The Beirut Bombing

On Tuesday, November 19th, Al Qaeda organized a double suicide bombing that struck the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, killing at least 23 people, and injuring nearly 150 more. It is the deadliest assault on Iranian interests because Iran has become the most forceful supporter of the Syrian government against the variety of armed insurgent groups, and has also reshaped how the international community examines Iran's domestic and foreign policy. In the more immediate future, the double suicide bombing has emphasized the major costs and risks involved with Iranian intervention in Syria. As  Iran analyst  at Eurasia Group Cliff Kupchan expressed, "Today's event demonstrates the political and economic costs of Syria for Iran."This is because many are divided on the issue of Syrian involvement. On one hand, the international community perceives Iranian support within Syria as its event stepping stone in experiencing an Iranian version of Vietnam. On the other hand, Iran's successful transition in supporting the Syrian President Bashar al Assad has lead to an extremely international decisive influence involving a multitude of issue, wherein Iran is experiencing increases in its ability to overcome and negotiate nuclear program disputes.

Ironically, Iran and other middle eastern nations are blaming Israel as a key player in unifying different supporters and opponents of the Syrian insurgency, and are using this blaming to signal neither Iran, Hezbollah (the main military organization within Lebanon, and other do not want to immediately escalate confrontation that could possibly lead to all-out war within Lebanon. This is probably because Iran's government is facing serious pressure from hard-line political leaders within the different legislative and executive bodies, but will avoid an engagement in order to obtain a deal over it's nuclear program agenda. Therefore, the lack of retaliation from Iran is possibly, as President Mehrzd Boroujerdi, Political Science professor and Iran expert at Syracuse University, explains this is an opportune time for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to attack because "whoever did this was thinking the following: A, we can attack Iranians at this point in time, and the cannot lift a finger against us. Or B, we are going to force them into doing something radical, in which the world is going to have second thoughts about inviting them to Syria negotiations." As a result, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, the offshoot of Al Qaeda that operates within Lebanon claimed responsibility for the bombing is and has been able to threaten to inflict more carnage on Iran until it withdraws forces from Syria, since Iran  could lose significant benefits if it refuses to engage Al Qaeda and enhance conflict within the region. As a result, opponents of the Assad regime believe President Obama and President Rouhani are eager to end the decades of tension with Iran, and supporting the Assad regime has given Iran a crucial position in receiving a nuclear deal. Thus, it is within the interest of these rebel groups to establish terror and drastically effect the stability of specific regions and governments in order to gain influence.

Consequently, the bombing of the Iranian embassy highlights that countries outside of Syria are becoming victims and suffering from the series of sectarian conflicts and bombings on different Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim targets that have become increasingly interlinked with the escalating conflict in Syria. This spill over effect is not a surprise, and as Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif has expressed the bombing should be an "alarm for all" that intensifies the frequent security problem where conflict "cannot be contained in the region." Zarif went on to say "the tragedy today, two Iranians were victims of it and more and more Lebanese unfortunately than Iranians were victims of this tragedy, but that should be a reminder of all of us, that should be an alarm for all of us that we need to deal with the issue and unless we deal with this issue seriously it will engulf all of us." This does seem to be an increasing problem as several of Syria's most powerful rebel groups have just recently established a new Islamic force that desires toppling the Assad regime. This as increased the effectiveness of these rebel militant groups, and has reduced the efforts made by the United States, Iran, and other powers that have attempted to organize discussions that could end the war.

Therefore, the bombing of the Iranian Embassy brings forth a multitude of issues involving war and peace within the middle east. On one level, it effects US and Iranian relations involving deals and negotiations of nuclear energy. On another level, if the bombing highlights the inability for national security to prevent a spill over of conflict from Syria, which also infers an increasing lack of stability within the middle east. Even though this is an extremely simplistic view, it brings forth the issues of civil wars, terrorism, counter-terrorism, bargaining, and international cooperation, rebel groups within Syria have dramatically altered our discussions with countries such as Iran and they have brought forth greater concerns than solutions.

Works Cited

"Al Qaeda-linked Group Says It Bombed Iran Embassy in Beirut." RSS. Euronews, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Barnard, Anne. "Beirut Bombs Strike at Iran as Assad’s Ally." New York Times. New York Times, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

KARAM, SHOUMALI, and HUBBARD BEN. "Powerful Rebel Groups in Syria Announce Creation of Umbrella Alliance." New York Times. New York Times, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

The Fragmenting of Al Qaeda

In an article published this week by Foreign Affairs, William McCants discusses the mismanagement of Al Qaeda by its senior leaders. This topic comes in relation to our discussion this week on military organizations, professionalism, and their ties to government. Any organization as large as the Al Qaeda network needs to follow certain rules and regulations to keep from tearing itself apart. The organizations current leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri is now being reported as having significant problems keeping this kind of infighting out of the organization. Of the four major affiliates, the two in Northern and Western Africa have not been seeing eye to eye as of late. This is a result of having an influx in activity from Al Qaeda and an increase in their recruitment opportunities in the region. Interestingly, what is happening is when these affiliates attempt to recruit from the same regions, they end up squabbling over who will be in charge of the operations. Additionally, the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate or AQI has been openly defying Al Qaeda leadership during its operations in Syria. This groups leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has stated his organization has been operating within the Al Nusra front for an extended period of time and claims he has command over the Al Nusra organization. However, leadership from Al Nusra has rejected this claim, instead pledging allegiance to Zawahiri directly. These kinds of disconnects within an organization represent the chaos that can be created when expansion happens too quickly. Now Zawahiri is attempting to reunited his fragmented affiliates into a working global network.

These concepts apply well to our class by comparing them to the structure and management of the US Army. Although this organization is similar in scale, the US Army is significantly more professional and well managed. This is because of the various rules and regulations each soldier in the Army is held accountable to at all times. There are laws within the organization as well that dictate what a soldier may or may not do, and prevent the types of fragmentation that Al Qaeda has seen. Additionally, our military is tied in to our federal government and takes its missions from our commander in chief, President Obama.

What else do you all feel contributes to the success of large organizations like the military? Additionally, what other factors may be contributing to the fragmentation of Al Qaeda and other similar groups?

Sources:Foreign Affairs, Al Shofra, CNN

Why America doesn't use nuclear weapons

Looking at this enlightening article about the real reason behind America using nuclear weapon, it's reignites a discussion of using a realist lens to view nuclear power: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

America is the the hegemonic leader of the world. America has the greatest economy, with the best armed military. We have the nuclear power to destroy any conceivable enemy and military technology that is superior to any other nation. America is active is maintaining a nuclear balance in the world and keeps volatile enemies in check.  If one is to look at the world through a realist lens, they might ask why America has not acted to leverage its position to exploit other nations and consolidate power. The answer requires an economic lens. The US is a nation desensitized to the costs of war. The expenditures of the government are not felt directly through taxes. Our government finances itself through federal reserve activity and creates hidden inflation that is not recognized immediately by the people. The war effort to build and supply war craft and ammunition is no longer a national effort, but is imported or assigned to a select few government contractors. The American people have never felt a war on their soil and they see foreign intervention through the eyes of the media, which can't effectively convey the tragedy, scope, or price of war. Americans have lost the drivers behind imperialism. We are well fed and happy citizens. Machiavelli proposes that an outside threat must be present to mobilize a nation towards war and Americans do not view many threats as credible. The use of nuclear weapons is seen as a pure cost for Americans because the benefit is not apparent. This article talks about the ineffectiveness of nuclear weapons for some specific military goals:  http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is not a taboo, it's a rational economic choice. Americans look at a nuclear strike as a dangerous endeavor that could upset the status quo and start a chain reaction of nuclear war which is readily understood to harm everyone (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Looking at the graphs shown in class, we see that Americans are not significantly more opposed to the use of nuclear weapons than ordinary military action, we merely lack the incentives. My personal opinion is that if America were to experience a significant economic collapse, affecting the safety and comfort of every citizen, we would see an America much more willing to flex its muscles militarily, including nuclear.

US and Afghanistan reach agreement on long term security pact amid growing narcotics industry

Currently, the United States has 60,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan. At the peak of US intervention, that number was at about 100,000. But recently, Secretary of State John Kerry reached an agreement with the government of Afghanistan on a long term security pact in Afghanistan. The United States was already scheduled to withdraw most of its troops by the end of 2014, but now both governments have reached an agreement on a long term security pact. This would mean that after 2014, the number of US troops in Afghanistan would linger around 13,000. Although there is some speculation that the White House will want a smaller number than that due to domestic calls to withdraw completely from Afghanistan.
But there is one obstacle that stands in the way of this agreement. While the US government and Afghan governments have reached an agreement, the agreement needs to be approved by a loya jirga, or a tribal council. It will be interesting to see whether or not the tribal council will approve of this since they have posed as obstacles in the past to US policy in Afghanistan.
Another obstacle that this agreement is yet to address is the growing poppy trade in Afghanistan. Since 2002, the US has spent $7 billion trying to fight the ballooning narcotics industry. But this money has not been of much use. It is estimated that about 154,000 hectares are used to harvest poppy in Afghanistan. A Pentagon report to Congress reported that the 2013 harvest of poppy was going to be "considerably larger" than the harvest of 2012.
So what will happen once US troops drop to 13,000? The obvious answer is that the poppy trade will continue to grow. After all, this is the livelihood of many rural Afghans. But before we even reach that point, it will be interesting to see whether the loya jirga will approve of the long term security pact. After all, many of the representatives of the loya jirga come from areas where poppy is harvested. So what effects do you think the US troop withdrawal will have on the poppy trade?

Sources: As U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan, poppy trade it spent billions fighting still flourishes.
Kerry: U.S., Afghanistan agree on security pact
Afghanistan-U.S. reach draft security agreement.

And Now I Guess They're Doing Meth...

To switch it up a little from our current posts on nuclear weapons, I recently stumbled on an article on ABC News that stated that five people were charged in a US meth bust from North Korea. Five foreigners were arrested in Thailand back in September and were charged in the United States (today) with plotting to smuggle 100 kilograms of meth, produced in North Korea. Two of the men, who are apparently a part of a Hong Kong based criminal organization that is responsible for selling meth produced in North Korea, along with one other from Thailand and another two from Britain, had agreed to store and transport the drugs, before 30 kilograms of this meth was seized by authorities in both Thailand and the Philippines.

This year, these suppliers provided over 100 kilograms to sources that worked with the DEA, bragging that they were the only group to be able to smuggle this meth from North Korea after the united States cracked down on production there. They also stated that many of the labs in North Korea have been burned down in order to show the American's that they were no longer producing meth, however this particular group has labs that remain open. One of the men even claimed to have stored 1 ton of meth away because of the tensions between America and North Korea that might hinder its production. After meeting with DEA sources, the suppliers meth was tested in the US and was found to be 98 percent pure (that's some Breaking Bad shit if I've ever seen it).

North Korea, which has, for decades, been secretive from the rest of the world in much of its ventures, has received much of its scrutiny from the rest of society because of its tensions surrounding nuclear weapons, as well as surrounding many human rights violations (BBC News). Unknown to myself, and maybe some of you as well, North Korea has also been responsible for trafficking an assortment of drugs for decades with over 50 documented incidents (CNN). It was noted that there had not been a large scale drug trafficking incident involving DPRK state entities since 2004, and that something on this scale may be due to corrupt security agents and government officials who have allowed transnational drug smuggling to slide under the radar. So, should busts like this be happening more often? What can we do about drug traffickers world wide? Should every nation strengthen their trade policies/their security agents who may be responsible for letting drugs pass our borders? While these may be questions that are challenging to answer, I believe they deserve some consideration so that, in the future, the entire world might be safer.

Megatons to Megawatts

"Congratulations on the last shipment! Be safe!" was the message written by the Assistant Secretary of the State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, on the side of a cylinder containing the uranium of Soviet atomic bombs. This past Thursday the final shipment of nuclear reactor fuel left Russia on its way towards the United States thus bringing an end to post-Cold War program that has been supplying energy for the American nuclear power industry for twenty years. The program dubbed Megatons to Megawatts has been creating more electricity in the United States than any other alternative source, providing about ten percent of the overall power. Due to it the Uranium being "weapons grade" its is expected that this shipment should be keeping the lights on in the US until around 2020. Another strategic arms reduction treaty was signed between the two world powers in 2010 that will reduce each respective surplus by 450 warheads. A quote from Bruce Blair, the founder of the disarmament program Global Zero stated, "This program represented the pinnacle of U.S.-Russian nuclear Security cooperation, and its end leaves a huge vacuum that needs to be filled by a new innovative program of cooperation that puts another nail in the coffin of the Cold War."

Luckily for the world it seems that the nuclear arms race of the 1950's is finally creating more than just fear. We read about how the presence of nuclear weapons being used as a threat of complete annihilation does not create an ability to strong-arm, providing that the existential build up of weapons was rather useless. So I now present this question, can we look back on the nuclear arms race in a positive light due to the alternative energy that it is contributing as well as the implication that research from this contribution could further lead to a renewable energy supply that would detract dependence on foreign oil, thus lessening international strain/conflict caused by the economic prowess of the oil industry? Would this even be a plausible scenario to suppress conflict between states of Western ideology with the Middle East?

Caught in the Crossfire

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to burn bridges between his country and the United States.  To back track a bit, in March, Israel was pushed by President Obama to apologize for the 2010 take over of a Turkish convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza which resulted in the death of nine Turks.  Regardless of this apology, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan disclosed to Iran the identities of ten Iranians that were working for Israel.  This compromise of Israeli intelligence is described in a Washington Post article as "an effort to slap the Israelis."  To make matters worse, Mr. Erdogan continues to bash the Israelis, further diminishing hope of a reconciliation between the two states.  Although President Obama's attempt to adjudicate this relationship resulted in an apology for the Gaza flotilla incident, his efforts appear to mean nothing to Prime Minister Erdogan.  By outing these Israeli spies, Mr. Erdogan has proved his lack of credibility with respect to reconciliation.

As if Turkish relations with Israel weren't enough to anger the United States, the Economist reports that Erdogan made an announcement in September that Turkey is "planning to co-produce a missile-defense system with a Chinese company that is under American sanctions for its dealings with Syria, North Korea, and Iran."  This equipment, according to the Chinese, is intended to protect Turkey from Syrian or Iranian missiles however is "not compatible with those of other NATO members."  According to BBC News, in a trip Erdogan took to China, he claimed that the crossfire from Syria which has injured and killed Turks is "a clear violation" of Turkey's borders and that he would respond appropriately.  Now it's being speculated that Erdogan is accepting this deal in an attempt to "force the Europeans and the Americans to offer better terms" in an attempt to protect his citizens.  This situation would work well towards the argument that US sanctions are ineffective.  It's too easy for sanctioned countries to find alternative markets and too difficult for countries imposing sanctions to isolate another country's economy.  Sanctions on the Chinese in this situation are not preventing them from finding an alternative market in the Turks who are seeking to protect their borders in a way that's effective and affordable.  In fact, if these "better terms" are eventually offered, this particular US sanction will appear to have backfired.  By trying to deter the Chinese from producing this missile-defense system, the US has pushed them towards another market seeking a cheaper deal than what the US has to offer.  Mr. Erdogan, however may not have had to go through the trouble of negotiations with the Chinese if he had proceeded with reconciling his country's relationship with Israel in order to please the United States.  Rather by compromising the identities of the Iranians, he is further proving his unwillingness to cooperate with Israel. As a result, the United States is left with little incentive to help the Turks with their defense technology. This, in turn, is what forces the Turks to negotiate with the Chinese to obtain protection from Syrian missiles. However, because of the sanctions imposed on the Chinese, the Turks may have discovered a new incentive for the United States to offer an alternative.