Crisis in the Middle East

Is it truly a crisis in the Middle East, or a Western media blow-out? The answer may be perhaps a bit of both. Clearly the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens — alongside two former SEALS, and a foreign service member — was a tragedy, but in terms of the protests themselves, how serious an issue is this?

Most experts on the situation will tell you this is overblown, but nonetheless it is a very dangerous situation in the Middle East right now. The backlash has spread from Egypt and Libya all the way to Afghanistan and even India, and now U.S. embassies are not the only ones being targeted. Just today protestors in Sudan attacked its Khartoum-based embassy, setting it on fire and raising a black Islamic flag.

Protesters in Khartoum, Sudan set fire to the German Embassy.

Various British embassies were also targeted across the Middle East — making it clear that these extreme groups are waging a war on Western society, but why? It is clear that after the Arab Spring, many of these citizens who did not grow up in a free society do not know to react to something such as this offensive film. But this discussion shouldn't be one sided — it needs be noted that for the most part the Western media has covered these riots incredibly poorly, framing Muslims in such a negative light that may have falsely enraged Americans. 

I recall seeing a Fox News broadcast which they claimed protesters in Egypt were chanting "We are all Osama," when in fact they were screaming "Allah is great." Also western media has failed to acknowledge generally the type of people who are engaging in these violent demonstrations — disenfranchised youth out of work. So these people, feeling betrayed by their own government and others, would definitely be more prone to bouts of radical extremism. 

Overall though, this type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and as an American I am infuriated that other countries could treat mine so disrespectfully when the U.S. provides so much humanitarian aid and assistance to the Middle East. I know I am not the only one, but at the same time these groups are a select minority that do provide an accurate representation of Islamic community as a whole. I know this is not what the true Islam is about. There are many good people who have welcomed U.S. aid and guidance, and it is my hope that these violent demonstrations don't turn away Western societies from helping the good people who really need it. 

Barack Obama's DNC Speech: The President's Foreign Policy

During Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, the President dedicated much time to point out his views on foreign policy. This was very different from Mitt Romney's speech — where he barely scratched the surface of his views on America's foreign policy. Mr. Obama pointed out some key foreign policy points during his first term, but were his points factual and his foreign policy best for America and the world right now?

First the President said "Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did." He went on to say "We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan ... Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama Bin Laden is dead." But is the President speaking in the correct context? Obviously Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the "war" in Iraq has technically ended despite the fact the U.S. still has troops losing their lives there every day. Although the Taliban's and Al Qaeda's momentum has been "blunted" in Afghanistan, there are still terrorism attacks killing dozens of people in the country every day. Afghan officials are also fearful that these insurgency groups will force their way back into political power as soon as the U.S. and ISAF pull out all remaining troops in 2014.

It may seem that I am attempting to bash Mr. Obama, but that is not the case. Rather, I wish to analyze the issues that still exist in the ever fragile Middle East. The President went on to speak about certain successes — how our overall relations with foreign countries are better, and world's success in removing Gaddafi from power in Libya. But what about other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria? Many believe the U.S. has yet to intervene in Syria because of the election — fearing that military intervention would hurt Mr. Obama's chances at reelection. That is probably true, but is that a just cause for letting thousands of people die each month until our president has a guarantee to office? I don't think so, but it would be foolish to believe there aren't other issues preventing U.S. intervention — namely the influence of Iran.

Mr. Obama said in his speech "The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions." He went on to say "Our commitment to Israel's security must no waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace." These two commitments lay hand-in-hand, but a diplomatic or peaceful resolution to this conflict seems to be growing further out of reach every day. It is my belief that a military conflict with Iran is on the horizon — the country stands for everything President Obama has vowed to stand against.

When it comes to the President and his foreign policy, I would tend to agree with his overall approach: Don't stir the pot, pursue worldwide peace (not just for the U.S.), and think carefully before military action. In my opinion, Mr. Obama is a stronger candidate in terms of his foreign policy and image to foreign countries. In terms of foreign policy, I'm not sure if Mitt Romney is the type of American leader the world needs right now.

Iran's "Nuclear" Presence on Syria

Israel has called Iran the world’s “greatest nuclear threat” — but is the claim valid? The U.S. seems to think so. Through research I have done with the news organization (Newsy Videos) I work for, I have discovered that Iran’s nuclear threat may have been the reason the U.S. did not intervene right away in Syria the same way it did in Libya. Let me explain.

Syria is part of what Iran calls its “Axis of Power” — thus, a U.S. military attack on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime would be seen by the Iranians as a wrongful invasion of one an allied power. This would quite possibly hinder the U.S.’s attempt to convince Iran to stop its current nuclear activity, which directly violates a United Nations Security Council demand to halt it’s production of uranium (for more information about Iran’s recent enrichment of uranium please check out this story I wrote).

So essentially, it seems that Iran has tied the U.S.’s hands when it comes to the conflict in Syria. It seems the U.S. is willing to sit back and watch Syrians die everyday as long as the possibility of diplomatic solution with Iran is still attainable, but that shouldn’t be surprising. With the ties Iran has with other powers in the area (namely the Russian), crossing this country at such a pivotal time could spell disaster for Israel and the entire Middle East in general.