Trump Knows Real Estate, Not International Law

     On April 7, 2017, the United States fired tomahawk cruise missiles into the borders of Syria, destroying an air base which was believed to be the epicenter of a chemical weapon attack on the Syrian people - by the government of Syria. The forty-fifth president of the United States cites this breach of international law as a vital national security concern. During the emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, the Russian Federation (a permanent member to the Security Council) - as well as Syria, Sweden, & Bolivia - strongly condemned violation of international law and/or act of aggression towards Syria. This strength of force has been viewed to some both in Syria and Russia as an act of war. While Iran does not sit on the UN Security Council, it did publicly state it's strong opposition to the use of force and violation of international law by the United States.
     While there is standing precedent for a president to act unilaterally without congressional approval (such law was passed back in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and used to go into Afghanistan and eventually Iraq), it is a long standing tradition for the president to seek congressional approval before any military actions are to take place. Not to mention, a president has always sought Congress' approval for a declaration of war.
     The President of the United States is sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world by launching missiles into Syria. The message is simple: Abide by the demands of the United States or suffer the military wrath of the United States. This is not the first time this president has disrespected another country or foreign leader. The president would not shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hand during a photo-op/press conference, he has had tense words with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding refugees coming to the United States set up under the Obama administration, and his continued feud with Mexico over building a wall along the southern border of the United States are just a few examples of his blatant disrespect of international norms and procedures of international laws and geopolitical etiquette. These acts might seem minor to many, but they could have a direct - and potentially long-standing -  consequences for the United States on an international level. Some of the repercussions have already started with the European Union rejecting visa-free travel for all Americans.
     The President is trying to "restart" foreign policy that has been in place since the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. What he should be doing is looking to history and recognize that a unilateral intervention has never been in the best interest of the United States - especially in the Middle East. In the vital interest of National Security, it would be prudent to not unilaterally engage in situations that have proper protocols and procedures to handle international violations of human rights and to international law. There are multiple cases such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Vietnam, and even in Libya  that show where unilateral efforts by the United States has proven to backfire - either by public/international lack of support or by an increase of recruitment among terrorist organizations which result in a rise in frequent terror attacks around the world (the most recent cases include the attack on Parliament in London and a truck attack in Sweden).
     The overall questions we need to keep asking are: why now and what is the end game? Is it a war with Russia, which would be utilized as a 2020 campaign ploy; or, are both countries creating a distraction because both parties understand that they are guilty of obstructing the democratic process of the 2016 election and worked in coordination and are trying to cover their tracks? Regardless, I foresee a new war that will be reminiscent of the Afghanistan/Iraq timeline where the United States will engage in Syria first, and then turn its attention to Russia and that will escalate into a global war as two superpowers who hold power places within the United Nations Security Council will force the world to take a side...and due to the mishandling of words by the current President of the United States will force China to side with Russia. Only time will tell.

The New Middle East: Iran & Israel (Part Three of Four)

One of the most annoying countries in the Middle East is Iran. The reason I state that Iran is “annoying” is due to its ability to always do something that interferes with the safety, and security, of the United States.  It is clear the relationship between the two nations has been strand since before the Jimmy Carter Administration.  It is only recently that the Iranian Government has really been a growing thorn in the United States’ side. Iran’s stance regarding Israel, its continue hatred for the U.S. and its allies, the nuclear weapons program that they state are not building, and other stressful issues are just the tip of the iceberg of a major headache for U.S. foreign policy.

Let’s take one issue at a time.  In fact, let’s start with Israel. Since the signing of the Camp David Accords in September of 1978, Israel have been connected, politically of course, at the hip. For the past few administrations, they have all been supportive of the right of Israel to be a nation within the world.  Presidents Bush & Obama have stated that their administrations are ready to defend Israel in the event they are attacked from Iran – or any other aggressor. The main reason I keep bringing up Iran is because they have continually called for Israel to be “wiped off the face of the map” and to be eliminated as they pose a threat to the region.  The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no longer the president of Iran is a potential good sign for the region.  Granted, it will be interesting to see how the new President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, goes about dealing with the west.  During his campaign, he proposed the idea that he would be able to resolve the issues with the western hemisphere (mainly the United States) which is interesting because he believes Israel is “a wound that needs to be removed” and essentially putting Israel in a state of constant jeopardy – more than what they are already accustomed to by living in the region. 

When the thought of Israel having nuclear capabilities to retaliate against an Iranian attack, it makes sense for the United States, and the rest of the world, to step back and quickly try to expedite a peaceful solution to end any hostile tensions.  This would be an ideal time to point out that the Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn’t have the United States’ signature, which is just a tad bit hypocritical.  The point I am making is that we should not pressure other nations to end their nuclear programs or ambitions when we haven’t even taken measures to eliminate or reduce our own.  The United States likes to “lead by example” but at this point, the United States needs to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

The nation of Iran has a new leader; hopefully, their new president will be able to reconcile their ties with the west.  In that same token, it is important for Iran to recognize the existence of the nation of Israel in the region.  Granted, it will take time (I’m guessing within the next twenty to twenty-five years), but I fear it will come at a deadly cost of cross exchanges between Iran & Israel.  It is because of this the nations of the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the People’s Republic of China, and the French Republic to step up and exercise extreme delicacy regarding the looming Middle East conflict surrounding the nations of Iran & Israel.  In the end, they will be able to live in the same region, but have a low tolerance of each other.

The New Middle East: Afghanistan (Part Two of Four)

     Since the Afghanistan war started in the fall of 2001, it has been really hectic within the region.  I remember being in high school and the whole drama of September 11^th and the aftermath of the event.  When the decision was made to go to Afghanistan to fight terrorism, it made sense and seemed like the right thing to do.  I will still defend the decision that President Bush made to go into Afghanistan. [Yes, during my high school years, I was an avid republican who was heavily involved with politics – surprise, surprise.]  The sidestep of going into Iraq due to their connections with 9/11/01 was a complete travesty.  The “weapons of mass destruction” quagmire was just “rally around the flag” rhetoric. It makes sense to support one’s country and their international positions, but it also takes a lot to question the reasons behind such decisions as well as looking at all the facts surrounding the critical events surrounding such long-term consequences.

            The fact that the United States neglected Afghanistan for a long time, well not neglect per-se but not consider enough time and resources to the issue, circumvents the reality of Afghanistan being an albatross around the United States’ neck. The fact of the matter is that the United States has made Afghanistan a better country, but at the same time the government that was hand-picked by U.S. personnel has essentially given us a slap in the face when it comes to cooperation.  There have been more attacks within the country since 2006 due to U.S. involvement, the Karzai administration has stated multiple times that the Obama Administration is not trusting and the relationship has been strand by broken diplomacy between the Obama Administration.

            Let me back up for a moment and state that the United States has done a lot of good things for the country.  We have assisted in the building of their police force, we have trained her military, we have helped rid their land of ground explosives and roadside bombs, and we have helped educate their children. In turn, the Afghanistan government doesn’t trust the Obama Administration, they have discussed the major exit of U.S. troops by the end of 2014, doesn’t trust security forces of the US (and other countries but more-so the United States), making claims against the United States helping terrorists destabilizing the Afghan country, and basically acting like a spoiled little brat child.  At this point, I feel that the United States has done as much as it can do with regards to getting the country back on its feet.  We have been there long enough and it is time for the United States to exit Afghanistan.  It does us no good to continue to occupy a country that clearly doesn’t want us there. In fact, it is because of the heated tensions between the United States and Afghanistan governments that lead me to believe that the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan may have been won at the very beginning, but we are slowly going back to the way things were pre-9/11. Are we really winning in Afghanistan? I really don’t think we are….we have only wasted a lot of money in an area of the country that we were justified in occupying; but, since we have completed major tasks within the region, we can shift our focus on more pressing matters such as domestic issues and other international areas of the world.  Will we ever learn…I would like to think we can learn something.