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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

A new report released last week found that the U.S. ranked first again in global arms sales, selling $40 billion worth of weapons in 2015–about half of all arms agreements worldwide.

With $15 billion worth of signed contracts, France was the second most lucrative seller. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, revealed its findings to Congress last week.

According to the author of the review, Catherine Theohary, the report is meant to “assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests.”

“Knowing the extent to which foreign government arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront,” wrote Theohary.

The U.S. and France both sold more weapons contracts than they did in 2014; the U.S. by about $4 billion  and France by more than $9 billion. Despite this, overall trade was down in 2015.

Total global arms trades dropped from $89 billion in 2014 to $79.9 billion in 2015. Russia was another big player on the production side, selling $11.1 billion worth of arms in 2015. 

So who is buying these weapons? Developing nations–Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia–are the primary consumers of weapons pouring out of places like the U.S., Europe, and China.

Last year, developing nations purchased roughly $65 billion in arms worldwide, with Qatar ($17 billion), Egypt ($12 billion), and Saudi Arabia (over $8 billion) as the largest customers. One of America’s biggest buyers, Saudi Arabia, is embroiled in a civil war in Yemen. Critics say it is using U.S.-supplied munitions to indiscriminately bomb cities and towns.

“The larger valued arms transfer agreements with the United States in 2015 with developing nations included multiple agreements with Saudi Arabia to provide, among other things, munitions and associated accessories and Patriot PAC-3 missiles for over $7 billion,” the report found.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government blocked defense contractor Raytheon from selling 16,000 munitions to Saudi Arabia. The contract was valued at $350 million. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at the time that the Obama administration “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” inflicted by the Saudi-led coalition 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 U.S. Topped 2015 Arms Market With $40 Billion in Weapons Deals 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.

Death at a funeral: a horrific prospect. But that is what happened on Saturday in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, when more than 100 mourners were blown to bits or crushed under a crumbling reception hall. Over 500 more were wounded. Likely the result of Saudi airstrikes, Saturday’s attack could be a turning point in the two-year conflict between the Saudi Arabia-backed government and a rebel group backed by a former president.

According to a statement by U.S. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, the U.S., which has supported the Saudis with arms and border security, might rethink its position. “U.S. security cooperation with Saudi Arabia is not a blank check,” the statement said. “Even as we assist Saudi Arabia regarding the defense of their territorial integrity, we have and will continue to express our serious concerns about the conflict in Yemen and how it has been waged.”

The conflict in Yemen–which began in 2014, but the Saudi-led coalition joined in 2015–has been a test of the decades-old alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Saudi airstrikes have decimated cities across Yemen, which borders Saudi Arabia to the south. According to a United Nations report, nearly 4,000 civilians have been killed since the Saudis entered the battle last March. Approximately 60 percent of those deaths were caused by Saudi airstrikes. The rest were attributed to the rebels and jihadist groups.

Saturday’s strikes came at a time when the government of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi and his rivals, the Houthi rebel group and forces loyal to the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, were nearing peace talks. But that prospect seems unlikely after Saturday.

Some of the top leaders who supported the peace talks were killed in the airstrikes. In addition, survivors and opponents of Saudi Arabia are calling for retaliatory attacks.

“They killed and injured several important moderate leaders who were working with them, who wanted a deal,” April Longley Alley, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, told the New York Times. “Now the desire for revenge is high, and militants will be empowered, which puts us in a situation where a compromise might not be possible.”

More signs that peace is a far-off hope came early Morning morning: Saudi Arabia said it intercepted two missiles fired from Yemen toward two cities in the kingdom.

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 Saudi-Led Airstrikes Kill 140 in Yemen on Saturday 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.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

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 The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

Push a button, kill people thousands of miles away: who is surprised that PTSD is a result? United States pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are not immune to the devastation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite their relative physical distance from carnage.

Often framed as the ruggedly masculine problem of a “drone warrior,” the PTSD of drone pilots has a history of being valorized by journalists: GQ’s introduction to a piece on Airman First Class Brandon Bryant’s drone-induced PTSD describes him as having “hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar.” Writing about “terrorists” (many civilians are killed by drone attacks) like they are not human (“hunting”?!), much of the journalism surrounding drone pilots’ PTSD valorizes the suffering of white, straight men as being “for the sake of their country.”

There are exceptions, of course: some journalists slam drone attacks as murder (see video above). However, regarding drone pilots and PTSD, the glorification of American masculinity generally rules the day. Bryant, for instance, tugged at the sympathy of readers when his PTSD was framed by various news sources as being a burden on his sex and love life, turning women away from him and isolating him from potential peers. Even pieces covering PTSD that do sometimes challenge U.S. policy as opposed to glorifying the grit of traumatized male soldiers still leaves readers with the impression that, even if the public is not entitled to know all the details that make drone attacks “necessary,” drone pilots “probably know” (implying, of course, that there are, in fact, justifications for these strikes).

Now don’t get me wrong: PTSD is PTSD, and I would never, ever wish its horrific and suffocating grip on anyone, no matter what they’ve done.

And yet. And yet. Not all PTSD is created equal.

In the context of the U.S. engaging in another war in Iraq (to the tune of depressingly little [or little covered] organized public outrage), the coverage of PSTD in drone pilots is again—and again, and again–on the rise.

What purpose does this serve?

Focusing on U.S. drone pilots having PTSD is important: it is itself horrific and demands attention, and it also may help draw the attention of those who may otherwise find drone attacks unqualified successes. But focusing on the PTSD of U.S. pilots detracts focus from where it really needs to be: the traumas and horrendous death and psychological tolls that drone attacks inflict in countries of color. When “precise” drone strikes target 41 people but end 1,147 human lives, certainly the discussion should be broader than the (undeniably horrendous) pain of the (in media coverage) white American men who pulled the triggers. We must use this coverage of PTSD to expand the conversation to discuss the myriad ways that U.S.-inflicted terrorism in countries of color privileges the terrible traumas of U.S. soldiers at the expense of confronting the mass traumas and mass murders that the U.S. is inflicting through drone attacks.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Al-Saud Family

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

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

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

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

The Road to Succession

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

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

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

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

Challenges for the New King

Oil Prices

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

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

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

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

ISIS

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia’s Neighbors

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

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

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

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

Internal Struggles

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Resources

Primary

Embassy of Saudi Arabia: History of Saudi Arabia

Additional

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

Al Jazeera: The Question of Succession in Saudi Arabia

Daily Star: For Saudi Arabia Problems Abound All Around

Economist: Why the Oil Price is Falling

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

Huffington Post: Saudi Succession Raises Questions For ISIS Fight

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

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

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

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

Yemen is a small country on the Arabian Peninsula bordered by Saudi Arabia to the north, Oman to the east, the Red Sea to the west, and the Gulf of Aden to the South. While geographically small and relatively isolated, Yemen is currently having a major impact on world politics. This recent attention is due to a current vacuum of power, which depending on the outcome, threatens to strengthen a powerful branch of Al Qaeda.

The path to this point however, is about as clear as the current situation on the ground there–that is to say, very unclear. Nonetheless, here is what you need to know about the history of the nation, highlights of the major groups wrestling for control, and important considerations as Yemen moves forward.

History

Yemen’s legacy is very impressive. At the time of the Roman Empire, Yemen was a thriving trade center, which served as a sort of central point between Europe and Indian ports to the east. Yemen was also a very diverse place, and home to large Christian and Jewish populations until it was conquered during the Islamic expansion of the eighth century AD.

From then up until the nineteenth century, Yemen was primarily ruled by a succession of Zaidi dynasties, a sect of Shia Islam. That era ended with the British annexation of Aden, the principle port of Yemen, in 1832. In 1904, the British and the Ottomans agreed to divide the country in half, with the British ruling the south and the Ottomans overseeing the north. After independence, as well as years of fighting between royalists, colonial powers, and even communist groups, the country finally united again in 1990; however, political divisions linger, which has led to continued infighting.

This infighting is perhaps best personified through former president Ali Abdallah Saleh. Saleh became the leader of then-North Yemen in 1978. He increased and consolidated his power, becoming leader of the combined Yemen in 1990. In 1994 he put down an attempted partition of the country by southern dissidents who felt marginalized in the newly combined state. From then until 2011 Saleh continued as president. While he continuously dealt with insurgent groups, his power was never legitimately threatened.

Arab Spring

The situation changed in 2011 as the Arab Spring movement swept into Yemen. Unrest began with a demonstration that January that forced Saleh to agree to not seek re-election. Saleh’s efforts at appeasement failed and protests mounted, leading him to impose a violent crackdown. The violence only continued when, that April, he refused to sign an agreement to hand over power, despite the fact that the agreement was authored by his own party. Eventually, Saleh was injured by a bombing and had to travel abroad for medical treatment. In November 2011, several months after his return, he finally agreed to cede power to his lieutenant, Adrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The group that had opposed Saleh during the uprising was a complex mix including socialists, secularists, and moderate Islamists. One of the most important opposition groups was the Islah Party, or the Yemeni branch of the Islamic Brotherhood, which ultimately came to dominate the movement.

The protests ended with a semi-bipartisan government. Although Saleh was indeed forced to leave power, his party was given half the seats in the new parliament and he was granted immunity.  The rest of the Parliament was made up of members of Islah.

Thus, while Saleh finally gave up control after 33 years of rule, the violence did not stop because none of the issues that caused the conflict in the first place had actually been resolved, and new issues arose from dissatisfaction over the new government. Following his ascension, new President Hadi had to contend with a new variety of violent factions, most notably an Al Qaeda-affiliated group and Zaidi rebels.

These Zaidi rebels are known as the Houthis, a Shia group from the mountainous north who feel marginalized by the new government, composed of a mix of Islah and Saleh supporters. Due to this perceived marginalization this group has continued fighting and has now occupied the capital city, Sanaa.

Current Situation

The current situation in Yemen can best be described as chaotic. Just last week President Hadi, the prime minister, and his entire cabinet resigned following an attempted peace deal between the government and the Houthi rebels. The government resigned because they no longer wanted to be part of the standoff with the Houthis. Who exactly is in charge in Yemen right now is completely unclear. Observers worry that this power vacuum could lead to continued conflict, or open up control of Yemen to terroristic control.

The Houthis, as touched on earlier, are a Shi’ite Zaidi rebel group from northern Yemen. Their name comes from their former leader, Hussein Badr al-Din al Houthi, who led an unsuccessful uprising in 2004 and was killed later that year. The Houthis’ main issue with the Yemeni government is their perceived marginalization as Shias in a Sunni-dominated nation. They also strongly oppose the United States, the most prominent example of which comes from one of their slogans, which translates in part to “death to America, death to Israel.”

Other Players

Iran’s Role

The Houthis have been linked to Iran. Similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis are a minority Shia group fighting in a nation with a sizable majority-Sunni population in Yemen. Following the uprising against the government, Iranian officials proclaimed their public support for the Houthi rebels. Nonetheless, the Houthi rebels deny any direct backing from Tehran or any Iranian supporters.

AQAP

AQAP, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was formed in 2009 by terrorists from Yemen and Saudi Arabia under the direction of Nasir al-Wahishi and is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. The goal of the organization is to reestablish a caliphate on the Arabian Peninsula. While the group had performed numerous attacks already in Saudi Arabia and on Western nationals, it came to prominence globally with the failed bombing of a U.S. flight over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. AQAP was also responsible for another failed attempt to detonate bombs hidden in printer cartridges bound for the U.S. on cargo planes in 2010.

The organization was also home to the American cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Using Awlaki’s teachings, the group also tried to reach out to dissatisfied westerners; it even had its own magazine, Inspire. In 2011 the group was able to conquer a sizable amount of territory before it was repelled a year later by the Yemeni military. Nevertheless, it continued planning attacks against American and Yemeni targets, and in 2013 the threat was serious enough that the United States closed several locations in the area. Most recently, AQAP claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris. Now it’s one of the many groups operating in Yemen, and complicating the situation further.

U.S. Interests

Prior to 2000, Yemen’s most well known interaction with the United States seemed to be its denunciation of the first Gulf War. This all changed in 2000 with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden, which killed 17 American service personnel. Nevertheless, following the attack, U.S. involvement in Yemen remained minor, consisting of covert operations to capture specific targets and occasional airstrikes; however, since the unrest following the Arab Spring protests in 2011, the number of air strikes has increased dramatically.

Specifically of interest is the increased use of drones to carry out these attacks. This reached a height following the killing of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki without due process. While the Obama Administration eventually produced a memo from the Department of Justice signing off on the attack, it has been heavily criticized and is still being debated. While the debate may rage on, this past Monday the U.S. launched another drone strike against Yemen, the first since the Hadi government resigned. The video below gives a brief recap and summary of the major players in Yemen.

Important Considerations Moving Forward

With all these groups jostling for control in Yemen, what’s on the radar moving forward? First is the role of the Houthis. Since their coup and the resignation of the government, the Houthis seem to be hesitant to claim power for themselves, which has left some experts wondering if they can or even want to. Something that does seem certain going forward is the Houthis will, while not necessarily trying to run the future government, at least increase their status and avoid any perception of marginalization again.

Another concern is the role of Iran. While the Houthis have denied direct support from Tehran it is quite possible that Iran or its allies, such as Hezbollah, have provided weapons to the Houthis; however, this revolution is Yemen-centric, so it is important to not give Iran too much weight. Nevertheless, with Iran and Saudi Arabia locked in an ongoing proxy war, this does potentially present Iran with another opportunity to empower a Shia Islamic movement.

In the meantime however, this has opened Yemen to increased chaos. This could very likely help AQAP attract new members who are unsatisfied with the government and weary of the advancing rebels. AQAP might also be increasingly hard for the U.S. to target in Yemen without government support and an unfriendly Houthi regime in charge. Furthermore, there are also fears of succession in the south, which is something Saudi Arabia has long favored.

For the U.S., Yemen offers no resources or other tangible benefits; however, its proximity to Saudi Arabia, a major oil producer, as well as the presence of AQAP, the only Al Qaeda branch since 9/11 to attempt attacks on the American homeland, will likely keep the United States interested at the very least. The video that follows discusses several of the possibilities looming in Yemen’s future.

Conclusion

Yemen is in a chaos bordering on failure. Its government has resigned and in its place is a rebel tribe, possibly backed by Iran, and an Al Qaeda offshoot vying for power. Amid all this anarchy the average citizen remains poor, hungry, and likely very afraid.

Yemen’s role alongside the U.S. is also in doubt. Without a loyal government, U.S. counterterrorism efforts could take a hit, which is especially troubling as the AQAP is perhaps the most dangerous Al Qaeda branch beyond its own borders, as exemplified by the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Therefore while Yemen hashes out its internal politics, the whole region and world will be paying close attention. The results could have ramifications far beyond its borders and affect more than just its inhabitants.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Yemen: Background and U.S. Relations

Additional 

Time: A Brief History of Yemen

BBC: Yemen Profile

BBC: Arab Uprising

CNN: Yemen’s President, Cabinet Resign

BBC: Yemen Crisis: Who Are the Houthis

NPR: Who Are the Houthis of Yemen?

Global Security: Al Qaeda Organization

Al Arabiya: Yemen’s Houthis

BBC: Yemen Crisis

The New York Times: Anwar Al-Awlaki

Daily Star:  Yemen’s Crisis

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 Yemen: Anarchy at the Edge of the Arabian Peninsula appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

Drones: depending on whom you ask, drones are either the military instruments of the future, or the machines that will incite humanity’s destruction. But no matter how you feel about drones, unmanned aerial vehicles in various forms have been used in combat for years.

The United States may have to answer for their use of drones in the weeks to come. Two United Nations experts by the names of Christof Heyns and Ben Emmerson, have released large UN reports on the overall use of drones. The crux of these reports is a demand for greater transparency from countries who use drones—and for the United States to release more robust data on their use of drones.

According to the United Nations, 33 different drone strikes have been detected that have resulted in the death of civilians. According to the government of Pakistan, since 2004 there have been about 330 drone strikes in the northwest territory of Pakistan. These strikes have supposedly resulted in the deaths of 2200 people, 400 of which have been civilians. Emmerson has stated that in Yemen, up to 58 civilians may have been killed by drones.

In the United States, the CIA is inextricably linked to the use of drones. As a result, much of the information about US drone use is classified.  In his report, Emmerson slams this, stating that it creates, “an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency.” Emmerson claims that the United States does not accurately self report the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes.

There are serious international law issues tied in with the killing of civilians. International law is a somewhat vague and grey field; although the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and various tribunals exist, international law still remains a very abstract idea.

At the risk of over-simplifying a very complicated topic, a brief discussion of international law on the topic of civilian killings can be had. This topic falls under the category of International Humanitarian Law, sometimes referred to by its Latin name jus in bello, used to regulate actions during war. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I specifically deals with protections afforded to countries involved in international armed conflicts. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I does contain protections for civilians, but the United States has not ratified it.

The United Nation’s implications that US actions may violate international law unfortunately fall on mostly deaf ears. The United States is not going to be brought before a tribunal or a court, at best the United Nations can condemn US drone actions, but there really isn’t any action they can take that will show any sort of teeth. The question of the future of drones and their applicability to conflict, will not be answered with these United Nations reports.

[The Guardian]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Don McCullough via Flickr]

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 The United Nations and Drones appeared first on Law Street.