Democracy in Retreat

Whether it is deliberate election malpractice or a domestic coup orchestrated by a nation’s army, there is a miniature-sized trend transpiring in the world today. States that seem to have accepted the democratic model as their system of government have opted to betray its basic principles and values.

Earlier this month, the world bared witness to Iranian voters viscerally taking to the streets engendered by the actions of their heads of state, whose hands run red with the blood of election fraud. Now, in South America, the Honduran Army has unilaterally decided to oust the Honduran President for corruption, charges of malfeasance and undemocratically rewriting the Honduran constitution.

Both nation's have denied the citizens of those nations their right as stated in their respective constitutions to elect a representative. Nullifying votes is the first symptom indicating that there is much needed change to the way those governments do business.

Any society with a hint of dictatorship will fail and continue to fail. If societies are to function properly in the 21^st century, government nor the military can continue to ignore or deny the word of the people.

This may be a crisis for the surrounding countries in South America, but some good can come out of this if handled properly. In the Watcher's eyes, when parsed correctly, the best solution to the situation involves the notion that Honduras must be made an example of. World leaders have already condemned the actions of the Honduran Armed Forces insisting that the behavior of the army has disgraced its reputation internationally, and rightly so. Similarly, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have vehemently called the army’s actions illegal and a betrayal to the democratic constitution. Once again, the U.S. president is making the right moves here by not interfering with Honduran affairs. Similarly, other states should heed the same advice.

The Honduran populace is doing their part by protesting. The biggest mistake the army can do now is turn the country into a military state. Such an action would further isolate Honduras, a country already trounced by a youthful population, poverty and drug trafficking. Although President Manuel Zelaya may have added to the harsh times in Honduras, there is no excuse or justification for the army’s actions.

The Weight of Afghanistan: The Problem with Withdrawal

Congressional republicans and some democrats continue to gripe about Obama’s desire to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. However, the U.S. President is acting in the best interest of the United States and the international community. The cost may be high in Afghanistan, in lives and in capital, but it is worth it.

Critics of the president’s policy implore Obama to begin operations that would eventually withdraw troops from Afghanistan. These dissenters have a tenable argument. They postulate that the foreseeable outcome of the war is cloudy and could last for decades. However, in Obama’s defense, the rebuttal holds more water.

The United States is situated in Afghanistan for the purpose of removing the outdated and brutal Taliban regime as well as protecting Pakistan from increasing militancy that could trickle across the boarder from Afghanistan. The problem with withdrawing is that it places too high of a risk of Afghani Taliban siding with Pakistani militants in the tribal areas to topple the already weak and dysfunctional Pakistani government. What would transpire is militants, the Taliban and possibly al-Qaeda getting their hands on one of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The outcome of such a horrific premonition cannot be accurately exaggerated.

The Watcher argues that the weight of Afghanistan exceeds scale limits to remain. Yes, the war is uncertain, but all wars are. The region welcomes needed change in military operations and strategy. Senator Charles Grassley, a republican from Iowa once said, “The life-blood of any criminal organization or enterprise is money. Whether engaged in drug dealing or terrorism, criminals cannot operate without money.” The Taliban primarily operate by the funds received by their illegal opium drug-trade. If U.S. forces deplete this resource and place higher tariffs on opium imports from Afghanistan, ISAF forces would have made a long-term dent in Taliban operations and turn the tide of the war.

Congressional republicans and some democrats need to have faith in Mr. Obama. Also, Obama needs to put more pressure on allies to do more in Afghanistan. The world looked on in horror a few months ago at the Taliban and tribal style of punishment for women: a 16-year-old girl, flogged in the street by her male elders for getting married without parental permission. Humanity cannot allow such brutality to subsist in this world. The international community needs to do more to reinforce U.S. efforts, for Mr. Obama is on the right path.

Iran and the Bomb

President Barack Obama has announced to the international community that the state of Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Such ambitions would plunge the Middle East region into a security dilemma. This predicament would not only affect the security of states surrounding Iran such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel but Iran itself. Out of fear that Iran is pursuing or has a bomb, such anxiety will engender these Middle Eastern states to militarize.

Not commenting on whether this matter is an impasse or not, the issue generates a quantal response. One is that Iran’s road to acquisition is of the same dreadful magnitude as al-Qaeda garnering a nuclear weapon, assuming that Iranian officials are irrational actors similar to those of al-Qaeda. The second response is that Iranian officials are rational actors and would not dare put the security of their people at risk due to constant international and regional denunciation.

The problem with laboring beneath the illusion of the first response is that it has little faith in the Iranian regime. The United States has for too long placed Iran under the same category as Islamic terrorists. Undoubtedly, Islamic Terrorists and the Iranian regime essentially have a shared negative sentiment towards the U.S. but different means of showing it.

Terrorists voice their visceral outrage at the U.S. by inflicting collateral damage and causing civilian deaths on a massive scale. Iran reacts by defying western axioms and invoking a nonchalant character in the face of UN sanctions. With this in mind, it can be seen that the first response holds little if no water.

Response one is wrongfully entertaining the notion that Iranian officials, the heads of a state that encloses 70m people are irrational. Such an estimation of Iranian behavior holds true the atavistic nature of the Bush Administration and in this day and age should not be how the United States operates.

If the U.S. wants to move toward cooling the regional temperature, especially for Israel, Washington must act fairly. Commenting on Israel, Obama once said that the U.S. is good friends with Israel. But being a good friend also means being honest. Washington should ensure Israel that it is only fair that Iran, a sovereign entity pursue its nuclear ambitions and no external actor can force them to halt those aspirations. It is tiresome to incessantly hear that Iran is sensationalistic in its affairs towards the U.S. and Israel when in reality; Iran is acting as any rational actor would. Acquiring nuclear weapons does not always mean using them, for using them will ensure a disinterest for the Iranian regime. It is understandable that having faith and accepting such a liberal approach is travail. But, such an approach is needed for the sake of the future of the international community. Maybe this analysis is messianic, but it seems to be the most tangible response in the Watcher’s eyes.

The Persian Revolt and Washington's Response

It must be made clear that although Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won on 6/12, very little will change in Iran's domestic and foreign policy, especially towards the west and Israel. Naively entertaining the notion that Iran's ailments will go away when Ahmadinejad does is a gross understatement that seems to have plagued Washington think thanks for years. In reality, President Ahmadinejad is merely the spokesperson, enforcer and one can argue, figurehead/puppet of Iranian policy, not its crafter.

The culprit of Iran's increasingly dismal economy, formulation and implementation of Iranian policy is Ayatollah Khamenei, the religious supreme ruler of Iran. Thus, the defensive nature and confrontational rhetoric of Iranian policy will remain intact. However, one can tenably argue that depending on the election results, the packaging in which the rhetoric is delivered would be different.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the apparent victor of June's election is a more centrist politician than his counterpart Ahmadinejad. The general consensus amongst the international community is that Mousavi would begin to cool the regional temperature in the Middle East and be an easier facilitator of talks with Israel and the west. That may be and is a valuable prize, however the US will still have the long and arduous task of negotiating with Iran its ambitions of its nuclear program.

If Washington wants to reach any sort of good-natured negotiations with Iran in the future, it should continue to keep a keen eye on the protests, the Iranian regime's responses, and stay out of Iranian affairs. Rightly so, Obama has vilified Iranian election malpractice and criticized its handling of the protests as unjust. The last thing Mr. Obama should do is take political sides in the matter. Any public support from a US president will immediately deter Iranian votes and support, labeling the candidate a buddy to the Great Satan, thus making matters worse for the US and its interests.

In that case, Mr. Obama has performed all the right moves so far, however, keeping it up will be difficult. There is a fervent cry from opposition leaders and some democrats in Congress insisting that Mr. Obama be more stringent on berating Iran's inability to inquire into the country's disputed election. Congressional Republicans indicate that Mr. Obama is failing to internationally uphold the US democratic model by denouncing theocracy. But such a hawk-like approach to an extremely delicate situation requires a more dovish mentality and cautious treading which Mr. Obama is doing. The US President understands that the history of Persian-American relations is festooned with mutual suspicion, betrayal and US meddling. Any emulation of such actions on Washington's part will double cross the very concept Obama based the foundation of his campaign on and the international community's expectation of US foreign policy.

Lastly, it is important to point out that Iran is nothing compared to the fascist regime in Nazi Germany or the authoritarian model of Communist Russia. However, the current Iranian model is outdated for this day and age. The arrests of opposition leaders and supporters embodies the all too familiar aroma of a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy/theocracy. Iranians are too avant-garde to be ruled by self-appointed old men whose rule over the country is scholarly and internationally viewed as neosultanism. Women are still second class citizens and the suppression of opposition opinion is illiberal. Furthermore, Ayatollah Khamenei can no longer extricate himself from Iranian political affairs. With his endorsement of Ahmadinejad and open support for his disputed victory, Iran is moonlighting as a state plagued by demagogic cronyism. In this tango, Washington is making the right moves, however, the revolution that Iranian officials tried tirelessly to keep from transpiring has been ironically sparked by its own actions. The west will have to wait and see how it all unfolds.