Syria as a model to deal with isolated states: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia
As the Iraqi military bolstered by Shiite militias move to retake territory lost to the Islamic State, the Syrian Civil War stepped into the spotlight when Syrian ambassador Bashar Ja'afari suggested Western countries restore diplomatic ties with the Assad Regime. Reports even suggest European governments may be privately working to improve cooperation with the Assad government in order to combat the rising threat of the Islamic State. Given Syria is a long time state-sponsor of terrorism, perpetrator of human rights violations, and curator of weapons of mass destructive, including nuclear weapons, cooperation with the Assad Regime probably going to do more harm than good, yet Syria does provide guidance on how to deal with other problem states throughout the world. The Middle East is democratizing and globalizing, which means popular opinion throughout the region matters more than ever. By betraying the majority of Syrians and supporting Assad in his efforts to clutch onto power, the West would manage to cement anti-Western sentiments felt throughout the Middle East thanks to decades of “free” Westerners supporting the oppressive, self-serving dictators of the region. Had the West intervened in the Syrian Civil War when the Assad regime was on the verge of collapse, instead of allowing Assad’s allies to prop his government up, Western support would be just as forthcoming as it is now in Iraq while the Islamic State threat would force Assad allies like Iran to support a new pro-majority government, if they truly want to thwart the Islamic State. Although this alternative reality is now a lost opportunity, Iran’s involvement in Syria means support of the Assad regime translates into support for Iran. With lower oil prices wreaking havoc on Iran’s economy, support of the Assad regime is growing increasingly burdensome. Not only does alleviating that stress undermine efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and political reforms, it sets in motion a series of events that could result in a stabilizing Assad regime and Iran being able to cooperate on their mutual pursuits of nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East as regional powers and to consolidate power within their own nations.
Comments
The Department of Justice may not have a legal case to pursue the shooting death of Michael Brown, but the Ferguson, Mo incident, which sparked massive outrage across the nation for months in 2014, has brought to light a culture where abuse of power and discrimination reign. Where statistics may not be able to convince skeptics that institutionalized racism is the problem in Ferguson, emails of public officials ridiculing blacks and plotting to fine more people simply to raise revenue, alongside stories of trumped up charges largely made against blacks, demonstrates racism and abuse are deeply entrenched in the culture of the Ferguson government.
Because local officials are closer to the people they serve, local authorities can be more responsive to the needs of their constituents than state, national, and international governments. Unfortunately, a lack of adequate scrutiny on a regular basis leaves local governments susceptible to those who abuse government to serve their own agendas. Where national governments can suffer from a lack of understanding, empathy, and consequences when it comes to constituent interests due to distance and the diversity of their constituents, local governments can become just as unresponsive to the interests of their constituents when there are cultural barriers that separate those in power from those they are supposed to serve. In many respects, racism in places like Ferguson actually has nothing to do with racism. When people do wrong, do not know how to respond to a wrong, or feel threatened if they confront those doing wrong, they tend to justify why someone is being mistreated. When discussing issues like the abuse of civil penalties or code enforcement as part of a revenue-raising scheme, the poor and otherwise defenseless are targeted, because their inability to afford a legal defense against such charges and vulnerable social position means they are less likely to fight back when wronged. In turn, authorities slander and demonize these people in order to justify their mistreatment of them, which reinforces the division between these disenfranchised groups and the more affluent. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to a joint session of Congress has sparked heated debates throughout the US, Israel, and around the world. Although politicians like to add an emotional spin to their policies and political planks in order to persuade people through emotion rather than substance, the reality is that politicians act based on what they calculate to be in their best interests. Where the “emotions” surrounding the GOP’s breach of diplomatic protocol is exaggerated by pundits and political leaders who believe they can gain something from exploiting the situation, the underlying issues in play tell far more about the follies of the political world than anything else.
In truth, Netanyahu is using the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans in order to pressure Democrats to increase their support for Israel, even if Israel needs criticism for its crushing mistreatment of the Palestinian People. The Israeli government has done this for decades. If they had not been so successful at it, the United States would have long ago scolded Israel for its hardliner policies toward the Palestinians. In turn, Republicans are using Netanyahu to discredit President Obama and members of his Party, because many Republicans continue to live in that would where criticism of Israel can cost people their jobs and lead to unrelenting political backlash. That said, hurt feelings have nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Netanyahu’s speech. In fact, the speech has little to do with US foreign policy concerning Iran’s nuclear program. Should Israel manage to derail negotiations with Iran, Iran will move to aggressively pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Should Iran reach a nuclear deal with the United States and the rest of the West, which Israel feels is a bad deal, Israel has the choice to sabotage Iran’s efforts or launch a unilateral attack. While the latter scenario leaves Israel to act against the rest of the world with whatever backlash may follow, it does open the country of Iran up to increased Western intervention, i.e. increased scrutiny. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|