Iran & The Middle East

James Abourezk, is a former U.S. Senator from South Dakota and author of Advise and Dissent, tells us how the hawks are once again pounding the war drums on Iran. There They Go Again by JAMES ABOUREZK Counterpunch Jan. 4, 2012 I watched another news program today—this one on MSNBC—with Dylan Ratigan shouting into the camera that if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 per cent of the world’s oil flows, it is an act of war. That’s true. However, like most everything we watch on news programs, history does not begin with the latest reaction of someone who feels aggrieved. Much like a football referee seeing only the last fist flying, blind to the first punch, the retaliating party is the one who gets the penalty. With many other Americans, I’ve been watching the buildup to another war in the Middle East—this one with Iran. And it scares me to death. The President lays more and more sanctions on Iran because of fears of its nuclear program—fears that it...

A new weblog that offers regional perspectives on developments in the Middle East and North Africa. They call it Muftah which in Arabic means "opening." According to their mission statement, "Muftah challenges policy makers to look at the region through a MENA-focused lens, which captures the varying interests and competing forces that continue to shape the region. Muftah supports this endeavor by illuminating the internal issues that face MENA and its countries, from developments in domestic politics and national economies, to the influence of religion and youth culture upon these societies. Muftah also explores both the relationship between the United States and the governments in MENA, as well as the relations between MENA countries and the impact of their changing alliances and animosities on the global stage."

Top Ten Middle East Challenges for U.S. Policy, 2012

This opinion piece by two former U.S. diplomats urges the Obama administration to be patient with finding a diplomatic solution for resolving the issues with Iran. William Luers served as U.S. ambassador to Czechoslovakia from 1983 to 1986 and as president of the United Nations Association from 1999 to 2009. Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Clinton administration, has served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Israel, Jordan and the United Nations. They remind us that"history teaches that engagement and diplomacy pay dividends that military threats do not. Deployment of military force can bring the immediate illusion of “success” but always results in unforeseen consequences and collateral damage that complicate further the achievement of America’s main objectives." Military action isn’t the only solution to Iran By William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering The Washington Post December 30, 2011 “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it ...

The Economist has a good piece about how the departure of American troops has led to a return to sectarian conflict. Will Iraq split up along ethnic / religious lines ? Dec 31st 2011 The Economist ON DECEMBER 18th America withdrew from Iraq, as the last convoy headed south into Kuwait, where around 4,000 of its troops will remain for an undisclosed length of time. An optimistic Iraqi government had recently begun to remove some of the capital’s checkpoints and blast-walls, easing traffic and boosting morale. But the better mood did not last long. On December 22nd at least a dozen car bombs exploded within two hours of each other in Baghdad, killing more than 60 people and injuring another 200—one of the highest death tolls of the year. With security as patchy as ever and politics entering a new phase of sectarian hatred, few Iraqis now think the American withdrawal heralds a joyful new era. Some even wonder whether, without a ring-holding American military presence, the country ...

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, December 28, 2011 THE RACE FOR IRAN Throughout our work on U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the more fundamental themes is the corrosive impact that America’s post-Cold War quest for unadulterated hegemony in the Middle East has had on the strategic calculations of successive U.S. administrations (Democratic and Republican) and, by extension, on U.S. standing and influence in this vitally important region. Instead of dealing soberly and effectively with the Middle East’s complex political and security dynamics and defending its legitimate interests there, the United States has, for the past two decades, tried to coerce political outcomes across the region, with the goal of bringing it under a U.S.-led, highly militarized political and security “umbrella.” Of course, the United States was certainly not above trying to do this sort of thing before the end of the Cold War (witness the CIA’s 1953 coup in Iran). But th...