The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Will the U.S Secretary of State Restart the Middle East Peace Process?

(Image source: WikiCommons | Credit to: US Department of State)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a meeting with the Arab League delegation, led by Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, at the Blair House in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2013.

The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has held a meeting this week with Arab League members, to discuss the restarting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Ever since the Israeli nation was formed in 1948, there has been on and off conflict between the Jewish state and the people of Palestine, leading to a number of major wars which have dragged other Arab nations into the dispute. Much of the issues concerning the conflict are on matters of religious differences, as Israel is Jewish and the Palestinians are Muslim. Also, land and natural resources have played a major part in fueling the distrust of both sides. Israel are unwilling to give up land that was taken away from the Palestinians in the 1967 war, arguing security concerns, and elements within the power circles of the Palestinian  community, want all of the Jewish lands returned to the Muslim peoples.  

The international communities, and more specifically the U.S, have over the last few decades been the third wheel in the process to bring peace to the unstable region. The last major attempt to bring long lasting peace was back in the late 1990’s, under the Oslo Accord, when President Bill Clinton almost negotiated an agreeable road map between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman  Yasar Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, however, many of the Accords principles, including ‘two state’ solution have not full progressed. Although, a Palestinian Authority (PA) was formed to allow the Palestinians limited self governance, many of the issues discussed in the Accords are still to be fully implemented.

Since the Oslo Accords no major attempts to bring an agreed solution to the conflict have aspired, as the U.S have concentrated their resources fighting the decade long ‘war on terror,’ and both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to overcome many domestic issues, which have stalled the peace process.

The attempt this week by John Kerry to meet with foreign ministers from Arab nations in the region, seems to me, emphasises the importance that these Arab states have in bringing both Israel and especially the divided Palestinians to restart concrete negotiations on a workable solution. I think this is a good first step by the new US Secretary of State to consult with regional leaders, rather than going straight to the Palestinians or Israelis. What needs to happen after this weeks meeting, is for Arab states to work in partnership with the US on bring both Hamas and Fatah to agree on working together to negotiate peace. If this situation can aspire, where both Hamas and Fatah can share governance over Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is more likely going to agree to negotiate a solution for peace. 

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.                  

The Arab Spring still not over

Back in early December 2012, I wrote a blog post on the situation in Egypt, where the ideals of the ‘Arab Spring’were still been fought for.  Over two months later not much has changed in Egypt, and instability has even spread over to Tunisia, although reasons for a re-spark of the revolution are different.

Image source: WikiCommons Image credit: Mona

In Tunisia, where the so called ‘Arab Spring’ began,has descended into further chaos in the last few days. As we can all remember back in 2011, when a revolution succeeded in removing from power, former authoritative President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stability in that country would be achieved. But on Wednesday, Shokri Belaid a top opposition politician, known for his staunch criticism of the government was assassinated outside his home, sparking violent protest against the government. Also, labor unions across the country have called a general strike, not been seen in Tunisia since 1978, which crippled the countries economy.

Prime Minister Hamdi Jebali, as to calm the situation, asked for the Parliament to be dissolved, and for a forming of a technocratic government to solve the economic situation and bring stability to the country, but his government and other parties have rejected his requests. This has lead to four opposition parties walking out of the National Assembly in support of a new technocratic government.

It looks like the countries gripped by the ‘Arab Spring’ two years ago have not been able to achieve what the millions of protesters who took part were demanding. Although in both Tunisia and Egypt, authoritative leaders were removed from power after decades of brutal control, the power has just shifted to more Islamist oriented parties and the military.

The situation in both Egypt and Tunisia is just a process that both countries will need to go through to achieve stability, if that be full democracy or their own version. In almost every time in history where a nation has removed a long standing authoritative regime, stability has been a long violent process until peace has been achieved. Other nations around the world need to leave both Egypt and Tunisia to go through this process without hindering the situation, instead offer support when requested for future development and stability.