Thursday, June 2, 2016
GDBB 1 - Shifting Alliances in the Middle East
Use one of the current events sources linked at http://svhs-hwc-fall2016.blogspot.com/2016/06/approved-sources-for-hwc-current-events.html to find at least 2 recent news article that relate to, support, or refute Ryan's assertion about the shifting alliances in the Middle East. Your comment should include the titles of and links to the news article. Then, briefly summarize these articles with an explanation of how these sources relate to the arguments presented in the briefing book. Don't forget to check your rubric for evaluation criteria!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the first article Iran is describes as, “THE important country in the region” (Farahmand). However, Iran has been experiencing immense economical struggles over the past 10 years. Iran hopes that it’s economic instability will be short-lived since it’s nuclear deal will cause the flow of money. In addition, Iran hopes to build up alliances. Although it seems unlikely that any alliance will be built between the U.S. and Iran, Iran also struggles in building alliances with Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, due to terrorist groups like the Islamic State. Overall, Iran is trying to leave their current diplomatic isolationism in hopes of gaining a stable economy. (“Is this Iran’s time in the Middle East?” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33566874)
ReplyDeleteIn the second article the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is analyzed. Currently, Obama has maintained a good relationship with the Saudi Arabian Government based on the U.S.’s importation of oil from Saudi Arabia. However, with the new election around the corner, suspicion has arose between both nations. The violent past between the two nations has caused a rift in their international relationship, one that many U.S. citizens are reluctant to fill. However, U.S. Senator Rand Paul states, “...I would challenge the Saudis to explain to us why that wouldn’t result in a... fundamentally productive balance of their security interests and our security interests” (Raphael). Overall, Saudi Arabia continues to try to build international relationships. (“U.S.-Saudi Alliance on the Edge as Obama Readies for Visit” http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-19/us-saudi-alliance-edge-obama-readies-visit)
The two articles greatly support Curtis R. Ryan’s analysis of international relations. As mentioned in “Shifting Alliances in the Middle East” and the previous articles, Middle Eastern nations struggle to build international relationships with nations due to their unstable governments and violent pasts. Although much is being done by those nations in order to prosper, there is little security within alliances and therefore incessant paranoia. As all articles mentioned, the terroristic threats have destroyed some long-standing relationships between not only Middle Eastern nations but nations worldwide. All thing considered, Middle Eastern countries are in a difficult position of whether to demolish former principles and strive to make alliances or to uplift those principles and suffer through the economic instability.
The Saudi Arabian was with Yemen is the subject of the first article. Saudi Arabia is currently fighting an unnecessary war with Yemen, and the United States are supporting them. Saudi Arabia has been purposefully been blocking foods imports to Yemen which has essentially forced the entire country into starvation. Almost 14 million people in Yemen are currently in a battling starvation, and despite the efforts of the United Nations many people are still malnourished. Saudi Arabia has also organized airstrikes on humanitarian relief centers in Yemen. While still fighting Yemen, Saudi Arabia is in a war with the Shi’ite Houthis who have been controlling the capital of Yemen since a civil war. Part of the reason Saudi Arabia is part of these issues is that they fund Wahhabist and radical movements in the Middle East. It is clear that Saudi Arabia is not directly funding has ISIS, however the mosques that are funded by Saudi Arabia are known to provide a path for people to become fighters for ISIS. (“Why is America backing Saudi Arabia's atrocious war in Yemen?” http://theweek.com/articles/631652/why-america-backing-saudi-arabias-atrocious-war-yemen)
ReplyDeleteThe second article focuses on how Hillary Clinton would alter the Iran deal if she becomes President of the United States. President Obama has worked extremely hard to create a nuclear deal with Iran. The upcoming presidential election in the United States could change the contracts that have been formed during Obama’s presidency. Since this deal is one of President Obama’s largest accomplishments Clinton would probably keep the deal where it is, even though she is against it, when she takes office and not continue to move forward with the deal. In the past Clinton has sided with Saudi Arabia, a country that believes Iran is a threat. If Clinton takes office in January 2017 it is unlikely that the Iran Deal would continue to grow, not only because of her personal opinions, but the Center for a New American Security is not a supporter of Obama’s policies regarding Iran and believes that Iran should not be able to form new contracts with countries worldwide. Contrary to the opinions of politicians, becoming allies with Iran could help the confusion and terror in the Middle East. Currently, as far as countries in the Middle East are concerned, Iran is a free and democratic country. If Iran can continue of this path of democracy and prove that Islamic nations can operate in a democratic society it could become a mentor for other Middle Eastern countries. Overall, the idea of this article is that if Iran can focus on democracy and freedom it could become a nation that is no longer associated with war and jihadist groups. (“How Hillary Clinton will squander the nuclear deal with Iran” http://theweek.com/articles/627053/how-hillary-clinton-squander-nuclear-deal-iran)
They first article “Why is America backing Saudi Arabia's atrocious war in Yemen?” acts as an expansion to the topic of US involvement in Middle Eastern politics. Also, the article by Michael Dougherty adds to a topic briefly touched on in “Shifting alliances in the Middle East” which is the Saudi Arabian and Yemen war that is currently taking place. The article titled “How Hillary Clinton will squander the nuclear deal with Iran” takes a stance on how the US presidential election will affect the nuclear deal with Iran that was announced in 2015. The Iran deal is mentioned in the beginning of “Shifting alliances in the Middle East” as a deal between world powers and Iran that will change the regional system in the Middle East.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Middle East a Web of ‘Topsy-Turvy’ Alliances” http://www.npr.org/2012/11/28/166067920/the-middle-east-a-web-of-topsy-turvy-alliances
ReplyDeleteIn the first article, the alliances of the Middle East are described as “defying logic”. The author speaks of how numerous countries are aligned with countries that are aligned with other countries that are against the policies of the first country. For instance, the US has an alliance with Iraq who supports Iran who supports Syrian ideals that the US is against. The author points out that the problems the US faces in creating peace in the Middle East are the sames ones they have dealt with in the past except with different countries and that the alliances only get more confusing and difficult as time goes on.
“The West has a Big Turkey Problem”
http://theweek.com/articles/568771/west-big-turkey-problem
In the second article, the author explains how the public view of the US’s alignment with Turkey and NATO is false. It appears that turkey is against ISIS because of a bombing and that they are creating a “refugee safe zone”. In reality Turkey has established contact with major ISIS people and is also attacking Kurdish fighters who can not be told apart from terrorists that are based in Turkey. The author also reveals how Iran is still hostile even after they got sanctions and that Turkey is almost as cumbersome an ally as Saudi Arabia.
Both article backs up Curtis R. Ryan’s view of the twisted alliances in the Middle East. In the first article, it speaks of how all alliances do not necessarily support said country’s ideals as their ally may only be their ally because they secure their regime. The alliances of the countries in the Middle East only support their need to feel secure in their regimes when in truth all is unstable. Both articles touch upon how one country may align itself with two countries with conflicting ideals so as to have an alliance no matter which way the power shifts. Article two specifically focuses on Turkish relations with the United States and with ISIS. The author targets how Turkey wishes to appear to World Powers, but how underneath it secures relations in all categories. Both articles go more in depth on the ways Middle Eastern countries secure their regimes in ways that are not necessarily conventional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab spring started six years ago when Tunisia hoped to overthrow their dictators and create a democratic government that focused more on what the citizens wanted, and since then, Tunisia has been making progress. In the first article, the author explains how Tunisia was able to overthrow their government and why they wanted this. They wanted more power with the people and wanted to make laws based on what the people believed in, not what certain dictators wanted. The article also talks about the Syrian civil war and how complicated and violent it has been.
ReplyDelete"Is This Arab Spring Country Finally Getting It Right?"
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/01/14/262357235/is-this-arab-spring-country-finally-getting-it-right
The second article talks about what happened in the different middle eastern countries since the Arab spring. In Egypt, Mohamed Morsi was successfully overthrown by al-sisi and has since been the president. It also talked bout the Syrian Civil war and how much violence has happened since. The author of the article also talks about Yemen and how it has been struggling with their new president Abrade Hadi and how he has been trying to restore Yemen from their economic struggle. In Tunisia, the article states that it has still been struggling in the economy, but is still trying to publish a constitution."The Hopeful Arab Spring Turns Into A Roiling Arab Summer"
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/07/03/198349749/the-hopeful-arab-spring-turns-into-a-roiling-arab-summer
These two article relate to what Curtis R. Ryan said by first supporting his analysis on Tunisia and its riots. Ryan talked about Tunisia and explained that it started the Arab spring in order to put more power in to the citizens hands, which is supported by the article. Ryan also talks about the Syrian civil war and how it has been a very complicated and violent war, which is also supported by the article. Ryan talks about the different middle eastern countries that have also been in chaos such as Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and talks about the coup in Egypt, the ousting of Gaddafi and the economic struggles of Yemen, which are all supported by the second article. I picked these two articles because they fully supported Ryan's analyses of the chaos and destabilization that has occurred in the Middle East since the Arab spring six years ago.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the first article, the Syrian war and the battle between the Syrian forces and rebels is discussed. The article explains how both the Syrian forces and the rebels are battling over Aleppo, a major trading city in Syria. The Syrian government is working with the assistance of nations such as Russia, Iran, and a group of soldiers from Lebanon. However, the Syrian rebels are receiving support from nations such as Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. The support of Russia has played a crucial role in allowing the Syrian forces to continue to battle however both the Syrian forces and the rebels are struggling to continue to battle. However due to support the rebels are not backing down: “Now, beleaguered rebels have demonstrated that the war is far from over” (Joshi). (“Syria War: Why the Battle for Aleppo Matters” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37008100)
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, the bombing of hospitals and areas where civilians are living by the Syrian government is discussed. While Aleppo is held by rebels, Syrian forces and Russian planes have continued to bomb hospitals and areas surrounding hospitals causing the deaths of many innocent civilians. Physicians from within Aleppo have written to President Obama and the United States, and asked the U.S. to step in and assist by providing support and helping stop the Syrian government’s bombing of hospitals. The doctors also explained, how bombings have increased: “They say that in the past month there have been 42 attacks on medical facilities in Syria, 15 of them on hospitals where they work” (Syria conflict: Aleppo medics appeal to Obama for help). While the Russian airstrikes will stop temporarily each day so that supplies and support can be brought in for the civilians of Aleppo, the Syrian forces and Russians continue relentlessly. Overall, the civilians and hospitals in Aleppo are suffering because of a conflict between rebels and the government. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37033373)
The first and second articles both discuss the conflict between Syrian forces and rebels. In the Great Decisions Briefing Book, Ryan briefly mentions how the Syrian war is causing a divide between multiple Middle Eastern nations. The first article explains how several nations (Iran, Russia, and part of Lebanon) are supporting the Syrian forces, while other nations (Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia) are supporting the rebels. The divide of these nations is causing severe problems for civilians in Syria, as the second article shows. The second article explains how many people have lost their lives as Russian air strikes bomb hospitals and areas with many civilians. The conflict of the Syrian war has led to the divide of many nations which is negatively impacting the Middle Eastern society.
The first article states that the government of some of the countries are to blame for most of the problems. They state that it is not that is the factor when it comes to some of the issues faced. The U.S. is also at fault for going into the Middle East and ruining some of the land. Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples for this. ("Misgovernment, not religion, has sunk the Middle East" http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/misgovernment-not-religion-has-sunk-the-middle-east.html
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, it describes that there is a relation between the U.S. and Turkey but the relation isn't honest. Turkey is using their opposition towards ISIS as a way to eliminate some of the Kurdish soldiers. The U.S. government believes to be doing the correct thing while this goes unnoticed. ("The West has a big Turkey problem" http://theweek.com/articles/568771/west-big-turkey-problem)
The first and second articles both discuss the problems with the governments of the west and the Middle East. Ryan states that there are some negotiations but a lot of dishonesty. The first article discusses how the U.S. government and some governments of the Middle East are to blame for the problems there instead of blaming other factors. The second article discusses how there is dishonesty between the U.S. and Turkey.
This article agrees with what Ryan is saying I the sense that the Arab Spring led to chaos across the Middle Eastern countries. Both articles say that the Arab Spring was a result of the citizens wanting a more democratic community. This article elaborates more on how the Arab Spring started by saying how an individual set himself on fire to make a statement, which led to the creation. However, the articles state how chaotic the Arab Spring has been in the sense that some countries failed and how it opened the door to possible terrorists. ("The Arab Spring Has it failed?" http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21581734-despite-chaos-blood-and-democratic-setbacks-long-process-do-not-give-up )
ReplyDeleteThis article adds to what Ryan stated about how Middle Eastern countries are constantly changing who they are allies with because of what is happening with other countries. It states that they do not feel safe with Iran because of the Iran deal and now want to switch their alliance yet again. This article also states that "What Jerusalem, Riyadh, Cairo and the Gulf states have in common is that they do not trust the Obama administration’s hopes for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei" therefore indicating that they no longer feel secure about sharing an alliance with Iran. (Iran negotiations force Middle East to rethink alliances" http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/iran-middle-eastalliancesdiplomacy.html )
Theses articles both agree to what Ryan has stated throughout his article. The first article states that the Arab Spring is not over and that it resulted in what the community wanted. The second article also states that Middle Eastern countries cannot keep stable alliances because of their insecurities and fears. It also elaborates on current alliances and why they keep shifting between the countries.
The first article talks about Trump not being good with foreign affairs. In an interview Trump reveals that he does not think that the Russian president, Putin, would send his forces to the Ukraine. With Trump as the president many countries would gain power because he would not care. If certain countries sent troops somewhere, or something strange happened, Trump would ignore it. In the interview, Ukraine and the baltics are mentioned, and Donald Trump would have no input if they did something. Trump just thinks that they are little countries that do not have much they can do. Therefore, these countries would most likely rise to power because America would be ignoring all of this that would be happening. ("What Countries Could Gain From Interfering In U.S. Presidential Campaign" http://www.npr.org/2016/08/01/488191823/what-countries-could-gain-from-interfering-in-u-s-presidential-campaign)
ReplyDeleteThe second article discusses Kurdish militants, and their many terrorist attacks on Turkey. Kurdish terrorists are attacking multiple areas, including Turkey's biggest cities, and even the border between Turkey and Syria. In Istanbul and Ankara hundreds of people were murdered, and tanks and fighter jets are basically roaming the streets in Ankara. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States are warning their citizens to avoid Turkey. The Kurds are trying to gain power over Turkey with all of their fighting and terrorist attacks. ("Turkey violence: How dangerous is Turkey's instability?" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34503388)
The Kurds and certain other countries mentioned in the first article relate to small, unnoticed areas coming to power. Ryan talks about Qatar and Saudi Arabia being unnoticed, but then during the ARab Spring, they become more important, needed countries. The Kurds are becoming more noticed since they are attacking Turkey, and this is like how the countries during the Arab Spring became noticed. Similarly, if Trump were to become president, many countries would rise to power due to his ignorance.
The first article I looked at, on New York Times, brings up how the civil war in Syria will only continue to get worse, both domestically and for foreigners. One point it brings up particularly relating to shifting alliances is that the war in Syria affects more than just Syria; for countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, Syria is just another pawn in their massive game of chess, only this pawn has become a queen. If they do not benefit from the outcome of the war, then their regimes could be crippled. Also, neither side is particularly focused on winning, but rather on not losing, making the end of the war more likely to be due to exhaustion rather than military conquest ("Syria's Paradox: Why the War Only Ever Seems to Get Worse" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-why-get-worse.html?_r=0).
ReplyDeleteThe second article I found, by NPR news, takes a look at the intricacies of the shifting Middle East alliances. The podcast brings up a lot of specific points, but in general, the key point it brings up is that many of the alliances that shift are not out of political logic or permanence by any sense, but are there to be convenient to face whatever struggles any given regime is facing at a time. The average citizen only wants what benefits their economical needs, so these shifting alliances only mage changes which end up angering citizens and stimulating more shifting. ("The Middle East: A Web Of 'Topsy-Turvy' Alliances" http://www.npr.org/2012/11/28/166067920/the-middle-east-a-web-of-topsy-turvy-alliances).
The first article relates to points that Ryan brought up because Ryan's strongest point is how nations care most about security, and many countries see the war in Syria as something that they cannot afford to lose. A distinct power emerging from Syria that is not their ally could prove to be disastrous, so neighboring regimes are simply doing their best not to lose anything from the war. The second article brings up the needs of citizens, and Ryan also brings up that a desperate need for security from regimes actually destabilizes them; very high security alienates citizens, often leaving them in suboptimal situations, which instigates domestic revolutions.
The first article and chart deal with the categorizing of Middle Eastern relationships. The chart claims that ISIS is not in an alliance with anyone in the Middle East since no one wants to do business with them. The Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi government technically do not have any enemies according to this chart. The article states, however, that some alliances can fall apart extremely quickly, especially during times of chaos or war. ("Enemies, Alliances and Animosity in the Middle East." The Economist, www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/grid-grievances. Accessed 7 Jan. 2016.)
ReplyDeleteThe second article deals with all of the events that have been occurring in the Middle East. The Middle East has been the grounds for chaos and war for the past few years. A proxy war is underway which involves the United States working alongside Iran in order to try and fight ISIS, yet the United States denies any part of that. Additionally, Iran is proving to be a large influence in many countries’ well-beings. Many alliances have been formed in order to deal with all of this chaos and war, and yet, there is still war going on in the Middle East. (Iqbal, Jawad. "Complex Web of Intra-Islamic Enmity Snares Middle East." BBC News, BBC, 7 Apr. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32160794.)
Both of these articles help to describe how difficult it is to keep an alliance in the Middle East. Chaos and war could break out at any given moment and break up yet another alliance. Curtis R. Ryan, author of the article in Great Decisions Briefing Book, took the reader through the timeline of alliances that occurred in the Middle East and he also discussed why alliances were broken.
Great sources! These will be helpful when we get to unit 3.
DeleteThe first article form The New York Times is about Israel and it's relations with Arab States. The article from Great Decisions focuses on relations throughout the whole Middle East. In the first article it discusses how Israel is improving it's relations with Arab States like Saudi Arabia. The Great Decisions article focuses more on specific regimes and how different countries deal with the shifting alliances. As stated in the article Israel was in hostile relationships with Arab States, but in past years as well as in the future they have sought to change that. The article in Great Decisions does not focus at all on the relationship between Israel and the Arab States, but instead gives a more general explanation of relations in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteThe second article from The Washington Post focuses on fights in the Middle East between Syrian rebels and the Kurds. Although the Great Decisions article mentions some fighting none of it mentioned is between the Kurds and Syrian rebels. Both articles do mention ISIS and the instability the terrorist group brings to the Middle East. Article one describes how fighting between the Kurds and Syria occurred because ISIS is taking over towns in Syria. The Kurds are using this to gain control of towns as well. The article in Great Decisions discusses how ISIS is taking over towns and killing many people. Overall, both articles are similar in that they both discuss how ISIS is negatively affecting relations in the Middle East.
Article One Title: Can Israel and the Arab States be Friends?
Article One Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/can-israel-and-the-arab-states-be-friends.html
Article Two Title:
Clashes intensify between U.S.-backed groups in northern Syria
Article Two Title: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/clashes-intensify-between-us-backed-groups-in-northern-syria/2016/08/28/77f46cea-6d32-11e6-993f-73c693a89820_story.html