Malcolm X On Political Action and Organizing

The Iran Nuclear Agreement and What It Means For The Middle East

At the moment world powers have agreed to stop sanctions in exchange for the end of Iran's nuclear program. This has major repercussions on the Middle East.Israel wants to keep Iran in the role of an existential threat so it can justify aggressive and expansionist policies. Saudi Arabia does not want to see a powerful Shia Muslim country be its challenger. The United States wants compliant states in the region to advance its foreign policy goals. These agreements are still in the early stages of development. They may not even be fully implemented or successful. Iran claims it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. There is no way fully to verify that they were developing atomic weaponry for malicious intent. It is a contradiction that the West enforces a standard on a country, when they have attacked numerous nations globally. The United States was the only nation to use atomic bombs in war on Japan in 1945.  Israel contains an expanding nuclear arsenal and continues to build settlements. When examining these facts, it is clear who the threat to peace is. Saudi Arabia continues a bombing campaign in Yemen to stop Shia Muslim rebels known as Houthis. The Saudi monarchy was involved in Libya and continues to destabilize Syria. The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have no desire for peace.The only reason for this agreement is a simple one. The Islamic State of Iraq cannot be defeated without the help of Iran. These Sunni insurgents are also an enemy of  the West, Israel,  and Iran. The matter is complicated more, as the US has intent to depose Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. The ultimate conclusion could be mass regional war if the situation is not handled diplomatically. The threat of war waged by the West is still possible.
      Iran has been criticized for allegedly developing a nuclear weapons program, but France, Germany, Russia, China, the US and UK have nuclear arsenals. Israel has been amassing one for sometime, but the extent is not clearly known. If if Iran was to acquire nuclear weaponry, it would be weak in comparison to the world powers.  Iran would never be able to directly confront the United States. There is a clear contradiction in US policy in particular. North Korea is not punished for its nuclear tests. They are not sanctioned to the extent of Iran. There are two reasons for this.

The Final decision will be made by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei 

North Korea still has to some degree a level of protection form China. The country is highly militarized and would be more willing to fight to the end any invader. The United States never won the Korean War, but signed an armistice. Ever since 1953, the US has been in a state of war with North Korea. US military planners realize that an attack on North Korea would result in a large number of American casualties.  There could be a possible war of attrition that parallels the Vietnam War. This would be another intervention, which would be similar to Iraq or Afghanistan. North Korea would not be an easy target of US military aggression. Iran at its current state could be. The economy has been damaged by sanctions and a majority of Arab states are against Iran. Although Iran's power grew after the invasion of Iraq, it is somewhat isolated regionally and internationally. Iran is struggling to survive the only sole superpower, but other EU countries. States that appear weaker will at some point be selected for attack. Resources are a major motivator for these actions.Having a compliant government in Iran would give western oil companies huge profits. Iran is in a precarious situation between imperial agendas and evolving regional politics. If a state appears threatening enough it can, at least temporarily avoid western intervention. 

King Jung-Un  is not condemned or sanctioned to the same degree because an alliance to China and  his willingness to present North Korea as a threat.  

North Korea has a similar parallel, considering the failure of the six party talks. This could happen with Iran and the whole process dismantled. The contradiction is apparent in US foreign policy when examining the case of Pakistan. During the Reagan administration Muhammad Zia Haq  was allowed to pursue a nuclear weapons program. The reason he was not challenged was due to the fact he was an ally in the Afghan-Soviet War.  Peshawar was critical in the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan. This Pakistani city provided a base of operations and a supply route for arms. There was a reversal in the 1990s when the US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for nuclear weapons tests.The circumstances changed once more after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Pakistan was now once again an ally, this time in the War on Terror. The former and current nuclear weapons activity was ignored for the sake of foreign policy objectives. A clear double standard exists for particular countries. The counties that do not submit to US objectives are labelled as dangerous.Iran does not have the potential to be truly a military threat to the United States.  

      The Middle East will not be the same. Iran's official foreign policy will not be altered. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that Iran's stance on the US will not change. Iran will continue to support Bashir Al-Assad and Hezbollah. Iran will counter Saudi intervention in Yemen, while simultaneously supporting Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Israel and Saudi Arabia want to break growing Iranian influence. The Middle East is becoming a battle ground between these three powers.While this happens there is a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that is becoming region wide.Iraq is the symbol of this, because ISIS consists mostly of Sunni Muslims. The matter is complicated by peshmerga military action. The Kurdish fighting force has been successful at combating ISIS, but it is clear at some point the question of independence will arise. This is pivotal because a newly formed Kurdistan would consist of land from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. If independence is not given, it is possible it will be taken by force. Turkey cannot be excluded from the equation. Its power is growing as well and has been dubbed new ottomanism. Turkey wants more influence in the Middle East, but it must compete with Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Israel wants Iran isolated and eventually invaded so it will not have regional challengers. 

Benjamin Netanyahu has been vociferous in his objections to the nuclear agreement with Iran. His government has voiced this even to US Defense Secretary Aston Carter. The arguments lack cogency. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that Israel's security is jeopardized and Iran will attack Israel.  These claims are mendacious when examining Israeli aggression in the region. The actions done by Israel were not defensive, but attempts at expansion. Israel continues to conduct air strikes in Syria  and allows settlers to penetrate deeper into the West Bank. Operation protective edge caused an immense amount of Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip.Israel has not desire for peace. The Likud Party which is far right believes solely in military solutions. Iran becomes a justification for Israeli expansion. Arab states still dislike Israel for its policies and anti-Arab racism, but collaborate temporarily against Iran. These are mostly the Gulf monarchies, but the populations of these countries are angered by these decisions. Persian and Arab rivalry has been a factor ever since the Iran Iraq War. Not all Gulf monarchies are hostile to Iran. Oman was responsible for being an intermediary between the US and Iran before the talks. Oman was sending messages between the two countries, when both refused to correspond directly. It is strange that Oman does not receive some credit for making this possible. The reason for this is that the West wants to appear as a diplomatic peace keeper. This does not represent true nature of events. There still is an effort to depose the Baathist government of Syria.  It is gradually being done under the cover of fighting ISIS. The US and UK are hitting targets in Syria where ISIS has control. This is mainly in the North of Syria, with Raqqa being a prominent base of operation. These air strikes will eventually target Bashir Al-Assad when ISIS is dismantled. The Baathist government is fighting the same enemy, but it also has to defend itself from the US and UK  air strikes.All this tension and conflict will only result in mass regional war. The scale could be on the level of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War  or the Six Day War of 1967. This chaos would allow Israel to gain more land under its mendacious excuse of "protecting itself." Balkanization works in the favor of Israel's foreign policy.  

The less united Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Muslims are the stronger Israel gets. Conquest is simple when the colonized are not fighting the invader. Domestically, presenting Iran as a security threat helps unify the Israeli state. Its doing this by an ethno-religious nationalism mixed with militarism. The nuclear agreement has now been molded into a spark that will ignite a much larger war. 

     The intentions of the United States is not to reduce conflict or normalize relations.It is a way of attempting to contain the ISIS growth. The United States cannot beat ISIS without Iranian assistance. The nuclear agreement was a trade off. Sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for fighting ISIS in Iraq was the real heart of these agreements. This should not seem like a surprise. During the US invasion of Afghanistan Iran did provide assistance. Iran did not support the Taliban regime. The extremist Sunni Muslim state would have caused Iran security problems. Some observers thought that this was a lost opportunity to normalize relations. The US realizes that it does not have the ability to completely decimate ISIS. After nearly a decade of failed foreign policy, the US has been weakened in the region. The American public will not tolerate another massive war. Iraq has caused most to reject nation building projects in the Middle East and elsewhere. The financial aspect also factors in to certain decisions. The US cannot afford to fight. A struggling economy and market uncertainty prevent this. Other methods are being employed that could lead to regime change. Luring Iran into a false sense of security would make it vulnerable. By making the country seem that it is welcomed in the international community, they will lower there guard. This model was used for Libya. Libya relinquished its weapons of mass destruction programs, but was attacked anyway. An attempt is being designed for Iran. However, the country is still suspicious of the West considering the history of  involvement in their internal affairs. 

          Detractors state that this nuclear agreement was a mistake. They made  criticisms without examining the content. Iran's nuclear facilities are to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium mines will be inspected  and centrifuges will be reduced in number. The other sanctions that remain in place on Iran are related to human rights abuses,  terrorism, and the possession of ballistic missiles. All sanctions will not be removed. This proves there still is a level of hostility between Iran and the West. The talks almost failed, because the topic of ballistic missiles was discussed. There was a demand that Iran dispose of them, but the talks were focused solely on its nuclear program. It appears as if the West wants Iran to disarm completely. This would make it defenseless against particular challengers. These agreements may not even come to fruition. They do have UN support, but in the United States the Republican Party has massive opposition.As much as this agreement is being portrayed as "historic,"  There is nothing radical about it. This claim seems more appropriate for the US and Cuba taking steps to normalize relations. The motive to change will not be established as long as Iran is treated like a pariah. The only result will be that Iran will be more resistant to future negotiations.Detractors also make the claim that this makes the Middle East and by default the world less safe. The world was already unstable before Iran's nuclear program. The only precarious element is that this could start an arms race between Israel and Iran . Arab states would start programs of their own to remain competitive. Nuclear brinkmanship could engulf the Middle East. This can be avoided, but certain paradigms need to change.

      The Iran nuclear agreement seems superficial when examined closely. It was not produced to reduce tensions and solve regional issues. This was done out of realpolitik and foreign policy failures. There is a level of contradiction. No country has a right to say what other countries can do or have. The United States was the only country to use nuclear weapons during wartime. Lecturing other nations on  nuclear weapons demonstrates arrogance and hypocrisy. The ideal would be to see the elimination of all nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. However, the West does not share this view. Nuclear weapons are only suitable for certain countries from their perspective. Israel has never been sanctioned for its nuclear weapons programs . The reason is that is a nation that contributes to western foreign policy objectives. This is not a crusade for international justice or security, but a modernized imperialism. Humanitarian intervention is used to justify conquest and invasion. Various Asian, South American, and African are portrayed as evil in the western media. The demonization  of the global south has an economic purpose, which includes gaining access to natural resources. Iran's predicament is that it has an immense amount of oil. This resource has been the root of many conflicts in the Middle East. The nuclear agreement is an extension of that. Ultimately, the nuclear agreement means that there will be more political, ethnic, and religious division in a volatile region.               

  

    

     

  

The Spinosaurus

The spinosaurus was a theropod dinosaur of enormous size. It existed in the late cretaceous period and was native to what is now Libya, Morocco, and Egypt. The anatomy of the spinosaurus was quite peculiar when examining bone fragments of the spine. The sail like structure on its back grew from the vertebrae. It is not clear what the purpose was, but a conjecture is that it monitored body temperature. This process seems similar to the plates of the stegosaurus. The spinosaurus was unique in certain characteristics. The snout was long with the nostrils with greater proximity to the eyes. Unlike other theropods, the teeth were rounded and ordered in a cross section. The teeth's kneels were not serrated. This provides some clues to what these animals ate. The first theory is that the spinosaurus consumed fish. Yet its jaws seem to be powerful enough for small to medium sized prey on land. 

The teeth were immense in size and  were conical .The neck was most likely more curved than other theropods. It had stout arms and only three fingers on its hands. The toes of the spinosaurus contained claws. This animal was possibly built for speed, because of its powerful hind legs. The tail was both deep and narrow which provided balance. The spinosaurus was a ferocious and powerful predator. It was estimated to be at least 12 tons in weight and 16 meters long (52 ft). 

Ernst Stromer Von Reichenbach and Richard Markgraf were the first to describe this dinosaur. Between the years of 1910 and 1911 both men searched North Africa. Reichenbach was a paleontologist and Markgraf a fossil collector. Together they hoped to find Eocene mammals, but stumbled on to Cretaceous dinosaurs. The fossils of spinosaurus were found in the Great Western Desert in Egypt. This was transported back to Reichenbach and Markgraf's homeland of Germany. During World War II the specimen remains were destroyed by bombing by Allied forces. 

The spinosaurus currently hold the record of being the biggest theropd. A surprise to many is that it was much larger than the tyrannosaurus rex. This beast was a true king of the animal kingdom. There remains a possibility that larger predators could be found as paleontologists search for prehistoric organisms.   

Further Reading 

Parsons, Katie. Prehistoric Life The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth.

              New York: Dk Publishing, 2009. 

Nasser's Quote About Israeli Occupation

Terror In Tunisia

Tunisia was once promoted as a success story of the Arab Spring, has fallen victim to terrorism. The attack has demonstrated the myths and fallacies of the so called "revolutions" spreading across North Africa and the Middle East. The attack at the beach in Sousse was just another example of destabilization of the region as a whole. From December 2010 to 2011 mass disorder and chaos had been common following regime changes. These were not revolutions, but collapse of governments. Libya was in reality invaded by NATO. Egypt's government was in a state of decay, but the authoritarian elements promptly reasserted themselves. Tunisia's regime change was by comparison peaceful, but the fallout from neighboring countries is now affecting the security situation. Libya has become a base for terrorist groups, while the Sinai peninsula of Egypt has seen conflict. Algeria has had a long history of  terrorist incidents and they were revived with the Amenas hostage crisis. Tunisia was clearly trapped in the crossfire of violence. To western observers Tunisia seemed stable, but the foundation was fragile. Tunisia had a troubled past and terrorism will not disappear anytime soon.

    Tunisia became independent in 1956. Like other North African countries it was formally under the domination of the French. Habib Bourguiba was elected president after the fall of the Husainid Bey monarchy. Bourguiba soon embarked on policies that would radically alter the nation. While his socialist reforms did improve the status of women and advanced education, it resulted in cultural conflict. The conservative Islamic elements of society rejected Bourguiba's Kemalist and western oriented political reforms. Islamic courts were replaced, religious schools were secularized, and encouraged some to halt the Ramadan fast if it affected productivity. The backlash from this created the seeds for extremist ideology. Around 1978  there were mass arrests of Islamic fundamentalists, leftists, and political dissidents. The authoritarian nature of Tunisia just made Islamic fundamentalism grow as a way to oppose the Bourguiba presidency. The reason these actions were taken was the fear of an Algerian scenario. Algeria since independence had struggled with the forces of radical political Islamism. Tunisia wanted to avoid a similar fate.

Habib Bourguiba ruled from 1956 to 1987.

The recognition of Israel was not particularly popular among the population. The banning of Islamic parties only made them seem more attractive to people frustrated with political and economic situations. Tunisia was seeing a rise in the price of consumer goods, while wages remained low. It seemed as if gradually Bourguiba was losing control. 

         Although Habib Bourguiba declared himself president for life in 1975, he did not remain in power. He was removed by Zine Abidine Ben Ali in 1987. Like his predecessor he continued authoritarian policies. Repression was taken a step further by the outlawing of the Al Nahda Party in 1991. It has been estimated that at least 8000 student activists were detained during the 1990s. The removal of Bourguiba was welcomed enthusiastically by France, Algeria, and the US. Economic liberalization replaced socialist policies, but did not solve the growing national debt. Relations with Libya and Egypt improved afters years of disputes. Oddly at first, Ben Ali attempted reconciliation with the Islamic fundamentalist elements. This position was reversed. Instead of declaring himself president for life, Zine Abidine Ali had the constitution amended so that he could run multiple times.This is a common tactic in authoritarian nations that want to appear to be democratic. 

Zine Abidine Ben Ali ruled from 1987 to 2011.

The West remained silent, because Ben Ali was compliant with their foreign policy. Egypt was given similar treatment. Algeria was also falling into a western geopolitical orbit. Libya was the only country in North Africa alienated, because it refused to be a tool of western foreign policy objectives. Tunisia needed Europe for its exports and for the sake of its tourism industry. While the Tunisian economy did grow the population did not see the benefits. The poor were still marginalized in urban and rural areas. Unemployment was high and even worse among the youth. This toxic mix would lead to mass demonstrations, which would be Zine Abidine Ben Ali's downfall. 

       After the outbreak of protests Zine Abidine Bin Ali was not able to hold on to power. He fled the country seeking refuge in Saudi Arabia. The West did not criticize his regime when crackdowns were occurring. The reason is that he was considered an important ally. Ben Ali did support the War on Terror as a way to reinforce his presidency at home and silence critics abroad. Immediately, the western media changed the narrative. This was described as a freedom struggle against an oppressive regime. Tunisia was made to look like a success story of the Arab Spring.  The myth was that these were revolutions. The truth was it was regime change and eventually the new leaders would revert back to the former authoritarian models of government. Another problem was that their is always a power void when a long time leader is removed. With the chaos of political change, it gave rise to extremist elements. The Ennada Party took power and was Islamist. Their influence was increasing rapidly and even the election of secular parties to government have not stopped them. The turning point was the assassination of two opposition figures in 2013. Secular parties demanded a new round of elections. The Islamists were defeated in elections by 2014. That did not discourage more militant factions. With a declining security situation it was only a matter of time before a major attack. The Bardo Museum was struck allegedly by ISIS. Tunisia was not always stable. Around 2002 a suicide bomber attacked a synagogue at the resort of Djerbra. Security forces have been fighting Islamists ever since in small scale skirmishes. 

        The response to these attacks had only exacerbated the crisis. The Tunisian government has declared a state of emergency. Public assembly and protests will be restricted. The restriction on these civil liberties the government claims is for security. Close observation reveals another motive. The government wants to keep the authoritarian structure intact. Terrorism provides a justification for abuse of political power. It would not be surprising if  Beji Caid Essebsi or  his prime minister Habib Essid remain in power for a long period of time. That is one characteristic of Tunisia that will not vanish. Government oppression only gives extremists more talking points. It allows them to present themselves as liberators of the people from an oppressive system. There is not denying that these government responses are repressive, but Islamists want to replace one form of oppression with another. There are even rumors that Tunisia is constructing a wall bordering Libya for security purposes. Destabilization has gotten even worse in Libya with Islamist militias attempting to take over. These events reveal two major points. Western intervention in Libya created another terrorist training ground and base. There were no success stories in the Arab Spring, because of the enormous increase in violence, economic turmoil, and political backlash.      

    

Further Reading 

Arnold, Guy. Africa: A Modern History. London: Atlantic Books, 2005.    

Appiah, Kwame and Gates, Henry. “Habib Bourguiba”. Africana Encyclopedia.

             New York :Perseus Books Group,1999.1897.