Iran's Response: Trying to Play the Game

In the wake of the UN's blistering offensive against nuclear proliferation lead by the new head of the UN Security Council, President Obama, Iran responded in a manner more suiting to North Korea. The fact of the matter is that Iran is beginning to squirm under the pressure and their actual power in the structure of world powers is beginning to emerge along with their grasp of the diplomatic process.

In my last post, I talked about the subtleties of diplomacy between Russia and the US. When it comes to the subject, Russia and the US have a long and rich history and provide us with a wealth of diplomatic back and forth from which we can perceive plenty of patterns and innuendo. But, the fact of the matter is that the relationship between Russia and the US is unique because it involves complex economic and military elements. Also, while the Cold War helped revolutionize the diplomatic process, it is more of an exception than a rule due to its one-of-a-kind nature. What we see in the back and forth between Russia and the US is like a ballet or a game of chess.

When it comes to countries like Iran or North Korea, diplomacy is more like a bull fight. North Korea is notorious for agreeing to terms and then reversing course, usually with a new round of missile tests and public condemnations of the West. They employ this strategy because, in the past, it gives them short term leverage to get resources including food, medical supplies, and oil. Iran, faced with becoming as isolated as North Korea, is beginning to adopt the same strategy in order to fight off a new round of international sanctions.

After the recent meetings on nuclear proliferation, Iran has issued biting criticism of the UN, saying that they are simply following orders from Western powers, while re-affirming their rights to nuclear energy in the same breath. They followed up their public rantings with a fresh round of missile tests, showing off a new short range missile that wouldn't take too much modification to be nuclear capable. Together, these two events show that Iran is becoming desperate. Instead of engaging the UN and following through on their promise to open up their sites to IAEA inspection, Iran issues blistering criticisms and puts on the military version of a dog and pony show, thinking that it will get them some kind of leverage.

The gut check here is one of chagrin. Things got a lot worse for North Korea before they got any kind of material concessions from the West. Considering the the fact that the recently revealed secret nuclear facility is near a military base, Iran's "diplomatic gestures" are more likely to induce a new round of sanctions than elicit concessions. While the Western world hasn't reached a consensus on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program, things certainly aren't looking peaceful, especially since Iran still hasn't opened up any of their facilities to IAEA inspection, including the not-so-secret facility. Maybe now, Russia won't be so suspicious of our mobile missile interceptors.

Fruits of Our Labors: Squeezing Iran

Current analysis would indicate that the critics were right when they criticized Obama's scrapping of the Euro missile shield, saying it would embolden Russia. In diplomacy, just like in business or any other profession that involves trading or negotiating, all parties have a vested interest in eliciting concessions from the other side while minimizing concessions of their own, especially when it comes to major issues or national interests. The main reason to not make concessions when it comes to one's national interests (in the case of the Euro missile shield, national security) is literal: conceding on one's national interests weakens one's soft and hard power. The secondary reason, having perhaps an even more significant impact, is the fact that making concessions weakens one side's bargaining power and gives opposing sides the perception that the one side is willing to back down, thereby opening the door to aggression by opponents.

However, what often goes unnoticed is that there are two different types of diplomacy: public and private. There is what we as citizens and information consumers see and there is what actually goes on between nations. Simply put, what we read in the news paper and what policy think tanks put out is based on official accounts released by governments and close analysis of news sources. That account isn't always the whole story. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Russia, what we get in the news is rarely the whole story. If you read between the lines, you can begin to see that the current situation over the Euro missile shield isn't exactly how it appears.

When Obama chose to scrap the Euro missile shield, he did compromise on one aspect of our national security. However, the Euro missile shield was a good example of why pursuit of absolute security is in fact counter productive as it was pushing our relationship with Russia to the brink and possibly putting us on the path to a military confrontation. Nixing the Euro missile shield helped our diplomatic position with Russia, giving us a boost in relations and giving us credit with Medvedev. The effects of this concession can be clearly seen in the debate over Iran's nuclear program, a program which would not exist without Russia's assistance. Earlier this month, Russia wholly opposed new sanctions on Iran. Following Obama's scrapping of the Euro missile shield, Russia did a u-turn and now will support new sanctions on Iran while praising Obama's move in the same breath.

With Russia's help, the US is turning up the heat diplomatically on Iran and they are starting to squirm. The first piece of evidence is that Iran spontaneously admitted to the existence of a secret nuclear facility that, by all reports, is still under construction. Of course, Israel wasted no time in declaring this facility a nuclear weapons factory. Iran continued to backpedal, saying that they would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the newly revealed nuclear facility in the hopes that they could beat back accusations that they are violating IAEA regulations. But, their efforts aren't working. The new revelation simply gives the US and international opposition more ammunition in their push for new sanctions. While China is still blocking new sanctions, Russia's change of heart is providing the US with key support that enables us to put the screws to Iran. Remember, Russia is currently the sole source of nuclear fuel to Iran.

The gut check here is fortuitous. Obama's first major diplomatic move is proving effective despite what the critics are saying. He is re-dedicating the US to the diplomatic process and it is paying off. However, the next twelve months are key to testing whether new boosts in relations and new opportunities are utilized or squandered. While Obama's redoubled diplomatic efforts are currently working for Iran, Venezuela is fast becoming a new crisis right in our own backyard. But, now that Obama is heading up the UN Security Council, his re-dedication to diplomacy is going to be infinitely more effective as he now has a direct channel to world leaders and an international body that has the authority to authorize and enforce international actions. While the UN faltered, became stagnant, and even irrelevant under Bush, the UN will be reborn from the ashes under Obama. Hopefully Obama is just as effective at being a world leader as he is at public speaking.

Moving Forward: Scrapping the Euro Shield

So far, Obama's critics have been criticizing him for talking massive amounts of change during the election and failing to follow through on his key word. Until today, Obama hadn't changed much in the field of foreign policy or diplomacy aside from his world tour to reassure world leaders that he had in fact won the election. Today, however, Obama made his first significant change in diplomacy and foreign policy by scrapping the Euro missile defense shield, a major point of friction between the US and Russia toward the end of the Bush administration.

The Euro missile defense shield was a plan developed under the second Bush administration that included radar and missile interceptor stations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia didn't receive this plan very well for a couple of reasons. First, the Bush administration made it extremely arbitrary. They sent then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Russia on a couple of diplomatic visits to essentially inform Russia that the shield was going up rather than to consult with Russia. Second, the reasons that the Bush administration was giving for why the missile shield was needed were seen by the Russians to be invalid and even phony.

Russia didn't respond well to this "inform rather than engage" diplomacy. Russia perceives Eastern Europe to be within its sphere of influence and this missile shield to be a violation of the unwritten balance of power, essentially a form of encroachment by the West. They issued grievances to that end which were ignored. The Bush administration was holding fast to the argument that the missile shield was needed to shoot down any missiles that could be launched by terrorists even though no terrorist group to date had the capability of launching an ICBM. Russia perceived this argument as a smokescreen to the West's true goal of encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence. Putin even went so far as to call it the start of a new Cold War and threaten military action.

But, in his first major break from the Bush administration's style of diplomacy and foreign policy, Obama decided to scrap the Euro missile shield in the hopes that the beginning of a new Cold War would be averted. The gut check here is hopeful and optimistic. Since Obama is actually starting to engage the Russians in diplomacy and showing them that we're willing to make significant changes, he will more than likely succeed in resetting relations between the two countries and increase our soft power with Russia. There are those that already criticize this move by saying that scrapping the Euro shield will embolden Russia, and they're not necessarily wrong. However, Russia is already a resurgent power in the grand scheme of things, and we need to salvage relations between our two countries if we're going to be able to work with them on curbing the Iranian and recently announced Venezuelan nuclear programs. After all, we can't have Russia going around dispensing nuclear technology to countries we think might be trying to make a bomb.

Top Got Topped

In July, two luxury hotels were blown up by suicide bombers in Jakarta, Malaysia. This dastardly act of terrorism came just in time for the anniversary of the Mumbai attacks last year. At the time, no group had come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, but Indonesia authorities had linked it to a Jemaah Islamiyah splinter group lead by a notorious terrorist known as Noordin M. Top.

Today, Top got topped when Indonesian authorities engaged Top and his entourage in a gunfight and ensuing siege. The Indonesian authorities gave him an opportunity to surrender, to which Top and his men answered with more gunfire; so the authorities responded by blowing up the building where Top and his men were hold up.

The gut check here is simple. Top's group was responsible for a dastardly act of terrorism that ended the lives of many civilians. If he had been caught alive, he would have been executed anyway. At least this way they don't have to waste the time and money on conducting a trial. Now, if only we were as effective at hunting down singular terrorist leaders as the Indonesians, bin Laden wouldn't stand a chance. The Indonesians found Top two months after the Jakarta bombings. That's some serious motivation.

Nuclear Proliferation: Venezuela

The newest arrival to the nuclear proliferation party is no longer trouble-making Iran.  After his recent meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has declared that his country will develop nuclear energy with Russian help.  Chavez directly addressed the immediate concern by saying that they're not looking to develop a bomb (like we believe him) so we shouldn't bother with them like we bother with Iran (like we're just going to let it happen).

If Chavez hadn't already been making so much trouble in Latin America / South America, this might have been unexpected.  The fact of the matter is that Chavez and Russia have been so close over the past several years, Russian media calls him "Russia's comrade-in-arms-and-oil."  However, nothing quite illustrates the relationship between the two countries like big numbers, specifically the $20 billion joint oil venture and the $2.2 billion credit for Russian weapons.  Both of those numbers come from deals struck during the same visit as the nuclear technology deal.

But, reading further into that arms deal may provide a bit of information that is relevant to the nuclear energy debate, specifically that Venezuela is buying rockets from Russia.  Chavez has been at the center of arms race controversy with his buying habits over the past several years.  While Chavez insists the military hardware he acquired from Russia is purely for defense, Colombia has to wonder.  Furthermore, one has to wonder if this deal was a form of deterrence for when Chavez breaks the nuclear energy deal to the press.  Whatever the reasons, Chavez can't actually think that breaking this kind of news now with Obama about to head up  the UN Security Council is going to go over well.

The gut check here is incredulous.  While it is believable that Russia is looking to expand their venture into the nuclear energy market, it is completely unbelievable that they haven't learned a single thing from their experiment with Iran.  Iranian nuclear energy hasn't gone smoothly to say the least.  There is an international governmental organization known as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that determines who gets to play with nuclear materials.  Russia circumvented the IAEA on its deal with Iran, and look where that got them.  Russia is once again circumventing the IAEA on a nuclear deal, so they clearly didn't learn that lesson.  Now, Venezuela, of all countries, is the one country that could start a full blown arms race and potentially completely destabilize the entire region.  Assuming that this deal actually goes through, Russia is fast becoming a facilitator of nuclear proliferation, something the UN, the IAEA, and the US are committed to opposing.  This new deal with Venezuela, right in our backyard, promises to produce some political fireworks.

Elections: Politics and Violence

In my post last week, I predicted that Afghanistan's Presidential election last Thursday would not go smoothly. In fact, Afghanistan now faces all of the challenges I outlined: legitimacy concerns, fraud allegations, and continued violence. During the election on Thursday alone, Taliban militia sought to disrupt the voting process by launching a number of attacks that caused polling centers in the South and East to be closed. They also made good on their threat of cutting off the inked fingers of voters in certain areas, specifically women. But, election day violence by the proclaimed enemies of the state is the least of Afghanistan's concerns.

The largest threat to stability, progress, and viability of a democratic system in Afghanistan is legitimacy of the government. Simply put, if people don't believe the elections are legitimate (voting fraud, electioneering, etc.), they will not hold the government to be legitimate. If the government is seen to be fraudulent, the

democratic system will fail and violence will consume that which we have already put so much blood, sweat, and tears into building. Since last Thursday, many allegations have come out about voting fraud. Even the UN is saying that a large portion of votes cast may be fraudulent.

The immediate impact of fraud claims is best exemplified by Iran's Presidential election in June wherein mass protests broke out following the election prompting a months long violent and bloody crackdown on political opposition. A bloody and oppressive crackdown by the government isn't a possibility in Afghanistan because that kind of reaction would completely destroy any legitimacy the government would have had. However, some of the losing candidates are planning to organize mass protests while the leading challenger has previously threatened the same. The likelihood of these protests turning violence, especially if radicals or militants were to show up, is very high.

The gut check here is foreboding. An early release of polling data indicates Karzai has won last Thursday's election in a relative landslide (72% of the vote so far compared to 23% of his biggest challenger). However, that data appears to be inaccurate as this AP article indicates that Karzai and his top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, both have around 40% of the nationwide vote and are headed for a runoff. Unfortunately, a runoff presents a situation that must be scrutinized heavily. If Karzai were to gain a large margin in the vote, it will literally fodder for fraud claims. If the fraud claims aren't handled correctly, independently investigated, and cleared by the UN, things could get very ugly and the consequences for the US's strategy could be dire. As it stands, like an ominous cloud on the horizon, there are almost certainly going to be protests in the coming days and weeks. The only question is will they be big enough and worked up enough to turn violent?

Elections: Mark II

Here in the US, Wednesday the 19th is winding down. In Afghanistan, Wednesday the 19th has already happened. It is a funny thing to think that a place half the world away is experiencing what we would consider the future. However, in the early hours of election day in Afghanistan (it is after 1 am on Thursday the 20th at the time of this writing), two things have become clear: there will be blood and there will be controversy.

After yesterday's posting, an attack occurred in the heart of Kabul wherein insurgents caused the deaths of civilians and American troops, indicating that they are unafraid of walking directly into the lions den in order to cause fear and chaos ahead of the election. However, that being said, Afghani voters are turning out to register and vote in former Taliban strong holds or under direct threat of violence by the Taliban, indicating that Afghanis are too invested in achieving peace and democracy to be stopped by fear.

The gut check here is optimistic. Election day is underway and the polls officially open in mere hours. Even though violence occurred on Wednesday and many were hurt while several died (including poll workers), Afghani security forces are on alert and Afghani voters will not be deterred. These are promising signs that Afghanistan will make it through Thursday's Presidential election, even if it isn't unscathed.

Election For Sale

Thursday in Afghanistan promises to be a day of reckoning for not only Hamid Karzai and his government but also for larger Western efforts to turn a state that's existed in a haphazard tribal system for centuries into a functioning democracy. Karzai is running for his second term as Afghanistan's President since he was hand picked by the US, then under President Bush, for his charismatic and strong political nature. However, since he won the first Presidential election in 2004, Karzai's government has suffered routine setbacks in battling insurgents as well as widespread corruption while also failing to extend its authority beyond the capital city of Kabul.

But, corruption within and actual authority of the government are only two parts of the legitimacy issue in Thursday's elections. The legitimacy of the elections themselves is in peril due to increased violence in towns around voting polls as well as direct threats from the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Also, election monitors won't be able to be present in dangerous areas, presenting an opportunity for vote fraud. But, the ultimate challenge to legitimacy will be the outcome. More than one candidate has employed political manipulation tactics by claiming violent unrest will occur if they are not the winner or overtly accusing Karzai of stealing the election. These types of claims and political manipulations increase the likelihood of violence in the instance that the elections are not decisive and legitimacy challenges are not addressed properly and openly.

The gut check here is very anxious. This election is the make or break point for President Obama's redoubled efforts in Afghanistan and the future of any Afghani government, plain and simple. There will certainly be legitimacy challenges following Thursday's vote, and, if they aren't handled properly, violent unrest a la Iran is a very real possibility. US and allied forces are already involved in a protracted battle against resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda forces; having to deal with violence by citizens not affiliated with insurgency would make an already nightmarish war zone nearly impossible to navigate, much less subdue. Another valid issue is how the losers will react. While there are more than forty challengers facing Karzai, only a few have a real chance. If Karzai wins, will those few leaders concede or push legitimacy challenges and urge protest among their followers? Too much is riding on this election for Thursday to go off without a hitch.

Unstable Ally

In the US's campaign in Afghanistan, much is dependent on our ally to the South East, Pakistan. Since most of the fighting between US and allied forces is taking place along the mountainous and desolate border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other insurgents have enjoyed unfettered movement across the border and made outlying villages in the Pashtun province their main recruiting grounds. In fact, you may remember the foreign policy fiasco during the 2008 Presidential elections when Sarah Palin was "ambushed" in a restaurant by a voter who asked her if she would pursue terrorists across the border into Pakistan with air support to which she replied that she would. US excursions across the border into Pakistan was and is still a major problem between the two countries.

During the Bush administration, the campaign in Afghanistan, arguably much more important than Iraq, suffered a great deal of backsliding. But, Pakistan, then under Musharraf, was more subordinate to the US in terms of military action. However, towards the end of the Bush administration, air strikes and other excursions across the border became a major rallying cry of extremist Islamic groups that slowly pushed Musharraf to the breaking point. Following his manipulations of the government (such as illegally declaring state of emergency powers, attempting to dismiss the Chief Justice, and stacking the high court in his favor) and other political functions (such as postponing the elections planned for November 2008), Musharraf was forced out of office by both Islamic extremist groups and legitimate political parties who would no longer stand on the sidelines and suffer military dictatorship.

However, as soon as Musharraf's government became unstable, Islamic extremist groups seized on the opportunity to increase their size and influence, most notably the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, Afghanistan and the US aren't the only targets of Pakistani terrorist groups. The terrorist attack in Mumbai, India last year that halted the peace process between the two countries was perpetrated by an Islamic militant group based out of Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Pakistan seems to be slowly losing control over its own security when it can't even bring charges against the alleged leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed.

The gut check here is much scarier than the growing numbers of terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In the past two years, Pakistani nuclear weapons facilities have been attacked by terrorist three times. Given that the relationship between India and Pakistan has proven to be one of the world's three most likely scenarios for regional or global nuclear war when it was just the governments of the two countries going at it, the idea of a terrorist group obtaining even one nuclear weapon from Pakistan is downright terrifying. Never mind just buying one from a rogue state like Iran or North Korea, terrorists have a better chance of straight up overwhelming an already unstable security mechanism to the point that Pakistan loses control of their nuclear facilities. We shouldn't be afraid of a state like Iran that doesn't have nukes yet. We should be afraid of a state that loses complete control over the nukes they already have.

New Promises, Old War

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Africa to issue a new pledge of support for Somalia in its on-going conflict with insurgent group Al Shabaab. Secretary Clinton also issued a sharp rebuke to neighboring Eritrea for its alleged support of Al Shabaab and promised to pursue sanctions. But, at a time when our armed forces are stretched thin and entirely committed to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, what kind of support can we actually give?

Somalia has been plagued by war since the 1970's and has essentially been under failed state status since the beginning of the Somali Civil War in the early 1990's. Extremist Islamic groups began consolidating power by recruiting local war lords from 2004 to present. Ethiopia intervened and, together with African Union forces as well as international military support including US gunships, shut down the radical Islamic pseudo government called the Islamic Courts Union. But, in early 2009, Ethiopia withdrew, leaving behind the AU peacekeepers who were wholly unprepared for the coming rewnewal of conflict.

Here in the US, we only recently gained insight into new developments in Somalia when several Somali immigrants suddenly returned to Somalia to take part in the resurgent civil war. The catalyst was when one of the naturalized US citizens returned to Somalia and became the first American to ever carry out a suicide bombing. Now, Somalia is suddenly back on the map in terms of foreign policy. The country is under constant assault from a terrorist organization (Al Shabaab) known to have ties to Al Qaeda.

So why don't we have troops there? Simply put, we don't have the man power. The US can't afford to send valuable logistical resources and troops to Somalia when we are already falling behind in Afghanistan and trying to finish out the campaign in Iraq. Also, the infamous Black Hawk Down scenario is a sharp reminder of how easy it can be to get bogged down in Somalia.

The gut check here is rather bitter. Somalia is one of those places where we should have done it right the first time, but politics got in the way of conducting military opperations. Now, years later, Somalia is a breeding ground for Al Qaeda. But, the fact that the AU is beginning to stand on its own changes the situation dramatically. If an AU lead operation were to be successful in Somalia with help from the international community, the AU would gain extreme amounts of credibility in conflict solving. Right now, Secretary Clinton's diplomatic strategy, putting the pressure on those who supply Al Shabaab (allegedly Eritrea) and other insurgent groups, is the prudent course. If it gets to the point where we have to send military forces, I hope we send something harder to hit with an RPG than a black hawk.

Operation Treadmill

While the world was preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan quietly became more and more lost. Now, with Iraq winding down, the upcoming round of elections is providing a critical review of democratic progress in Afghanistan. With Karzai facing down two main challengers in a field of contestants, the elections themselves are far from decided, much less guaranteed to even happen given a new outbreak of violence. At issue is whether or not the US has succeeded in creating a secure environment in which democracy can flourish.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US presence in Afghanistan has done little to provide security. The Taliban as well as other insurgent groups have enjoyed tacit freedom in the no-mans-land area on the boarder betwen Pakistan and Afghanistan due to the extreme complexity of the terrain. As a result, the Taliban and other insurgent groups have been able to essentially ressurect their forces and produce a new wave of violence that is threatening the stability of the upcoming Afghani elections. In fact, reports indicate that Taliban and Afghani insurgents have reached a new level of sophistication in guerrilla warfare that has significantly increased their operating range, their combat effectiveness, and their overall lethality.

Part of the reason the mission Afghanistan has slid so far backwards is the policies and strategies of the Bush adminstration. Under Bush, the US basically contracted local war lords to provide intelligence and regional security. As a result, the war lords were basically given the freedom to enlarge their private armies and run their opium poppy trade, leading to a massive boom in the Afghani heroin trade. This drug trade boom put money directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In response to this backsliding, President Obama announced his new plan for Afghanistan at the end of May and later developed a new drug policy.

But, even if his strategic plan enjoys marginal success, it is no guarantee that the US's political plans for Afghanistan succeed. In 2001, Karzai looked like the best choice to lead Afghanistan given that he would work closely with the US and had the charisma and character needed to lead. Now, he presides over what is largely seen as a corrupt government. The lesson that the US has continuously failed to learn is that we can't simply choose who should lead a country, the leader has to be organically chosen.

The gut check here is that Afghanistan is in a very precarious position. US forces have a long way to go to guarantee stability. If it's too dangerous, the elections might not be viable. If it is stable enough but the US is too involved, the elections will be seen as biased or even rigged. But, if the US holds too much back and the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or some other insurgent group have too much freedom to influence the voting, the Taliban could enjoy a political revitalization as well. The key is to provide a secure atmosphere so the elections can be held free of violence while not influencing the voting in any way.

Kangaroo Court

Today, Iran held trials for numerous individuals involved in protests after the recent Presidential elections. Those arrested include civillians active in the post-elections protests and prominent pro-reform politicians, indicating that anyone who opposes the government is not safe. No verdicts or sentences have been given yet, but the details and allegations from the trials that have already come out show that this is clearly no court of law.

The fifteen page indicment alleges that the defendants attacked government forces and buildings, have links to armed rebel groups, and conspired against the ruling system. More accusations allege that the groups that the pro-reform politicians represent took money from foreign entities (read: the West) in a year long plot to bring about a velvet revolution. Nevermind that the pro-reform parties might have real interests in changing the course of Iranian politics, they were clearly trying to overthrow the government by engaging in a peaceful, democratic elections process.

The gut check here is disgusting. Ahmadinejad's regime calls this a trial, but it's clearly all for show. The defendants weren't allowed access to lawyers. There are allegations that some were tortured to obtain false confessions. These people are being put on trial for what amounts to treason because Ahmadinejad's regime couldn't handle people questioning their legitimacy. Instead of addressing the questions of legitimacy with openness, they decided to kill a bunch of people, throw some more in jail and torture them. Now they're trying to politically manipulate the situation by having a "trial"? Don't think that this is a trial, or even a court of law, not for one second.

Crumbling Tower

Over the past couple of days, stories about what has happened to the protesters arrested in Iran have begun to emerge. Here in the US, we enjoy great freedom when it comes to protesting being that it is a guaranteed right under our constitution. We can assemble a protest on any sidewalk in any city and expect that the most that would be hurled at us would be insults. Not so in Iran where in the weeks after the recent election many protesters have been killed and many more have been jailed and beaten.

In the wake of the Presidential elections nearly two months past, Ahmadinejad's regime unleashed the Basij militia, it's own political dissent stomping machine, to round up protesters and engage in enough fear mongering to deter any more protesting. The bodies started to pile up early on in the violent crackdown. Despite Iran's complete reporting blackout of the protests, some protesters were able to get coverage out over user input sites like youtube, where the footage of the death of the Iranian girl dubbed "Neda" became the rallying cry of the opposition.

Official numbers from the Iranian government put the death toll at twenty, but independent reports suggest that the true number is over one hundred. Even more shocking news is that bodies showing signs of great abuse have been coming out of the detention centers where protesters are being held. Those who experienced the ordeal and lived through are affraid to tell their tale out of fear of reprisal. But, there are the brave few who have stepped forward to share their stories of horror.

Dark, putrid cells filled past capacity with detainees. Constant beatings from the guards. Various forms of psychological and physical abuse. The abuse got so bad that, once a prominent conservative politician's son was beaten to death, Ayatollah Khamenei had to step in and close the Kahrizak detention center. Instead of this helping the situation, however, the very fact that Iran's supreme leader had to intervene has galvanized the opposition and even sent some conservatives to the other side. The fact of the matter is that it should never have gotten to the point where a detention center needed to be closed.

The gut check here is interesting. Ahmadinejad's regime seems to have blinked and taken a step back. They realize that their brutal tactics are now turning the people against them and it certainly hasn't been long enough for people to forget about the accusations of corruption and fraud during the Presidential election. Iran is sure to get criticism from all sides, internationally, now that the details of protester abuses are coming out. The internal pressure is building and the political opposition doesn't appear to be letting up. Frankly, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are out of options. They can't continue the violent crackdown because it will just turn more of their allies against them. They can't keep blaming foreign influences (read: the West) for their political turmoil because it's becoming clear that it is self-inflicted. They can't keep dodging questions of legitimacy because it's empowering the opposition. They have only one move left: start making concessions.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for anyone drops to zero. This quote from the movie Fight Club is literally and conceptually applicable to any international crisis situation, especially the current situation between Iran and Israel. It's always a question of time, like, given enough time, anyone with means and motive will carry out an action. Plug in Iran and nuclear weapons and, given enough time, Iran will develop nuclear weapons because they have the means and the motive. The only thing that is deceptively unclear is the true motive.

If you ask any one person what they think about Iran, nukes, and Israel, the ensuing conversation is going to be the same thing every time. Iran is evil; they're trying to get nukes to wipe Israel off the planet. Of course you can't blame anyone for thinking that, the second half of that statement looks like a direct quote from an Ahmadinejad speach. But, consider this: if you look at a map of the Middle East, Iran is situated directly between Iraq and Afghanistan, currently home to thousands of US troops. Iran has also been the subject of much sabre rattling over the past five or so years. Factor in the long running conflict between Israel and surrounding hardline Islamic regimes and you've got a massive powder keg that can be set off by any of three sparks: US aggression from Iraq or Afghanistan, Israeli first strike, or Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

The question remains though, is Iran seeking nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves a la North Korea or is Iran really going to bomb Israel? The answer doesn't even matter because Israel isn't going to sit around and wait to find out. The second they have hard evidence that Iran is dangerously close to having a bomb ready to go, past the proverbial point of no return, Israel will go weapons hot on a first strike and never look back, especially now that Netanyahu is running things. The question then becomes how to do we dump water on the fuse before the powderkeg blows?

Obama is pushing the international effort as the peaceful solution that doesn't utilized inflammatory political rhetoric. Today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates outlined the next step if Iran continues to buck international demands that it return to the negotiating table, that being hard sanctions (a shot at Iran's means of obtaining the materials neccessary to develop nuclear weapons). Gates' announcement came on a visit to Israel, after which Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel's "all options on the table" stance. The thing is, Israel doesn't like leaving these types of situations up to chance, like the chance that Russia (Iran's supplier of nuclear materials and technologies) would veto any resolution on new sanctions or the chance that sanctions would just further resolve Iran to obtaining nuclear weapons.

The gut check here is scary. Of the three most likely scenarios for nuclear war (India/Pakistan, North Korea, and the Middle East), only one can happen first on a timeline. That being said, the building pressure between Iran and Israel is definitely the most likely scenario for a breakout regional conflict. If nuclear weapons are thrown in the mix, then it will become the most likely scenario for nuclear conflict. The only way to stop an Israeli first strike is to somehow get Iran to cease and desist nuclear weapons development and prove that they are doing so. Obama's diplomatic overtures combined with the democratic internal turmoil Iran is currently experiencing are putting Ahmadinejad's regime between a rock and a hard place in terms of their policy toward international oversight of their nuclear program. Adding harsher sanctions or even just the threat of harsher sanctions will act like turning up the thermostat. The question is, will Iran choose the path that resolves conflict or the path that leads to confrontation?

Frozen Conflict

Today, Vice President Biden appeared in Tbilisi, Georgia both to revisit the conflict between Georgia and Russia and to implicitly and explicitly show where the US stands. Nearly one year ago, August 2008, it's the start of the Beijing Olympic Games. But, the headlines were dominated by another more sinister incident: "Beijing wow's world, Moscow rolls tanks." In what seemed to be entirely surreal and completely out of the blue to nearly everyone, Russia had utilized it's entire war machine to invade and devastate a country with a land mass ratio of 245:1 (Russia 17,075,200 sq/km : Georgia 69,700 sq/km). This incident, however unexpected, was clearly brewing if one had seen the warning signs.

The conflict between Russia and Georgia is what is known as a frozen conflict, a state of hostilities between two countries or groups of people that doesn't have much violence has the potential to explode into a full blown conflict. Georgia has been at odds with Russia since the break up of the Soviet Union because of it's close relations with the US. Russia doesn't like countries in its back yard and within its sphere of influence being allied with the US, especially when we're looking to make Georgia a NATO member.

But, there is another significant side to this situation. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are two provinces within Georgia as its boarders are currently defined that are classified as breakaway provinces, meaning they're trying to secede from Georgia and join the Russian Federation. Russia holds the position that these two regions should be able to determine their own status while Georgia is standing tall on a territorial integrity claim. Under the current system of international law, both arguments are completely valid. However, neither country appeared like it was going to let such an issue be decided by the UN or any of its arbitrating bodies.

The conflict exploded in August of 2008 when Georgian forces moved into the provinces, attempting to quell a violent uprising. Russia responded almost instantly with its full military might. The swiftness of the conflict surprised everyone except for those who saw the warning signs. In 2007, Georgia brought several accusations against Russia to the UN, attempting to attain some sort of offical recognition of Russia's official involvement in pushing South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the tipping point.

The accusations centered around three separate incidents in 2007. First was the killing of two Russians alleged to be military officers in Abkhazia; Georgia claimed that they were providing arms, logistics, and training to rebels in the region. Second was a claim that Russia had violated Georgia's air space by flying a Mig fighter jet over the boarder and dropping a bomb that failed to detonate; Georgia backed this claim up with radar tracking evidence. The third, and perhaps most publicized, accusation occurred in early 2008 when fighter jets shot down a Georgian Unmanned Aerial Vehical (UAV). This time there was nearly concrete evidence of Russian involvement. The camera on the UAV captured video evidence of the Mig jet's identity before it was shot down. Add that to the radar evidence that shows the Mig took off from Abkhazia and one has to wonder if Russia wasn't planning ahead for the conflict that occurred in August later that year.

At stake here is relations with one of our most important regional allies as well as our relations with Russia. It is important to note that Biden gained great foreign policy clout during the 60's and 70's by playing a major role as a senator in nuclear arms reduction treaty negotiations with the Soviet Union. Today, the symbolism of Biden's playing an active role in formulating and carrying out our foreign policy towards Russia is extremely significant. He's probably one of the only remaining actors within our government that can adequately address a crisis in relations with Russia.

That being said, the gut check here is simple and yet complex. We cannot alienate Georgia and leave them alone in the wake of such a devastating conflict, being that they are a close ally. At the same time, we cannot afford to make political moves that would distance ourselves from Russia for various reasons, including but not limited to their ever present veto threat in the UN Security Council. Our relationship with Russia is already reaching frigid status due to many moves made under the Bush administration, including our push for the European Missile Defense Shield, our "America's way or the highway" style of diplomacy, and the international destabilization caused by the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption. While Obama/Biden's election did signify change (or so we thought), Russia is clearly very wary of accepting that our ways have changed so abruptly. However, Biden took a more objective stance and did a good job of explicitly showing that the US is committed to standing by its allies while still attempting to rebuild relations with Russia. He also implicitly signified that the US is not going to attempt to force a resolution to the conflict between Georgia and Russia by showing that we'd rather let Russia take the first step, something that Russia is bound to like whether they acknowledge that or not.

Iran's New Revolution

More than a month ago, Ahmadinejad emerged the victor from a hotly contested election, successfully winning his bid for re-election despite great protest and amidts claims of ballot rigging. The world watched as the dictatorial regime unleashed the Basij militia in a savagely violent crack down on Iranian citizens protesting the election outcome. With at least twenty dead and scores more injured and imprisoned (the Iranian government is sure to have manipulated the official numbers), Ahmadinejad seems to have strengthened his grip on the Iranian nation and bolstered his monopoly of power with Ayatollah Khamenei.

However, the struggle for power and legitimacy has moved from the streets into the very halls of power, between the clerical leaders behind the scenes. Former pro reform President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a supporter of presidential candidate Hossein Mousavi, has been attempting to officially back up Mousavi after his defeat in the elections by playing his role as the powerful Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and pushing for an investigation of voting irregularities. Last friday, Rafsanjani used his prayer sermon that was being broadcast nation wide to call out Ahmadinejad's regime and Ayatollah Khamenei for their response to questions of legitimacy. Rafsanjani utilized revolutionary rhetoric, harkening back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and invoking the people of Iran, in order to convey a message: the people shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the people.

The line in the sand was clear: Rafsanjani was compairing the conditions following the hotly contested election last month to the conditions immediately preceding the Islamic Revolution in 1979. However, Ahmadinejad's regime held tight in the face of this new round of criticism. Their stance has been, since the election, that enemies of the regime have been trying to foment a velvet revolution by stirring up unrest and undermining the authority of the regime. They have also continuously blamed the US and our allies for said unrest. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are trying to blame the violent crackdown on the US, but it's not working. President Obama's approach to Iran works in the sense of publicly taking away Iran's ability to use anti-Americanism to politically manipulate their citizenry. Also, Rafsanjani's criticism, echoed by other clerical leaders, has established a base of support for Mousavi and the rest of the opposition, effectively putting Ahmadinejad's regime on its heels.

The gut check here is that Ahmadinejad's regime isn't as strong as we thought. While it's clear that dictator's will not give up power easily, there are clear signs of significant amounts of citizens turning against Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Further, powerful members of the Iranian elite are starting to turn against the regime starting with Mousavi and Rafsanjani and trickling down into the clerical leadership. While most people only see Iran and think nuclear weapons and anti-Semitism, behind the facade, the base of power is erroding. This presents a situation in which the US taking a hardline stance, reminiscent of the Bush administration, would actually be a very bad idea. Israel's brinksmanship is already putting Iran between a rock and a hard place while President Obama's constant amicable overtures towards Iran are taking away Ahmadinejad's ability to credibly utilize anti-Americanism as a political manipulator. While actually obtaining nuclear weapons is a dangerous wild card, it would put more pressure on Ahmadinejad to act legitimately a la North Korea (especially when Ahmadinejad doesn't have the entire citizenry completely subjugated like Kim Jong Ill) because such an acquisition would put the US and especially Israel on a hair trigger. If Ahmadinejad goes even further off the reservation and utilizes more violence against protesters or against the political opposition, it will only make him weaker.

From Jakarta to Mumbai

On friday, two American luxury hotels in Jakarta, the JW Marriott and the Ritz Carlton, were attacked by suicide bombers. Although no one has claimed responsibility for the attacks yet, the initial invesitgation by Indonesian authorities links the terrorists to a small Jemaah Islamiyah splinter group lead by a notorious terrorist known as Noordin M. Top. According to the AP, Top, an explosives specialist, has been linked to several previous bombings in Indonesia including the same Marriott and the Australian embassy. Jemaah Islamiyah has also been linked with Al Qaeda.

In a fitting juxtaposition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in Mumbai less than twenty four hours after the bombings in Indonesia to mark the brutal terrorist siege last fall. Underscored by such a horrendous act the previous day, Secretary Clinton issued a passionate call to action, calling on allies to do more to fight terrorism. How effective that call was will remain to be seen.

At issue here is the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts in fighting terrorism. India and Indonesia, as well as other countries in the region, have had a hell of a time dealing with terrorist groups due to the presence of both domestic and foreign cells as well as their increasing sophistication and secrecy. Also, when most people hear that these groups are linked to Al Qaeda, they don't really understand what that means. Al Qaeda literally translated means "the foundation." That name isn't just symbolic as most links to Al Qaeda aren't traceable like a money trail or a transfer of hard materials like explosives or weapons. More often than not, groups are linked to Al Qaeda by mere rhetoric or shared Islamic ideology or purely by communication, their own form of diplomacy.

The gut check here is that countries facing these threats of terrorism are already doing a great deal to protect their citizens. Ever since 9/11, terrorism has been the foremost international threat, and the US has seen fit to keep it that way. Countries like India and Indonesia who have suffered multiple horrendous terrorist attacks over the past several years and even more attacks before that are spending a great deal of resources to protect themselves from further harm. But, the reality is that they can only do so much. Secretary Clinton's call to action today, while nice in its symbolism, doesn't actually do any good. In fact, such prods will eventually shift from tedious to annoying to angering. No ammount of money, training or logistics can stop a well trained and hell bent suicide bomber. The only thing we can hope to do is to trace the actions back to the leaders and stop them like the Indonesian authorities are doing.

Minnesota Radicals

A couple of days ago, an unknown story became front page news, carrying with it undertones of fear. The story ran on the front page of the NY Times and, shortly thereafter, became headline news across the nation. The story investigated an incident in which several immigrants from Somalia, who all lived in Minneapolis, had suddenly returned to their homeland to join rebel forces in the raging fight in and around Mogadishu. At least three have since turned up dead.

The fighting in Somalia is between disparate cells of rebels and insurgents and the main government force. Originally, the rebel forces were fighting mostly Ethiopian troops as Ethiopia had invaded Somalia to push out the radical Islamic groups. However, Ethiopia has since withdrawn from Somalia leaving government forces augmented by African Union peacekeepers (nice to see the AU stepping

up) to secure the country. The main rebel force is the al Shabaab militia comprised by a majority of Somalis. There are foreign elements which give the Shabaab links to groups like the Taliban and especially Al Qaeda.

This story, upon a closer read, becomes even more disturbing. Of the three found dead, one of the immigrants had blown himself up in a suicide bombing, at the same time becoming the first naturalized US citizen to become a suicide bomber. All research indicates that the al Shabaab militia wasn't involved with foreign groups until the past few years. Before they had a foreign element amongst them, they never engaged in suicide bombings. This would seem to indicate that the al Shabaab militia has been infected with a much more radical form of Islamic influence.

The clear link here is Al Qaeda, which has a history of operating in Africa and especially Somalia. In many of his early messages, Bin Laden actually used the US's intervention in Somalia in the early 90's (the infamous Black Hawk Down scenario) as a motivating factor. He praised the rebels to striking fear into the US and making their soldiers run like cowards. He also used it as a call to radicalize.

The Minneapolis men that have returned to join the fighting are all in their early twenties, a time in their life when they are most susceptible given their background to being radicalized. The issue here that is so disturbing is how these men were recruited. A few days after the story ran on the front page of the NY Times, CNN reported that two men had been arrested in Minneapolis for recruiting and radicalizing these young men. But the consequences of their actions send a message loud and clear: US citizens can be radicalized and even turned into suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, this continuously developing story will probably lead to greater scrutiny of immigrants from conflict areas where radical Islamic groups are known to opperate. That factor, coupled with radical recruiting, could be enough to push a candidate over the edge. But, the gut check here is that not every immigrant with an Islamic sounding name is a potential terrorist.