A recent article by Nathan Brown in the FP (Americans, put away your quills), argues very eloquently against the advocacy and promotion of ‘American constitutional ideas’ (and ideals) in Arab countries currently in transition due to the Arab Spring.  Although the history of U.S. constitutional transplantation is mixed at best (failed in Latin America in the eighteen hundreds, was somewhat more successful in Germany-Japan-Italy after WWII, remains to be seen what happens in Iraq), I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brown’s assertion that “much of our advice will be bad and most will be irrelevant.”

The Middle East – North Africa (MENA) region represents that last remaining undemocratic region of the world.  No other region has the highest concentration of authoritarian regimes and absolute monarchies.  Although the U.S. has a lot of baggage on its side, especially when it comes to its foreign policy during the past 60 years, the one thing that America can still brag about is its system of governance.  The one thing that the U.S. can still educate the rest of the world is governance!  [Do as I say, not as I do!]

Mr. Brown is right in pointing out that the U.S. constitutional experience is very idiosyncratic.  On the other hand, I would venture to say that the U.S. system of governance is what has contributed immensely to the longevity of the republic and the overall success of the American economy.

For comparison, consider Greece (my home-country, with a population of similar temperament but only slightly better luck then the Arab people) and its current sovereign debt crisis.  The true reason of Greece’s economic misfortunes (the high government spending and low tax collection) is DUE TO (what I like to call) the dictatorship of the Prime-minister.  For the majority of the past 30 years, the office of the Prime-minister exercised complete control over the Greek government – no checks and balances, no divided government between different parties, just a Westminster model tailored to the ‘idiosyncratic needs’ of the Greek society where the prevailing political philosophy/ideology demands a strong executive branch with enhanced legislative powers in order to ‘swiftly pass vital reforms.’  Greece’s system of governance, in itself a foreign transplant that has now become part of the Greek political identity, is primarily responsible for the current state of overall disrepair.

The right form of governance for the right society has never been easy to identify.  A lot of times, societies have adopted forms of governance that were imposed to them by past colonial masters or short sighted revolutionary uprisings.  The MENA region, with its long set of constitutional traditions, is no different.

The prevailing parliamentary system of governance currently in effect in most North African countries, which Mr. Brown argues should be respected because of its long routes in the various societies and the familiarity of local actors (politicians, academics, judges) with it, is also a transplant of European origin.  Parliamentary democracy where the executive and the legislature come from the same body (united against ‘the crown’) is not indigenous to Egypt or Tunisia, let alone Jordan or Morocco (not to mention Libya!).

Instead of tweaking around the edges of the current political/constitutional systems (as Mr. Brown suggests), the people of the region might be better served if their opted for a whole new system of governance!

It is time to end the experiment with the Westminster model: of government being derived, depended and tethered of the legislative branch.  American federalism is hard to implement because it demands too much from both the people and politicians – constant participation on the part of the people (at multiple levels of government) and mature restrain on the part of politicians.  However, the world has changed since Latin American countries tried to implement U.S.-style federalism, and I believe young people are now better prepared to adopt a system of governance that demands much but can deliver even more!

Constitutional Suggestions for the ‘Arab Spring’

When federalism at the national level is applied properly it leads to multiple centres of power (and thus multiple leaders), not just one strongman (a president or a prime-minister with all the power).  What could be more appropriate for the people of North Africa and the Middle East, which have suffered so much at the hands of a few dictators, than to adopt a political system that does not deify one person or one family?  The U.S. federal system of governance provides an excellent starting point for any discussion about constitutional reform in the region.

The most fundamental tenet of the U.S. federal system of governance is the complete institutional separation of powers at the national level, while at the same time every decision at the national level requires the consent of all the branches of government.  Therefore, Legislative (Congress), Executive (President) and Judiciary (Supreme Court) branches are completely separate, but laws passed by the legislature need the approval of the President), and are subject to review by the Courts.

Second, the legislative process is performed by a bi-cameral legislature, where one chamber represents the people (House of Representatives) while the other (Senate) represents the sub-national units (States), and both chambers are equal in power and responsibility.  Furthermore, by staggering the terms of legislators (2 years for House members, 6 years for Senate members) and staggering the election of Senators (one third up for re-election every two years), the legislature is being renewed every two years while being insulated from dramatic swings in popular opinion.

Third, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials, Ambassadors, and Judges have to be considered and approved by the legislature.  This oversight role of Congress continues after Cabinet members are appointed, when they are required by law to appear in front of select legislative committees and report on their departments activities, answer questions, and make available to legislators any and all information’s that legislators deem relevant.

Finally, the independence of the judiciary branch is guaranteed through life-time appointments.  Although judges are selected by the President and approved by the legislature, they are appointed for life, and their removal is exceptional and very hard to achieve.  Furthermore, judges have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, and through the years have many times struck down laws which were not consistent with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.

Add to these fundamental elements of the U.S. system, term limits for politician, clear provisions for amending the constitution and removing the President, an independent Electoral Commission, and an independent and competent Office for the protection of Human Rights, and you have a recipe for political stability and economic success.

The Right Form of Governance

The history of modern economic development is full of successes and failures.  The failures appear to be more than the successes; from the many African nations that have never truly improved their condition since independence 60 years ago, to the Middle East, rich with oil but stagnant economically and democratically.  Now, the nations of the Arab world are going through some major changes to their regimes and future systems of governance.  Identifying the right form of governance for the right society has never been easy, but federalism could be the most appropriate of all possible choices for the nations of the ‘Arab Spring’!

During the 19^th century, the exportation of U.S.-style federalism was deemed detrimental to the political development of Latin America nations.  I believe the times have change, and U.S.-style federalism could serve as a future system of governance for the ‘Arab Spring’ nations.  Furthermore, by advocating for constitutional reforms that promote federalism and good governance, and by rewording those nations that truly adopt such changes, the U.S. can restore its role in the world stage as a champion of democratic principles.

We owe it to the world, whether they need our advice or not!

This is first part of a series of posts on Iran based on travel experiences in the country in 2011.

“Sir, can I ask why Iran?” asked the travel agent whom I called to book the flight for Tehran.

 “I have an interest in the culture, people and language”, I respond.

“Hmmm but people would normally go to Dubai for that… anyway”, he conveys his lack of cultural knowledge.

Just like a lot of people confuse us Pakistanis as Arabs, the Iranians have to face the same misery.

The country is so diverse in terms of culture, lifestyle and landscape that planning the trip to Iran was itself an exciting experience – from LonelyPlanet to Iranian travel agents, books and travel documentaries; I explored everything to ensure my time in Iran is well spent and I return with a better understanding of the country and its people.  With the variety it has got, its unfortunate Iran isn’t a hot tourist destination.

Getting a Visa

Iran Visa

Despite the bad press, the travel agency business seems booming in Iran. There are hundreds of them in the capital and tens in other bigger cities. They can help planning the trip, arranging accommodation, travel, guides and more. Most importantly, you may need them to get a visa. Although nationals of some countries can get a visa-on-arrival but the recommended option is to get in touch with a travel agency, email relevant documents (passport copy, itinerary etc), make the visa handling payment (30-50 Euro) and wait for them to get you a Visa Ref Number which you take to your local Iranian Embassy and get a visa stamped on the passport on-spot. I received my Visa Ref number in a week and didn’t even had to go to the Iranian Embassy. You can post your Passport, Visa Ref Number and payment details to the Embassy and they return passport with the visa fairly quick. The visa fee depends on your nationality.

I would highly recommend Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency and specifically Marjan Owji in their Visa Department. She can help you in literally everything on your trip to Iran and she does that not from a customer-friendly-business perspective, its Persian hospitality at its best. She took only three working days to get back to me and the Embassy took another three days. The visa process was fairly straightforward. Everyone, except citizens of Israel can get an Iranian visa. The citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia and Turkey can stay for up to 3 months without a visa.  The maximum duration of tourist visa is 30 days while for the visa-on-arrival its 15 days. Once in Iran, extension is possible fairly easy.

Visa fee for every country is available here and here. We had to pay something around £20 on a Pakistani passport and £120 on a British passport. More information can be obtained by calling the local Iranian Embassy or browsing the MFA Iran website.

As a notable exception, the 90sq-km beach resort of Kish Island, south of Iran, easily accessible from Dubai, does not require advance visas for visits of up to 14 days, including Americans. This is Iran’s response to the Emirates and the state is promoting trade (by making it free-trade-zone) and tourism on the island. The island has facilities for scuba diving, jet-skiing, sailing, fishing, parasailing, reef walking, coral viewing, boating and water-skiing and offers gorgeous white sandy beaches for relaxing walks and plenty of huge malls if you fancy a retail therapy.

Air-lines

Most of the major carriers have flights to Iran but the favourite for travelling to Iran are Iran’s national carrier Iran Air, Azerbaijan airlines with stopover in Baku, Aeroflot (Russian airlines) with stopover in Moscow, Air France and other Middle East based carriers.  Other low-cost international carriers include Pegasus airlines (Istanbul-Tehran), Air Asia (Far East-Tehran), Air Arabia and Jazeera Airways both connecting through the middle East.

Launched in the mid of 20^th century, Iran Air started with domestic flights between Tehran and Mashhad. By 1970s, Iran Air was ranked amongst the safest airlines in the world (second only to Qantas; being accident free for decades). However, things changed suddenly after the revolution. Because of the US imposed sanctions, the airline could not buy new planes and even had to cancel deals setup earlier. The sanctions meant the airline had to rely on older planes, risking the security of the passengers and the staff onboard. At present, majority of the fleet is decades old with average age nearing 25 years. The Fajr Aviation and Composites Industry in Tehran is responsible for overhauling existing fleet and designing new airplanes. Recently, there have been conflicts over refuelling Iran Air planes as well when UK CAA and the Abu Dhabi Airports Company refused to refuel Iran Air planes. The EU has also recently banned Iran Air’s fleet of Boeing and Airbus because of safety concerns.

I choose to fly with Aeroflot – cheaper, good connections and short stopovers. The flight originated from London Heathrow, serving nicely done Salmon and landing three hours later in Tehran’s primary IKA airport (30KM from city). The two-hour stopover at Moscow Sheremetyevo International Airport was an interesting experience – this was by far the best airport I have seen so far. It’s so huge it could take hours walking from one terminal to the other with duty free shops spread everywhere and the airport giving a fine, shiny, glossy clean look and feel. Plenty of Iranians on the airport – some praying, some gossiping or buying stuff; looks like this the favorite route from EU to get back home for them. It took another three hours for the flight from Moscow to Tehran with an amazing Omelet served for breakfast as we approached Iran.

Note that if not staying in Tehran and planning to get to any city other than Tehran upon your arrival, you would have to change airports, from Imam Khomeini to Mehrabad, 40 km away, to get to your domestic flight.

Accommodation in Iran

Courtyard of a traditional hotel in Iran

You do not necessarily need travel agents to book accommodation for you, although that’s the easiest way. Popular travel/hotel-booking websites like booking.com, venere.com, laterooms.com do not support Iranian hotels; again because of the economic sanctions. However, there are lots of websites voluntarily setup by Iranians who like to see more people visiting their country and these provide lots of information on hotels, pictures, locations, costs etc. You can use these websites, in addition to travel agent websites to choose hotels and then book by directly calling/emailing the hotel, many of which have their own websites as well.

There is no presence of international-chain-hotels like Marriot or Holiday Inn in Iran – if you have read this far, you should know why. The hotels in Iran come in three varieties:

(i)                  Cheap bed-n-breakfasts with private or shared accommodation – These can be found in pretty much every city and are  generally located in city centre with good transport links. Tehran is scattered with hundreds of them.

(ii)                Traditional hotels – These are Iranian version of premium-posh hotels. They are generally converted Inns, older mansions/houses, travellers and traders resting spots – called Sofrekhane Sonati in Farsi. Ponds, trees and fountains in the central lawn, tinted glass windows and beautifully lit at night, these are your best bet to experience Iranian culture.

(iii)               Mid-range to top-notch modern hotels – Larger urban capitals and tourist destinations like Kish Islands have a few modern hotels to compete with multi-star international hotels. Generally, they are not located in city centre and price range vary on a large scale, so one needs to be cautious to check prices from several sources.

Travelling between cities

Transportation between cities in Iran is comfortable, safe, timely, reliable, well managed and cheap as chips. Cities and towns are connected through buses, rail network and domestic flights while port-cities and towns both in North and South also enjoy ferry connections. Depending on the distance, time available to travel and cost considerations, one can make use of flights, trains, buses or even hire comparatively cheaper private taxis.

Buses: Iran enjoys a pretty extensive and competitive bus network from most of its major cities. Major cities have bus terminals a few miles outside the city, planned on the model of airports with separate terminals and connected to city through local transport links. Buses can take you from anywhere to anywhere in Iran – pretty much anytime of the day (or night), normally without long stop-overs and running on time. Police checkpoints on the highways ensure safety. Tickets can be booked either in advance by calling the bus station or on-spot if you reach sometime before expected time of bus departure.

Iran Buses

The buses generally come in two classes: lux/Mercedes/2nd class and super/Volvo/1st class. First class buses are air-conditioned and you will be provided with a small snack during your trip, while second class services are more frequent. There is little financial incentive to opt for the second class tickets.  Among the many bus operators, Royal Safar Iranian is the best, in terms of comfort and reliability, with a fleet of modern comfortable buses. They also run sleeper buses between major cities with reclining chairs, serving Iranian meals and sweets and movies on play – e.g. Shiraz to Isfahan all for $11; while regular buses cost $6. Apparently, you can book tickets online at http://www.royall.ir/ , if you can read their Farsi website or by calling the available phone numbers. Other bus operators are named Seir-o-Safar and Taavoni. Saipa Diesel, Iran’s leading manufacturer of trucks, trailer and mini-buses provides many of the buses you see on roads in Iran. The company also imported several hundred larger buses from China to serve on longer routes.

Trains: The train network is limited but comfortable, speedy and affordable. It has been expanding at 500KM every year for few years and major cities have been connected through contracts with Chinese companies. The under construction Chabahar-Zahedan-Mashhad railway line extending from northeast to southeast will enable Pakistan pilgrims to travel by train to Mashhad instead of the long bus journey from the border. Other international links include trains to Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. It is possible to travel from London to Tehran, by train!

Tehran Railway Station

The passenger rail system is called Raja Passenger Trains. The Sleeper berths in trains allow good night’s sleep specially on longer journeys like Tehran-Mashhad; will cost almost double the bus ticket but are worth it on longer journeys. The best of the trains are called 4 pax Ghazal or Plur train. The added benefit of travelling by train in Iran, like anywhere else, is that you get to see a lot of places on the way, sample food, see tourists and unlike many places, get a chance to meet, talk with and befriend locals. This is your best option to make a few good friends in Iran.

For Train timings, ticket prices and booking information, Google is your friend. If nothing helps, travel agencies can do it for you.

Domestic Flights: A leading oil producer can of course afford to have cheap domestic flights, sometimes dramatically cheap in comparison to international market. Planes are aging, and maintenance and safety procedures are sometimes well below western standards, but it still remains the safest way to get around Iran, given the huge death toll on the roads and longer distances between cities. The average price is in the range of $50 – $80.

Iran Air

Iran’s major domestic carriers Mahan Air, Iran Air, Kish Air and Aseman Air, all have websites and online booking system but you cannot make use of online ticket booking unless you have an Iranian bank account or a debit/credit card. The reason obviously is economic sanctions imposed on Iran means no international banking relationship with Iranian companies. The best way to book domestic flight tickets in Iran before landing in Iran is (i) find local office of above stated Iranian airlines in your city/country and they can do it for you or (ii) use an Iranian travel agent to book tickets for you, they will give you eticket and you pay them into their bank account normally setup somewhere in the EU.

Off Days in Iran

Thursday is generally half-day and Friday is the weekend break. Saturday and Sunday are normal working days. The biggest and most celebrated of all events in Iran is Nowrooz – the start of new year on Persian calendar which is marked with a week off. Other holidays are linked to the revolution and religious days (Muharram/Ramzan) as well as Eid festival.

Comparison Charts

Based on all the information I gathered from websites, Lonely Planet and talking to travel agents, I composed a comparative chart with compares price offers by four different travel agencies for hotel accomodation and travelling between cities (cab/train/flight). This helped me figure out which agency works best for me. The chart can be downloaded in image format here and more detailed Excel format here.

In the next posts, we’ll explore Iran from inside…. with pictures, videos and lots of interesting stories and interpersonal observations.

Some of the travel Agencies I spoke to….

• Setareh, Lotus Travel Agency
• Iran Paradise
• Tehran based Dornagasht
• Marjan Owji, Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency
• Sara, Iran Tour Package/Lovely Iran
•  Zohreh Souki, Tehran based Sarvineh Tours, Welcome2Iran

Some of the websites I used for hotel search…

• http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotels-g293998-Iran-Hotels.html#T_CAT_HOTEL_MOTEL
• http://www.audleytravel.com/Destinations/North-Africa-and-The-Middle-East/Iran/Accommodation.aspx
• http://www.persiatravelmart.com/
• http://www.asemangasht.com/?blog=22
• http://www.iranbudgettour.com/iran-hotels
• http://www.irantour.org/hotel.html
• http://www.southtravels.com/middleeast/iran/index.html
• http://www.hoteltravel.com/iran
• http://www.bestirantravel.com/hotel/hotels.html
• http://www.irpedia.com/iran-hotels/

Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm

Earlier this month, Denmark appointed Klavs A. Holm as the new Arctic Ambassador, an office which will become permanent. At the same time, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal announced the closure of the embassies in Iraq, Benin, and Zambia. This move gives a strong signal that Denmark is putting forth a more visible diplomatic presence in the circumpolar north while refocusing its priorities in the Global South, where it will open embassies in Myanmar and Libya. Ambassador Holm will represent all three parts of the Danish Commonwealth: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. He will also coordinate the implementation of the government’s Arctic strategy, released last August.

Holm previously served as the Danish Ambassador in London, Paris, and Singapore. He also represented Denmark to the EU, in Brussels, where he worked on Arctic issues. The current ambassador for Public Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have his work cut out for him, as Foreign Minister Søvndal made clear when he visited Thule Air Force Base last December. When asked what assignments the new Arctic Ambassador would have, he responded, “If you ask for specific tasks, we can name climate change, which means that shipping in the Arctic is increasing in scope. There are very specific tasks to perform in relation to search and rescue in these remote areas. The area is large, and first and foremost, we must prepare the new agreements.” Specifically, he added, “It is clear that we need the Americans to not block civilian usage of Thule. Now, there will be a negotiation process to clarify how far we can go” (translated from the Danish). Search and rescue will thus be an important topic for Holm, as will mining and indigenous peoples – two issues which overlap heavily in Greenland. China has lately expressed strong interest in investing in Greenland’s mineral deposits, the Wall Street Journal reports, which might be cause for Holm to visit Beijing.

Denmark can now be added to the short list of countries which have Arctic ambassadors, which includes Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The United States and Canada are noticeably absent from this list, though there have been calls in the latter country to bring back the position (see here and here). Canada had an Arctic Ambassador from 1994 to 2006, but the role was abolished, as former Foreign Minister Peter McKay then stated, “We didn’t feel we were getting good value for money from that position.”

News Links

“New Danish Arctic Ambassador,” IPS

“Søvndal udnævner ambassadør for det aller nordligste,” Politiken (in Danish)

Until the Arab spring movement and its legion of revolutionaries came to clash with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime, demanding an end to decades of autocracy and repression, the Americans considered Yemen’s autocrat a “bulwark” against terrorism, a strategic ally in the region in the fight against al-Qaeda, the well-known Islamic organization.
When it became clear that Yemenis were determined to depose the aging dictator, no matter the amount of blood his armed forces were willing to shed, the White House started to shift its rhetoric, calling for reforms and a transition to more “democratic institutions.”

The “beautiful friendship” which united the 2 countries started to melt away at the pyre of people’s anger, threatening to damage America’s foothold in the region.
Although many democracy militants have accused the United States of America of siding with dictators for it served their middle-eastern policies, accusing them of protecting and in the case of President Saleh harboring war criminals; one could wonder whether America is not playing a much sinister game of plots and betrayals.
One does not need to go back to far up in the history book to remember another well-known autocrat whose friendship was discarded when he failed to fulfill his purpose. Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran was abandoned by his “American friends” and almost sold back to the Ayatollahs when he failed to live up to the White House foreign policies’ expectations.
Could the Obama’s administration turn against Saleh and hand him over to those who are clamoring for his arrest? Could Yemen’s infamous statesman become the new Shah of Iran in his desperate search for political asylum?
One cannot draw away from the remarkable symmetry in between the two deposed leaders. One ran away for his allegiance to the West angered his people so that he feared they would execute him, another was forced to relinquish the power America’s helped him to master for 3 decades. Both turned to the United States and were denied entry, both insisted, both were eventually allowed.
One was betrayed, one is awaiting his fate.

Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran

The very countries which are claiming to be promoting Democracy and Freedom across the Globe, saying that they will always side with those who seek to emulate western standards, are the very ones who crushed the little hope Iran had at becoming a successful democratic state.
Because Iran’s emancipation stood in the way of their economic interests, the United States and Britain decided to assert the Shah’s absolute power over his people.
When Mohamed Mosadeqq, the founder and leader of the National Front of Iran was elected Prime Minister by the Parliament, he immediately announced the nationalization of Iran Oil industry, shutting out the immensely lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which at the time was one of Britain main economic pillars.
The British then convinced the Americans of the need to overthrow Mosadeqq and re-establish the Shah of Iran as the only authority in the country, arguing that the move would serve both nations interest in the region.
Iran strategic geo-political position and its vast Oil reserves represented too much of an asset for western hegemony to let something such as democracy get in the way.

After a “coup d’état” known as the “operation Ajax” failed, the Shah was pressured into issuing a decree stating Mosadeqq’s demotion. Subsequently the Shah fled to Iraq, then Italy for he feared for his life. He later came back under the protection of his allies.
2 decades later, the Shah was ousted by his people as his attempts to westernize and secularize Iran had anger the people and the political class to such an extent that they sought his execution.
In exile and ill with cancer the monarch turned to the United States of America for safety only to be denied asylum. After he insisted for he said he needed urgent medical treatment, the Pentagon agreed to allow him in for a limited period of time. It turned out that the visit of the Royal coincided with an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of some 400 American nationals.
Caught in the middle of much controversy, shun away by his former friends, a terminally ill Shah sought refuge in Latin America to finally come to die in Egypt where he is buried.

Ali Abdullah Saleh

In the wake of the attack on American soil by al-Qaeda in 2001, President Saleh realized that if he had any chance of surviving the military wave which was threatening to come his way he had to quickly seal an alliance with the Western giant.
The Yemeni-American fight against terrorism was born.
And if Saleh manipulated his new “friends” by playing up their fear in exchange for financial support the alliance cost him dearly on the political front.
As Drones attacks became more frequent and civilian casualties mounted, Yemenis started to speak of treason, accusing the autocrat of allowing foreign forces to enter Yemen air space in exchange for cash.
The seeds of revolt were planted.

And although it took Yemen nearly 2 decades to finally mobilize the needed momentum to rise up against the state apparatus, Saleh’s opponents proved impossible to stop.
Having witnessed first-hand the power of the people in Egypt, the White House decided to operate differently in Yemen, preferring to prepare the autocrat’s exit according to a specific set of terms rather than let the mob overtake the presidential palace and potentially ruin any hope of further cooperation on the al-Qaeda front.

But if Saleh successfully secured his political and financial safety as well as that of his extended family, his troubles might not be over yet.
Just as Yemen is preparing to welcome a new president, Saleh who was victim of a bomb attack in 2011 at the very heart of his presidential compound has since been suffering from ill-health, requiring extensive medical attention.
As the Shah did before him, Saleh asked to be allowed to travel to the United States to undergo some much needed medical treatment, only to be refused. Following weeks of intense negotiations and much political controversy, the White House finally agreed to allow Saleh in, providing that his visit be brief and strictly confined to the hospital.

And as the Shah before him, his countrymen are already gathering, demanding that he’d be deported to the International Criminal Court of Justice for crimes against humanity and his assets frozen for having pillage Yemen’s riches.
Only weeks after Yemen’s parliament granted him immunity, Saleh runs the risk, like the Shah did, of being sold out to his opponents for he no longer serves his purpose and has become somewhat of a liability. And since United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declared that no immunity would stand in a court of law when it came to war crimes and gross violations to human rights, the White House could in all good conscience leave the autocrat to suffer the fate he deserves.

In Obama’s third State of the Union, foreign policy and defense achievements were only used as opening and closing components to his one hour long speech. This was not a surprise considering the current domestic and economic situation of the US as well as the successes of President Obama in foreign affairs.

Obama opened his speech by listing his accomplishments in foreign policy: return of all combat troops from Iraq; the end of the threat from Osama Ben Laden and the perpetual attacks against his operatives around the world; and the progressive removal of troops from Afghanistan. The use of the foreign policy and military successes were used as a transition towards the core of his speech: how to transform America and shape a strong economy.

Obama started the core of speech with a reference to the end of WW2 when the US “built the strongest economy the world has ever known.” He then declared that the “defining issue of our time is to keep this promise [American dream] alive.” Very quickly President Obama launched his attack against Wall Street and the unregulated economy. With no surprise this State of the Union was directly oriented towards the domestic economic problems such as health care, education, tax reform, manufacturing, immigration, consumer protection, financial regulation, and energy independence among others.

Very interestingly, President Obama spent a considerable amount of time on the theme of the reform of the government and the American institutions. As a politician and individual, Obama strongly believes in role of institutions. Despite this philosophical conviction, he rightly declared that “Washington is broken.” His institutional and government reforms did not generate a large support among elected officials present in the House. President Obama talked about the corrosive influence between money and politics. He even called for bills ending the legal inside trading benefiting members of Congress, limit and monitor economic conflict of interests, as well as controlling the lobbying of Congress. He also discussed the need for a reform of the executive branch.

The last segment of his speech went back to foreign policy, as a virtuous circle, by underlining the killing of Osama and the perpetual attacks against Al Qaeda operatives around the world. Then, Obama spoke of the return of troops from Afghanistan and the progressive transition to the Afghan government. His mention of the Arab Spring was used in order to talk about the end of old authoritarian regimes such as the one in Libya, and soon to be in Syria. His claim was that even with an uncertain transformation and political direction in the region, the US will advocate for the same values shared at home: human rights and democracy. President Obama also reinforced his opposition to the Iranian nuclear program. His main strategy remains embedded in the power of diplomacy, which has generated international consensus leading to  increasing isolation of the Iranian regime. America is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and Obama “will take no options off the table.” However, a peaceful solution will be preferred.

For Europe, the turning point was obviously when Obama defined the US as being a ‘pacific power.’ Europe was nonexistent and never mentioned, not even the Euro crisis. President Obama did not talk about the share mission and success in Libya with the use of NATO. Two scenarios can be made from the non-mention of Europe: either, it is time for Europe to pick up the burden; or Europe was yesterday’s concerns. Let’s face it, this was not a surprise.

In the concluding segment of the speech, Obama shouted that ‘America is back,’ leading to a lasting applause. He argued that the people that speak about the decline of America “do not know what they are talking about.” Such statement put me in a strange position as I am teaching this semester a course on the decline of Great Powers, and the US is one of them. Hopefully, my students were not watching the State of the Union otherwise I may end up with a revolution in the classroom. Obama went on by declaring that US soft power and influence is still powerful across the globe and the US remains the leading world power. The closing statement of his State of the Union was based on a message and call for unity. In order to foster unity, promote success and fulfill American promises two elements were advanced: the protestant ethic and the military.

This State of the Union was a solid speech incorporating clear and feasible components for the coming years as well as points for his program of reelection. For Europe, this 2012 State of the Union is one more indication that the US is looking West; Obama has always looked towards Asia for personal and strategic reasons, rightfully so. Europe is and will remain America’s strongest ally. However, it is time for Europe to finally accept its role and responsibilities without having the US looking over its shoulder.

What should be the punishment for a person(s) who killed numerous innocent women & children? Specifically, 24 innocents killed including 10 women & children killed at point blank range. Shot in the head.

What should be the punishment?

a) Death Penalty

b) Life Imprisonment

c) Anything remotely approaching any semblance of an attempt at justice

d) A possible MAXIMUM sentence of three months of confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay for three months and a reduction in rank for the LEADER. EXONERATION for all others.

If you picked a, b or c, you failed. d) is the right answer. Ok, it was a trick question. All the dead were Iraqis, so they don’t matter. They were lesser human beings. Was this verdict juctice? No. My bad, typo. Was this verdict American justice? Oh, yes! Salute the troops, lets start the parade. The righteous and brave american warriors have saved the world (by executing babies, women & men). All hail USA.

And this is the remarkable american justice in “a case” that came to light in some of the media. The thousands others who have been massacred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan & all over the world, they have been spared this shining beacon of American justice.

US marine pleads guilty to Haditha killings

Update Edit: US marine to serve no time over Iraq killings

A US marine accused over the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in the city of Haditha was demoted to the rank of private but will serve no time behind bars, a military spokesman has said.

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the last squad member to face justice after all the others were cleared, was sentenced to 90 days confinement but he will not serve it for procedural reasons, the spokesman said.
…

“the last squad member to face justice”. Hmm, is that what we call this farce? Justice. Seriously? USA, USA. Salute the troops. Shooting innocent people including point blank executions of children & women nets only 1 person a DEMOTION in rank while all others walk scot free. Justice? No. ‘American’ Justice? You betcha. America <— the pits of moral depravity.

Guest Contribution by Reza Marashi

The following piece was written by Reza Marashi in Foreign Policy Magazine on January 19, 2012. Mr. Marashi is Director of Research at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and a former Iran Desk Officer at the U.S. Department of State.  The image in this piece, however, is a choice of FPA.
____________________________________________

by Reza Marashi

An eerily familiar drumbeat of war is intensifying across Washington, just as the United States ends its decade-long adventure in Iraq. The ghosts of America’s neoconservative past have dusted off their Iraq playbook to make the case for war with Iran. Their formula is simple but effective: Portray the Iranian government and its nuclear program as existential threats, insist that a chain of catastrophic events will result from inaction, and minimize the costs and risks of war.

If one looks back, however, neoconservative officials in the U.S. government weren’t alone in their push for war with Iraq. A crucial aspect of selling the war to the U.S. public was support within the Iraqi-American community. Iraqi dissidents living abroad, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya, as well as supposed whistle-blowers turned known fabricators like the infamous “Curveball,” led a contingent of vocal Iraqis who pushed for steadily more aggressive actions to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. Their promise that the invasion would be a cakewalk and that U.S. soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy didn’t quite pan out. Now, the fruits of their labor are clear for all to see — a broken country, devastated by war and sectarian strife, with no discernible end in sight.

Iranian-Americans, in stark contrast with the Iraqi diaspora, have largely opposed a rush to war. This is a fact that I have observed up close, while working in the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs and now at the National Iranian American Council, where I maintain close and continuing contact with Iranian-Americans to ensure we accurately represent their views. Together, these two vantage points have crystallized one key takeaway: Iranian-Americans deeply resent the Iranian regime, but prefer U.S. policies that emphasize engagement and de-escalation.

Why have Iraqis and Iranians living abroad reached such drastically different conclusions? For more than three decades, the Iranian-American community has grappled with the paradox of wanting to make Iran a better place — but fearing success as much as defeat. Some worry that contributing to positive changes inside Iran will only strengthen a draconian system, extending its lease on life.

For many Iranian-Americans, this dilemma was resolved by their disastrous historical experience with revolutionary upheaval. Rather than laying the groundwork for democracy, Iran’s 1979 revolution simply replaced one dictatorship with another. As a result, Iranian-Americans strongly prefer to use the rule of law to alter not only the Iranian government’s behavior, but also the thinking of Iranians inside Iran.

Efforts by the Iranian-American community to promote engagement and oppose military intervention have been consistent and cohesive. The University of California, Berkeley, conducted a scientifically sound opinion survey that found that roughly 70 percent of Iranian-American respondents favored dialogue and negotiations between the United States and Iran. In 2008, the Iranian-American community mobilized this majority into a successful campaign to defeat a congressional resolution that would have taken a decisive step toward war.

The Iranian-American community’s overwhelming support for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is also a telling indicator of its political attitudes. For every dollar raised by Republican nominee John McCain from Iranian-Americans, Obama — who was running on a platform that promoted engagement with Iran — raised five.

Iranian-Americans understand from personal experience that abrupt political change is unlikely to produce the desired result. Retired ambassador John Limbert, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran during my tenure in Foggy Bottom, reflected poignantly on this understanding in a 1999 speech. “Our liberal-minded Iranian friends,­ whom we counted on to contain the [1979] revolution’s excesses, proved to be helpless in political turmoil,” he said. “They were too much like us: They could write penetrating analyses and biting editorials, but lacked the stomach for the brutality that wins revolutions.”

Despite the fact that a majority of Iranian-Americans favor a more tolerant, pluralistic, and democratic system in Iran, they see little evidence that U.S. efforts to topple the current regime would bring Iranian democrats to power. Within Iran, rampant popular dissatisfaction has yet to evolve into a sustainable and coherent challenge to the system. The Iranian government’s monopoly on violence has prevented such challenges, but has not ended the desire for change. Even the original leaders of Iran’s Green Movement, which emerged from the country’s contested 2009 presidential election, were attempting to push for peaceful change through the ballot box.

The ongoing death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Iranian-American community even warier about foreign efforts to “liberate” their ancestral homeland. Right or wrong, many in the Iranian diaspora see the U.S. invasion of Iraq as less about nuclear programs or democracy, and more as a gambit to seize oil resources. These conspiracy theories may seem absurd, but behind them lies a deeper reality that is very powerful in the minds of Iranian-Americans.

Few Iranian-Americans would welcome the prospects of a U.S. intervention under the auspices of democracy promotion that, in turn, shattered any semblance of stability and ignited a destructive cycle of conflict. Iran’s contested 2009 presidential election and the ongoing human rights abuses have left Iranian-Americans searching for new ways to help foster peaceful, indigenous change. Their ideas remain diverse, but there is near-unanimous consent that change should occur without bloodshed.

Like their Iraqi brethren, Iranian expatriates want to change their government — it is their methods that differ. A majority of Iranian-Americans would welcome an improvement of relations between Washington and Tehran because it increases the prospects for positive, peaceful change from within. The watershed event of the Islamic Republic’s nearly 33-year history — widespread protests in 2009 — occurred at the height of Obama’s “mutual interests and mutual respect” initiative. Many of the West’s Iran analysts and experts, both Iranian and American, assert that the regime needs a U.S. enemy for its survival. If true, wouldn’t sustained offers of friendship — which would put the Iranian regime’s domestic agenda at the forefront — provide the biggest threat to the regime?

Engagement with the Iranian government understandably spurs many moral dilemmas for Iranian-Americans. Most, however, understand the alternatives — particularly when juxtaposed with Iraq, where war has resulted in nearly 200,000 Iraqis dead (based on conservative estimates), 1.3 million Iraqis displaced, and decades’ worth of destroyed lives for those still living in a perpetual war zone.

Let’s not kid ourselves: There are Iranian-Americans who support U.S.-sponsored regime change in Iran — and in due time, American neoconservatives will find their kindred spirits. We undoubtedly have our Chalabis and Makiyas — some long-established, some coming of age. But it’s clear that most Iranian-Americans distrust anyone who welcomes foreign armies into the motherland.

There is no arguing that Iran must change. The Iranian government’s human rights record is appalling, people lack basic freedoms, and economic disarray prevents Iranians from managing the present or planning for the future. Few Iranian-Americans are calling for sitting idly by and waiting for the situation in Iran to improve on its own. But it’s a rare voice indeed that is calling for war.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has amassed a loyal legion of followers. Congressman Paul’s libertarian-leaning views on domestic issues seem to resonate with many voters. For the record, I like Congressman Paul. However, his views on foreign policy are very skewed. Nevertheless, Paul’s isolationist rhetoric has gained traction amongst the war-weary, especially within the younger demographic. With over 6000 Americans killed and over 47,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years, it is easy to see the appeal of Paul’s message–no more military interventions abroad. Paul further proposes to shut down all overseas U.S. military bases and return all U.S. troops to Fortress America. While this argument appeals to isolationists, this approach would only leave the playing field open for economic and strategic rivals of the U.S. The message Paul preaches has some validity, but it also operates under the premise that the U.S. exists in a vacuum and very much clouds the real problem with U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. has taken a lead role in “Westernizing” the world. What is important to note, however, is that the U.S. no longer maintains economic hegemony in the world. New innovations in communication, transportation, and information technology have leveled the playing field. Rivals such as China are jockeying for position in underdeveloped markets throughout the world. They are not only looking for markets for their goods and services, but they also hunger for the natural resources that many of lesser developed countries possess. The West in general and the U.S. in particular, have long been demonized as purveyors of materialism. Godless mercenaries peddling their wares and forcing their ideology on all they come in contact with. This plays right into the hands of the low-profile Chinese, who have been quietly expanding their global footprint. While the U.S. and its Western allies wage wars in the Middle East and Asia, the Chinese are forging close ties with countries like Pakistan. Despite the billions of dollars that the U.S. is pumping into Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is the Chinese who will be best positioned to benefit from any newly-generated resources and economies in the region.

The real danger of Congressman Paul’s message is that it is far too light on foreign policy and thus, projects the wrong image. Defining military intervention as U.S. foreign policy is a page straight out of “Anti-American Propaganda 101” and only confuses the issue. No doubt, the U.S. needs to be much more judicial with its use of the military and have a cogent plan for a stepped-up use of diplomacy. However, the mere presence of our military overseas fulfills a critical foreign policy objective–power projection. The use of Realpolitik has served the U.S. well in dealing with the likes of China and the former Soviet Union, without ever firing a shot. The distinction needs to be made between military presence and military intervention. Moreover, although the military can be a tool of foreign policy, it should never define U.S. foreign policy. The biggest foreign policy problem for the U.S. is perception. If the U.S. is to ever maintain its place in the world and not be outpaced by the Chinese and others, it must improve its image. Most political pundits do not give Paul much of a chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Nevertheless, Congressman Paul has the ear of America for the time being and as such, a huge responsibility. By all means, speak your mind. However, be aware of your impact on your followers–perception is reality.

This week COHA.org writer Natalia Cote-Munoz produced a great piece comparing and contrasting Mexico’s current drug war with Colombia’s historical drug conflict in order to differentiate between policies that should be applied to the two countries. Often parallels are depended upon in discussing the two countries and their internal drug conflicts, but with a lack of clear analysis on each individual case, solutions for Colombia are assumed to apply neatly to Mexico as well. This is done to such a great degree that policy is formed that treat Colombia’s past drug violence the same as Mexico’s current drug conflict. Natalia Cote-Munoz seeks to draw clear distinctions between the two conflicts in order to initiate a proper policy debate that can create effective solutions in Mexico, and maintain successes in the case of Colombia. I recommend everyone read the COHA piece Mexico’s Drug War: Not Another Colombia at the link here.

Parallels between Mexico’s and Colombia’s drug violence is often compared as it involves two simple elements, namely violence coming from the narcotic trade and extreme violence that affects society as a whole. The article argues that there are many differences between the two countries and the drug issues beyond extreme violence. She makes a very important point as an analysis of extreme violence could also link Mexico to Iraq or Afghanistan a few years ago as much as it could be linked to Colombia in the 80s and 90s. The article points out that the structural elements of corruption and a lack of justice in Mexico differs than that in Colombia, although it exists in each country and contributes to the drug trade. Poverty, while not the reason for a drug trade, enables the movement of many in society to take risks to gain immediate rewards. With a lack of confidence in the system and the government, it creates rationale actors in an environment where money and the narcotics market has a real impact on society as a whole.

Natalia points out correctly that the complex system making true O’Donnellian democracy difficult in Mexico even today was not as much of a challenge faced in Colombia. Historically Colombia was blessed with relatively functional institutions and a traditionally democratically motivated system to help manage drug violence that arose over thirty years ago. Whereas Mexico’s complex democracy and systemic difficulties contribute to the difficulties in forming and anti-narcotics strategy, Colombia’s drug violence was linked to past revolutionary movements that existed in a past era that were married to drug cartels in the 1970s. The way cartels were formed is also highlighted by Natalia, where Colombian cartels often were run by well know figureheads, Mexican cartels reflected our networked society, working off networks that often are not understood nor do officials know who exactly runs the drug gangs. While Colombia could target the FARC, and affect the drug cartels in the process, Mexican gangs are comprised of many smaller, unknown elements that can evade authorities by way of being covert. This allows Mexico’s smaller gangs to have the ability to cross borders, maintaining lucrative markets by establishing them from Vina del Mar to Vancouver or displacing defunct cartels that are stopped by authorities or eliminated by competitors. These broad networks also create access to weapons that can be easily obtained in the US for use against Mexican authorities in Mexico.

Suggestions by the author that the demand for narcotics in the US and weapons proliferation across the border is a main source for the cartel violence in Mexico is tied to the ease of access Mexico has to the US border. While she makes a solid point that a lot of the problems can be sourced in the US demand for narcotics, it is not likely that the US would legalise narcotics or even take Mexican cartels as serious as Iraq, even though they are a greater burden on American society than any country in the Middle East. President Obama for all the criticisms has made a lot of strides in US foreign policy, just not in Latin America yet, hopefully the COHA.org article will reach those policymakers in Obama’s Administration for positive policy development.

Carlos Garcia Rawlins/REUTERS

The International Energy Agency has reduced its forecast for growth in oil demand in 2012 to 1.1 million barrels per day from 1.3 million bpd. The lower demand will stem from the weak economic conditions in the OECD nations, off-set in part by continued heavy demand from Asian consumers. As a result, global demand for oil will be roughly 90 million bpd.

Noting that European consumption in November fell by 4.6%, the IEA stated, “Against a backdrop of weakening economic performance, regional oil demand looks particularly sluggish in Europe.” Meanwhile, non-OECD countries “will continue to dominate growth looking forward”, with their demand climbing 3.2%, rising by roughly 1.4 million bpd. Yet “this is 130,000 bpd less than assumed in last month’s report, following a modest downward adjustment for growth prospects in China,”

Looking at the supply side of the equation, non-OPEC supply declined by 140,000 bpd to 53.2 million bpd, stemming from Middle East unrest and other unplanned outages. The IEA expects a rebound to 340,000 bpd growth in first quarter 2012 and 1.0 million bpd for 2012 as a whole.

At the same time, OPEC oil output in December rose by 240,000 bpd to 30.89 million bpd. This is the highest output by OPEC in more than three years and slightly above the 30 million bpd target the cartel has set for its members. Saudi and UAE increases are partially responsible for this rise, but much is due to Libyan oil returning to the global system.

The organization noted that geopolitical risks remain in Nigeria, Iraq, and “most pressingly, Iran.”

I remember when drone attacks first started. The right wing press and email forwards were filled with fantastical news about these American robot planes, unmanned, killing people from the sky in Pakistan’s border regions. Oh, how I laughed. Demented right wingers. American robot planes? Please stop.

They turned out to be right.

I remember when rumors about Blackwater agents in Pakistan first started. The right wing press and email forward were filled with breathless news about these 6’4″ American agents running around Pakistani cities, doing intelligence and security work for the CIA. Oh, how I laughed. Silly, silly right wingers. Blackwater in Pakistan? Please stop.

They turned out to be right.

And then there was the “terrorists in Pakistan are supported by the CIA and Mossad” conspiracy theory. Fools, I shouted. Why must we blame outsiders when the problem is staring us in the face?

Oops.

I now fully expect the following dominos to fall:

1. 9/11 was an inside job.

2. Asif Zardari really did ask Asifa to make that phone call to Benazir.

3. The floods were indeed caused by India.

4. NFP and Najam Sethi are CIA agents.

In all seriousness, stuff like this really does raise the question of how seemingly implausible and crazy scenarios actually come to fruition. It certainly gives me pause, that’s for sure.

Anyway, I urge you to go and read the story. It’s basically only tangentially relevant to Pakistan. But it’s very, very interesting for the following reasons:

1. You’re starting to see some real exasperation within the intelligence and security communities in the U.S. with its putative ally, Israel. I wonder if episodes like this, along with the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, portend a rupture within the U.S. establishment on the question of Israel, with the Congress and media on one side and the defence and intelligence communities on the other. If you think I am exaggerating, just go ahead and read the story. I haven’t seen U.S. intelligence officials express that much angst since the last time I read a story on Pakistan. You’ve got quotes like

“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” the intelligence officer said. “Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

and

“But while false-flag operations are hardly new, they’re extremely dangerous. You’re basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not.”

and

This was stupid and dangerous,” the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. “Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.”

2. I think it’s very, very plausible that Israel is trying to bait Iran into doing something stupid, such that the outbreak of hostilities can be blamed on them. It’s a bit like Thomas Schelling’s “last clear chance to avoid war” model, except in this case, Israel doesn’t want to avoid war. It just doesn’t want to “officially” start it.

3. Even if Israel is successful in drawing Iran (and the U.S.) into a war that purportedly compromises Iran’s nuclear program, what exactly happens afterward? As Elbridge Colby and Austin Long argue:

But perhaps the most important argument against attacking Iran has received less attention. That is that none of the attack proponents can give a sensible answer to the question General David Petraeus posed at the beginning of the Iraq war: “How does this end?” Kroenig and other advocates for war note, correctly, that a strike against Iran could do substantial damage to Iran’s program. But they fail to explain how the United States will prevent Iran from simply restarting its program, this time in deadly earnest. Moreover, they don’t explain why such strikes won’t contribute to the immediate rallying of the Iranian people around the otherwise reviled regime.

If I’m Iran, I go full-speed ahead on trying to develop full blown nuclear weapons capability (none of this latent capability stuff they’ve been toying with) at the same time as staying the hell away from any other provocative gestures that would give the Israelis (and Americans to an extent) the excuse they’re looking for.

This week Iranian President Ahmadinejad toured Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela in a push to expand Iran’s international relationships as well as to establish Iran in America’s backyard. With recent tensions being ramped up exponentially between the US and Iran, world focus on any actions made by Iran receives a fair amount of attention. There are many theories on how Iran can benefit from an extended relationship in Latin America, but the clear absence of a visit to Brazil on this trip reflects the limitations of a Latin America saddled with Iranian interests. After Turkey’s and Brazil’s attempt to deflate tensions in the region regarding Iran’s nuclear program nearly two years ago, a strong relationship with Latin America as a whole may not be in the cards for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The absence of a visit to Brazil shows a clear move by Brazil to avoid tying itself further to Iran. There are reasons of economic ties to the US as well as the lack of benefits Brazil has in slowing its economy and relations with the rest of the world for the sake of Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Brazil as the world’s top ethanol producer also places Brazil at odds with Iran and its oil, especially since Brazil is a seller of oil itself and has no benefits linking itself to a foreign power that would likely enter into a hot conflict with many of Brazil’s future customers. A middle position allows Brazil to mediate and promote its exports globally as well as in the Middle East and Iran.

Some argue that Iran in Venezuela and Cuba is not so much of a move from Iran to pursue economic and political ties close to the United States, but is a failure of the last few administrations to take advantage of changes in those countries; recently a physically weak Chavez and the opening of the Cuban market. The United States’ lack of initiative in Latin America has allowed for an opening in America’s backyard and has created a signal to foreign commercial interests from China, Russia, Europe and Iran to come into the region and establish them in a region that was always considered a main source of commercial ties for the United States. Iran creating closer ties in the region goes beyond commercial interests as seen by many analysts on Latin America and Iran. Iran’s links to past attacks in the region as well as moves by the Iranian government to establish its military intelligence in Latin America may be a move to counterbalance US actions in the Middle East. While the actual abilities for Iran to strike the US from Latin America or hurt the US inside of the region may be limited, the presence of Iranian agents in America’s backyard may do its job in striking fear into American’s daily lives by inciting a new type of missile crisis into the minds of Americans.

While Latin America has welcomed Iran to some degree in the region, it should be noted that intentions to assault the United States or become part of the Axis powers in a war with Iran and the West is likely not in the cards for any country in Latin America. Latin American countries benefit little from a strong relationship with Iran and often try to maintain its economic ties while still being able to dent the United States’ reputation. While it is clear that historically the US has not been the best hegemony for many Latin American states, there is a limit to how far countries like Cuba and Venezuela will go in poking at the US for the sake of Iran. Regarding a US hegemony in the Middle East, critics of US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan often do not lodge the same criticisms with possible future actions taken against Iran, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz and 40% of the world’s oil exports is likely the line for many. With a strong and battered opposition in Iran’s massive youth population and Iran’s government balancing political legitimacy with internal challenges in its own government, a hot conflict with Iran may fracture its society and send its allies running from the fallout, possibly that of a nuclear conflict. Latin Americans will surely take care of themselves first and avoid tying themselves to conflicts in the Middle East that have no end and no solutions. It is up to the United States to create an ease of amicable ties beyond Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia that will close the gap in Latin America.