Jump to content
itsamoose

International Politics

Recommended Posts

I don't think there is a thread dedicated to this kind of thing, so here goes. Today the Nuclear deal with Iran and 6 world powers was announced to curb Iran's nuclear program. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but the major points seem to be:

- international inspectors will gain access to Iranian Facilities, though this action can be delayed by Iran

- Various sanctions lifted, totalling around 100 billion in assets for Iran

- Iranian banks gain access to international credit lines

- some of the larger nuclear facilities will be converted to power plants, and enrichment there will be held to around 4% (you need something like 90% for a bomb),

- some facilities will be decommissioned completely, and the number of centrifuges in the country will be decreased

- Iran agreed to a "breakout period" of 1 year, meaning they would reduce their stockpile of enriched uranium to an amount where it would take them 1 year to acquire enough material to make a bomb

To me this deal doesn't seem all that bad, but the one thing that concerns me is that Iran has the power to delay inspections for up to 24 days. To me that seems like enough time to cover up something, but there may be a reason for it I'm not aware of. The deal may still fall apart, particularly if Netanyahu (Israeli PM) or some of the fringe elements of the US Congress get their way, but I'm hopeful that bringing Iran into the international community will help out the middle East at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a thread dedicated to this kind of thing, so here goes. Today the Nuclear deal with Iran and 6 world powers was announced to curb Iran's nuclear program. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but the major points seem to be:

- international inspectors will gain access to Iranian Facilities, though this action can be delayed by Iran

- Various sanctions lifted, totalling around 100 billion in assets for Iran

- Iranian banks gain access to international credit lines

- some of the larger nuclear facilities will be converted to power plants, and enrichment there will be held to around 4% (you need something like 90% for a bomb),

- some facilities will be decommissioned completely, and the number of centrifuges in the country will be decreased

- Iran agreed to a "breakout period" of 1 year, meaning they would reduce their stockpile of enriched uranium to an amount where it would take them 1 year to acquire enough material to make a bomb

To me this deal doesn't seem all that bad, but the one thing that concerns me is that Iran has the power to delay inspections for up to 24 days. To me that seems like enough time to cover up something, but there may be a reason for it I'm not aware of. The deal may still fall apart, particularly if Netanyahu (Israeli PM) or some of the fringe elements of the US Congress get their way, but I'm hopeful that bringing Iran into the international community will help out the middle East at large.

 

Only think I think you missed in your main points:

  • An arms embargo remaining in place for five years and an embargo on missiles for eight years.

 

I agree that the deal isn't bad, however Iran still supports a lot of groups and governments that are opposed to the US (Hezbollah, Assad, Hamas The Houthis). There are also several Americans being held in Iranian prisons. Maybe this deal will be the first step in dealing with that. we will see.

The danger with this deal is that the Saudis and Gulf states will be concerned about the US moving towards Iran and away from them. My hope would be that the US can use the opening to Iran to push the the Saudis and Gulf states towards democracy and away from a legal system closer to ISIL than the USA. Iran is more of a natural ally to the US than those states are, but due to the bad blood and Cold War dynamics it took a long time to get here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so impressed with this negotiation. There has been more political will to go to war with Iran in the U.S. than there has been to even start diplomatic negotiations for a long time. I'm very pleased with President Obama's and the current Iranian leadership's ability to de-escalate the situation for the first time in my lifetime.

I've heard concerns that this can make the situation on Syria worse, but I don't see why it couldn't make it better. Having a relationship with Iran and benefits of that relationship which can be used as leverage could have a positive impact to the possibility of a diplomatic solution in Syria. I'm just really proud of the Obama administration right now. I didn't think this type of this was even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the deal isn't bad, however Iran still supports a lot of groups and governments that are opposed to the US (Hezbollah, Assad, Hamas The Houthis).

 

I'm going to be a little particular here and say that some of those groups aren't opposed to the US as much as they're opposed to US policy, or who the US has chosen to help. If we started to seriously pressure Israel about ending the apartheid state, Hamas would support us; as of now, it's mostly ambivalence with, "Come on, guys. Don't be their pal. They're shitty. C'moooooooooon." If we actually put some thought into Yemeni policy (seriously, has anyone in the entire government ever sat down and said, "Wait, what are we doing in this country, again?"), the Houthis would probably be okay with us instead of, you know, massively resenting the US for supporting a horrible regime and committing horrific acts of murder and terrorism.

 

The only regime I would worry about in that list is really Assad (maybe Hezbollah, but they're not so bad). The others are just massive diplomacy and policy failures, and they're right to feel the way they do about current US policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be a little particular here and say that some of those groups aren't opposed to the US as much as they're opposed to US policy, or who the US has chosen to help. If we started to seriously pressure Israel about ending the apartheid state, Hamas would support us; as of now, it's mostly ambivalence with, "Come on, guys. Don't be their pal. They're shitty. C'moooooooooon." If we actually put some thought into Yemeni policy (seriously, has anyone in the entire government ever sat down and said, "Wait, what are we doing in this country, again?"), the Houthis would probably be okay with us instead of, you know, massively resenting the US for supporting a horrible regime and committing horrific acts of murder and terrorism.

 

The only regime I would worry about in that list is really Assad (maybe Hezbollah, but they're not so bad). The others are just massive diplomacy and policy failures, and they're right to feel the way they do about current US policy.

 

You are correct, I meant US policy, allies, proxies etc not the US. Thanks :)

 

My main issue with Hezbollah, aside from their past terrorist history, is that as long as they are heavily armed, there will never be a true democracy in Lebanon. You cannot have free and fair elections when a militia could take over the country at a moments notice. 

As for US policy on Israel and Yemen, I also totally agree, and I hope that an opening of relations with Iran will allow the US to start making slightly less terrible decisions in the Middle East. I can dream right? 

 

It really seems like the main reason the US is involved in Yemen at all is because we feel an obligation to because AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.) is there. We have never had much of a Yemeni policy aside from plink away at AQAP with drones. It is yet another instance, like Syria, where the US should probably just step back and force local actors to get their shit together.

 

One of my biggest gripes with Obama is his big talk and lack of action on improving our Israel policy, but maybe now with the Iran deal finished he can start pushing them. 

 

The next major negotiation I hope is successful is the Colombia/FARC peace deal. It appeared to be breaking down recently, but FARC has re-implemented a ceasefire and the Colombian government said it would "de-escalate" attacks. The conflict started in 1964, would be an amazing step to end 51 years of civil war. A bonus would be that, Colombian forces currently fighting FARC would be able to focus on the ELN, various paramilitary groups and drug gangs more, perhaps even pushing them to deal. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33502355

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In looking over some of the arguments against the Iran deal, most of it seems to come down to the fact that the US isn't getting everything they want immediately. Part of me expects this, just from what I have seen from certain sectors of US politics in recent years, but I would think that by implementing this deal we would then have a foothold with which to tackle other issues like the funding of terrorism and American political prisoners in Iran. It looks very unlikely that Congress will be able to stop the deal, needing 2/3 to overcome the veto but they'll make a lot of noise in the meantime and even more so closer to the election.

I guess the one thing I don't understand all that well is the situation on the ground in Iran. I have been lead to believe the government which was so hostile previously, and really their world view, is slowly starting to go away in favor of a more liberal one. They seem to be backing off their anti American rhetoric, and at the very least their president doesn't openly deny the holocaust happened. As has been pointed out this might cause some tensions with our middle East allies, but I just don't see the argument that this would lead to a worsening of the situation in the middle East. What exists now is untenable at best, getting worse every day, and has more to do with sectarian tensions than political ones. I just feel like no matter what we do that fact simply won't change.

For those outside the US, what is the general outlook on the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this deal doesn't seem all that bad, but the one thing that concerns me is that Iran has the power to delay inspections for up to 24 days. To me that seems like enough time to cover up something, but there may be a reason for it I'm not aware of. The deal may still fall apart, particularly if Netanyahu (Israeli PM) or some of the fringe elements of the US Congress get their way, but I'm hopeful that bringing Iran into the international community will help out the middle East at large.

I think that's hard to answer unless you're intimately familiar with what those inspections entail. My perspective on it is that if they could find reason to believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons when they didn't have the ability to make inspections, then they probably can even with delayed inspections. Plus, if they delay one they'll have a ton of extra eyes on them etc. I think it's more about them being a sovereign country and they don't want to lose face in the negotiations. That could be totally wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the Iran deal is basically handled, can we turn our attention back to Syria? It is still happening, and on a scale that's hard to comprehend.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/14/syrian-refugee-crisis-will-transform-middle-east-politics/

 

I keep hoping Turkey will just say fuck it and invade. Probably won't happen, but right now it seems like the most likely outcome is continued conflict for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syria I don't think is going to improve any time soon, it has become the mother of all proxy wars. In some cases the rebel groups are worse than Assad, and with so many countries in and around the conflict there is no hope of the UN getting involved other than to provide small amounts of aid. I've only followed Syria for about a year or so, but even in that time I haven't managed to get a grasp on what could be done to fix it. There only seems to be bad options, unless the world powers could agree to put their interests aside for a time, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Russia and Iran have enough influence over Assad to provide him with an elegant exit in an opportune moment. Seems like a situation where Russia and Iran want Assad out of power could be the beginning of stabilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I was half-expecting a post about the upcoming The International 5, with particular attention to the visa problems some teams have had in the past week or two.

 

And I was primed for a rant, too, boy oh boy, but now all of what I've got bottled up seems petty and stupid and oh god I'm going to go away and hide now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syria I don't think is going to improve any time soon, it has become the mother of all proxy wars. In some cases the rebel groups are worse than Assad, and with so many countries in and around the conflict there is no hope of the UN getting involved other than to provide small amounts of aid. I've only followed Syria for about a year or so, but even in that time I haven't managed to get a grasp on what could be done to fix it. There only seems to be bad options, unless the world powers could agree to put their interests aside for a time, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

Before anything, I think assisting the refugees has to come first because most part of that can be done by Syria's many neighbors all unilaterally.  It looks like lot of work is being done in that area but still a whole lot more could be improved.  USA could perhaps match Euro's commitment there, China could probably do way better, more nations working with neighboring host like Turkey.

 

I agree it's still fubar given that some of those donors are supporting various factions in the conflict but still, one step at a time I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anything, I think assisting the refugees has to come first because most part of that can be done by Syria's many neighbors all unilaterally. It looks like lot of work is being done in that area but still a whole lot more could be improved. USA could perhaps match Euro's commitment there, China could probably do way better, more nations working with neighboring host like Turkey.

I agree it's still fubar given that some of those donors are supporting various factions in the conflict but still, one step at a time I suppose.

Isn't the strongest Euro commitment to Syrian refugees made by Greece? Don't they host the most? I think maybe the European commitment could improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the strongest Euro commitment to Syrian refugees made by Greece? Don't they host the most? I think maybe the European commitment could improve.

Would that make them the hostess with the mostest?

I believe it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the strongest Euro commitment to Syrian refugees made by Greece? Don't they host the most? I think maybe the European commitment could improve.

 

Googling/wiki tells me Euro put down about $2,430,000,000 (converted) worth of aids?

 

This is of course another curious issue, which is that information seems readily available but it's so hyper filtered through google and focused on wiki that I understand that the numbers I'm posting may be complete horseshit and the very nature of bulk of my info gathering may be as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new episode of Frontline documents an underground railroad to get captured Yazidi out of Isis territory. It's about an hour long. 

Trigger warning: lots of first-hand accounts of rape. I think there is also video of executions (I covered my eyes because it's obvious that it is coming).

 

Needless to say, this must be incredibly dangerous for them as well.

When we made the film, at least three had died. And I mean the stories — it is really very dramatic. It’s like the stories you read about from occupied France in World War II. Because ISIS is aware of these guys operating, and they try to catch them. And they’re always trying to set ambushes for them.

There was one amazing story that ISIS had forced a girl to call the rescuers and say that she was going to meet them — or they had found out that she was planning to meet them — and they’d arranged to meet in a crowd. And ISIS was watching her. And essentially she saw the rescuers and just walked past them, because if she’d stopped and talked to them, ISIS would have pounced and killed the guys. And so that girl condemned herself to staying with ISIS, with all the things we know that they do, in order to protect the people who were trying to rescue her. That’s just one amazing story of bravery.

Khalil told me just two weeks ago, a similar situation – ISIS had forced a girl to call up one of his guys, a rescuer, and forced her to say, “My captor is away, he’s at the front line, I’m at the house on my own, you can come and get me.” They turned up to the house and it was a trap. The two guys had been caught and as Khalil had heard it, they’d been stoned to death. It’s a really extremely dangerous game that they’re playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another warning about clyde's video

it shows death by stoning so skip around 27:00 to 29:00 if you want to avoid that.

 

It shows that primary victims of extremism is the locals first and foremost... very powerful stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When you drop a bomb from a drone… you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good," Flynn said...I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy."

I am glad officials are starting to talk about how drone assassinations are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. The US  is treating drones as the solution to the war on terror. Why send in ground troops when you can just bomb people from the sky? Killing terrorists and civilians with pilotless planes is really not going to defeat terrorism, but now all we do is launch air strikes because politically it makes it look like we are taking action while not putting American lives at risk. So much of our foreign policy is becoming risk adverse and hard decision adverse. We are doing the bare minimum to calm peoples fears in so many places. 

In Ukraine the US is doing a little training and sending some equipment, same in Syria & Iraq. In Somalia and Pakistan we drop bombs from drones. I don't know if the US is really active in Yemen anymore now that the government has collapsed and the Saudi's are bombing the country heavily.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/retired-general-drones-damage-good-150716105352708.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like at this stage the US is never not going to be active in [insert middle eastern country here].  The whole situation is just so god damned weird, particularly considering the US's relationship with middle eastern and african countries.  During the Iraq war we worked with Kurdish forces, who just so happened to be affiliated with what the US government considered at the time, and still does, a terrorist group.  We're forever trying to do this balancing act, placating one country while bombing another, and negotiating with another on behalf of the one we are bombing.  Nelson Mandela was on the terrorist watch list until 2008, Narendra Modi (India's prime minister) is the only person on a watch list in an attempt to show muslim nations that we care about violence against muslims, We send aid to Afghanistan in the form of military equipment that then gets broken down and sold as parts to the very forces they were meant to fight, and the insanity goes on.  We continue to arm one hand only to shoot the other, all while talking about how to create a lasting peace that no one's actions seem to indicate they actually want.  In an attempt to create sustainable governments the only thing we seem to create are governments who are dependent on us to be sustainable.  An army ranger friend told me once that the middle east is the only place in the world where the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, and I think this chart sums up how ridiculous and complicated the situation is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can seem pointless and counter-productive when generalizing all of the U.S. involvement Middle Eastern politics, but the U.S. can be useful towards humanitarian causes in the region. Just look at how the Obama Administration negotiated with Russia to stop Assad's use of saren gas. That's a pretty significant boon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this article today, and it got me thinking-- what are some of the opinions of the US around the world? I tend to hear arguments in both directions, but these are generally made for the purpose of supporting some foreign policy position. I get easily frustrated by the way the US interacts with countries around the world, mainly in that we provide money in exchange for social change that never comes, or construction projects that never start, and more often than not end up lining the pockets of dictators. So thumbs around the world, what do y'all think of us?

https://news.vice.com/article/kenyan-cartoonists-and-media-are-questioning-obamas-visit-to-africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American media/culture has always been heavily present in my life. I think is kind of odd considering it's a country on the other side of the world.

I know all sorts of bits and bobs about this whole country i've never been and may never go. If you go the other way id doubt many Americans would have a clue about anything in New Zealand. Which is fine, NZ doesn't export its culture anywhere near as much as the US. It kind of shows how much media can influence people. 

 

So yah if this were a civ game America has really high culture.

 

I can't really speak for what I actually think of american people though.. I've never really met any(internet excluded).

I think there's a kind of frustration people can have with the idea of an American person. I dont think its right but there's this kind of urge to think that American people are arrogant and that they believe the world runs on their own clock.

Of course this is entirely unfair but it's an undercurrent i've both seen in my pairs and felt to some degree in the past and I wonder where it comes from. Also entirely probably this isn't a common thing and i'm just stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mix of envy, irritation and reluctant acceptance from SK.

 

There is huge desire to learn English and absorb all things tied to that language because it is seen as one of main ingredients to international power.

 

Irritation because troops stationed committing crime (from minor to major) always get immunity from national law and people remember few not so great meddling in wide arrange of affairs (most infamous one being Gwangju masssacre committed by USA supported regime).

 

Reluctant acceptance cause as much as people may express their dislike towards USA presence in the region, absence of one paints a worse picture of uncontested Chinese influence.

 

Interesting tibit... South Korean government does not have control over its armies in case of war.  That belongs to USA.

 

And right now the president is the daughter of a dictator that ruled over Korea from 1961 to 1979... weird stuff going on in general but I guess that's how it goes for everyone.

 

Also SPAM and instant coffee is everywhere.  The one true lasting sign of strong USA military presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×