Mosul. However, this is much easier said than done. Not only is the geography different, the needed troops are not as readily available. In addition, the competing political concerns in Syria may be even greater than those in Iraq.

Despite these competing interests, people in ISIS-controlled areas are undoubtedly being slaughtered. Groups like Raqqa IS Being Slaughtered Silently have regularly shown extreme examples of repression under ISIS’s rule. It is because of this reality that the United States has pledged to act, however, sorting out the political challenges has slowed those efforts.

Along with appeasing the interests of its allies, the United States must also figure out the next step in its relationship with the Assad regime and its foreign backers. The taking of ISIS’s last major stronghold offers an opportunity for greater dialogue between the two sides, but also an avenue for direct conflict if peace cannot be achieved. Even if both Mosul and Raqqa are taken from ISIS, the group’s ideology is not likely to be eliminated completely. All of those involved must figure out what the future of Syria will look like before another group steps in to take up ISIS’s mantle.

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 Raqqa: Behind the Effort to Retake ISIS’s Capital appeared first on Law Street.

Events in Yemen over the past week have drawn America deeper into the country’s two-year conflict than it has ever been in the past. And now, in an attempt to lessen the potential for greater involvement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will work to negotiate a 72-hour ceasefire between the warring parties, in order to “create some kind of climate where a political dialogue or a dialogue can begin again,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said on Friday.

“We need to de-escalate obviously given the events of the past week and that is where the priority is right now,” Toner said.

Since last Saturday, the conflict has been a ping-pong match of missile strikes and diplomatic posturing. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia, the foremost backer of the Yemen government, bombed a funeral service, killing over 140 people. The U.S., which supports the Saudis in the conflict, responded by announcing a review in its commitment to Saudi Arabia’s goals regarding Yemen. Then, Houthi rebels, one of the main groups opposing the Yemen government, fired missiles at U.S. ships, failing to hit any targets. In retaliation, the U.S. launched strikes toward Houthi-held territory in the western tip of the country, destroying three radar installations that helped the rebels coordinate strikes of their own. 

Yemen, like the reality in nearby Syria, is a tangled web of alliances, proxy fighting forces, and lone wolf jihadist groups, all threatening to tear the Gulf nation apart. Two years ago, groups loyal to a former president backed the Houthi tribe and sacked the capital city of Saana, forcing the government to flee. Iran, a sworn enemy to Saudi Arabia, backs those groups, while Saudi Arabia, bolstered by the U.S., backs the exiled government forces. Amid these actors are Islamic State cells and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Kerry has spoken with a host of Saudi, Emirate, and other Gulf nations’ diplomats and top government officials to coordinate and discuss a possible cessation of hostilities. He also spoke with Boris Johnson, the U.K. Foreign Minister. Kerry is no stranger to ceasefires. He helped broker one with Russia over Syria a few weeks ago, which barely lasted a week before the country devolved into some of the worst violence in its nearly six-year civil war. We’ll have to see if any progress can be made in Yemen.

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 With Yemen Hurtling Toward Chaos, John Kerry Seeks Ceasefire appeared first on Law Street.

Maskirovka is Russian for “something masked,” and it’s also the name of the number one strategy for psychological warfare used by Russia. Recently workers constructed a new piece in the maskirovka collection in a field outside of Moscow–an inflatable fighter jet that looks completely genuine from as close as 300 yards. According to Maria A. Oparina, the director of the company that produces the inflatable decoys, the demand has been growing quickly during the past year. Exactly how many they make is classified, but 80 people are employed full-time and most of them work making inflatable planes or weapons. These decoys are made to confuse and distract enemies, who have to spend valuable time figuring out whether the threat is real or not.

“Nobody ever wins honestly.” On Russia’s inflatable tanks, jets and missile launchers: https://t.co/Aovfj7JxFH pic.twitter.com/Is1VJIJ1k5

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 12, 2016

The relationship between Russia and the U.S. has deteriorated fast over the past couple of months with the failed ceasefire with Syria, accusations that Russian hackers have tried affecting the election by hacking voter databases, the release of Hillary Clinton emails from Wikileaks, and a cancelled visit from Putin to France.

And on Wednesday, Russian officials said they received an order from Putin to fly home any family members living abroad. They were told to take their kids out of foreign schools immediately, according to local media. This move has people discussing if we’re on the brink of another global war. “This is all part of the package of measures to prepare elites to some ‘big war,’” said political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky.

First Putin Orders Nation Wide Civil Defense Exercise & Now this. What’s Putin Planning & Preparing? https://t.co/UDJEY0M4a1 via @MailOnline

— Bharatavarsha (@T_deserteagle) October 12, 2016

Last month Russia was accused of attacking a humanitarian convoy in Syria, but denied it and blamed terrorists. “Just when we think it cannot get any worse, the power of depravity sinks lower,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about the attack. Russia’s denial did not seem very genuine as it, after blaming terrorists, blamed the U.S. and then said the convoy must have caught on fire by itself.

According to Major General Alexander Vladimirov, an authority on maskirovka, the practice is as old as time. We have had to disguise ourselves when hunting ever since the Stone Age. “All human history can be portrayed as the history of deception,” he said. And in Russia, it is common that maps are inaccurate, in case they end up in the hands of a spy. But is that really the same thing as sending fake convoys to take over a territory by scaring opponents off?

Greenwald: In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots #Newsweek #KurtEichenwaldhttps://t.co/xfv8YqyauU

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

One of the most recent occasions when Russia used this tactic was in Crimea two years ago, when masked soldiers were sent there in military vehicles to “volunteer” and do “humanitarian” work. Later it was revealed that most of the trucks were empty. When asked about it on TV, President Vladimir Putin denied that the soldiers were Russian and said that the men could have bought fake uniforms in any ordinary store. But five weeks later when the Russian annexation of Crimea was a fact he admitted that they had indeed been Russian forces.

The concept of maskirovka is to keep the enemy guessing and wondering, and also to include an element of surprise. Examples of Russia’s use of it are easy to find: when soldiers looking like tourists sailed to Syria in 1983 to aid the country in the Lebanese civil war, when a big group of young men flew on a normal Aeroflot flight to Prague but then seized the airport, or when Russia crashed drones over Georgia on purpose in 2008, pretending they were poorly built, until one of them exploded when Georgian officers tried to remove them.

The latest moves by the Kremlin has everyone wondering what is going on and what plans are in the making.

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 How Russia Uses Inflatable Airplanes for Psychological Warfare appeared first on Law Street.

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

Major Burn Alert: Joe Biden Doesn’t Think Trump Can Carry His Golf Clubs

After Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton, in which he said she doesn’t have the physical stamina to be president or take on ISIS, Vice President Joe Biden attacked Trump’s own stamina.

“I’ll bet he couldn’t carry his bag 18 holes on one of his own golf courses, speaking of energy,” Biden said to CNN on Tuesday morning.

Trump has been mocking Clinton for stumbling when she was suffering from pneumonia, while he himself is deemed overweight, which he revealed in an interview with Dr. Oz in September.

Biden also commented on Trump’s recent middle-of-the-night Twitter activity when he—again—attacked former Miss Universe Alicia Machado: “I think the real issue here–can you imagine the president getting up at 3:30 in the morning and tweeting vitriol?” Biden said. We’ll see what Trump has to say to these comments:

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

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

Comments from diplomats on Thursday, as well as developments on the ground in Aleppo, Syria signal an increasing divide between the U.S. and Russia, just one week after a ceasefire brokered by the two powers fell through. Responding to remarks made by State Department spokesman John Kirby on Wednesday, a Russian diplomat and military general echoed suspicions that the U.S. is supporting an “international terrorist alliance.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is “on the verge of suspending the discussion” of cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Recent developments in Aleppo, which is in a bloody tug-of-war between rebels and the government, are bleak as well: in its intensifying campaign to retake rebel-held areas in the city’s eastern sphere, government airstrikes have killed hundreds over the past week, and took out two major hospitals on Wednesday. Access to medical supplies–and food–is all but blocked, and the city has only 30 doctors left.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is as bad as it has been since Russia joined the fight, in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, nearly one year ago. On Wednesday, Kirby said if U.S. and Russia stop cooperating in Syria, extremist groups will carry out “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags.”

This, two Kremlin representatives said, proved the U.S. supports “terrorists.”

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. A spokesman of Russia’s Defense Ministry said Kirby’s comments were “the most frank confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

Because of the dwindling possibility of a cooperative strategy with Russia in combating the Islamic State in Syria, an enemy to all sides, U.S. officials are considering alternative responses to Assad’s barrage in Aleppo. Military options are on the table, a U.S. official privy to the discussions told Reuters.

But even with the frayed relationship between the U.S. and Russia, a spokesman of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is still open to co-operate with the U.S. He also blamed the U.S. for the moderate rebel groups who failed to comply with the ceasefire by distancing themselves from jihadist groups.

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 As the Battle for Aleppo Rages, Trust Between U.S. and Russia Reaches New Low appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, has for months been the staging ground for some of the country’s most intense fighting over its five-year civil war. Since the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and Russia crumbled last week, Aleppo has been getting mowed down by government airstrikes, killing roughly 200 people, in what residents and rescue workers are calling the most severe surge in the city yet. On Tuesday, the neighborhood of Farafra–in the rebel-held eastern half of Aleppo–was captured by government forces, as the government pushes to control the entire city.

Reports from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicate the fighting has spread to the city’s historic quarter, one of the world’s oldest settlements and home to a mosque that dates back to the 8th century. The mosque, Umayyad Mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, lost its minaret due to the fighting in 2013. The Syrian Observatory also said government airstrikes killed 11 people in the eastern half  of the city, while rebels shelled the government-held villages in the western half, Nubal and Zahraa.

The past week has seen President Bashar al-Assad’s government use, for the first time, bunker-busting bombs that obliterate buildings and collapse underground bunkers.

“Bunker-busting bombs, more suited to destroying military installations, are now destroying homes, decimating bomb shelters, crippling, maiming, killing dozens, if not hundreds,” said Matthew Rycroft, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations at an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting on Syria on Sunday.

VIDEO: Drone footage shows the scale of destruction caused by air strikes in Aleppo, #Syria. – @Reuters pic.twitter.com/zOcAdfbMEQ

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) September 27, 2016

Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, also condemned Assad’s use of bunker-busters: “They are demolishing ordinary people looking for any last refuge of safety,” he said. “International law is clear: The systematic use of indiscriminate weapons in densely populated areas is a war crime.”

During that meeting, which was spearheaded by the U.S. and Britain, council members blasted Assad for committing war crimes. Russia, Syria’s main ally in the fight against the Islamic State and Syrian rebel groups, was lambasted for abetting Assad in his cruelty.

The fight is showing few signs of abating anytime soon. A Syrian military general told the Associated Press that the campaign in Aleppo, which has left thousands of residents trapped in the city with dwindling supplies of food and water, will continue until all “terrorists” are “wiped out.”

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 Aleppo is Pounded as Government Forces Press Toward City’s Historic Quarter appeared first on Law Street.

In what may signal the crumbling of the latest–and perhaps final–ceasefire arrangement in Syria under the Obama administration, the Syrian government on Monday voiced its renewed commitment to the fight. But America’s chief negotiator in the week-long deal, Secretary of State John Kerry, said the end of the ceasefire isn’t up to the Syrian government. Only the two main architects of the fragile agreement, the U.S. and Russia, could officially declare its end.

In effect since last Monday, the ceasefire called for a halting of airstrikes or ground attacks for the following parties: Syrian government forces, the rebel parties opposed to the regime, Russia, and the U.S. Two terrorist groups, the Islamic State and a rebel group previously affiliated with al-Qaeda, were exempt from the ceasefire.

The early parts of last week saw a decrease in reported attacks and casualties, but that began to change by the latter part of the week. Tensions flared anew when on Saturday, a U.S.-led coalition airstrike killed 60 Syrian soldiers by the Russians’ count. The U.S. Central Command said the strikes were aimed at ISIS positions, and amounted to an “intelligence failure.” The U.S. expressed its regret for its unintentional breach of the ceasefire. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad termed the attack a “flagrant aggression” while implying the U.S. was covertly supporting ISIS, the one common enemy of all parties engaged in the ceasefire.

On Monday, Assad said in a statement that his regime will “continue fulfilling its national duties in fighting terrorism in order to bring back security and stability.” Syria deems all rebel groups terrorists, even the moderate cells the U.S. supports and trains. Assad pointed to those groups as undermining the agreement.

It seems Kerry was unaware of Assad’s claim that the ceasefire had ended. “It would be good if they didn’t talk first to the press but if they talked to the people who are actually negotiating this,” he said. “We just began today to see real movement of humanitarian goods, and let’s see where we are. We’re happy to have a conversation with them.”

Humanitarian relief to Syria’s most besieged cities was a key element of the deal. Assad initially refused to sign off on U.N. aid convoys trying to provide food and other supplies to civilians outside of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. He has since authorized aid deliveries, but the U.N. said access to areas that need aid are nearly inaccessible because of fighting, a lack of security, and administrative delays.

The Red Cross did say that it was able to deliver food, water, and hygiene supplies for up to 84,000 people in Talbiseh in Homs province. Citizens in Aleppo, caught in between the rebel-held east and the regime-held west, have yet to receive aid. A U.N. aid convoy is caught in a buffer zone near the Turkey-Syria border, just north of Aleppo, where as many as 250,000 citizens wait for food and other supplies.

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 Syria Signals End to Ceasefire While U.S. and Russia Express Hope it Will Last appeared first on Law Street.

There may be fewer casualties as a result of the pause in fighting in Syria this week, but there are also starving men, women, and children who continue to suffer because of Bashar al-Assad, the president of the combusting nation. In a briefing with reporters in Geneva on Thursday, the U.N. mediator for Syria said the Assad government has failed to authorize letters that aid convoys need to pass through checkpoints. As a result, the vital aid millions of Syrians hoped to receive during the week-long ceasefire has yet to arrive.

“It’s particularly regrettable because we are losing time,” Staffan de Mistura, the mediator, said. Beginning Monday, the ceasefire has largely held. Jointly implemented by the United States and Russia, the intention is to test whether fighting can remain paused for a week.

If it can, the United States, which opposes Assad’s government, and Russia, Assad’s ally, will begin cooperating in the fight against an enemy shared by all sides, including the rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime: the Islamic State. The ceasefire agreement does not include ISIS or other terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front.

But the cessation of hostilities agreement was also intended to crack open a window through which U.N. trucks could pass through, bringing aid to the most devastated pockets in Syria–including areas near Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. That part of the ceasefire has been a failure, and it’s unclear if a joint U.S.-Russia campaign hinges on the humanitarian relief portion of the deal. Assad is in charge of authorizing the letters that aid groups need to proceed.

“Can well-fed, grown men please stop putting political, bureaucratic, and procedural roadblocks for brave humanitarian workers that are willing and able to go to serve women, children, wounded civilians in besieged areas?” said Jan Egeland, the U.N. special adviser on humanitarian affairs.

And while combat has halted in much of the country, casualties were still recorded since the arrangement went into effect. On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported airstrikes in ISIS-held territory in an eastern province. At least seven civilians were killed, and 30 more were injured. Of the four buildings that were hit with the strikes, one was a school, the group said.

A day earlier, Russia said it killed 250 ISIS fighters near the desert city of Palmyra.

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 In Breach of Ceasefire, Syrian Government Has Yet to Authorize Aid Convoys appeared first on Law Street.

At the few remaining hospitals in Aleppo, Syria on Tuesday, men in pink gowns and nearly naked children gasped into oxygen masks, their lungs desperate for air, eyes wide with confusion. This ghastly scene followed what aid groups and witnesses say was a chemical attack by the Syrian government in the rebel-held eastern half of the city.

While reports of the attack could not be independently verified by media outlets, a handful of aid groups and hospital workers in Aleppo said helicopters flew over Sukkari, an eastern suburb, and dropped barrels of chlorine. Upwards of 100 people–including dozens of children–were hospitalized for treatment. There have been two reported deaths, and though most of the victims were discharged after a few hours, at least ten remain in intensive care.

This represents the third instance in which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dropped chlorine gas bombs on his own people. The previous two came in 2014 and 2015, a recent UN investigation concluded. All three incidents occurred after a U.S.-led 2013 deal that supposedly stripped the Syrian regime of its chemical arsenal. Chlorine was not included in the deal, however, because it is considered a dual-use chemical, as it has applications other than chemical weaponry.

The attack came while leaders of the various Syrian opposition groups met in London to discuss a political end to the five-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The UN report, published in late August, also concluded that the Islamic State used chemical weapons–sulphur mustard gas–in Syria.

More than 120 people, including 10 women and 37 children, were sickened in a chlorine gas attack in Aleppo, Syria. pic.twitter.com/qgFaOBD1fl

— New York Times Video (@nytvideo) September 7, 2016

“There are more actors today in Syria with the availability of the substances and the ability to mix them and use them, if they so choose, as chemical weapons; and this is something very worrying,” said Virginia Gamba, head of the three-member UN Joint Investigative Mechanism that confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria.

First used on battlefields during World War I, chlorine can lead to shortness of breath, chest tightness, coughing, skin, and eye irritation. In extremely high doses, chlorine can be fatal. The site of Assad’s latest chemical airdrop, Aleppo, has been torn apart in recent months, its citizens trapped between rebel and government-held areas. International aid groups are calling for humanitarian corridors for people to flee the city safely.

Meanwhile, while meeting in Hangzhou, China for the G-20 summit, President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia–a key ally of Assad–failed to reach a cease-fire agreement.

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 Syrian Regime Hits Aleppo with Chlorine Bombs; Dozens Hospitalized appeared first on Law Street.

Moscow is claiming that a Russian airstrike killed ISIS spokesman and key figure Abu Mohammed al-Adnani in Syria on Tuesday. According to Russia’s defense ministry, he was one of 40 rebels who were killed by Russian bomber planes in Maaratat-Umm Khaush, in the Aleppo province.

The U.S., on the other hand, calls the claim preposterous–one U.S. defense official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, that “Russia’s claim is a joke.”

The U.S. also conducted an airstrike targeting al-Adnani on Tuesday, but has not confirmed whether he was killed. One official said of Russia’s claims to CNN: “It would be laughable but for the very real humanitarian suffering Russia has inflicted.” He added: “We conducted a strike that targeted al-Adnani. We are assessing the results of that strike.”

The official spokesman of ISIS and one of its most senior members has died https://t.co/tXFjE27j1Q pic.twitter.com/646KFp3oLF

— CNN International (@cnni) August 31, 2016

On Tuesday, ISIS announced on its own news agency Amaq that al-Adnani had died during an inspection of military operations. The cause of death was not revealed, but ISIS members said they are determined to seek revenge. They said:

To the filthy and coward nonbelievers and to the holders of the Christ emblem, we bring the good news, which will keep them awake, that a new generation in the Islamic State … that loves death more than life … this generation will only grow steadfast on the path to Jihad, stay determined to seek revenge and be violent toward them.

If al-Adnani is dead, it would mean a significant blow to the terrorist organization. He was one of the remaining founding members and a visible one in his role as ISIS spokesman. He’s been responsible for attacks abroad–Al-Adnani was probably the commander behind the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, and has been encouraging lone wolf attacks on civilians. He was also the right hand of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“He absolutely tried to maximize every opportunity to instill fear in Syria and Iraq and the international community and send fighters overseas to attack,” said CNN correspondent and diplomatic editor Nic Robertson.

Recent advances by Iraq and its allies toward the city of Mosul, where ISIS has its most important foothold, combined with the U.S. coalition cutting ISIS off from the border of Turkey has put pressure on the group. A U.S. counter terrorism official said that if al-Adnani is indeed dead, it would hurt the Islamic State “in the area that increasingly concerns us as the group loses more and more of its caliphate and its financial base … and turns to mounting and inspiring more attacks in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.”

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 Russia Takes Responsibility For Killing ISIS Spokesman, U.S. Calls Claim a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, Turkish tanks and special forces units supported by American airstrikes stormed across Turkey’s southern border with Syria, into the town of Jarablus. Within hours, ISIS and Kurdish militants–who control most of the surrounding territory–were thwarted, and the town was under the control of Syrian rebel groups. ISIS troops fled south to the town of al-Bab.

The incursion, while successful from Turkey’s perspective, underscores the interconnected and at times contradictory relationships of the Syrian civil war, which is in its sixth year. Turkey is a NATO member, and therefore an important ally in the region for the U.S., especially as a bulwark against ISIS. But Syrian Kurds, who control much of the border with Turkey, are considered terrorists by Turkey, yet are also one of the U.S.’s most potent surrogates in the fight against ISIS.

But ISIS is the one common denominator in Syria, the one foe that all parties share–Turkey, the U.S., Syrian rebel factions, the Syrian government and its allies (which includes Russia and Iran), and Syrian Kurds. With Wednesday’s “Euphrates Shield” mission–Jarablus sits on the western bank of the Euphrates– Turkey made clear its goal of ridding the border of ISIS and the Kurds, a longtime adversary who it fears aims to create a border-length autonomous zone.

#UPDATE Syria rebels backed by Turkey tanks ‘seize’ IS-held town Jarabulus https://t.co/DyB9GEyXD8 pic.twitter.com/JMOCNU5ZPA

— AFP news agency (@AFP) August 24, 2016

Vice President Joe Biden, who flew to Turkey’s capital, Ankara, on Wednesday to discuss combating ISIS, stood by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Though the U.S. backs Syrian Kurds, Biden said they “must move back across the Euphrates River. They cannot, will not, under any circumstance get American support if they do not keep that commitment.” He added: “We believe very strongly that the Turkish border should be controlled by Turkey.”

Roughly 1,500 soldiers from Syrian rebel groups backed Turkey’s assault, according to an activist embedded with the rebels. It is unclear if Turkey expects the rebels to hand over control of the town, or if its accomplishment of wiping it clean of ISIS militants and Kurds is enough.

Syria, which effectively holds no governance over the territory near its border with Turkey, nevertheless called Turkey’s incursion a “blatant violation” of its sovereignty. Turkey’s aggressive incursion is a response to a string of attacks on its soil by ISIS, most recent of which was a suicide bombing at a wedding in Gaziantep on Saturday. That attack killed 54 people.

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 Turkey Brings Fight Against ISIS Across the Syrian Border appeared first on Law Street.

Turkey backtracked on Monday after suggesting a child between 12 and 14 years old carried out the suicide bombing that killed 54 people at a wedding on Saturday. “A clue has not yet been found concerning the perpetrator,” said Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, calling President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s previous statement a “guess” based on witness accounts. Another 70 wedding guests were wounded, including the groom, after explosions rocked the wedding in the southeastern city of Gaziantep. Nearly half of the dead were under 14 years old.

In his remarks on Sunday, Erdogan said early signs point to the Islamic State, or ISIS, as responsible for the attack. ISIS has sent children to carry out its murderous missions in the past. But the prime minister on Monday clarified that the identity of the perpetrator is foggy, saying officials are unsure at this point if it was a “child or a grown-up” who carried out the attack.

The wedding was for a member of the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP). Turkey’s Kurds–a stateless ethnic group with distinct populations in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey–act as a potent force in the fight against ISIS. Yet they are also adversaries of Erdogan’s government, which considers the PKK–the Kurdish governing body–a terrorist organization. Gaziantep is roughly 50 kilometers (about 30 miles) from the Syrian border, thought to be a convening site for ISIS fighters in Turkey. On Monday, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu voiced his country’s need to rid itself of any ISIS influence.

Turkey is rocked by a string of attacks in the past year as turmoil deepens. Here is a helpful map. pic.twitter.com/jasXik0gju

— Mahir Zeynalov (@MahirZeynalov) August 22, 2016

“Our border has to be completely cleansed of Daesh [the Arabic name for ISIS]. It’s natural for us to give whatever kind of support is necessary,” he said. Some experts see Saturday’s attack as having a duel-motivation: retaliation for recent battlefield successes by Syrian Kurds, and an attempt to fan the flames of ethnic tension already rife in a country still recovering from a failed coup attempt last month.

A statement from the White House National Security Council on Sunday said: “The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms yesterday’s terrorist attack.” It also said Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling to Ankara on Wednesday to discuss strategies regarding ISIS.

As funerals for those killed began on Sunday, so did reminders of how divided and tense Turkey is at the moment. At one funeral, mourners were mostly Kurdish. When Turkish officials came bearing Turkish flags, the Kurdish mourners grew angry and began hurling rocks at the officials.

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 Was Saturday’s Wedding Bombing in Turkey Carried Out by a Child? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

People Unite to #WallOffTrump

Walls are being built for Trump! No, its not what you think, the U.S.-Mexico border is unwalled for now….But protesters have begun to create blockades against everything Trump, especially in resistance to his presidency.

“The walls that they build…”

Protesters sing while they form a human blockade to #WallOffTrump at the #RNCinCLE.https://t.co/7UOhL7pmxz

— AJ+ (@ajplus) July 20, 2016

Today at Public Square in Cleveland, people are forming human blockades and the movement has officially made its way to Hollywood where Donald Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star has been outfitted with a tiny wall complete with tiny barbed wire.

OH, this is rich. RT @imfabulous13: The #WallOffTrump is already up. pic.twitter.com/jypaOuLA9u

— Panda Montana (@MrTanPanda) July 20, 2016

People are even building walls around fake Trumps in the Sims!

My thoughts when I saw #WallOffTrump#RNCinCLE https://t.co/kJxQpd66dQpic.twitter.com/0OCSrs3Kya

— Spekt3r (@Spekt3r) July 20, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As the buses left the camp, the passengers were met with conflicting farewells: onlookers gently waved and blew them kisses; an olive green tarp on the side of the road read, in white spray paint, “Europe doesn’t care if you suffer.”

The buses–packed with refugees from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa–were headed south from Idomeni, Greece, on the Macedonian border, where a camp that housed thousands of the refugees for months was being evacuated, per directions from the Greek government. The operation to clear all 8,400 people started on Tuesday and is expected to last for up to ten days, government officials said.

The migrants will be bused about 60 miles south, to a collection of camps near Thessaloniki, a city on the Aegean Sea. While journalists were barred from Idomeni, the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders and Moving Europe, an organization that documents the migrant route through the Balkans, have been reporting deplorable conditions in what are to be the migrants’ new homes: cramped, ripped turquoise tents on dirt, leaky water splotches on the ground though no water to drink.

In a statement responding to the evacuation, Melanie Ward, Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy at the International Rescue Committee said:

What is happening signals the start of the establishment of medium to long-term camps on European soil. This poses the question: how long do we expect people–so many of whom have fled war and conflict–to be living in tents in refugee camps in Greece?

Over a million refugees have landed in Europe from the Middle East and Africa–most displaced by civil war and terrorism–since the migrant flood intensified in 2015. With its strong economy and relatively welcoming resettlement policy, Germany is the preferred destination for many families. And though Greece is a necessary checkpoint along the the popular route through Turkey, the Aegean and the Balkans, it is rarely identified as a permanent residence for the refugees.

The Idomeni camp–with its small tents strewn about muddy dirt plains and along train tracks that run north from Macedonia through Greece in the south–became bloated with refugees when Macedonia closed its borders in March. On Tuesday, bulldozers razed the camp as the refugees–40 percent of whom are women and children–were evacuated. For now, according to Greek officials, the new reception centers have a capacity of 6,000, a number that should rise as new sites are established.

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 From Camp to Camp: Thousands of Migrants in Greece Evacuated appeared first on Law Street.

In October 2014, a teenager from the suburbs of Chicago was arrested at O’Hare International Airport for attempting to join the Islamic State terrorist organization. His method of communication with the group, also known as ISIS, or ISIL: Twitter.

Over the past few years, ISIS has increased its presence on social media platforms as a radicalization tool. From the European Union to the United States, ISIS has taken advantage of the relatively borderless world of social media to bring Muslims and non-Muslims into its twisted realm of influence, encouraging them to take violent action in their home country or to make the journey and join the caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq.

At a panel hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus in Washington D.C. on Friday, experts discussed ISIS and other terrorist networks’ increasingly sophisticated online recruitment methods and what the government and the private sector can do to mitigate their efforts without affecting freedom of speech.

“[ISIS and other terrorist groups] reach out to disaffected youth and offer a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging,” said Rashad Hussain, member of the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “As twisted as it sounds, they claim to be building something.”

A recent report by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University provided a window into the demographics of people ISIS is recruiting in the U.S. According to the report, the average age of those in the U.S. who have been recruited by ISIS is 26. Eighty-seven percent are male, and thirty-eighty percent are converts to Islam, not people who grew up in the faith. As of April 30, 2016, 85 individuals have been arrested on ISIS-related charges. 

Policing social media poses a unique challenge to the federal government: how to effectively tamper hateful messaging and support of violent acts without infringing on the First Amendment.

There has been increased co-operation between the government and social media companies to thwart the threat of online radicalization. But Emma Llanso, Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project and a member at Friday’s discussion, worries about government policies that could throw a blanket over the broad and ambiguous category of “unlawful speech.”

“Is it a direct incitement to violence? A true threat of violence? We don’t have broad prohibitions against hate speech, no definition of extremist content as a set of unlawful speech,” Llanso cautioned.

She underscored the importance of prohibiting hate speech or actions that incite violence, but also the imperative to preserve freedom of speech, something she noted as leading to the innovation that sparked the variety of ways we now have to express ourselves online.

Social media platforms all formulate their own terms of service, or a sets of rules that outline the types of messages that are or are not welcome on their sites and might be taken down or reported to government authorities. Llanso portended that a policy requiring companies to share messages deemed “unlawful” would do more harm than good.

She said it would lead social media companies “to err on the side of caution in reporting their users to the government as suspects of terrorist acts.”

Hussain agreed that government should play a limited role in ensuring social media platforms don’t exist as places where extremist ideas are disseminated and allowed to fester. He advocated for a “counter messaging” strategy, taking advantage of the platforms to spread messages on the other end of the spectrum as groups like ISIS.

He called for spreading messages “highlighting ISIL battlefield losses” and ones that “expose living conditions” of ISIS members.

“[Social media] platforms provide an opportunity for counter messaging and positive messaging,” he said, noting that there are also opportunities to spread the positive values Muslim communities stand for.

Seamus Hughes, who heads the Program on Extremism at George Washington University and is a previous member of the National Counterterrorism Center, also underlined the need for counter messaging in lieu of “takedowns,” or the removal of ISIS-supported accounts on sites like Twitter.

Studies have shown that accounts that are removed do experience an immediate drop in followers when they come back, he said, but the platform’s “built in system of resiliency” allows users to reconfigure their accounts under different names.

But for all of the radicalization opportunities afforded by the tricky semantics and difficult-to-police sites like Twitter, Hughes reinforced the fact that “the physical space of a caliphate is a driver for people to go.”

“Twitter is a place to facilitate the recruitment,” he said. “It’s not like if Twitter went away tomorrow we wouldn’t have recruits that are joining [terrorist groups].”

Alec Siegel

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

The post A Delicate Dance: Fighting ISIS Online While Protecting Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Amid the convoluted conflicts ravaging the Middle East at the moment, one country that often gets lost in the headlines is Yemen, where Iran-supported Houthi rebels have been battling the Saudi Arabia-backed government since the rebels took over Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, in late 2014.

Peace talks between the Houthis and the Yemeni government, led by President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, are back on track for Wednesday. The Houthis pulled out over the weekend due to government launched flights over Houthi held territory, which the rebel group claimed breached a truce that was reached on April 10 in efforts to spur a peace agreement.

The two sides first met on Friday, which U.N. envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed called “constructive” with a “positive atmosphere.” Nothing concrete was reached, with a permanent ceasefire as the ultimate goal.

Wednesday’s talks, which will be held in Kuwait, are a top priority for the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China. The UNSC members applied pressure to both sides, which led to reinstating Wednesday’s talks.

“The diplomats were quite tough and used harsh language, telling them that peace in Yemen was important for regional security and that no one would be allowed to leave Kuwait without an agreement,” a source close to the discussions told Reuters. 

Yemen, which sits at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, to the west of Oman and the south of Saudi Arabia, is paramount in preventing further destabilization of the region. The vacuum left by the war has seen both al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS, or ISIL, vying for influence.

America has been criticized by human rights groups for its role in the 13-month conflict, which has seen 6,200 civilian deaths, 35,000 wounded, and more than 2.5 million people displaced. The U.S. has provided arms to the Yemen military, which receives direct support from Saudi Arabia, an important American ally in a region where reliable friends are few and far between, though that relationship has also been under pressure.

The most recent battleground development came on Tuesday morning, when a U.S. drone reportedly killed a local al Qaeda leader and five of his operatives, according to Reuters.

Syria’s civil war and the atrocities associated with ISIS and other terrorist cells might grab the most headlines, but the way things shake out in Yemen could have wide-ranging consequences for the stability of the region and beyond.

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 Peace Talks in Yemen Back on After Pressure from World Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

Early this week, hundreds of migrants in Greece–many of whom made perilous journeys on inflatable rafts to make it there–were placed onto ferries to be sent back to where they came from. This is the result of a new deal between the European Union and Turkey to help ease the undeterred flow of migrants into Europe, which began its implementation on Monday. The deal stipulates that un-vetted refugees who landed in Greece will be sent back to Turkey, and in exchange, a vetted refugee in Turkey can be brought to Europe to be resettled. This “one-for-one” trade sounds like a  simple enough solution for stopping an uncontrolled flow of refugees into Greece, but the endless logistical, ethical, and political issues that have arisen with it are making it a problematic solution to a complex problem.

While the State Department called the deal an “important step,” it has been criticized by many human rights organizations and aid groups who allege that Turkey is not a safe place for these migrants to return to. Amnesty International believes that there are “fatal flaws” in the deal, alleging that Turkish authorities have been forcefully sending hundreds of refugees back to war-torn Syria. The deal also doesn’t offer protections to non-Syrian migrants, who were also being deported under the deal.

Protesters dive into sea as ferry carrying #migrants prepares to leave #Lesbos returning them to turkey pic.twitter.com/q1Gz608HAG

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

The deal is facing a variety of challenges so far: BBC reports that arrivals into Turkey have already been delayed, and 3,000 migrants still sit in centers awaiting deportation (which could take weeks at minimum). Tensions have also been high in Greece, where “irregular migrants” who have arrived since March 20 (the date the deal was put into effect) have been put into holding centers that have been described as “prison-like.” Early Friday, protests broke out on the island of Chios between hundreds of migrants who had broken out of their centers and residents of the island. 

To add to that, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been adding to fears that Turkey is undependable, reportedly threatening to not support the refugees if the EU did not live up to its end of the deal (which consisted of promised cash and EU membership to Turkey).

Main refugee camp on #Lesbos. Minutes earlier aggressive Greek police chased me away and deleted my photos. pic.twitter.com/WQ02iZBlBH

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

These are only a few of the many issues facing this deal, and it’s only gotten started. It’s hard to definitively say whether this is a step forward or a step back. While the EU clearly needs to confront the problem of an unchecked flow of refugees entering Europe, it also must be careful not to compromise the human rights of these groups, many of whom have already lived through horrific atrocities. This agreement clearly has problematic elements that make it difficult to ensure these rights; however, it remains to be seen how the deal will affect the situation of the refugees in the long-term.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Hundreds of Refugees are Being Shuffled Around Europe 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.

ISIS has been the focal point of public discussion for several months now and it seems like the group will not leave the spotlight anytime soon. But while we often talk about what the group is doing and how to respond, we often spend less time understanding how it is able to sustain itself. How do ISIS and other terrorist groups manage to continuously fund global operations while being attacked by several world powers?

In the case of ISIS, estimates suggest that the group’s assets equaled approximately $875 million in 2014, coming from a variety of sources that include oil production and taxes. ISIS and many other terrorist groups actually seem to resemble a sort of mix between a state government and a criminal syndicate, as their funding comes from a wide variety of sources. Read on to see where some of the money supporting ISIS, and other global terror groups, comes from.

Funding Terrorism in the Past

Traditionally terrorism has primarily been funded through private donations. This was certainly the case for ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida, which received much of its funding from wealthy Saudis. Charities can be effective because they are difficult to detect and tie to radical organizations. Many of these groups worked on legitimate causes while also funneling money to extremists, muddying the waters even further.

The money raised by these charities is then laundered through shell companies and some legitimate businesses, then transferred to a terrorist group. Another popular means of moving money is through remittances, which are popular in the Middle East. One example of remittances is the use of Hawalas, which are essentially untraceable wire transfers that allow people to send money from one country to their friends or relatives in another. According to a Treasury Department report, Hawalas are often cheaper and faster than traditional bank transactions, making them particularly appealing. Using middlemen with contacts in both countries, payments can be made without needing to transfer money for each transaction. While Hawalas are useful for many people who send money abroad for legitimate reasons, they are also well-liked by terrorist groups because they can be used in areas with little financial infrastructure and are hard to trace.

Efforts have been made to crack down on this type of financing–pressure has been placed both on Gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia, and financial institutions to look for any suspicious activity. While this certainly remains a viable source of income for terrorists, it has generally stopped being the number one source as governments have placed additional scrutiny on international financial transactions. Instead, ISIS and other groups have shifted to new tactics. The following video gives a look at money laundering and how terrorist groups raise funds illegally:

Help from Their Friends

While Gulf states’ support for terrorism has declined, it has certainly not been eliminated altogether. People in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have long been known as funders of ISIS and other extremist groups that include al-Qaida. These countries, which are in many ways American allies, argue that they are protecting Sunnis from Shiites in a larger struggle for the heart of Islam. The accompanying video looks at from where and how ISIS gets private donations, including those from American allies:

While banks, especially Western banks, have measures in place to identify money laundering and terrorist funding, the same is not true for all of the Gulf states. In places like Qatar, these controls are not as stringent and are not strongly enforced. ISIS also hires fundraisers to reach out to wealthy individuals and solicit money to support its cause.

Money can also be sent to ISIS in the form of fake humanitarian aid packages. These packages are often sent to war zones under the guise of humanitarian assistance but are not actually directed to an individual or organization. These transactions tend to be very difficult to stop for a host of reasons. In addition to poorly regulated banking systems, groups and individuals who send money are often influential in their home countries. Additionally, few humanitarian organizations have direct ties in the region to ensure that the assistance makes it to the proper aid workers.

Traditional Means

Taxes, Extortion, and Robbery

To fill the gap from private donations, ISIS, like traditional states, relies heavily on taxes. The group places a tax on everything it believes to be valuable, from businesses to vehicles. ISIS also taxes non-Muslims, giving them the choice between forced conversion, paying a tax, or facing death. These shakedowns take place at businesses, public areas, or at checkpoints, forcing people to pay or face violence and possibly death. ISIS also sends fundraisers ahead of its fighters to a town or city to demand money. It is important to note that the group only attacks and attempts to conquer areas with some sort of financial value. It rarely, for example, conquers vast tracts of desert simply to take more territory. Taxation has become an especially important source of income as its other revenue streams, like oil production, have declined.  In fact, taxation and extortion were actually ISIS’s largest sources of income in 2014, amounting to a reported $600 million in revenue.

In many ways, the taxation practiced by ISIS is a form of theft, but the group also does its fair share of outright robbery. When the group took the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit last year it seized vast quantities of money from bank vaults–estimates suggest those confiscations amounted to $1.5 billion. The group is also notorious for outright stealing possessions from people when it conquers a new territory.

Kidnapping

Another means for ISIS to offset its expenses is turning to organized crime. Emulating its predecessor al-Qaida, ISIS has relied heavily on kidnapping for ransoms. ISIS’s victims are traditionally Westerners, many of whom work for wealthy organizations. Although European countries sometimes pay ransoms, some countries such as the United States will not, though some corporations will discreetly pay ransoms for their workers.

In 2014, the U.S. Treasury estimated that ISIS made as much as $20 million dollars from kidnapping. This money did not only come from abducting foreigners, it was also the result of the group’s willingness to kidnap citizens within its own territory if it feels it can generate a high enough payoff.

Drug Trafficking

Along with trafficking in people, like any criminal organization, ISIS may deal in drugs. While it is unclear how much revenue the group receives from the practice, it seems likely that drugs are one more weapon in ISIS’s financial arsenal. This is another example of ISIS learning from its predecessor Al-Qaeda.

Oil/Water/Food

While these are all important revenue streams for ISIS, its most valuable asset is the one it shares with its Middle Eastern neighbors: oil. Iraq has the fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world and ISIS uses this supply to help fill its coffers. While many of the world’s nations impose sanctions on ISIS to prevent it from selling any of these supplies, the group still manages to smuggle oil for profit. Using paths developed in Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein, the group is able to smuggle out oil, cash, and other contraband to neighboring countries. In 2014, depending on the always-volatile price-per-barrel of oil, ISIS was making between $1 to $2 million a day off oil revenue.

Although much of the oil is smuggled illegally into neighboring countries, it may also be finding more legitimate routes. According to Russian sources, Turkey is allowing large shipments of oil from areas known to be under ISIS’s control. While this could very easily be a baseless accusation in the wake of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet, it may be worth considering. David Cohen, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Treasury noted that Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds have all made deals, through middlemen, to acquire oil from ISIS despite openly fighting the group.

Other Means

ISIS has also utilized other creative methods to fill its reserves. One such method is looting the historical sites that it has become notorious for destroying. Another is through its well-known skills with social media. ISIS uses apps such as WhatsApp and Kik to coordinate covert money drop-offs from its supporters. Other groups such as Boko Haram have even more innovative schemes, from acting as local muscle to employing internet scams.

Ultimately, though, how much ISIS relies on any one source and how valuable any one source is to the group tends to fluctuate a lot. After all, the group now makes far more from taxes than oil production and early sources of income like robbing banks may start to dry up. So far, this strategy has been effective as ISIS really only spends money on fighter salaries, while it salvages weapons and avoids building projects because of the threat posed by airstrikes.ISIS’s strategy is one of thriftiness, especially regarding the social services it offers to its conquered subjects, could prove more decisive than any allied bomb strike in determining its future.

The video below details how ISIS gets its money:

Conclusion

ISIS has proven to be extremely difficult to defeat by conventional means. Despite waves of airstrikes and military support for the Syrian, Kurdish, and Iraqi militaries, the group has endured and even thrived. This is a result of several factors, one of which is ISIS’s ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources while operating a crude form of local government. Another is its ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources much like a criminal enterprise. Many of these methods were pioneered by al-Qaida and are now also being adopted by Boko Haram as well.

However, ISIS’s ability to survive is also partly attributable to the difficulty, and the occasional unwillingness, of bordering countries to crack down on the flow of money to terrorist organizations. These countries have, in some cases, let ISIS smuggle goods into their countries, rampage unopposed and even somewhat directly financed its operations.

To eliminate ISIS, like al-Qaida before it, ISIS’s finances must be crippled. If you can’t pay people to fight for you, or provide services as a government, staying in power becomes increasingly difficult. However, ISIS and like-minded groups have become particularly effective at keeping the lights on.

Resources

Council on Foreign Relations: Tracking Down Terrorist Financing

Newsweek: How does ISIS fund its Reign of Terror?

The Jerusalem Post: How does the Islamic State Fund its Activities?

Security Intelligence: Funding Terrorists the Rise of ISIS

The Daily Beast: America’s Allies are Funding ISIS

Independent: Russia Publishes “Proof” Turkey’s Erdogan is Smuggling ISIS Oil Across Border from Syria

RFI: Nigerian Intelligence Chief Calls for Untangling of Boko Haram Funding

Perspectives on Terrorism: A Financial Profile of the Terrorism of Al-Qaeda and its Affiliates

Political Violence at a Glance: ISIS, Ideology, and the Illicit Economy

New York Times: ISIS Finances Are Strong

Vox: This Detailed Look at ISIS’s Budget Shows That it’s Well-funded and Somewhat Incompetent

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post The Cost of Terrorism: How is ISIS Funded? appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

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 More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

History in the Middle East

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

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

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

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

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

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

Current Operations

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

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

Turkey

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

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

Syria

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

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

Iran

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

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

Iraq

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Resources

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

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

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

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

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

Read more: Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity  work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Lone Wolves

Along with calling for would-be jihadis to come join the cause in Iraq and Syria or to provide donations, ISIS has also employed another tactic. It’s used social media campaigns recorded in French and subtitled in English to encourage radical action in Western countries. Instead of encouraging dissatisfied men and woman in these areas to come join the war in the Middle East, it calls for them to make war against their own governments at home. In this regard there also seems to be some examples of success on ISIS’ part. The most notorious so far is the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the killing of hostages a few days later in a kosher deli. These, along with subsequent attacks on police officers patrolling the city, have been attributed to ISIS-inspired terrorists, although exact motives remain uncertain. The video below depicts ISIS’ efforts to arouse lone wolves in the West.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing  back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

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 ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria.

Read More: Is ISIS Actually Islamic?

Graeme Wood, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, recently wrote one of the most comprehensive articles available about ISIS and its ideology. In the article Wood says,

Much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

Much of ISIS’ ideology comes from its interpretation of statements attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, a foundational text of Islam. The Brookings Institution notes that a prophecy predicts the judgment day will come after a final battle in Dabiq. While interpretations of this prophecy and ISIS’ portrayal of it vary, the group’s general plan is to take over Istanbul (referred to as Constantinople, the former capital of the Roman Empire). After defeating the Romans, they will then defeat the Dajjal (a version of the antichrist) in Dabiq with the help of Jesus who will join Islam.

The first issue of ISIS’ propaganda magazine featured a quote from the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who said, “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify–by Allah’s permission–until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” It goes on to say that according to the Hadith, a collection of sayings and teachings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, that town will be important to the group’s “conquests of Constantinople, then Rome.” Musa Cerantonio, one of the Islamic State’s spiritual authorities who was interviewed in Wood’s article, believes that they will expand to Istanbul then face the army of the antichrist–known as the Dajjal in Islamic scripture.

Dabiq, a small rural town in northern Syria, is crucial to the Islamic State’s ideology and recruiting efforts, though militarily it holds very little importance in terms of their expansion in the Middle East. William McCants at the Brookings Institution explained the importance of Dabiq to the Islamic State in a recent article. According to McCants, conquering Dabiq was extremely important to the organization, so much so that they named their English propaganda magazine after it. ISIS explains the name in its first issue saying, “This place was mentioned in a hadith describing some of the events of the Malahim (what is sometimes referred to as Armageddon in English). One of the greatest battles between the Muslims and the crusaders will take place near Dabiq.”

The Islamic State frequently refers to the town in its publications and videos, and after beheading Peter Kassig a spokesperson for the group said, “Here we are, burying the first American Crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive.” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group’s leader (pictured above), is considered the eighth true caliph–according to the prophecy there will be 12 legitimate caliphs in total.

ISIS’ end-of-days vision is also essential to understanding the group and its desire to form a caliphate. Its belief that its work is bringing the world closer to the judgment day is also very important to recruitment, as its goal may seem much more real and imminent when compared to other radical groups. Since al-Baghdadi declared a caliphate last summer, ISIS has recruited more than 20,000 people from countries all over the world, including over 4,000 from the western world.

While ISIS’ underlying vision is quite chilling, it reveals important details about the group and has important implications for policymakers. One major takeaway is that in many ways ISIS is predictable and its violence is not completely random. The group has clearly stated goals and has set out to pursue them using terror and fear as its methods. ISIS is not random, and to its supporters it is more than just an organization, it is an idea.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the world reacted on Tuesday, horrified, as ISIS released a video of a Jordanian pilot burned alive. The pilot was named Lieutenant Moath al-Kasasbeh, a member of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and only 27 years old. He went missing in December in a mission against ISIS, and was captured by the terrorist organization.

Do not share the monstrous pics of Moath Al-Kasasbeh’s death, let’s remember the pilot for his smile.. #IAmMoathpic.twitter.com/FqekJBfhdz

— Waleed Abu Nada (@waleedabunada) February 3, 2015

ISIS had threatened his death in a supposed sort-of ransom letter to Jordan: the country could either bring terrorist Sajida al-Rishawi to a given place by January 29, or al-Kasasbeh would be killed. Jordan didn’t give in to the demands, saying that it couldn’t release the terrorist unless it was sure that al-Kasasbeh was alive, although Jordanian officials talked openly about releasing al-Rishawi under the right conditions. There was a lot of back and forth, and for a time it looked like Jordan’s negotiations might be effective. Unfortunately, the terms were never met, and the video of al-Kasasbeh’s death was released Tuesday night.

Just a few days before al-Kasasbeh was killed, ISIS killed Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Like al-Kasasbeh, news of Goto’s kiling was released online in video form; however, unlike al-Kasasbeh, Goto was beheaded.

In response to al-Kasasbeh’s killing, Jordan killed two prisoners that it held. One was al-Rishawi, the woman whose release ISIS had demanded. She was a would-be suicide bomber who was involved in an attack on a wedding on November 9, 2005. The group she was with killed 58 people, but her vest failed to detonate. The other prisoner was Ziad Karbouli, who used to be an aide to the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

My heart goes out to the families of al-Kasasbeh and Goto–they were sad, horrific casualties of a bloody and terrifying war. But my brain is left with an overwhelming question: what’s next? Jordan’s attempt at negotiations with ISIS didn’t work out, but what does that mean for other nations?

I was relatively young when 9/11 happened–at least young enough that most of my formal education as it relates to international affairs and politics occurred in a post-9/11 world. Since the War on Terrorism began, one of the most fundamental principles has been that we absolutely, under no circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. In the wake of the horrific killings of al-Kasasbeh and Goto, as well as the killing of Americans such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the question of what nations should do when their people are taken hostage by ISIS, or organizations like ISIS, is cloudier than it has ever been.

It’s by no means simple. First of all, the idea of negotiating with belligerents–not terrorists, necessarily, but state actors, isn’t similarly reviled. Wars can end in a few ways, one of which is by reaching an agreement or peace treaty. That seems straightforward enough–we may negotiate with recognized foreign governments, but not with terrorist groups. But remember the fact that until about 100 years ago, nations and their borders weren’t as concrete as they are now, and it becomes more complicated–the difference between the leader of a nation and of a group aren’t very black and white. Take, for example, the Taliban. When it ruled Afghanistan, was it a terror group, or a government? Or a little bit of both?

The truth is, we’ve been negotiating with, or at least attempting to negotiate with, terrorist groups for years–remember all the intricacies of the Iran-Contra affair? So, why are we so adamant about the fact that we don’t negotiate with terrorists? The Bowe Bergdahl scandal this summer, and the willingness of both sides to slam President Obama over his trade, showed that much of America still staunchly believes in that principle.

I want to be clear here, I’m not saying we should negotiate with terrorists. But I think that the question of how to deal with ISIS is more nuanced than a political buzz-phrase. The negotiations between Jordan and ISIS show just how complicated it really is, and how while the “war on terror” is not necessarily over, a look at our tactics may be in order.

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 Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

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 ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes 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.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

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

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

The world is reeling after the very public slaughter of an American journalist named James Foley.

Although details are still unclear, here’s what we know right now: Foley was taken hostage by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group. According to ISIS, it also has some other American and British hostages — the exact number is unknown, but American officials believe there are at least three other American hostages. Some demands were made, but the United States obviously does not negotiate with terrorists. An unsuccessful rescue attempt was made earlier this summer. Now the news has surfaced that Foley was guarded by a specific group of ISIS militants, British-born, who call themselves “the Beatles.” According to reports, the British jihadists were especially brutal and worthless. A New Hampshire native, Foley was in Syria reporting for the Agence France-Presse and the GlobalPost. He’s been held since November 2012. Earlier this week, he tragically lost his life.

I want to start by saying how tragic and horrible this was — Foley, an innocent bystander, lost his life because he was used as a powerful political pawn. ISIS is expanding its influence and becoming an incredibly powerful and terrifying group in Iraq and Syria — the Foley execution is just another example of that power it now wields.

But it’s important to remember that the move by ISIS was relatively unsurprising. Hostages have been powerful bargaining tools since the beginning of time. As tragic and horrific as Foley’s death was, and I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt in any way to diminish that, it was unremarkable in a historical sense.

The way it’s been handled, however, has been remarkable in every sense of the word. The video of Foley’s execution was uploaded to YouTube. Since then, it has made the rounds of pretty much every corner of the internet. It’s gory, it’s horrifying, and the fact that anyone with an internet connection can now access it pretty easily is a public travesty. Social networks have started banning users who share the video, and various media publications are under fire for their choices to provide either the video or still shots from it.

The New York Post especially received a lot of ire for its decision to show a still from the video on its front page, in print. Where anyone could see it, even if they didn’t want to. I’m no stranger to blood and gore — I have distinct memories of watching that video of Saddam Hussein being executed when I was a freshman in high school. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to force that kind of stuff on people. I follow the news every day, but that’s my choice. I have friends and family who avoid the news — and until this week I have to be honest that I didn’t fully understand why. But when it’s that easy to accidentally see something that disturbing, I get it. Anyone who published this video or pictures is very close to being over the line.

Then there’s the fact that by sharing this video, the power that groups like ISIS can have has been magnified. ISIS claims that it killed James Foley because its demands were not met, and while that may be true, there’s another motive here. ISIS is an organization that relies heavily on terroristic tactics. The thing about terrorism though is it works really, really well if people know about it. Every time that video is shared or a screengrab is published, ISIS gains more power in the form of fear to wield.

I know I’m in the qualification for a hypocritical lifetime achievement award now that I’ve just spent the last 600-odd words writing about the very people I’m encouraging you not to give attention to, but I’ll leave you with this: my condolences go out to Foley’s loved ones. That’s where our minds should be, not watching the perverse and horrifying circumstances of his death, for so many different reasons.

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 Don’t Watch the Foley Video 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.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Update 1:45pm: This shouldn’t affect the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, although he has required to stay within New York City since last month after Syrian-Americans complained that he had been traveling around the US trying to rally support for Assad’s government.

Update 12:50pm: Here’s another tweet speculating as to the timing of the Syrian Embassy shutdown.

Is this how the US will ramp up pressure on Moscow? By taking a harder line with his friend Assad? http://t.co/KeuG4cl4iu #Crimea #Syria

— Katie Johnston (@katieaj2310) March 18, 2014

I tend to agree that there may be some merit in these theories. The US is currently locked in a game of cat and mouse with Russia over the Crimea issue. President Obama has been pressured by both sides of the aisle to take action. This move to shut down the Syrian Embassy and declare all of Assad’s people in the US persona non grata may send a message to Russia about the kind of leader Obama really is.

Original Story:

As of today, the Syrian Embassy in the United States has been shut down. According to an unnamed source in the State Department, the US government has shut down the Syrian Embassy in DC, as well as all the consulates throughout the United States. Any members of the Assad regime still in the United States have been asked to leave immediately. The Syrian Embassy’s website confirms that it will no longer be in operation, beginning today.

This is a big deal. Given that the US embassy in Syria has been shuttered since February, indications that relations are incredibly strained are nothing new, but this is a huge move on the United States’ part.

There is also an unconfirmed State Department release floating around Facebook and Twitter that reads as follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
For Immediate Release March 18, 2014
2014
STATEMENT BY SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SYRIA, DANIEL RUBINSTEIN

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Syrian revolution. For three years, Bashar al-Asad has refused to heed the call of the Syrian people to step aside. He has directed a war against his own people and created a humanitarian catastrophe in order to hold on to power and protect his narrow interests.

Following the announcement that the Syrian Embassy has suspended its provision of consular services, and in consideration of the atrocities the Asad regime has committed against the Syrian people, we have determined it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States.

Consequently, the United States notified the Syrian government today that it must immediately suspend operations of its Embassy in Washington, DC and its honorary consulates in Troy, Michigan, and Houston, Texas. Syrian diplomats at the Embassy and Syrian honorary consulates are no longer permitted to perform diplomatic or consular functions and those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must depart the United States.

Despite the differences between our governments, the United States continues to maintain diplomatic relations with the state of Syria as an expression of our longstanding ties with the Syrian people, an interest that will endure long after Bashar al-Asad leaves power.

The United States will continue to assist those seeking change in Syria, to help end the slaughter, and to resolve the crisis through negotiations – for the benefit of the Syrian people

This is a breaking story, so we’ll have some updates for you throughout the day, but for now, here are some things to keep in mind as the story unfolds: This is a big move on the part of the United States; it was done quickly and quietly and we still don’t know how Syria will react. Also, there is speculation that this may be a message  to Russia regarding the conflict in the Ukraine. But I think we can all agree this is a huge moment — stay here for updates as this story unfolds. 

Took 3 yrs for @StateDept to shut down Syrian embassy. Timing likely also a signal to Russia. Will Syria opposition be given recognition?

— Kim Ghattas (@BBCKimGhattas) March 18, 2014

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [WikiMedia]

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 Syrian Embassy in US Shut Down appeared first on Law Street.