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.