US continues sanctions policy on Iran; ‘Red line’ unclear

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Karina Kainth

By Anthony Chimente

Courtesy of CBC News. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility.

Iran and its purported nuclear weapons program has been a key tenant of United States foreign policy for the past decade. A nuclear Iran could destabilize the Middle East and, arguably, pose a threat to the state of Israel.

Thus far, the West has relied on diplomatic initiatives and sanctions to hinder the Iranian nuclear program.

“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment, I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” said President Obama according to The Hill, articulating the position of the United States regarding a nuclear Iran.

The Obama Administration has been steadfast in its commitment to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons by way of diplomatic means.

President Obama said, “I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy, backed by pressure, to succeed,” during an annual American Israeli Public Affairs Committee conference on March 4th, according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Iranians have been unwilling to allow IAEA inspectors to investigate their nuclear facilities in their entirety.

However, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Ali Asghar Soltanieh said, “We haven’t ruled out a visit to Parchin,” according to the Wall Street Journal, referring to the site where an explosion occurred while experimenting with uranium enrichment.

The IAEA has said, “Iran’s lack of cooperation with its inspectors has prevented the agency from determining whether Iran’s nuclear program is civilian or military in nature. U.S. officials have said Iran is developing technology needed to build nuclear weapons,” according the Wall Street Journal.

Apart from diplomatic initiatives, the United States and the West have implemented extensive sanctions against Iran. The Wall Street Journal has asserted that the main sanctions are targeted against Iranian oil exports, with goal of starving the Iranian government of revenue required to run its
nuclear program.

While sanctions against Iran pertain to everything from airplane parts to oil, the sanctions targeted towards Iranian oil exports have thus far proved fruitless.

A key issue with regards to imposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports is the world reliance on Iranian oil.

Apart from sanctions against Iranian oil exports, sanctions against the Iranian economy have been successful against the Iranian people. According
to The Australian, there are “accounts of widespread collapse across the economy, including substantial unemployment, the drying up of investment,
food shortages and hoarding.”

Abbas Bakhtiari, a musician based in Paris whose family is in Iran, told USA Today, “My family — my mom and my two sisters — never asked me for anything before….This is the first time they asked me to help them to pay their bills, and I’m talking about people who didn’t have financial difficulties.”

The Director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Iran Project in Washington D.C., Ali Vaez, told USA Today that, “What started as targeted sanctions to push back the nuclear program has in reality turned into comprehensive, broad sanctions that have hurt the Iranian people.”

Other efforts to hinder the Iranian nuclear program have been of a covert nature. Israel-based Ynet news has opined that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad has assassinated countless Iranian nuclear scientist and key figures of the Iranian nuclear program over the past few years.

According to Ynet news, the assassinations constitute a key tenant of covert efforts to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

If diplomatic efforts and sanctions prove fruitless, a military strike will prove inevitable. President Obama affirmed this position to the pro-Israeli
lobbying group AIPAC on March 4th, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The President said, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”

While a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is not off the table, the President cautioned about the potential of war with Iran, stating, “I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues, the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

“The U.S. red line isn’t clear. I’m not sure that the US itself knows at what point it would employ military force”, said Christopher Ferrero, a professor at Seton Hall University and an expert on Iran.

“A nuclear Iran wouldn’t be a good thing, but you need to ask what costs you are willing to incur to stop it,” added Ferrero.

Contact Anthony Chimente at anthony.chimente@student.shu.edu.

Posted in Focus, Sections | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran intends for diplomatic re-engagement with six world powers

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Karina Kainth

By Karina Kainth

Courtesy of The Guardian. Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili sent letters to Catherine Ashton indicating Iran's willingness to re-engage in talks.


Iran welcomed a round of talks with six world powers last week, hoping to restart negotiations on its nuclear program after more than a year.

The Iranian government indicated its readiness to set a location and date for the talks, which will include the U.S., China, Russia, England, France, and Germany.

European officials hope to hold talks in Istanbul in early April.

“The Obama administration hopes to use the new talks with Iran to quickly establish confidence-building measures aimed at containing the Iranian nuclear threat,” said officials, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Iran first indicated its willingness to negotiate with western powers in a letter from nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to European Union foreign policy
chief Catherine Ashton last month. Ashton responded that progress toward a diplomatic solution was possible if Iran would engage “seriously and
without pre-conditions” in her letter to Jalili, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Jalili recently stated that “he welcomes Ashton’s stance of respecting the rights of the Islamic Republic in using peaceful nuclear energy,” according
to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The last round of talks between the seven countries was held in January 2011, but an agenda was not even set.

The six powers are expected to approach negotiations with a request that Iran freeze its uranium enrichment at 20 percent and ship its fuel to a third
country. In return, the powers will refrain from levying further United Nations sanctions against Iran.

The U.S.’s stance thus far has been one of skepticism. In a meeting at the White House with English Prime Minister David Cameron last week, US President Barack Obama said that the window of opportunity for diplomatic engagement with Iran is “shrinking,” according to the Wall Street Journal. He
pointed to the fact that in previous talks, Iran’s attitude has been “to delay, to stall, to do a lot of talking but not actually move the ball forward.”

If Iran allows the IAEA to inspect its facilities in Parchin (which the organization alleges may be a site for nuclear weapons testing), the U.S. may
look upon negotiations with more optimism, according to U.S. officials.

Iranian-American Rutgers University student Mina Nourbakhsh believes that international pressure on Iran is misguided.

“I think the Iranian people, myself included, feel annoyed about this entire issue because there are other countries who clearly have nuclear weapons and who are not getting questioned,” said Nourbakhsh.

“Iran is the most sanctioned country in the world,” said Seyed Hussein Mousavian, former chair of the Iranian National Security Council’s Foreign Relations Committee, at a Princeton University panel on March 6.

In regards to Iran’s nuclear program, Nourbakhsh said: “There is nothing that Iran has to ‘open up’ about. They have clearly said again and again that their purpose for having a nuclear program is for energy intentions only.”

Mousavian noted that nuclear research in Iran has been increasingly connected with national pride amongst the Iranian people.

Responding to President Obama’s increasingly sharp stance on Iran, Nourbakhsh said, “I don’t really think the U.S. should intervene in this issue.”

She believes that collective UN action is the best way to approach the situation.

Moreover, “the UN should take action in investigating the possession of nuclear weapons in Israel and other countries,” Nourbakhsh said.

Israel’s denial of its own nuclear capability has, according to Council on Foreign Relations fellow Micah Zenko, contributed to its status “as an international pariah, allowing adversaries and the nonaligned movement to use Israeli intransigence as an excuse to slow progress on nuclear nonproliferation objectives, including preventing a nuclear Iran.”

Contact Karina Kainth at karina.kainth@student.shu.edu.

Posted in Focus, Sections | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel leans toward war with Iran while West remains wary

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Karina Kainth

By Huma Ahmed

Courtesy of The Guardian. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama met last month, with slightly different positions on what to do about Iran's nuclear program.


Tensions between Iran, Israel, and the rest of the international community have been constantly escalating during the past few months.

Iran’s defiance to heed calls to stop the enrichment of uranium, along with its many threats to destroy Israel, has led Israel to consider the option of a pre-emptive strike.

Israel’s response to this situation is one of immediate outrage and fear.

Prime Minister Netanyahu sees this program as an “existential threat,” according to the BBC, from Iran, and he strongly believes Iran will attack Israel if the nuclear program is allowed to continue.

Recent bombings targeting staff at Israeli embassies in India and Georgia have caused Israel to accuse Iran of masterminding the attacks. Netanyahu
urged nations to “draw red lines against Iranian aggression” and publicly blamed Iran for the explosions by “acts of terror,” according to the New
York Times.

At a meeting between the two heads of state last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Barack Obama that Israel must always remain “master of its fate,” according to the BBC.

The two leaders strongly disagree on the idea of attacking Iran. President Obama is reluctant to go to war at all. He described his remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu as an assurance that the “the United States will always have Israel’s back when it comes to Israel’s security.” However, “it was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action,” Obama said, according to ABC News.

Israel’s fear that Iran will use its nuclear capabilities against it has raised talks of an attack from Israel sometime this year. Israel has been insisting to world leaders that Iran is planning on making a bomb, and that the only rational choice is to threaten a military strike.

James R. Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said the United States intelligence community believes that Iran’s leaders have not decided to
actually build nuclear weapons but are pursuing technology that may allow them to do so, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The West has taken a clear stance, asserting that military intervention does not seem like a viable option, despite Israel’s hinting. Tough sanctions
have been the basis of the West’s reaction thus far.

While an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be likely, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta echoed views of other Western leaders, stating, “At best an Israeli attack might postpone [Iran] maybe one, possibly two years,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

A more outright response to Israeli pressure for attacks was one of former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who told a group of foreign policy experts
last month that Israel is not capable of inflicting serious damage to Iran’s nuclear sites. He said, “The Israeli’s are not going to attack Iran… they can’t do it, it’s beyond their capacity… they only have the ability to make this worse,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Contact Huma Ahmed at huma.ahmed@student.shu.edu.

Posted in Focus, Sections | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

British Foreign Secretary warns of ‘new Cold War’ in Middle East

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Karina Kainth

By Alexa Valiente

Courtesy of The Guardian. British Foreign Secretary William Hague warns that the current threats of war regarding Iran's nuclear program may lead to a 'Cold War'.

Iran’s nuclear program could lead to a “new Cold War in the Middle East,” according to British Foreign Secretary, William Hague.

In a recent interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said, “It is a crisis coming down the tracks…Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons program … If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.”

Hague’s comments add to the heightened scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear program, which many countries of the West view to be in pursuit of weapons development. Tehran has stated that its development of a nuclear program is to “generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to
sell abroad, and to provide fuel for medical reactors,” as stated by the New York Times.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after inspections, has said that “mediumlevel uranium enrichment had begun at the Fordo plant near Qom in northern Iran,” according to the BBC . In November 2011, the IAEA dispersed evidence of Iran carrying “out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” at Parchin, making Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons a credible threat and a project still under way.

If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, not only could Mr. Hague’s statement for the Middle East be plausible, but it could also mean a very contentious situation for the West and the rest of the world, which several countries, such as Israel and those in the European Union, have taken measures to prevent.

This past January, President Obama imposed sanctions on Iran’s central bank as well as on three oil companies that trade with Iran, “freezing all property of the Central Bank of Iran, other Iranian financial institutions and the Iranian government in the United States,” according to the New York Times.

The US tightened and began to enforce existing sanctions on Iran, creating restrictions that could deny Iran its revenue of billions of dollars from
abroad by expelling it from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

Towards the end of that same month, the European Union formally adopted an embargo against Iran banning Iranian oil imports to Europe, to be phased over a period of months to lighten the impact for weaker European economies, in addition to restrictions on the Central Bank of Iran and Iran’s ability to do business outside of its borders.

Currently, 20 percent of Iran’s oil exports are to Europe, with Greece buying about one third of Iran’s oil. Furthermore, Israel has been rumored among American officials to be planning a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, in response to its enrichment of uranium. Both the United States and Israel have not stated that military action against Iran’s nuclear program is out of the question.

There are mixed reactions to these threats and sanctions brought by other states to Iran as well as effects on Europe following the results of its oil embargo.

As early as February 2012, the West’s sanctions had already begun to take their toll, with Iran’s economy tense as the government looked for ways to
avoid using dollars in its international oil trade, reports of difficulty in importing food, and a “Gallup poll suggesting a majority of Iranians were worried about financial pain from the penalties already imposed,” said the New York Times.

More recently, Iran responded to the European Union’s oil embargo by halting oil exports to Britain and France, which may be more detrimental to Iran
as Britain and France depend little on Iranian oil. However, many view the sanctions as more detrimental to the people of Iran rather than its intended
target of the government, with some even calling them ‘useless.’

Lord Lamont, chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, said “The problem with sanctions is that we think we’re imposing a cost on them [Iran] but we’re also imposing a cost on ourselves in terms of lost jobs, lost output and in some cases bankruptcy of the firms involved,” acccording to the BBC.

War, the threat looming over many countries with regards to Iran’s nuclear program and possible pursuit of nuclear weapons, has not been ruled out by
the United States, Israel, and even Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he would never allow the Israeli people to “live in the shadow of annihilation,” according to the Jerusalem Post. According to the BBC, Wikileaks revelations have also shown that “Gulf Arab states have urged the US to attack Iran.”

In response, Iran has stated that it would take preemptive action against enemies who endanger their national interests: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” said Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy head of Iran’s armed forces. Such statements only lend more credibility to the threat of a “Cold War” described by U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Contact Alexa Valiente at alexa.valiente@student.shu.edu.

Posted in Focus, Sections | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MLB season preview: National League

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Daniel Grimm

New York Mets fans will cringe when they see long-time Met Jose Reyes suit up for the Miami Marlins this season. (Courtesy of US Presswire)

East Division

The Philadelphia Phillies have dominated the East in the last couple years, but competition is on the horizon, especially since their team is aging. To make matters worse, hard-hitting first baseman Ryan Howard is out until May with an Achilles injury.

The new-look Miami Marlins are ready to make a splash with shortstop Jose Reyes and closer Heath Bell, but they will need a healthy Josh Johnson in order to make the playoffs. While the Atlanta Braves have stayed relatively quiet following their collapse last season, the Washington Nationals acquired pitchers Gio Gonzalez and Edwin Jackson, which makes its staff one of the best in the National League. Add in the explosive Bryce Harper, who has yet to make his MLB debut, and the Nats could be a surprise team this year.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look good for the New York Mets who have been embattled in ownership issues and could finish as the worst team in the entire league. Moving in the fences at Citi Field won’t help much either, but look for better numbers from both Jason Bay and David Wright.

Central Division

The Central has the all the makings of being a three-team race come September. The Milwaukee Brewers will have to deal with the loss of Prince Fielder, but still have MVP Ryan Braun, who recently won an appeal after testing positive for steroids. The defending World Series champion and perennial contenders St. Louis Cardinals also face a similar situation after losing slugger Albert Pujols and will need to find production from the rest of the lineup.

Up north, the Chicago Cubs have a new general manager in Theo Epstein, but he has yet to produce the type of off-season magic that won titles in Boston. However, the team to watch out for is the Cincinnati Reds who are coming off a disappointing season but have the talent to win the division, especially with the acquisition of pitcher Mat Latos.

While the Pittsburgh Pirates produced a record 20th consecutive losing season, they did manage to re-sign their best player, Andrew McCutchen, and the Houston Astros will likely face another disastrous year with a move to the American League pending.

West Division

The NL West has long been the laughingstock of the MLB, but a surprising season from the Arizona Diamondbacks changed those perceptions. The D-Backs will likely win the division again this year, but only because of the multiple question marks surrounding their rivals.

The San Francisco Giants are still a pitching powerhouse thanks to Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain, but they score too few runs to be able to contend. The same goes for the San Diego Padres, who hold opponents’ runs down at their cavernous ballpark.

Last-place will be a battle between the Colorado Rockies and Los Angeles Dodgers. The Dodgers are facing ownership issues, but with the talent of Cy Young winner Clayton Kershaw and MVP candidate Matt Kemp, they should finish ahead of the lowly Rockies.

By Dan Grimm

Posted in Sections, Sports | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MLB season preview: American League

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Daniel Grimm

Albert Pujols will be looking to make an immediate impact with his new team, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. (Courtesy of AP)

It’s that time of year again.  The memories of the “unforgettable” Super Bowl faded about three weeks ago, the Linsanity phenomena has come to a LINstant halt, and you’re about ready to dust off that old ball cap and start thinking about baseball.  So for all you fans drooling for the first pitch, here’s a snapshot of what happened in the off-season, with a preview of what might be expected in Major League Baseball this 2012 season.

East Division

If the Yankees can get production from an aging Derek Jeter, a (finally) healthy Alex Rodriguez and regular production from the rest of their cast, this team looks to have all the pieces to make a deep playoff run.  However, will poor postseason hitting continue to plague them? Surprisingly, pitching might be the Yankees’ strength for once after acquiring the rookie-sensation Michael Pineda and seasoned veteran Hiroki Kuroda.

As for the rest of the division, the Red Sox are coming off a season filled with locker room drama, which led to the hiring of a new manager (Bobby Valentine), but most of their starters are returning. The Tampa Bay Rays also had a quiet offseason, but skipper Joe Madden has done a great job in the past seasons in keeping his team competitive and the Rays still have one of the deepest pitching rotations in the league.  Don’t be surprised to see the Rays in the mix for the division title. As for the other two teams in this division…

Central Division

With the acquisition of Prince Fielder the Detroit Tigers have made themselves the team to beat in the Central Division. If the reigning MVP and Cy Young winner Justin Verlander can continue doing what he does best, this team will be deadly.

However, with Victor Martinez out, their defense will suffer greatly, and there’s still that lingering question on how well Cabrera adjusts to playing third base. The Cleveland Indians were a major surprise last season, but the key to keeping that success is keeping Grady Sizemore, Travis Hafner and Shin-Soo Choo healthy.

The Kansas City Royals have a ton of young talent that seem ready to take center stage, but will that be enough? Meanwhile, the Minnesota Twins will look to improve on their abysmal season, but even a healthy Joe Mauer might not help them.  Not much can be said about the Chicago White Sox, with Ozzie Guillen and Mark Buehrle in sunny Florida and Adam Dunn possibility hitting the twilight of his career, this team may end up finishing last place in the division.

West Division

This is probably the most exciting division to watch.  The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have all the necessary pieces for a championship caliber team with a starting rotation that includes Dan Haren, Jered Weaver, C.J. Wilson, and Ervin Santana. Coupled with an offensive that will be powered by newly-acquired Albert Pujols with contributors such as Kendry Morales, Torii Hunter, Howie Kendrick and Mark Trumbo, the Angels are World Series contenders.

However, don’t count out the Texas Rangers yet as they’re still going to get great production from Josh Hamilton, Nelson Cruz, and Ian Kinsler , but they need Yu Darvish to live up to his hype. Out in the Bay, the Oakland Athletics finally spent some money and signed the highly touted Cuban prospect Yeonis Cespedes, but stayed true to their “develop and dump” ways by getting rid of All-Star pitchers Trevor Cahill, Gio Gonzales, and Andrew Bailey.  They were replaced by aging players such as Bartolo Colon, Coco Crisp, and Jonny Gomes, but  this may be the year that the old Billy Beane “Moneyball” will see some success.

By Yu Chen Chao

Posted in Sections, Sports | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Meshal will not run for re-election

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Monika Jones

 Andrew Sarros – Staff Writer

It was announced recently that Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, will not seek reelection. Meshal has led Hamas since his appointment in 2004, following the assassination of the group’s previous leader.

Hamas is a Palestinian militant group, and is considered by the United States, Canada, Japan, Israel, and the EU to be a terrorist organization. Hamas has allegedly perpetrated numerous assaults, particularly rocket attacks, against Israel, including Israeli civilians. The organization is also notable for being a political entity and it is the organization responsible for the governance of Gaza ever since Palestine’s 2006 parliamentary elections.

Meshal has lived in exile in Syria, along with many other Hamas officials. In the wake of the unprecedented violence that Syrian President Bashar alAssad has unleashed upon his own people, many Hamas officials have fled to safer locations, though Meshal remains in Damascus.

In a recent New York Times article, an anonymous aide was quoted as saying that one possible factor in Meshal’s decision to step down may have been that it would free him to return to Jordan and escape Syria altogether. As of late, Hamas has somewhat distanced itself from the Assad regime.

Should Meshal step down, a successor would need to be chosen, and there are myriad of individuals who could be in contention for the position. However, a quirk of the election system makes it possible that Meshal could still be nominated and reelected, potentially without his consent.

Despite Meshal’s intentions to step down, his term is not over yet. Hamas has announced a groundbreaking alliance with Fatah. The two organizations have reconciled their differences and have agreed to form a new united government. Currently, Mahmoud Abbas is the interim prime minister. A previous attempt by the two organizations to cooperate failed in 2007, but it remains to be seen if Hamas and Fatah can truly work together.

It is hard to forecast the future, particularly in such a volatile region of the world, but the safe money says that no matter who replaces Meshal, there will not be significant change. This is not to say that it is impossible, but merely that it is unlikely that a candidate with substantially different views would be nominated and elected. Even if a more moderate individual did manage to gain office, it is even more difficult to estimate what changes could follow. The fate of the united government is also undecided as of yet. There are many possible results, and it would be dishonest to say that there is any certainty of outcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Slipper, Nuclear Slope for Iran

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Monika Jones

 Milvi Saarna – Staff Writer

The government of Iran has denied allegations that it is developing nuclear weapons, insisting that its atomic power stations are solely for peaceful energy purposes. Yet many in the West believe that Iran’s intent might be different.

A report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in November 2011 suggested that Iran may have been working to transform its nuclear fuel into weapons, as it has refused to engage in real discussions and full inspections, often dismissing accusations as being fictional or out of context, according to the  New YorkTimes.

The government clearly does not want to cooperate with the IAEA, nor the Security Council. The U.S. and the European Union are proposing another round of sanctions against Iran in the hopes that Iran will come back to diplomatic discussions and stop its uranium enrichment program.

With the clock ticking and no agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, on January 30 President Barack Obama announced “unprecedented” measures of sanctioning on Iran. These sanctions, an addition to last November’s sanctions aimed at reducing oil exports to curb international economic dealings, “require U.S. institutions to block all property and interests of the Iranian government, the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and all Iranian financial institutions within U.S. jurisdiction,” reported Reuters.

Another sanctions bill that might pass in the Senate would require the White House to push the Belgianbased Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to expel CBI and other Iranian financial institutions that transfer money between banks internationally, or otherwise face sanctions. The bill would also extend sanctions to parent companies that conduct business with Iran through their foreign subsidiaries. These measures could have a disastrous impact on Iran’s trade, economy, and ability to purchase goods.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad labeled the U.S. and EU embargo on oil imports as “the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history,” as 80% of Iran’s exports revenue stems from crude sales. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Second Supreme Leader of Iran, has admitted that the sanctions have been “painful and crippling” according to The Daily Star, yet also commented that the sanctions would benefit Iran by making it more self-reliant.

In a country where 45 percent of its rice is imported, sudden ‘self-reliance’ does not seem practical. Suppliers from Thailand, Vietnam, and Pakistan have already ceased to provide rice. Additionally, Iranian buyers have defaulted on credit payments of 200,000 tons of rice to India, indicating that sanctions are pulling the Iranian hand. This staple currently costs approximately $5 per kg, while the average Iranian earns about $350 a month.

If sudden sanctions affect the everyday Iranian in a drastic manner, the West may secretly hope that the Iranian public will retaliate against their government. U.S. officials have in the past stated that they are targeting the regime and sparing every day citizens, yet the newest sanctions seem to indicate otherwise.

In retaliation, Iranian Members of Parliament (MPs) pledged to hasten the passage of a bill immediately banning Iranian oil exports to certain EU states as well as barring imports of any goods from the EU. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that new sanctions on Iran, the fifth largest supplier of oil, could skyrocket the price of oil 20-30%.

Iran also threatened to attack Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf and close off the Strait of Hormuz, reported the New York Times.

Is it a lose-lose situation? In the eyes of the Iranian government, it is probably in a tough, but bearable spot until they gain nuclear technology. What helps is that Russia and China do not want to apply further sanctions, and maybe that is all Iran needs to survive while it develops its nuclear weapons program.

Sanctions are worth a shot to stop Iran, but what happens when they don’t work? Perhaps more nuclear scientists will be killed, or Israel will attack a Iraqi nuclear facility like it did  in 1981. If sanctions fail, threatened parties will publicly or discretely try to prevent Iran from gaining access to  nuclear weaponry. However, they may expect full retaliation by the Iranian government. After all, Khamenei once said, “If they want to threaten us and use force and violence against us, they should not doubt that Iranian officials will use all they have in their power to deal a blow to those who assault them.”

Posted in Opinions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s Time for French Troop Withdrawal

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Monika Jones

Emily Gavarny – Staff Writer

After the recent shootings in Afghanistan, where four French soldiers were shot and killed and sixteen injured, French president Nicolas Sarkozy considered an early withdrawal of French troops.

According to BBC, since 2001, France has had 3,600 troops stationed in Afghanistan and has lost 82 French personnel.  In the recent tragedy, the French soldiers were fired upon by a serviceman from the Afghan National Army after a “verbal clash” during a fitness exercise.

President Sarkozy explained how France “is at the side of its allies, but [we] cannot accept that a single one of our soldiers be killed or wounded by our allies… It is unacceptable; [I]will not accept it,” according to the BBC.

Fighting for his re-election, Sarkozy felt pressured to pull troops out as his main rival, socialist party candidate François Hollande, has promised to withdraw all troops by the end of this year.

Even if Sarkozy had carried out this decision, the effects would have been negligable. Whether it is a matter of unstable security or a method to gain favor of the French people, gradual withdrawal of French troops would not make a large impact in Afghanistan. By 2014, power will be handed back to the Afghans and the duty of the U.S. and its allies would change from combat to support.

As NATO works to expand Afghan security forces in the country, stability is close and there must be a point where the foreign presence is cut.

The reality is that the people of many European countries involved are skeptical about the benefits of staying involved in Afghanistan after attacks by Afghan soldiers on foreign troops.

Especially after the recent violent events causing the deaths of four French soldiers, it would have been logical for France to want to start to send troops home earlier than planned.  It has gotten to the point where the costs have outweighed the overall benefits and too many French soldiers’ lives have been lost.

After countless years of involvement, will pulling out French troops really having any impact on the effort in Afghanistan?  No.  This war has lasted long enough and it is time to stop endangering lives. The troops have done their job to the best of their ability, and it’s time to go home

Posted in Opinions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

America’s key role in the future of the internet

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Monika Jones

Andrea Sherman – Staff Writer

Imagine a world without free knowledge. Set in foreboding, shadowy type, this was the message that greeted millions of users who visited the English version of Wikipedia on January 19. Dozens of other websites, most notably Facebook, Google, and Reditt, joined Wikipedia in an “internet blackout” to protest the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PIPA).

Both bills lacked the practical teeth required to actually accomplish their goal of stopping online piracy, and instead would have inflicted far greater collateral damage on both internet corporations and users.  They have been tabled in the House and Senate, as reported by Politico on Jan. 20, but are neither the first nor the last of their kind. Aside from being ineffective and needlessly damaging attempts to combat online piracy, they would also have had damaging effects on U.S. foreign policy objectives, and similar legislation could do the same.

The current administration has been outspoken against internet censorship in countries such as Russia and China, highlighting the critical role of information technology and collaboration in democracy-building. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at a press conference on January 21, 2010, expressed the State Department’s position on the matter: “On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.”

This view cannot reconcile with policies which could directly undermine, on an international level, information access and collaboration. SOPA in particular would have hugely increased costs for any website on which individuals can post information or videos, by requiring that the website holder (be it Google, Youtube, or a small start-up blog) police for  copyrighted content in order to avoid liability.

The only way to effectively do this is to restrict the ability of users to post. Trying to conform the traditional copyright system to the exponential growth of technology necessitates impractical and ideologically reprehensible levels of policing. The ability of individuals to cheaply and freely upload, share, and comment on information is what makes social media so critical in efforts such as those seen in the Arab Spring, uprisings in Syria, and movements anywhere.

If the United States is to remain an outspoken advocate and even aid in such efforts, it cannot enact policies which undermine them on both a practical and philosophical level. A paradigm shift in how intellectual property is disseminated and viewed requires a corresponding shift in the policies which protect it.

Legislators and media industry leaders accept this, so that rather than censoring citizens and stifling growth both here and in places this country seeks to help, we can create policies which foster the increasingly collaborative nature of today’s society,

Posted in Opinions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment