JFK Files Released

 

More documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination have been released. A total of 80,000 documents. The release was done through executive order. Some are wondering why this took so long. The argument was that some documents had to be held for national security reasons. There was also speculation that the US government did not care about the assassination of a liberal head of state. At the time, Dallas Texas was rabidly anti-communist, anti-liberal, and supported racial segregation. Documents have been released before the recent executive order, but just add to the mystery. By law the government has to release all the documents. However, thousands of documents remain secret. This indicates that the criminal action had a much wider reach. Many Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Others suspect that either the CIA itself or Cuban exiles who were part of the Bay of Pigs invasion were involved. Decades of scholarship, independent researchers, and historians have not been able to solve the case. The attempts to undermine the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 is apparent. Withholding information just allows more conspiracy theories to develop. While making all the documents public might not provide answers, it ends one dispute. The Warren Commission was an inadequate investigation, which made the wrong conclusion. Oswald was not a sole culprit. He is charged as the assassin, but never was tried due to being killed by Jack Ruby. Seeing as Oswald was never tried or convicted this would make him an alleged assassin. The documents might not solve the criminal case, but are useful for the preservation of American history. 

The Rise of Paetongtarn Shinawatra

 

The Shinawatra dynasty appears to be resilient. Thailand has made Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Coups have not stopped the family from having political influence. Much of their power resides with the royal elites. Some question the new prime minister's credentials.  Paetongtarn Shinawatra background is mostly in business, not government. The change in government means a shift in foreign policy. What this means for neighbors such as Myanmar and Laos is unknown. Thailand has since 2014 seen political instability and corruption. Both Yinluck and Thaksin Shinawatra were deposed by coups. There is the fear that Paetongtarn could have a similar fate. Her promise to boost economic growth may make some Thai citizens optimistic. However, such promises have been made before. The return of the Shinwatras demonstrate the decline into an illiberal state. The alliance with conservatives and royal elites undermines the democratic system. Coups and a corrupt Thai Constitutional Court prevent anyone from making needed changes to the political system. The military and judiciary need reforms. The royalty  has an abnormal amount of influence, which should not be in a constitutional monarchy. Paetongtarn Shinawatra might be a puppet to the conservative and royal political factions. The youth are growing more frustrated with the lack of substantive change. Paetongtarn Shinawatra could face both public discord and internal confrontation in government.     

Niger Seeks To Remove Foreign Military Bases

 

Niger is taking a different path in regards to its foreign and domestic policy. The military government wants to remove foreign military bases from the country.  The government has ordered the US and France to move its soldiers out of the country. France was the main country that has maintained influence in Niger since its independence in 1960. France maintained an estimated 1,500 troops in Niger. The United States of America has a total 1,100. This means that 2,600 foreign soldiers are active in Niger. Italy and the European Union have a smaller force in the Sahel nation. the justification for this is to provide support to Niger fighting terrorist organizations active in the region. The European presence is not reducing terrorism, rather it escalates violence. The ineffective methods of drones and targeted bombings extends warfare. Africa does not need assistance fighting wars. African nations have experience fighting insurgencies, civil wars, and insurrections. Algeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad,  Nigeria, Burundi, and Rwanda have fought conflicts like this. Uganda overtime was able to limit the Lord's Resistance Army's ability to conduct military operations. It remains unknown what military leader Abdourahamane Tchiani will do to remove terrorist organizations or deal with the fallout from destabilization in North Africa. Either the military  junta will seek an anti-neocolonial position or be another authoritarian regime. The military dictatorships of the past were products of Cold War foreign policy. Support for them was as a means of France and the UK to maintain control of their former colonies. Niger is undergoing a major foreign policy shift away from France and the US.   

Remembering John Pilger

 

John Pilger ( 1939-2023)  was a journalist, reporter, and documentary filmmaker who challenged the establishment narratives. Pilger came to prominence covering the Vietnam War and the  Cambodian genocide. The Australian journalist came into reporting when media giants did not have such dominance. Based in the UK, John Pilger's career began before NewsCorp had become a monopolizing force in news. John Pilger through his reporting exposed human rights abuses in Bangladesh and Biafran War. He was an advocate for Aboriginal rights . His criticism of the US, UK, and Australia for military intervention was bold considering current sentiments. The War on Terror resulted in civilian deaths, but reporters questioning the wars were condemned. Pilger was not afraid to call the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan as imperial projects. During his final years Pilger was a critic of the West's shift to an anti-Russian and anti-Chinese foreign policy. The mainstream media acts as a public relations firm to the government. John Pilger's frustration with the mainstream media was that it did not confront or challenge official foreign policy positions. The BBC has been accused of bias, but claims to be impartial. John Pilger was based in the UK for most of his life and discovered during his long decades career that one narrative is promoted. The notion that the US, UK, and Australia are promoting freedom and human rights is presented in news. Although it is fiction the message is prevalent in both liberal and conservative media outlets. John Pilger spent his life debunking this false narrative. What he leaves behind is a large body of work and a blueprint for the alternative media. John Pilger's use of documentary filmmaking was effective in persuasive argument. Documentary films are a tool in which those who seek to challenge the establishment must utilize.        

Mexico Recognizes Palestine

 

Mexico is recognizing Palestine. Plans are being made to establish an embassy in Mexico City. Getting more recognition from other countries could help the challenges facing the Palestinians in Israel. The bombings of the Gaza Strip , refugees, and racism have made conditions for the Arab population unsuitable. The continued occupation in the West Bank represents an expansionist policy. Mexico's recognition could be a diplomatic shift in Latin America. The Mexican Senate passed the resolution for recognition in 2021, but it appears plans are moving forward to make it official. The reason Mexico has sympathy for the Palestinian state is due to history. Mexico lost land in the Mexican War (1846-1848) and people were displaced from that conflict. The imperial legacy of the Monroe Doctrine still haunts Latin America. President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is taking a different approach to foreign policy. The direction is more oriented to the Global South. The right-wing governments of  South America tend to favor Israel at the expense of the Arabs. Guatemala was fast to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. When left-wing governments were in power, they were allies to Palestine's aspirations. Between the years of 2010 and 2011 Brazil, Argentina, Chile Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Cuba, including  Nicaragua recognized a Palestinian state. Israel will attempt to counter these developments, but Mexico could be part of a growing pro-Palestine  block. Much of the situation depends on what government is in power in Mexico.     

India Set To Become The Most Populated Nation

 

India's population has dramatically increased. According to United Nations data, India will overtake China as the most populated country in 2023. Looking at the demographics, India has a large amount of youth. Other nations struggle with a growing aging population. Japan and Italy are dealing with a growing number of senior citizens. India has seen rapid economic growth. However, this does not translate to improved living standards or the reduction of poverty. Growing concerns of unemployment and inadequate social services make a larger population more of a challenge. If there is not enough jobs or access to education millions could be left behind. It might also cause much of the population to be attracted to political extremism. During times of hardship or crisis prejudice and hatred become more pronounced. The news of population growth could cause a reaction from Pakistan. Diplomatic relations are less than optimal. India's growing power will mean it will play a larger role in Asia. Religious and ethnic tension will not disappear with a new generation. The rise of a narrow minded Hindu nationalism is actively being promoted by the BJP Party. India's population increased due to a decline in infant mortality rates and an increased fertility rate. The youth population might not want to remain in a country with limited opportunities. The youth population could emigrate to other countries. There could be an Indian diaspora coming in the following decades. Although India has a $3 trillion economy wealth is not distributed among the population. The rural and urban divide has expanded. India has not done a census since 2011, so the exact number of people in India might not be precise.  

Madeleine Albright Supports Sanctions on Iraq (1996)

 

Madeleine Albright (1937-2022)  who served as Secretary of State under the William Jefferson Clinton administration, supported sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions resulted in high amounts of death and a decline in Iraq's living standards. When asked about this in a CBS interview, she stated the price was worth it. Such blatant disregard for human life demonstrates a lack of concern for human rights. Arms embargoes and sanctions against government officials is legitimate. Harming the population is nothing more than an act of warfare. Albright was instrumental in pushing NATO expansion and intervention in the Balkans. The results of this were the bombing  of Kosovo  and  the loss of trust among Russia. This policy of continuing sanctions only made it easier for the Bush administration to launch an aggressive war. Assertive multilateralism was nothing more than a policy of various countries invading others for the sake of geopolitical ambitions. Her image was one of a humanitarian and feminist icon, but her actions were in service to ensuring US hegemony in both Europe and the Middle East. That image was more so a creation of the American press. Iraqis would continue to suffer under sanctions from 1991 to 2003.  

The American Militarist State

The United States has one of the world's most powerful armies. The country's influence and power can be seen on almost every continent and has few challengers. The US faces new competition from a world moving toward a multipolarity relative to international relations. China and Russia have moved closer together in both an economic and political alliance in response to American actions around the globe. This alliance may not be enough to neutralize American prominence around the world. The desire to remain the world's sole superpower has disturbed the peace. What has emerged from it is a new political and social phenomenon. America has molded itself into a militarist state. The national security state was used to describe how the US build up it military power and security apparatus to confront the Soviet Union at the expense of civil liberties. The American militarist state goes much further. It seeks to impose a global order by force and undermine liberal democracy as well as human rights. The American militarist state can only function under conditions of perpetual warfare and a military industrial complex. As long as their is an economic incentive in arms production a stable and peaceful world will never be attainable. The main objective the American militarist state is to maintain US dominance and  the economic position it hold in the world. Foreign and domestic policy have gradually been revolving around the US Military establishment. The American militarist state glorifies the armed forces combining it with a fanatical patriotism. While this is common among the conservative political factions, few leftists ever speak seriously about anti-war politics or criticize the the military establishment. Centrists even do this claiming to be part of a politics of moderation. There has been such a change in thought and public opinion that some acts that would be considered deplorable are now accepted. Aggressive war, civilian deaths, and war crimes do not phase the American public as much as in previous generations. From the end of the 20th century to early 21st, the US has shifted to a political model seen in authoritarian regimes. Countries may have democratic institutions, but the military has an abnormal amount of power. Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Thailand, and Myanmar continue to struggle with the challenge of the military controlling civilian government. If the military or abuses of law are not confronted, it is possible the US could resemble an authoritarian political structure. The American militarist state was born out the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the War on Terror. The result is unrestrained military power having influence in world politics and domestic affairs. 

     After World War II the geopolitical structure changed. The defeat of fascism left a void in world politics that was filled with two new superpowers. The United States and the Soviet Union became enemies  for  global influence. The US began taking on a role as a policing figure to counter the Soviet Union. NATO was formed as a military alliance against the Soviet Union. Russia formed the Warsaw Pact as a response.  The former African and Asian colonies of the European empires were joining the non-aligned movement. This was known as the Third World, which became areas of Cold War conflict. What emerged was the myth America was the defender of the free world. The United States aided and fought for various dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist. Leaders such as Joseph Mobutu( DRC  ) , Ferdinand Marcos ( Philippines)  , Ngo Diem (South Vietnam ) , Suharto (Indonesia ), and Augusto Pinochet (Chile) served US interests. This was why their human rights abuses were never scrutinized.  The origins of the American militarist state emerged from containment policy . The United States fought wars in Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. As the British Empire and France lost their colonies, America's involvement grew in both Africa and Asia. From 1950 to 1989 the US justified military action using anti-communism as a reason. 

 The Korean War was a turning point. The containment policy put the US on the path to war on various continents. 

Simultaneously, the US was engaged in a nuclear arms race with Russia. Nuclear war was avoided, but only through diplomacy.  The Cuban missile crisis was a point in which nuclear brinkmanship put the world in danger. Nuclear weapons did not prevent the two superpowers going to war. The devastation that was caused by World War II was an event both countries wanted to avoid. The Soviet Union suffered more, due to the German invasion. Russia would have not been able to survive another World War. Yet, a myth emerged that the Soviet Union was set on global domination. A simplistic world view cast America as a protagonist and Russia as international menace. The world was undergoing a realignment and the communist governments around the world were not monoliths. Albania and Yugoslavia did not follow a Soviet model. China and Russia relations deteriorated in the late 1950s resulting in the Sino-Soviet split. Cuba's communism was adjusted to its Latin American political traditions. The non-aligned movement did not favor the US or the U.S.S.R  in terms of world politics. The objective of the newly independent states was development and preserving national sovereignty. What these new nations discovered was  the US targeted  them for their natural resources. The CIA became involved in deposing legitimate governments Guatemala, Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Chile. The defeat in Vietnam did not cause the US to adopt a more peaceful policy. At the end of the Cold War saw an invasion of Grenada , Panama, and airstrikes on Libya. CIA covert action in Afghanistan would have dire consequences years later. Between the years of 1989 to 1991 the Soviet Union underwent a deterioration. Without another superpower, the justification for a permanent state of warfare could not be maintained. One opportunity did come with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The American militarist state had another reason to exist. 

       The myth of human rights and democracy promotion  has been used to keep the US involved in military intervention. The expansion of warfare only undermines liberal democracy. Imposing political system by force is nothing more than disguised neo-colonial imperialism . The Gulf War and the Iraq War was not about liberating people from Saddam Hussein. The intent was to ensure the US has access to the oil of the Middle East. The bombing of Kosovo was not out of concern for  ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. A federal socialist government  model could not coexist with neoliberal capitalist  EU states. The United States recognized three of the Yugoslav republics. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina were given recognition in 1992, while Yugoslavia was in a state of civil war. Instead of attempting to mediate an intense situation the US and European Community aided in its collapse. New countries that were war torn would require financial assistance . Even with a change in administration certain nations faced attack. The US was part of a UN mission in Somalia and conducted a failed raid in 1993. Iraq although under sanction was subject to bombing in 1998. Operation Desert Fox  was an act of aggression and justified by the accusation that Iraq was not complying with the UN Security Council resolutions. Iraq was suspected of hiding weapons of mass destruction. When Iraq was invaded in 2003, no weapons of mass destruction were found. The US wants to present acts of aggressive warfare as saving people from tyrants or terrible conditions. War as it is in the American militarist state is necessary to save civilians. The illusion is shattered when the results of nation building projects are shown. Before Iraq, Afghanistan was an experimental area for the neoconservative  vision. Twenty years the United States could not defeat the Taliban or Haqqani  Network. Drone strikes and acts of terrorism caused a high amount of civilian death. The mendacious claim used was that the US was fighting for women's rights and to free the Afghans from Taliban rule. What  the state transformed into was a puppet government with an insurgency that it was not able to defeat. 

When America entered the 21st century, anti-communism was replaced with counter-terrorism. The military intervention  parallels  containment policy. Acts of aggressive war were conducted in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The military direction of the United States went from anti-communism and counter-terrorism. There is a stark difference. Communism is an economic and political ideology. Terrorism is a tactic of using violence to achieve a political aim. Attempting to wage war on a tactic is not possible. The War on Terror is nothing more than coded language for endless military intervention. The label terrorist could be applied to any country. The United States between 2001 to 2017 used counter-terrorism to strengthen the militarist state. The death of Osama Bin Laden and the decline of Al-Qaeda's significance caused the argument to lose cogency. Syria and Libya were attacked under responsibility to protect concept rather than counter-terrorism. The drone strikes in Yemen are the only example of counter-terrorism being used an excuse for aggression against the Houthi rebels. A new existential threat needed to be imagined. 

     Relations with China, Russia, and the US have been in sharp decline. Russia  has once more been demonized by the US. China a rising economic and military power has caused fear in the US-EU elite. The American militarist state welcomes the new era of tension and possible conflict. Developing a new Cold War or sparking mass global conflict enables a permanent state of warfare. Counter-terrorism has reached its limit. Fighting ISIS, Al-Shabab, or Al-Qaeda will not longer be enough to get public support. Creating one enemy allow for people to be more fearful. Presenting Russia and China as nefarious countries contributes to preparing the public for military action. Narratives do not need to follow any logic. The United States remains at the moment, the most powerful country in the world. America's influence extends across the globe. Russia and China would not be able to win in a conflict against the US. The notion that both countries are striving for  world conquest is more farcical than fact. The United States has more military bases around the world and  high quality military equipment. Both Russia and China  have to take a defensive position in relation to America. NATO is another military extension which could in the distant future expand. The United States is shifting its attention to Asia-Pacific. The sale of nuclear submarines to Australia, demonstrates that the Asia pivot is going to be a permanent part of US foreign policy. Tensions between Taiwan and China are exploited to expand America's influence in the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea also becomes a  justification for belligerent actions by the US. The dispute in the South China Sea is between various Asian nations. However, America interferes as a method of provoking China. Efforts or attempts at diplomacy are either rejected or not given a chance. The United States of America wants to remain the world's sole superpower no matter the cost. Doing this risks military confrontation with both China and Russia. 

        The American militarist state makes regime change a foreign policy objective. The United States has a long history of removing governments and establishing authoritarian regimes that support American policies. Countries that are able to resist the US are either subject to extreme sanctions, sabotage, or bombing. Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran  are nations that may at some point see military strikes from the US. Cuba has been subject to US sanctions since 1962 and  no matter what presidential administration they remain in place. Venezuela is a candidate for invasion. The United States induced a coup under the Bush administration in 2002. The Obama administration continued to pressure the Hugo Chavez government. Both the Trump and Biden administrations  made attempts to have President  Nicholas Maduro deposed. Regime change is made to be a humanitarian mission, rather than what it really is. The US wants to establish puppet governments that are subordinate to geopolitical interests. A powerful Iran undermines America's foothold in the Arabian peninsula. Without regional resistance, the US would have a more access to oil fields of the region. This explains why the US refuses to leave Syria, because of its oil resources and alliance to Iran. If both governments were to fall, America would have a free hand to mold the region. Waging aggressive war in a blatant manner would generate international condemnation. To avoid backlash, the US will  use elements of asymmetric  warfare combined with degrading the economy of a particular country. CIA funded armed groups or opposition can help in causing internal insurrection. Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are methods to further crush a nation. What are referred to as rouge states do not have enough military power to be serious threats. The US has the power to destroy or destabilize numerous regions. What stops it to a degree is international public opinion and the aftermath of massive conflicts. Refugees, war crimes, and diplomatic disputes hinder America's ability to act without restraint. There will come a time in which the country becomes so abusive the majority of the world might unite against it. 

      The public has been conditioned to believe that all of the wars waged are for a just cause. Pro-war propaganda has been a part of the media and entertainment. Paid patriotism at football games and news programs acting as a public relations arm for the Pentagon are just a few examples. The military has gained a larger influence over American culture. It is not enough to have influence over foreign policy. The cultural narrative must be centered around the idea that the US must constantly fight an enemy. More commercials appear on television directed at young men and women to join the US military. It is presented as a stable career  that comes with opportunities for advancement. For some, it is a way to get a college education. There are benefits, but the more negative aspects are not mentioned in recruitment. Veterans struggle with homelessness and unemployment. Issues with the distribution of benefits are a persistent problem. The way veterans are treated is not the best example of an honorable fighting force. The American militarist state makes it seem as if this institutional corruption does not exist. The military is depicted as a heroic force for good. Despite the long history of atrocities, the myth is agreed upon both the liberal and conservative factions of  American politics. The existential crisis is when the realities of a multipolar world order and military defeat are apparent. Complex geopolitical issues are reduced to simplistic analysis as a battle between good and evil. Sometimes there is no righteous cause; there are malevolent actors. Fear has to be presented in the media about certain nations, races, and various groups. This is the only means in which the US military can control pubic perception of its actions. The national security apparatus is not designed for protecting people living in the US. It exist to maintain American geopolitical dominance. Holidays such as Veteran's Day and Memorial Day are used to advance political agendas, when it is really meant to remember those who lost their lives. Instead their deaths are used as an excuse to expand conflict. To oppose wars in American culture has become a sign of disloyalty. As social problems increase this type of aggressive jingoistic ideology becomes more acceptable. It creates cohesion in a society in gradual decay. Americans are becoming  more divided by class, race, and politics.  The militarist state maintains its power by directing that hostility overseas. 

       The economic incentive is a major element of the American militarist state. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and various arms manufacturers  make enormous profit from warfare. The military  industrial complex is a significant part of the US economy. The irony is that it causes economic instability. To maintain a war machine of this magnitude requires an immense amount of funds. The US citizen must therefore pay higher federal income tax to aid the military budget. If money is being extracted mostly from the poor and middle class excluding the rich economic health suffers. The majority become impoverished, while simultaneously education, infrastructure, and welfare programs are underfunded. The public appears to favor this immense flow of money to the military, despite the repercussions. The money that is spent on weapons, military bases, and aircraft could be used for healthcare or universal basic income. The American militarist state is supported by corporations intent on increasing profit maximization.. Peace would mean an end to business. Networks of lobbying allow defense contractors to have hold over particular political figures. This explains why there is no significant change related reducing US military engagements. The economic motivations are too powerful. The majority of countries that America has attacked are one's with certain natural resources. Fossil fuels are becoming  scarce and the United States is slow to make the transition to alternative energy. Consumption increases and demand remains high. Oil rich nations such as Venezuela, Libya, and  Iraq were inevitably going to be targeted by the United States. Afghanistan has vast mineral wealth that has not been fully explored. An empire tends to extract resources from its colonies. The problem is that the US met large amounts of resistance from the nations that it invaded. The profit came from the production of tanks, aircraft, and guns. Private security companies benefited from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American militarist state does not exist for a political purpose only. The military industrial complex is part of a larger economic foundation.

        The American militarist state has impacted daily life. Violence becomes more common within the United States. Militarized law enforcement is a growing concern. Weapons used in past conflicts are given to various police departments throughout the nation. The obsession with war is transforming America into a police state. Every aspect of life becomes more focused on security. Those who oppose the establishment are going to be the victims of violence. The abuse of protesters in the anti-racist demonstrations in 2020 was a reminder of the power of the American militarist state. Fears of future coups or mass civil unrest have been discussed in political circles. The combination of militarized law enforcement and an extremist faction of the US military could mean the representative  republic is in a fragile condition. Individuals are becoming more paranoid of what the government classifies as potential threats. Inducing trepidation and uncertainty into the public is a means controlling them. Militarized police and a huge military budget are justified as maintaining security. The illusion of safety is cover to increase government power and reduce legal protections for citizens. There may be a time in which material conditions become so awful that the population might revolt. Multiple injustices and economic inequality could be a catalyst for mass insurrection across the US. If it spreads the military would respond. The methods of war and military occupation would be applied to US streets. A country cannot go around the world inflicting violence with out  repercussion. The abuses in Asia, Africa, and Latin America will be replicated on American soil. The United States has undergone a dramatic transformation. The shift went from being a mere national security state to a militarist aggressor. The objective is not to reduce war or conflict, but how to start new disputes. The United States continues to embrace the militarist state at the expense of basic rights and freedoms.           

Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa and Samoa's New Political Era

Fiame Naomi Mata' afa  became prime minister of Samoa in may of 2021. She is the first woman to do so and this marks a significant change in the island's politics. Since 1998, Tuilaepa Sa' ilele Maleiegaoi had been prime minister. The Human Rights Protection Party held dominance for close to 40 years. Then a wave of change occurred. Prime Minister Maleiegoi refused to accept election results. That triggered a constitutional crisis. Once resolved, Mata' afa was able to take office. She is not new to politics. Her career as a politician started back in 1985 serving in parliament. Her family  has a history of being active in politics. Fiame's father Mata' afa  Faumunia Mulinu' u was Samoa's first prime minister. There may not be any radical change with a longtime establishment figure in power. Unpopular bills that were introduced that undermined the  independence of the judiciary. This caused the formation of a new political party known as Fa' atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi  Party.  Tuilaepa Sa' ilele Maleiegaoi has vowed to maintain staunch opposition to the  FAST  Party. The challenges are not only domestic. Relations with China, climate change, and the current status of the Pacific Island Forum are concerns. Samoa may need to extend diplomacy into the wider Oceania region. 

Aung San Suu Kyi Initiates the Panglong Peace Talks

 

Myanmar still remains a country in conflict, even with a civilian government. Ethnic conflict between the Kachin, Shan, and Kayin  continues with clashes being frequent. Suu Kyi is not fully in control, with the military still retaining significant influence in government. The Panglong peace talks were designed to end conflict through a permanent settlement. This is further complicated by the Rohingya crisis, which has created a large number of refugees. Aung Suu Kyi was criticized for her handling of the situation, which caused damaged relations between the US and EU nations. The peace talks cannot advance as long as the military remains an obstacle. The attempt at establishing a democratic system becomes more fragile, the longer war continues. Myanmar could go through a process of balkanization if insurgencies continue. Racism and prejudice must be confronted if the country is to remain whole. A federal system or semi-autonomous regional systems may be required to address historical grievances. Having another election will not solve these complex political and ethnic problems. Already frustration is beginning to grow. As Myanmar becomes more shunned by the West, it has more closer to China. This increases the likelihood it will be targeted for sanctions. Aung San Suu Kyi has announced that she intends to run for president in the November elections. If a peace deal or some form of agreement is not reached it would make attaining office more difficult. Peace may have to come from a strong executive branch that limits military power. If she does win office, it would need more authority to make a change in policy.    

Israel and The United Arab Emirates Confirm Peace Agreement

 

Prince Mohammad Bin Zayed and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel and the UAE are set to establish diplomatic relations. This sudden recognition for peace was facilitated by the United States. The agreement states that Israel will not annex the West Bank in exchange for bilateral ties with the UAE. This seems difficult to imagine that Israel would refrain from its wider territorial ambitions. Considering that the Lukid Party uses anti-Arab racism to energize the right-wing of Israeli politics. There could also be another ulterior motive. Israel may be attempting to build a gulf state coalition to confront Iran. Doing so would make it easier for Israel to conduct military action. Saudi Arabia already is engaged in a proxy war with Iran in Yemen. The Trump administration wants to present this as a diplomatic victory, however complications may just be starting. The Palestinians have limited support in their efforts to establish a state. Settlement construction continues and the occupation still persists. Egypt and Jordan used to be dedicated supporters of the cause for Palestinian national self-determination until they open relations with Israel. Without support from Arab nations or UN resolutions Palestinians could fall victim to further Israeli violence. There still remains the possibility negotiations could collapse. Besides political agreements, the UAE wants economic cooperation with Israel.      

Faure Gnassingbe Will Run in the Togolese Presidential Election

President Faure Gnassingbe will run for another term despite protests and the political opposition. Since 1967,  the Gnassingbe family has been in power in Togo. The country has similarities with Syria and North Korea in regards to  the head of state has their children be successors. Parliament approved constitutional revision, which mean that Faure Gnassingbe could stay in power up until 2030. The presidency in Togo has five year terms,but there is no indication that Gnassingbe would willingly give up power with the end of  the term. Certain countries may make a leader president for life. With the change in the constitution this may be a means of enabling President Faure Gnassingbe to remain in power indefinitely. As long as he maintains support of the military and the Union for the Republic  Party his political survival is guaranteed. However, growing  public resentment could possibly cause his downfall. So far, there is little condemnation from the European countries or the US. The reason is that Togo may become more important in relation to counter terrorism efforts. Nigeria and Burkina Faso are confronting violence from the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and Boko Harem. The presence of such groups could be used as an excuse to silence opposition or legitimize authoritarian leaders. The reason President Faure Gnassingbe still has support is the fear of what occurs in neighboring countries. A mix of discord and repression can only result in post-election violence.        

The Death of Qasem Soleimani and How Iran Might Seek Retaliation

The assassination of  Iranian  general Qasem  Soleimani  has brought condemnation from the international community. Some have wondered what was the reason for such a violent response from the US. Some speculated that war is coming soon and the US wants to downgrade Iran's ability to fight. Some  American politicians have suggested that it is a distraction to corruption in the Trump presidency. What ever the case may be Iran will respond. It has a few options in other countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. US military bases would be targeted. It would be unlikely that a terrorist attack would be conducted on US soil. Iran is one of the regions biggest military powers next to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US has caused more controversy by engaging in a policy of  targeted assassination. Turkey wants to assert itself more in the region and if conflict were to break out it would be involved. Turkish military  involvement has already occurred in Syria and Iraq. The death of Qasem Soleimani only complicates matters in a volatile region .     

The Need For An International Peace Movement

The world now is more connected than ever. It has become as smaller environment with many people. Warfare and conflict can spread rapidly between continents. Instead of a pathway to stability world powers seek geopolitical competition. The need for an international peace movement has become more pivotal as a means to counter mass global conflict. Humanity's survival could be at risk with the expansion of war zones across nation-states. The world population has the ability to aid in its own extinction with a constant increase of international disputes. Other factors are motivators for acts of aggression. The growing power of xenophobia, racism, and aggressive nationalism exacerbate various global situations. The military industrial complex and the arms trade explain what there is an economic investment in war. World leaders have a political need for permanent warfare. War can act as a unifying force, enemy nations can be a scapegoat for political or social problems, and there comes a level of prestige to the victor nation. Brutal conquests thought to be a relic of the past, just happen differently in the contemporary era. Justifications such as democracy promotion, human rights, or the concept of responsibility to protect are designed to enable western countries to invade African, Asian, and Latin American nations. The simple narrative is that this is liberation from rouge regimes, that abuse their people. The intent is for the UK, US, France, and  Germany to have influence in the former colonies that they once possessed. The countries that feel the impact of neo-colonial imperialism  resist for a period, but this has dire consequences. The wars may end in defeat or long term damage to the countries rebelling against the imposed world order. This shift to using violence and  coercion  is an attempt to stop the rise of a mulipolar world political order. China and Russia are subjects of many US and EU discussions on security. If too much reckless behavior is done the world could fall into another as catastrophic as World War I and World War II. The only logical solution to prevent such risks is to have an international peace movement. With enough pressure, such a movement can stop smaller conflicts and prevent a larger global  conflagration.
         Diplomacy and skilled foreign relations were intended to maintain peace. However, it is being used to ensure that world power competition continues. The shifting alliances are for the sake of military pacts. NATO gradually has become more than about the security of Europe. During the 20th century the alliance was a practical one to counter  the Soviet Union in post -World War II Europe. Instead it is attempting to ensure that western nations maintain predominance and prevent the rise of a multipolar system. NATO has been involved various conflicts from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. This is technically military aggression disguised as humanitarian intervention and democracy promotion. An international peace movement must counter this false narrative that world opinion has adopted. The praxis of foreign relations and diplomacy must be changed to ensure new conflicts are not created or merge with preexisting ones. The international peace movement must become more involved with the United Nations. For too long major powers have been shielded from the same rules and regulations of the UN Charter. The United States or Israel would never face sanctions for their military actions in the Middle East. International law must be equally applied to all nations, not a select few. The nations that are classified as rogue states such as Iran or  North Korea  are demonized as threats, but their military strength is no where near the level of the US, UK, Germany, France, or Italy. Presenting an existential threat  that is imagined is designed to keep the military industrial complex relevant to foreign policy planning. War has essential become a tool of foreign policy with nations contemplating how to intervene either directly or indirectly. Part of the international peace movement is to separate warfare from foreign policy planning. If this is not done there is a chance of a possible conflict between the US-EU block and the Russia-China alliance.
         The international peace movement must reject the concept of just war and armies . The concept of just war is that it is designed to save people and prevent atrocities. Normally, this is one power dominating a weaker state. If out right conquest can not be achieved, then indirect influence can be established. Venezuela and Bolivia are subject to US influence, which they reject yet the threat of violence is used. Russia has since 2014 gained an abnormal amount of influence in Ukraine. The US frames its own inference as a means of protecting Ukraine, when it is only interested in its own geopolitical objectives. Every country on Earth has an armed force for its alleged protection. Some nations are more than capable of defending themselves, but rationalize aggression and violence as national security. The majority of countries do not want peace. The very fact that armies exist demonstrate that humanity has a long and violent history. For all the advancement in civilization and technology  humankind has not figured out a way to live as neighbors. When this perspective is presented, there is a logical reason to have armies disbanded. Banning armed forces would be impossible considering warfare has been a constant presence in human history. The arms trade, military industrial complex, and  the political establishment have too much investment in perpetual confrontation. The only strategy to counter such powerful forces would be to resist the draft and selective service. It would require that every person of military service age to repudiate calls to serve. The only legitimate circumstance to arm one's self is to resist oppression. That is justified when a political system or state  seeking to control and repress its citizens. The abolition of armies should be a policy. As long as every nation has a military there will never be peace.
         The threat of another mass global conflict has never disappeared. The end of the Cold War gave the world a false sense of security. Instead the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China could be moving toward direct military engagement. All over the world these powers of both Europe and Asia are competing with one another both economically and politically. The Middle East and Africa have become areas of proxy wars in which the opposing powers are arming multiple belligerents in smaller conflicts. It is possible that smaller disputes can escalate into much larger conflicts. The international peace movement must counter world powers attempts to initiate or conduct global war. The public has long convinced itself that leaders do not want war, but policies and actions demonstrate otherwise. War has been used to spread neocolonial imperialism under the context of human rights protection or democratization. The ulterior motive is to gain control of certain natural resources before other world powers do. The international peace movement must stop this behavior, before a possible cataclysmic event occurs. The last two global wars in the 20th century had major repercussions, many which still effect the state of world politics. World War I started due to European colonial imperialism, rival alliance systems, and large power competition. The result of that conflict cause the collapse of the German, Russian, and Ottoman Empire. The economic and political instability that followed gave birth to fascism as an alternative to disorder. World War II stared due the the fascist political movement,aggressive nationalism, and a more militarist imperial ideology. Events such as these could easily happen again. Global war may be a greater possibility with the most powerful nations attempting to impose a governance system on various countries or experimenting with nation building projects. The 2003 Iraq War was an example of using war to advance a geopolitical agenda and making nation building a form of foreign policy. The response was that other nations were going to arm themselves to counter possible aggression for western powers. Internal instability is used by world powers a pretext for invasion. An international peace movement can prevent global conflict, before it reaches a dire level. World leaders have so far not been able or willing to end wars.
         War can destroy society and civilization. The combination of bombing and  the damage from armed forces on the ground can devastate infrastructure and habitability of  a nation. The humanitarian crisis is not just the war itself, but the tragedy that come afterward. Homelessness, poverty, and refugees looking for safety are the results of long term military action. Society cannot be functional without a certain level of development, economic activity, and an active citizenry. The foundation of society are the communities that work and contribute to its daily operation. Without the individuals, families, and groups that constitute a nation, society does not exist. Certain conditions are required to prevent a country from falling into being a failed state. Economic prosperity, limited violence, rule of law, freedom, and equality are the elements that keep society strong. When these elements are not present and some major geopolitical crisis occurs society can collapse. Even the victorious nations in war face a number of public challenges. The issue of integrating combat soldiers back into civilian life becomes more difficult. The mental and physical health decline of former soldiers becomes more evident to a population who begins to question the motivation for war. The victor nation may become more divided over the politics and policies of the government. Division may become so great, the reconciliation and collaboration may not be possible among various political groups. Society becomes so fragmented, a country cannot not be whole. The nation that is defeated in war either remains in a feeble condition or under occupation from the victor. Society cannot exist under the conditions of intense combat.
    Civilization itself is under threat from military aggression. While many like to think that conflicts on other continents do not effect them, this notion is incorrect. Multiple governments could be making alliances with other nations interfering with regional war zones. Obligations under treaties of security may force numerous countries to go to war with one another. A cross continental conflict could be fought on the land, air, or  at sea. Few areas would be safe if  such a mass global conflict were to emerge. Technology has aided the rise of more powerful weapons. The earliest weapons were clubs, which the gave way to daggers. Swords and spears become more widespread. Guns and artillery radically changed war making warfare more lethal. As time passed war became more mechanized with planes and tanks. The invention of nuclear weapons made it possible that humanity could be capable of its own destruction. So far,nuclear war has not been fought. However, there may be some in leadership positions who have the desire or at least contemplated using them. The US, China, Russia, UK , France, Germany, Pakistan, India, and Israel possess nuclear weapons. These countries have complicated relations with one another and there is no guarantee that if war was declared  nuclear weapons would be excluded. A nuclear war could annihilate cities and cause a rapid  decline in public health conditions. Instead of making more treaties to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons completely some nations chose to pursue an arms race. The US withdraw from the INF Treaty signals a change in 30 years of nuclear weapons policy. The world has not been freed from the prospect of a nuclear exchange. A total global war would be so destructive not only would civilization end, humanity would not survive. An international peace movement could effectively preserve society and civilization for the forces that promote belligerence.
       Human life must be protected and under war this is not feasible. Civilians will ultimately be victims of murder and rape during war. The Geneva Convention states the legal conduct of armies during war and that the attack on civilians constitutes war crimes. Nations that win wars or that are too powerful to punish are not subjected to international law. Less powerful countries are reprimanded more so in comparison. Despite this obvious double standard, responsibility to protect has been invoked to either bully or subjugate nations of the global south. The wars to either save and protect people from rouge states causes more collateral damage. Warfare has never resulted in the protection of human life. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Seniors could be too ill to flee a war zone and conditions may be so poor that immediate medical attention is not possible. Children are dependent on adults for their survival. Parents cannot protect their children under the extreme and predictable war zone environment. There are instances in which children are used as instruments of war. The use of child soldiers has been documented in Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. Robbed of their childhoods, they are forced to fight and be a part of  armed groups or the military. This violation of children's basic rights  goes either unnoticed or is not give enough exposure to the international public. Educating the world about this practice will help advance the international peace movement. Also researching causality figures can help change public opinion. Having such data available may appeal to the ethical standards of a population, that was formally manipulated into supporting war. By the time soldier deaths mount, it is already too late to resist the war policy of  a government. This is the most cogent argument for developing a long lasting international peace movement. The loss of human life is too great a risk to wage war on any level.
       The growing problem of xenophobic nativist nationalism enables confrontation. Dehumanization makes it easier to for people to murder various ethnic or racial groups. Nations justify violence by demonizing other countries as threats or being barbaric. Racism and hate are powerful motivators that get populations to inflict damage upon one another. Ethnic conflicts in Rwanda, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, and Myanmar demonstrate how lethal ethnic hatreds can be. The Holocaust and Armenian genocide are horrid reminders of humanity's more malevolent tendencies. Such behavior must be countered to ensure the control of war and violence. Aggressive nationalism must be expunged if there is to be a world of stability. As long as there are nations who believe that it is their right to dominate the world, global security is not possible. Aggression comes in the form of democracy promotion, nation building, and regime change. The smaller and by comparison  militarily weaker authoritarian states become targets not due to their human rights abuses rather their natural resources. A disproportionate number of African, Asian, and Latin American states have faced attack or interference from European countries and the US. The EU and the US feel as if they have a right to intervene in these countries viewing them as lesser beings. Arrogance, racism, and prejudice have come with a price. The system of permanent warfare has created the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen. Millions have fled the Middle East and Africa as a result of  western military action. There needs to be a change in racial attitudes and the conduct between nations. The international peace movement must not only stop war, but also counter xenophobic nativist nationalism and racist ideology. Such political beliefs make it easier for the justification of aggressive war. The focus should be on fighting ideologies that seek to undermine freedom, equality and human rights.
       A long lasting international peace movement can be a means of preventing mass global conflict, loss of human life, the deterioration of society,  and regional instability. A movement of such a scale cannot be temporary, but a permanent fixture. The environmentalist movement has become an international force bringing attention to the growing problems of climate change. However, there exists no such momentum for a peace movement. Many times they emerge and disappear depending on the length of armed combat. When wars are either won or lost the peace movements vanish. Activism against war must continue, because war planning never stops. NATO, the Pentagon, the EU, and various military think tanks constantly formulate policies for armed combat. Certain countries are targeted for either harassment or regime change in the distant future. There are few organizations involved in an establishment of peace or conflict resolution. The United Nations should be a platform to ensure peace and diplomatic negotiation. Yet, there are cases in which it is a culprit in promoting warfare. UN Resolution 1973 and the Gulf War were questionable acts. Peacekeeping missions can also draw scrutiny. National sovereignty can be violated with a UN peace keeping force attempting to impose order and stability. Few western nations provide troops to UN peacekeeping forces, instead the majority come from African, Asian, or Latin American countries. The model of ensuring peace has not reduced warfare in various areas of the globe. The inadequacy of peace initiatives of the UN become more apparent when examining the war in Yemen, the instability of  South Sudan, and the challenges in the DRC. An international peace movement will have to involve multiple organizations from across the world to ensure practical resolution of ongoing conflicts. The complete disappearance of war may not be a political possibility. So much of human history has been driven by combat, that it almost seems natural behavior. What could be done is gradual commitment to reducing wars and  containing conflicts . An international peace movement is required to ensure that humankind has a future.             
         

President Evo Morales Resigns

President Evo Morales has resigned and departed to Mexico. It appears that he has sought asylum in the country amid protests in  Bolivia.  Once more, another leftist government has been removed in Latin America and a wave of far-right reactionary politics will sweep across Latin America. The protests in La Paz have not ended. Now rivals and supporters of the government are in direct conflict. There is reasonable suspicion that US involvement had a role in removing the Morales government. Similar to Venezuela, the United States seeks regime change to have a government more compliant with its foreign policy in the region. Jeanine Anez will be sworn in as interim president during the political transition. The following events may unfold just like in Brazil, when Dilma Rousseff was removed. What has happened in Bolivia could be classified a coup. The opposition denies the accusation that the events that transpired were part of a conspiracy. The accusations of electoral fraud were met with protests in 2019. President Morales offered new elections. This was ignored and then the police joined in the protests. The military then started supporting the idea of President Evo Morales' removal. Latin America has a long history of military coups and far-right authoritarian governments coming to power. Events that have occurred in Bolivia demonstrate South America may be reverting back to these regimes of the 20th century.     

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi States That The President Violated His Oath of Office

The impeachment inquiries are underway against President Donald Trump. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that the president had violated his oath of office by seeking foreign assistance. President Trump requested in July that Volodymyr Zelensky investigate Hunter Biden's business investments and links in Ukraine. President Donald Trump may have been anticipating that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden would be his challenger in 2020. The claim is that he was using extortion as a means to give him an advantage for getting a second term. So far, members of the Trump White House have been implicated including  Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Impeachment will not result in President Trump's removal from office, seeing as the Senate is Republican dominated. There simply are not enough votes. The impeachment process may be too late. If it were to be effective, it should have happened after the Muller Report. The only way it could be a political gain is if it has a negative impact of President Trump's attempt at getting re-elected. The Republican Party still has support for his administration despite the number of scandals and investigations. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi  waited too long to take action against a president that may be abusing the office. Impeachment may not be enough to energize Democratic voters and especially the youth, women, and African American demographic. While impeachment could effect President Trump's poll numbers, it is not enough to get the Republican Party and his supporters to repudiate him.   

Kashmir Detainees : India Will not Release the Numbers

India and Pakistan could be on the verge of a major conflict. Kashmir has been a source of contention between the two countries for nearly half a century. India revoked Kashmir's autonomous status, which has become a growing crisis.  Pakistani Prime Minister  Imran Khan condemn India's decision as an act of aggression. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi argues it is for the sake of India's security. India has been detaining a number of Kashmiris who are suspected of being separatists. There is no indication that  the people detained are getting fair trials or legal representation. Human rights groups cannot gain access to certain areas and India remains secretive about the total numbers of people detained. Accusations of torture and abuse of the security forces have been made. This has taken a toll on the Kashmiri people who have relatives and friends who are imprisoned. If  India continues this policy it will only increase resentment among Kashmiris. Kashmir has been a source of tension for both India and Pakistan that it may be time to consider letting the area become its own independent nation-state. While this seems unlikely, it could prevent future pretext for the two Asian countries going to war. Such a conflict would certainly spill over into Afghanistan or the wider Central Asian region. 

Kim Jong Un Receives President Xi Jingping

Kim Jong Un hosted a state visit in North Korea for President Xi Jingping. It has been awhile since a Chinese leader has visited North Korea. This was more than just a mere exchange, rather a significant turning point. China may be more willing to give North Korea a higher degree of military and economic assistance. There may be several reasons for this. China may contemplate with the current tensions with Iran that the US is willing to go to war with other countries over nuclear weapons programs. That would mean North Korea could be made into a target of possible military action. Another factor is the Trump administration increasing aid and arms sales to Taiwan. President Obama was willing to do this for Taiwan and President Trump continues a the process. President Xi Jingping may see President Donald Trump's efforts at an agreement on nuclear weapons a means to undermine China's influence on the Korean peninsula. Both North and South Korea under American influence combined with a militarily stronger Taiwan poses a problem for Chinese foreign policy. Simultaneously, the US and China are engaged in a trade war. China wants to confront the US by either undermining nuclear agreement efforts or force North Korea to reconsider new negotiations. North Korea may be a way for China to show resistance to tariffs and penalties directed at Huawei. The trade war if it continues may escalate into economic warfare and by extension lead to an actual military conflict. China may also be investing more in North Korea as a counter to the US pivot to Asia. The pivot to Asia was established during the Obama administration seeking to expand American influence in the Asia-Pacific region. President Xi Jingping's meeting with Kim Jong Un was more so an expression of support and to stop US interference in Asia. Collaboration will only become strong as long as their is belligerence from a more aggressive US foreign policy. Kim Jong Un seems to have survived sanctions and threats of war. Securing China's assistance ensures that his regime will remain strong despite possible US attempts to depose him. If an agreement on nuclear weapons is to be reached it must be a bilateral affair between North and South Korea. There were rumors that Kim Jong Un wanted Xi Jingping to deliver a message to Donald Trump regarding restarting talks. So far, this has not been confirmed.    

President Peter Mutharika Faces Protests in Malawi

President Peter Mutharika faces protests from the opposition in Malawi. The May 21st elections left many in the Malawi Congress Party enraged and supporters  have refused to acknowledge results. Mutharika has been president since 2014 and it seemed that his victory was predicted. Allegations of electoral fraud have been made. The electoral system is designed for the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. Some have voiced their discontent with such a system saying that it is time for a change. Mutharika responded by saying that the opposition are attempting to instigate armed rebellion against his presidency. According to reports from SABC News, the MPs from the Malawi Congress Party voted against electoral reform. It seems that Africa needs a political system that is not based on a western model, rather one that based on the internal  culture and politics of the continent. The pattern that keeps occurring is that of a longtime leader saying president for years or decades, while discord slowly grows. Opposition may get vexed at losses even when a candidate wins legitimately. Kenya was an example of this in which President Uhuru Kenyatta had to win a run off election and the opposition still vociferously rejected the results. The president for life model seems to be the image of the African leader. The opposition parties in various states have become so entrenched in political factionalism, that violence follows elections. There is no indication that President Peter Mutharika wants to be president for an extended period of time like Paul Kagame or Yoweri Musevini. Power transition seems to be the most difficult task for African democracies. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has so far made a relatively smooth transition to a post-Kabila era. Malawi has to find a procedure that can handle both public unrest, power transition, and enforcement of  presidential term limits to have an effective government.    

The Dangers of an Iran-US War

When the Donald Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, tensions with Iran increased. What followed after this decision was more sanctions on Iran. Another provocation was designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The United States has escalated the situation further by sending more troops to the Middle East. President Donald Trump has stated he does not want war with Iran. Actions and policies indicate that the United States is intending to ignite  a large conflict. The neoconservatives present in Donald Trump's cabinet have made it clear that Iran could be the next target for regime change. If more attempts at instigation are made, there could be a US-Iran War. The repercussions of such a confrontation could be devastating on multiple levels. War creates refugees which could result in a large humanitarian crisis. Instability would spread to Central Asia. The loss of human life would be immense for both civilians and soldiers. A war between the United States and Iran would generate a response from other world powers. Russia and China would most likely have to act, in response to a critical situation. Russia would seem more willing to get involved considering their investments in Syria. The European Union countries may be forced to fight with the US simply as a measure to prevent more refugee traffic from previous conflicts. The influx of refugees and migrants from economic devastation as well as war creates an unmanageable situation. That would mean a humanitarian crisis could spread to three continents of Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa. The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was the point in which Iran and the United States become enemies. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out in 1980, the US decided to favor Saddam Hussein in hopes that a military victory would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. A more complicated reality existed with the Iran-Contra affair, which revealed the US was technically arming both nations in the conflict.  The use of chemical weapons and arms provided by the United States inflicted much devastation on Iran. The war ended with a cease-fire in 1988 and by that time, international politics was changing. Decline in Soviet power and a Middle East going through transition to new era was occurring. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 altering the balance of power in the region. The reason Iraq was not occupied in the 1991 war was that it would have increased Iran's regional power. When Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003, Iran's influence expanded. The removal of the Baathist government created a power void in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would compete to have dominance. Past events have created an atmosphere for eventual confrontation. This can be prevented, but it requires a revision of US Middle Eastern policy.
          The amount of death  that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of  an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic  Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
        The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and  Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.

      
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain.  There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as  Syria,  would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran.  One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and  the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
     War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani  have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.

India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran.  The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful  leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President  Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s  in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.

            
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase  economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of  the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran.  These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
         When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
         President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with  proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off.  The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of  the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If  US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.