President George W. Bush’s October 6 address at the National Endowment for Democracy illustrated his administration’s increasingly desperate effort to justify the increasingly unpopular U.S. war in Iraq. The speech focused upon the Bush administration’s claim that the Iraqi insurgency against U.S. occupation forces somehow constituted a grave threat to the security of the United States and the entire civilized world.
To understand just how tenuous the U.S. position in Iraq is at the moment, we have only to look at the way Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, in the solidly Shiite South slipped out of the control of occupation forces last month.
The meeting between the UN, the Coalition, and the Iraqi Governing Council on 19 January suggests that the harsh realities of an election year in the U.S. may be making elections more feasible in Iraq. It is also very likely going to speed up the return of the UN international staff there.
On the face of it, Tony Blair had an almost Clintonesque week as he walked away from two separate train wrecks seemingly unhurt. However, beneath the surface, there are deep internal injuries that have left him seriously weakened.
On February 20th Iran elected its seventh Majlis (parliament) in an election that has been widely criticized by many Iranian and international observers for the heavy-handed manner in which the regime had interfered in the electoral process. The conservative Council of Guardians disqualified an estimated 2,500 candidates from standing for election–by some counts nearly four times the number of barred candidates in the 2000 Majlis elections. As a result, Iran ‘s conservative factions recaptured control of the Majlis at the expense of the reformist movement associated with President Mohammad Khatami. The political discourse within Iranian domestic politics has thus been re-centered within the conservative camp.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s recent revelations that the Israeli government is encouraging Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Iran, and Syria should ring a bell for anyone who has followed the long history of English imperial ambitions.
Much has been written in support of and against SharonÂs planned disengagement from the Gaza Strip, to include the dismantling of the settlements in the Gaza Strip, isolated settlements in the northern part of the West Bank, and the redeployment of the Israeli army within the Gaza Strip; yet one crucially important aspect has been overlooked by most commentators: the precedent of dismantling settlements and its potentially transforming and cathartic affect on Israeli society.
While there are many negative things one can say about the late Yasser Arafat, he was not the primary reason for the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At most, he was the excuse.