How will the USA Presidential election affect policy towards the Middle-East?

September 24th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6

One of the most contentious points in the politics of the USA is how any potential president will deal with foreign policy. As was outlined in the last post on this site, the threats from states and NSAs outside of the United States remains strong and therefore in the upcoming election it’s important to know where both of the candidates stand with regard to their foreign policy.

We know that President Obama plans to stick to the proposed and currently underway timetable of troops leaving Afghanistan very soon, something his Republican counterpart Mitt Romney looks set to stick to also. However, the two men may have very different views on other key areas of foreign policy that could play a key role in the voting come election day. Romney’s recent outbursts about the state of affairs in the middle east may seem as though it will be bad for his campaign, but as AboutPolitics.co.uk outlines, perhaps the gaffe will not cost him and indeed actually make him closer to Republican voters that believe in this ‘straight talking candidate’?

While this may draw him closer to conservative voters in the United States, surely a President with this attitude towards Israel, Iran and the rest of the Middle-Eastern countries cannot be good for American foreign policy and where the country may lead organizations such as Nato further down the line?

Although a Republican candidate is likely to push for a hard-line on Foreign Policy, perhaps the election of Romney would have negative impacts for the USA with regards to how they come across to the rest of the world, particularly those who hold influence in the Middle East….

In other news, the USA looks set to remove Iranian group Mujahideen-e Khalq from its blacklist of Terror Groups around the world. The group has a history of terrorism in the 1970s and was put on the blacklist in 1997, however, since then it has renounced it’s violence and therefore Secretary of State Hilary Clinton looks set to recommend that they are removed from the list.

Middle Eastern Nuclear Proliferation – Can the West do anything?

September 11th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

In the modern world there are many issues facing states all around the globe, whether they be financial problems, health pandemics or the issue of domestic social care and responsibilities, the list of concerns and potential issues that could bring a country to it’s knees is now too long to comprehend.

While the threats of internal breakdown are huge, perhaps the most scary prospect for many is the potential threat towards National Security posed by Non-state-actors and terrorist groups. Over recent years the threat from Al-Quaeda will have been the most well broadcast and potentially problematic for most western states, however there still remains concerns over potential rogue states across the globe.

In the past, the Western powers, often led by America has moved in attempts to quell any potential problems from these states at source, stopping them before they are ever able to materialise in to a serious national threat. Whether this be through military action or sanctions placed on a country by the United Nations, the West has been able to force countries to comply with their will due to their huge economic credibility and the threat of military action.

However, in the current era where the USA’s position as the world’s super-power may beginning to be being questioned by the rise of China, it is worth questioning if the West can really force the hands of potential rogue states such as Iran.

Iran’s nuclear program is one of the foreign policy issues that scares many in the USA the most. As a secretive state, the country claims that it has no aims to create nuclear weapons, however, the proliferation of nuclear technology and the decelerations from Tehran that they plan to use nuclear power to fuel the country have many in the U.S on edge. But is there really anything that can be done?

The USA will not invade Iran. The position of the country and it’s powerful allies in the region with China mean that the USA could not risk an invasion such as what was seen with Iraq. Many of the sanctions that the West may wish to impose upon the country will have little effect due to the lack of trade completed with the allies wishing to force Tehran’s hand.

This of course means that the USA have no choice but to speak with a tough rhetoric and hope that Iran applies the principles that have long been established of M.A.D. While Iran may comply with this, what worries the USA more may well be the perceived ‘craziness’ of the regime in North Korea where such principles may not be so quickly applied…

Can Syria learn lessons from Iraq?

August 29th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Currently, as has been made clear throughout the world’s media, there are huge issues surrounding the future of the Syrian government. As one of the neighbours of Iraq, it’s important to consider how a change in the regime in Syria may affect the stability of Iraq itself, and whether it’s possible for a democracy to exist in Syria when it has been under undemocratic rule for such a long period.

As fighting in the streets continues it’s tough to see a war around the conflict without an ousting of the Syrian regime that currently holds power. If that were to happen then it’s likely to hold ramifications throughout the whole of the middle-east rather than just in Syria itself. Indeed, even during the fighting, the number of refugees that are looking to escape the country has increased dramatically, many heading to the UK among other places.

A huge explosion in the city of Damascus just today has rocked the capital and with Western Allies now providing aid and funding for the rebel fighters, with calls of support coming from the UN as well as the big-hitting countries in the West, the Syrian regime looks certain to topple.

If that happens then it will be very interesting to see how a democracy that is put in place in Syria is accepted by the people. Iraq has had teething problems since the introduction of a democratic government and elections and it would seem, that while the Syrian people are calling for the change, the problems of a newly formed liberal democratic society could be seen once more here as well.

If Syria will truly thrive as a democratic state then there are many economic and social lessons that it needs to learn from the problems faced by Iraq. However, as with Iraq, Syria will endure many of the issues surrounding an economy stifled by the political elites where the average citizen has no access to basic amenities. It will be with this that we see the true test of Syria’s democratic ambitions.

 

While considering the different powers at work in the Middle-East we must also look at Iran and the current issues they face in conflicting views with the West. In the next edition of Iraq Elects we will take a look at the current problems facing the Western powers while states such as Iran look to begin their own uranium enrichment programmes.

Learn About The Iraq Elections And How They Have Changed Recently

March 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

If there is one country where seeing the political conditions and elections held is fascinating, many people would say it is Iraq these days. The country has gone through a lot of big changes in the last decade alone and this has shaped a lot of what goes on here in the political sense. As most people know, the Iraq War definitely has played a large role in the way things are in the nation today and this is a turning point we will learn about. Let’s get started seeing a little bit about the history of the country’s political organization and how it is ruled today, as well.

The Iraq Elections Before 2005

To some degree, there has always been an element of voting in Iraq. Back in 1925, the country was a constitutional monarchy which means that they had a king who ruled in accordance with a constitution. At this time, they had both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Women did not vote in these Iraq elections and these elections only lasted until 1958 when military governments rose to power. This caused a lot of problems and is one of the reasons that Iraq and the Persian Gulf itself were both seen as being highly unstable for many decades. When the B’ath Party arose in the 60′s, it was bad news for the ethnic group known as the Kurds and also for the Shiite Muslims who form the majority of the country today. In 1979 Saddam Hussein would seize power, a member of the B’ath party, and the last elections he held were in 2002 when over 11 million eligible voters were said to have voted for him, a full 100 percent of the voting population. As you might imagine, those Iraq elections were not taken seriously by other democracies around the world. It would be some time before the nation’s elections would be deemed credible again.

How the Iraq Elections Changed After the Invasion of Iraq

In 2003, there was a multinational invasion of Iraq that was lead by the United States. While there are many political reasons for this, what is important for us in the investigation of Iraq elections is how the political process was shaped. Most of the nations who took part in this invasion and the subsequent restructuring of the nation were Western style democracies of some form or another. They installed an interim government once they toppled Hussein’s regime and in 2005 the first elections were held. These were the first free elections in the history of the nation and most international observers feel that they were handled in a relatively effective and open manner, making sure everyone got to vote. It was reported that over 7,000 candidates ran at this time for fewer than 300 seats so clearly there were far more losers than winners during this election. It would be 5 more years before elections would be held again that would make such an impact on the international media.

Iraq Elects – Allawi Announces Slate

January 30th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Baghdad – Dr. Iyad Allawi, former Iraqi Prime Minister and head of the Iraqi National Slate no. 731 in the coming elections, stressed that confronting terrorism is executed through serious work, cooperation with the world, resorting to dialogue with the armed entities, simultaneously, in addition to calling them to participate in the political process and the construction of Iraq.

In a press conference at the Accord Movement headquarters, Allawi has announced the political program of his slate, in the presence of its members. He said, “We are keen on including all Iraqis in the coming stage. I had dialogue with the UN and many entities on securing the participation of Iraqis in the political process, dissolving all armed entities that are not under the government, lifting injustice and discrimination and holding deliberations with the UN for the departure of the foreign forces, which would facilitate putting an end to the intervention in Iraqi affairs.”
Allawi pointed out that the political program of the slate, “stresses on establishing Iraq and defending it to remain free, independent and free of affiliation, sectarianism and belonging to entities, through a preserving national work program that we are seeking to execute during the coming four years for establishing secure and prosperous future for Iraq, where Iraqis enjoy its resources without prejudice. The first priority is the security of the country and the people through dissolving all irregular military entities, establishing the army and police, reinforcing the Iraqi armed forces for executing missions of broader responsibilities for the rule of the law and protecting the borders, in addition to organized withdrawal of the multinational forces, fighting criminals, retrieving the pride and dignity of Iraqis in the region and worldwide, believing in the national unity as a basis for security, refraining from sectarianism and racism, constructive dialogue, punishing criminals and forgiving the others, fighting the corruption relating to stealing the people’s money through punishing any official in the government, who is proven guilty, especially as corruption is aggravating in governmental institutions, and overcoming terrorism in separate locations in the country.