Wikileaks: We Can't See The Forest For The Trees.

In our media obsessed, 24-hour a day news cycle, it is amazing how many important details still manage to slip through the cracks.  The recent round of leaks from the website Wikileaks is a prime example.  Instead of actually reporting the information that has been leaked and what it means for the United States, the talking heads on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC seem far too concerned with the founder of the site, Julian Assange, and our quest to bring him to justice.
The most important story to come out of this round of leaks is the obvious bitter divide that seems to exist between Iran and other Middle Eastern countries not named Israel.  The prevailing school of thought in the past was that any military action against Iran would be suicide in the region because there was no way we would be backed by Muslim nations in a military action on another Muslim nation.  However, WikiLeaks has taught us that many Middle Eastern statesmen have asked us personally to take military force against Iran to destroy its nuclear program, including one of the most key players in the region, King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia.  It appears that, despite high rhetoric from the United States on freedom in the region, the State Department and the government as a whole, the United States is clearly willing to work with autocratic governments to insure its desired outcome in Iran.  These new developments seem like a complete 180-degree turn from what leaders have said about the region.  It seems that American foreign policy towards the Middle East can best be explained by an old proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Along with the cable concerning Saudi Arabia, here are a few of the more interesting cables that WikiLeaks has published.

Saudi Arabia wants U.S. to bomb Iran

Secret Bombings in Yemen

Sec Def Robert Gates unsure on Iran bombing 

Israel may be bluffing on Iranian threats

It was reported in the New York Times today that the United States blocked Iran's bid to gain a seat on a United Nations board dedicated to gender equality. Let's forgo to obvious foreign policy implications of this move and focus on strictly the irony and utter absurdity of this move. I'm not exactly sure what Iranian officials expected to gain from this move, especially when you consider the fact that Ahmadinejad let it be known that he was a "Loose Change" theorist back in a U.N. speech in September.

For a moment at least, let's look past the fact that these hate-filled, bat-shit crazy speeches have become the norm for him. Let's also put aside the fact that no matter what United Nations board Iran was vying for, the U.S. would have tried to block it. But (to quote Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers) seriously Iran, gender equality? I don't pretend to know everything about the UN and how the organization works, but I'm pretty sure that if, just a MONTH ago, your president has to deny allegations of stoning women who committed adultery, the board of UN Women is probably not for you. After all, wasn't it just last week that we found out that Iran is planning to put a quota of 50 percent on the amount of women who will be admitted to universities in the country? You really could go on all day when it comes to gender inequality in Iran but I won't. If you want to get a true feel on what the gender inequality is like in Iran, I recommend the film The Stoning of Soraya M.

Now Tell Us Something Uncle Sam: Would You Like Us to Bomb Iran?

In the August issue of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg describes a future scenario in which a desperate Israel is forced to bomb Iran because a nuclear-capable Iran would be the greatest threat to the Jewish people since the days of Hitler.  After all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already vowed to wipe Israel off the map; What choice does Israel really have?  At this point in time, you may be thinking that this is the most extreme scenario regarding the Iranian nuclear program and you would be right.  You may also be thinking that there is plenty of time to change this potential disaster and any decision with regards to bombing Iran is a long way in the future.  Unfortunately, that would be incorrect.

Twelve months.  It is possible that within twelve months, a year's time, that Israel will have to make this decision as whether or not to strategically bomb Iran's nuclear strongholds, according to Goldberg.  For the record, he is not alone in this assessment. Yes it is possible that continued diplomatic talks and sanctions can prevent the day where Israel will bomb Iran from ever coming.  However, it make take some form of internal change within Iran as well.  The country is, at its core, a theocracy run by the Ayatollah.  The government practices sharia law and its leader, Ahmadinejad,  is a Holocaust denier who was recently quoted as saying in a speech in Lebanon that,

"Grounds are being prepared for the Zionist regime [Israel] to go to hell soon and any country supporting this regime will join it on its trip to hell as well."  

While Ahmadinejad gave no exact time-table for when Israel and its allies will go to hell and was more than likely just grandstanding, the word "soon" in his speech may be referring to twelve months.

Here is a clip of Jeffrey Goldberg on The Colbert Report:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jeffrey Goldberg
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

Go West Young Man

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is drawing a line in the sand.  Peace talks with Israel will not continue unless Israel continues a 10-month long moratorium on development in the West Bank.  Unfortunately, it appears that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not prepared to budge either out of fear that continuing the moratorium will damage his political capital with the "pro-settlement" crowd.  So what has been accomplished in this 10-month span?  Very little.  In fact, it took until September of this year to get Israel and Palestine into direct negotiations and it now appears that peace talks may break down completely.  If the worst is realized and peace talks are abandoned and Israel continues to build in the West Bank, the consequences could be dire. In fact, Jordanian King Abdullah II predicts that the Palestinians and the Israelis will be at war within a year. 

So what are the chances of sustaining peace?  This depends on both Abbas and Netanyahu.  At the moment, refuse to budge on different aspects.  Abbas has made his position clear on the settlement of the West Bank and has, of course, advocated for a Palestinian state.  For his part, Netanyahu has somewhat conceded to the idea of a Palestinian state but his position is still rather vague.  Any accepted Palestinian state would almost have to include West Jerusalem, which at the moment is over 40 percent Jewish and, as of Monday, open to new tenets.

Islamophobia?

There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about the planned mosque and community center in lower Manhattan, which would be located two blocks away from ground zero.  Concerns have been raised about how close is too close for such a center, what the Imam Rauf's intentions are, and where the money is coming from.  In a recent CNN poll, 68 percent of Americans stated that they oppose the community center being built so close to ground zero.  The question is fairly simple in scope, asking:

"As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?"

It does not however, delve into concerns about freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment or people's feelings towards government power over religion.  With that being said, it is obvious that the American people's concern over this proposed community center is specific to the Muslim faith.  While there are certainly different perspectives on why this is, there is no arguing that people in this country view Muslims in a different light than they do citizens of other faiths.  It may be a broad generalization, but these recent events beg the question: Is America Islamophobic?  More to come on this at a later date.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

Dear Secretary of State Clinton,
We know what you are trying to do and we appreciate it, but frankly, the act is getting a little tired.  We're talking 1980's power ballad tired where the only difference is substituting a hand shake for a guitar solo.  We understand that it is a part of your job and that peace between the Palestinians and Israel would be killer but seriously Mrs. Clinton, a sit-down?  I know, I know, Jimmy Carter landed some serious props at the time for the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. Heck, it even nabbed Anwar El Sadat and Menachem Begin a Nobel Peace Prize.  And sure, we remember hubby trying his luck in 2000 when he invited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to join him at Camp David.  In the end though, these sit-downs went the Lady Gaga route and provided style over substance.  There is no doubting the pub for any sitdown but I have to ask Mrs. Clinton: What makes this time any different?

Despite the media drawing power, these sit-downs have provided very little progress in the past in the way of Middle Eastern relations.  In fact, many Americans have become very disillusioned with the prospect of Middle Eastern peace.  In a Gallup poll dating back to earlier this year, 67 percent of Americans never believe there will come a time when the Middle East will live in peace.  This, of course, can mostly be put on the players in this divine comedy as well as the previous administration, which made your job much tougher with their backseat policies towards the Middle East.  However, our president did promise change and frankly Mrs. Clinton, this plan seems very stale.  The American people certainly don't expect you to be able to change the dynamic in the Middle East overnight.  After all, we are realists and we understand that the differences between the Palestinians and Israel are more complex than a James Joyce novel, but some new ideas would be nice.  Let's be honest, in the best case scenario a meeting will be held, some sort of deal about Israeli development on the West Bank and the future of a Palestinian state will be brokered, and then people will shake hands.  But even in the best case scenario, Benjamin Netanyahu will still be an Israeli and Mahmoud Abbas will still be a Palestinian, which means, Mrs. Clinton, you can expect broken promises and broken dreams.

About Me

Hi my name is Tyler Larson and I am a super senior at Illinois State University.  Despite what this previous sentence may imply, I do plan on graduating soon and will most likely be done by the end of the semester in December.

For this blog and POL 312, I have chosen to focus on America's foreign policy towards the Middle East and how it affects us as a nation.  Specifically, I would like to delve deeper into American foreign policy concerning the conflict between Iran and Israel because, along with China and the conflict between the Korean nations, it is one of the single most pressing foreign issues of our time.