Iran and the Bomb

According to a report issued by the United Nations Iran has enriched enough uranium to possibly make a nuclear bomb out of. The Nuclear capabilities of Iran have be a major issue in Middle Eastern policies, especially since no one knows the location of all of the nuclear facilities in Iran since they hid their program for 18 years from the international communities. This new information concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities has cause some tension to develop between the US and Israel over what to do about it. The Israelis feel that this is a huge threat and must be dealt with as swiftly as possible while the US feels like it has time to take it slow and establish good relations. The Israelis have always been kind of pushy on this subject, during the latter part of the Bush administration the Israeli government put in a request for “bunker-busting bombs, the right to fly over Iraq and the refueling capability that they would need to take out Iran’s main enrichment plant at Natanz.” Israel feels that Iran’s nuclear program could be pushed back by six years with a good bombing while American officials believe that that would by us about three months since we don’t know the location of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Obama administration is playing it safe a waiting to see what they can achieve with the talks that they are going to open with Iran, after its elections, this is a good move because Americas relations with Israel has be source of conflict with other countries, who believe that America is too nice to Israel, this show that we aren’t afraid to go against them on some issues.

Plans to stay at top

For the past six years the United States has had its armed forces tied up in two wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. These two wars have stretched man power, we currently have over 170,000 troops in both areas, and resources thin, leaving little to use in any other operations that might come up. The US has been using a strategy that is used for fighting two wars to deal with the operations that are occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq, but top military officials have decided that this strategy of two wars might not be relevant in the 21st century. The Pentagon is now rethinking and revising their strategy to make it more flexible for modern day operations.

Among other questions are the extent to which planning for conflicts should focus primarily on counterinsurgency wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what focus remains on well-equipped conventional adversaries like China and Iran…

The new plan for operations would also try and boost the involvement of other government agency and lower the amount that the DoD has to do. This revision of Americas war plans is much need because it hasn’t help us lately and is too set in conventional warfare, with the use of navies and heavy bombers. Nowadays there are so many international organizations, like the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that it would take a lot to cause a conventional war, as in two uniformed armies are fighting, to break out. The only operations that are prevalent today are anti-insurgence, anti-extremist and policing actions that are sanctioned by the UN or NATO. Of course the real reason that the Pentagon is revising the military plan is so that America can stay at the top of the world military echelon, go figure.

The Israel Influence

Obama’s choice for head of the National Intelligence Council or NIC, Charles W. Freeman Jr., has resigned for the appointment on Tuesday (3/10/09). Many believe that the politically strong pro-Israel lobby had a hand in his resignation; Mr. Freeman himself has said that libelous emails about his record were sent from the pro-Israel lobby. Mr. Freeman has some blemishes on his record from when he was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, including allegations of being lenient with leaders there and in China where his supposedly had commercial interests but the focus of the Israel lobby was on comments that he made that were critical of Israel.

But most of the online attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" stemming from the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands," which he called "inherently violent."

Many in Washington believe that the Israel lobby holds too much control over policy and needs to be controlled. This one side control can make making peace in the Middle East harder because the lobby will fight anything that isn’t in their best interests, this limits what policy makers can talk about when it comes to the Israel situations.

Syrian Effect

The Obama administration is looking to take a different route with their foreign policy concerning the Middle East. The new route will try to cover three major issues in that area, the nuclear threat from Iran, the bitter relations between Syria and Israel and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Starting with the nuclear threat that is emanating from Iran, the Obama administration in hoping to open direct negotiations with Tehran concerning their nuclear program, which has been reported to have enough enriched uranium to produce a bomb. However, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, doesn’t seem too optimistic about the Untied States chances of successfully opening these negotiations. Apparently madam secretary was heard express concern that Iran wouldn’t reacted positively to the negotiations during a trip to the Middle East this week.

American officials privately say an overture to Iran could pay off, no matter how it reacts. A positive response would be a breakthrough, while a rebuff could put Tehran on the defensive, potentially undermining the posturing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at home and encouraging America’s allies to intensify sanctions against the government.

During her trip Mrs. Clinton has also stated that the US is ready to start improving its relations with Syria. The reasons behind the decision to reopen diplomatic ties, which had been severed when the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri occurred, believing the Syrians to be involved. However, the political field is ripe for a new round of diplomatic relations,

“We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

America is not the only country seeking to mend ties with Syria; Israel has also announced that they are in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty using Turkish mediators; this peace treaty could lead to Israel returning the Golan Heights that they won in the 1967 war. If America can reestablish ties with Syria then they could control the situation in the Middle East by using the huge influence that Syria has over that area, especially in the situation with Iran, who has strong ties with Syria. The reason for Mrs. Clinton’s trip to the Middle East was to visit Israel and announce the Obama administration’s stance on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Obama’s policy is that he supports the idea of building a separate state of Palestine right alongside the state of Israel. This view was expressed during Mrs. Clinton’s visit there, she also criticize Israel’s plans for demolishing Palestinian homes in eastern Jerusalem saying the orders were “unhelpful” in the peace process. She also fought for the Gaza border opening in order to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to the people of the war torn Gaza strip.

“We have obviously expressed concern about the border crossing,” Mrs. Clinton said after a meeting with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. “We want humanitarian aid to get into Gaza in sufficient amounts to help alleviate the suffering of the people in Gaza.”