Linking the Middle East

Throughout the course of my blogging project on the Middle East I have encountered many different websites with varying viewpoints and objectives. Here is a list of links that I have referred to repeatedly and believe will aid those who are looking for a deeper understanding on this issue.

1. Barack Obama's platform on foreign policy:

It is necessary for US voters to be aware of where their potential president stands on the issue of the Middle East. Obama's website provides his viewpoints on Middle East Politics that will help voters decide whether they agree with his ideas or not. Obama wants to engage in talks with Iran, end the Iraq war in 16 months, and increase American diplomacy in the region.

2.John McCain's platform on foreign policy:

McCain's website provides his viewpoints on the steps we must take to secure American interests in the Middle East. McCain has promised victory in Iraq before troop withdrawal, a harsher approach towards Iran's nuclear wants, and promise to protect American interests.

3. History of the Middle East links:

Iraq's sectarian History

History of Iran and US Relations

History of Israeli and Palestinian Conflict

History of the Kurdish Struggle

All of these links give a fair and unbiased reference to the conflicts we see today in the Middle East. In order to understand both the Middle Eastern and US viewpoint it is necessary that you know the history. In order to formulate the best solution for both the US and Middle Eastern nations it is necessary that you understand the history. Basically considering the history gives us the best chance to cease the conflicts in the Middle East.

Implications

Obviously if we do not find a solution for a peace process in the Middle East, we will find ourselves in an atrocious situation. Since the war in Iraq is the greatest conflict in the Middle East right now I will focus this post on the fallout to a failed Iraq policy. If we take the path of staying in Iraq and establishing military bases in the country we will face grave outcomes. The US will lose legitimacy globally which will lead to the loss of key allies. Establishing military bases in Iraq will only increase anti-American sentiment in the region. This will lead to more extremism and more terrorist recruitment. If this path is taken we can expect more terrorist activity throughout the globe, meaning more loss of life both for American troops and innocent citizens around the world.

The other path that will lead us into greater conflict in the region would be if we left Iraq too early. If we leave Iraq before their forces are able to maintain stability and protect their own people and borders then we will see an escalation to the conflict. We can already see sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shiite sects in Iraq with US military presence. Now imagine the US not there to decrease the fighting. Without the US or Iraqi military presence the two sects would go after each other with more intensity. The civil war in Iraq will spill over to neighboring countries. Iran will take the side of the Shiite and Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations will take the side of the Sunni. We will see a front started in Lebanon as Sunni and Shiite are already in conflict there. Ultimately this action will lead to WWIII and in the end the US will have to get involved once again with an even bigger problem than they had left.

It is in US and the world's best interest that we resolve the Iraq war now so that we can avoid even greater consequences in the future.

US strike in Syria

According to AFP, the United States military has conducted an assault on a building in a small border town in Syria. The American choppers departed from Iraq and entered Syrian airspace, landed in the Syrian village, and took out what they claim as insurgent targets. Syria on the other hand claims that the US killed eight civilians; A father and his four children, a couple, and another man. Syria has denounced the US action as terrorist acts and the US Department of Defense released no comment about the mission. There has been global outcry for the US mission as the military has yet to explain the circumstances. Many in the media believe that this attack carried out by the military is just a political ploy by George Bush. There has been reports that US intelligence had been following the target for several months and had many opportunities before to take him down. Instead Bush waited for a really sensitive time in American politics, where the presidential election is only days away and the nominee from his party is losing in all the major polls. Many claim that Bush ordered these attacks to instill fear in the American voter and to push them into voting for McCain. Even if this accusation is not true, it is irresponsible for the US to violate an independent countries borders. We must not take these types of actions or else we will lose even more legitimacy in the world and it will harm us greater in the future.

Theory

The issue of Middle East politics and foreign policy has two main polarized sides. There is the Neoconservative approach and the Liberal approach. Here is a description of each point of view:

1. Neoconservative approach- want to protect US interests by any means possible, Tend to be more militaristic in nature, Examples are Bush and McCain’s approach to the Middle East, which includes the Bush Doctrine established after September 11th. (mostly Republicans)

2. The Liberal approach uses more diplomacy and US soft power as a way to protect US interests in the Middle East, Aid through food, medicine and weapons for allies, Negotiations rather than bombings.(mostly democrats)

Solution: The only way to clearly understand the best solution to protecting our interests in the Middle East is to understand the history of conflicts, religion, and culture in the Middle East. Also experiencing the culture and ethics of the Middle East by living in the region will enhance decision making skills. We must come up with a balanced solution that would both benefit us and the Middle East. We must increase US support in the region and deter terrorist recruitment by providing aid such as food and medicine. Improving American legitimacy will improve America’s ability to protect its interests.

In Iraq, we must slowly transfer power to the Iraqi government and withdraw over an extended period of time depending on the readiness of Iraqi troops to protect their citizens, border, and maintain stability. A small US force should remain in Iraq to train troops and the US should invest in soft diplomacy by sending food and aid to the people.

In Iran, we must engage in direct negotiation at the highest level in order to come up with a solution beneficial to both US and Iran. The best solution would be one in which Iran will attain nuclear energy that it requires, but does not have the capability to create a weapon. Also the US should support reformers in Iran that want to make the country more moderate.

The Israeli and Palestinian conflict is by far the hardest conflict to offer a solution to. I believe that the only solution to this problem is to focus on the younger generation citizens in the area. We must stop the appeal to extremism on both sides and the best way to do this is to educate the youth so that they are tolerant.

The Iranian Revolution, from an Iranian's perspective

Thank you Caitlin for your comment on my last post. I agree with you completely, the US should support human rights around the world no matter whether the countries government is a friend or not.



The Iranian Islamic Revolution which took place in 1979, is considered one of the greatest revolutions in human history. After years of suppression and abuse by the ruling monarchy and Shah Reza Pahlavi, the peoples of Iran organized and stood up to the brutal leader. After a year of protest, the Shah was forced to leave office and the new popular leader by the name of Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. He transformed the monarchy into a theocracy called an Islamic Republic. For most Americans the idea of allowing a theocracy to rule and the combination of government and religion seems absurd, but their is good reason for the revolution.

In 1951 a popular politician by the name of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was elected prime minister of Iran. Mossadeq believed that it was essential for Iran to nationalize its oil, which was at the time under the control of a British company. His nationalization efforts unfortunately where in opposition to the Shah's views of westernization. In 1952 the Shah forced Mossadeq to resign from his position of prime minister and allowed the British to regain control of Iranian oil. In resistance, Mossadeq called for the Iranian people to protest the Shah's decision. By 1953, due to increasing public pressure and threats against the monarch, the Shah was forced to leave the country. This allowed Mossadeq to return to power and reinstate the nationalization of Iranian oil. The nationalization of oil sparked fear for Britain and the US who wanted a cheap and reliable source of oil from Iran. The fear of lack of oil led to secret meetings between British agents and the CIA to organize a coup d'etat against Mossadeq. The operation, known as Operation Ajax, spread propaganda against Mossadeq and finally in August the coup was successful as Mossadeq was overthrown and put in jail. The US then reestablished the Shah as the Iranian leader and Iranian oil was not nationalized.

During the next twenty years Iran lived under the brutal reign of the Shah. Iranian freedoms of religion and political activism were repressed and political dissenters were put in jail. The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, brutally enforced the laws as many were tortured and killed for their resistance. Many linked the Shah and his unfair policies to the United States because it was the US who reestablished the unpopular Shah and continued to support him. This led to much Shah and US dissent as more and more Iranians felt disenfranchised. By 1978 Iranians once again filled the streets in protest. This time they were rallied by an exiled religious leader thousands of miles away in France. His name was Ayatollah Khomeini and through taped messages his revolutionary words spread throughout Iran. The Shah who feared overthrowal declared martial law and the SAVAK became even more brutal than the past. In 1979 the call for change was too much for the Shah as he fled to Egypt. After fifteen years of exile the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to return to Iran and was met by millions of supporters in the capital city of Tehran.

Khomeini promised the people of Iran that the religious clerics only wanted to lead the revolution and then would step aside to allow the people to decide what type of government they wanted. He promised Iranians freedoms of speech and organization. He promised that their would be no political oppression and killings. He promised more economic equality and opportunity for Iranians. Unfortunately, the Ayatollah did not deliver on any of these promises. Instead of allowing the people to choose the type of government, he established a theocracy and the Islamic Republic. He punished political dissenters and criticizers of his regime by imprisoning and killing thousands. He squashed all opposition in the name of Islam. Finally his efforts for economic equality failed miserably as the gap between the rich and poor grew as did corruption.

The Ayatollah Khomeini fooled the Iranian people by using religion as a cover up. His promises of opportunity and more freedom were not followed up. Iranians now see that they got rid of one terrible ruler and replaced him with another terrible ruler. Fortunately after the death of Khomeini and over recent years, freedoms and economic opportunity have increased. People enjoy may enjoy greater freedoms, but still regret empowering a theocracy. Although many Iranians are religious, they still desire a secular democracy in power. This democracy they wish attain by themselves and not with military force by any outside country. They believe that they will one day once again stand up and overthrow a tyranny.

Video of Iranian Revolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY0ixG94cHE

McCain, Obama, and the Middle East (analysis)

Ever since the fall of the British Empire, the end of the Second World War, and the rise of American power, we have seen an increase in American presence in the Middle East. Before the mid 1900s the British had the most influence in the region, due to their strong empirical views, but the failure in British Hegemony meant a British withdrawal and the establishment of the United States as the key Western power in the Middle East. The US established its presence in the Middle East in the mid 1900's for one key reason; To stop the spread of communism. Throughout the Cold war, with the institution of the Truman Doctrine (1947), the Eisenhower Doctrine (1957), the Nixon Doctrine (1969), and the Carter Doctrine (1980), the US saw itself more and more intertwined in the Middle East. The creation of Israel as a Jewish state, the ousting of the Shah in Iran, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism, have also increased American stakes in the Region. So it is very clear that the Middle East is of utmost importance to the United States Currently and is especially important in the 2008 Presidential election, which will mark the introduction of new policies and a new era in US foreign policy in the region.

As you are all well aware the 2008 Presidential election features Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and John McCain, the Republican nominee. Both of these candidates come from intriguing and unique backgrounds which shape their political views. In terms of Middle East politics, both have presented their distinct views, and although their goals are almost identical, their plans to achieve them are sometimes drastically different. This post will largely focus on their Iraq and Iran policies due to their greatest importance at the moment along with a few other side issues.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's Middle East Policy contrasts greatly from McCain's and President Bush's policies over the last eight years. In general Obama wants to take a more diplomatic approach in regards to the Middle East and the world. He claims that Bush's policy of not talking to our “enemies” is faulty. Obama thinks it is necessary for the United States to engage in diplomatic talks with every country, whether they are an ally or enemy. He promises to spread democracy through diplomacy and not through the gun by establishing consulates in the roughest parts of the globe. By having more consulates in varying regions, the US will expand its diplomatic power. The goal of Obama's diplomatic policies is to regain global confidence in the United States that was lost during Bush's eight years as President and to increase American legitimacy.

On the Iran issue, Senator Obama states that it is necessary for the US to establish diplomatic talks at the highest level, without preconditions, with Iran in order to prevent another war. Obama opposes the "saber-rattling" approach used by Bush to try to influence Iran. Bush's method of militarily threatening Iran in order to derail their nuclear ambitions has not only failed, but has instead bolstered Iranian drive to do so. Obama presents the example of diplomatic talks between the USA and USSR during the Cold War which ultimately led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the conflict.

Obama's plan in Iraq is clearly the most popular among Americans as shown in polls. The Democratic nominee believes that the US needs to establish a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Obama believes that the last six years in Iraq has put America in a difficult spot both diplomatically and economically. There has been a huge strain on the military and military families. Obama states that it is time for Iraq to take more responsibility and gain the capability of running its own country. Obama proposes a troop cut of one to two brigades a month, which means almost full withdrawal in sixteen months. A small US force will remain for counter-insurgency missions and to aid the Iraqi government. With the withdrawal from Iraq Obama plans to re-establish more military presence in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and capture Bin Laden.

Republican nominee John McCain's Middle Eastern Policy differs greatly from his opponent and is stylistically very similar to President Bush's policy over the last eight years. In general Senator McCain takes a more militaristic approach to global and Middle Eastern foreign policy. He supports a stronger US military by increasing the number of enlistments and modernizing our armed troops technologies and weapons. He claims that the global war on Terrorism require that the US keep its military dominance and establish new technologies in order to combat Terrorists.

On the Iran issue, John McCain criticizes his opponent for proposing unconditional talks with President Ahmadinejad. McCain Iran plan is tougher and less flexible on Iran than Obama's. He proposes stronger US and global sanctions on Iran. The Republican nominee wants to work with the UN and countries outside the UN to impose targeted sanctions, impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, to designate the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, and to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum. These steps will decrease support for the already unpopular Mullahs, and will lead either in Iranian cooperation or even better a fall of the religious government.

On Iraq, McCain thoroughly believes that the US should only leave when we emerge victorious and a strong, democratic Iraq is established as an ally in the region. Although McCain did not agree with Bush's early tactical strategies in Iraq, he is in full support of the recent troop surge in Iraq and believes it is the only way the US will succeed. He criticizes Obama for not affirming that the surge has worked. The Republican nominee has never established an exit strategy and has stated that the US will only withdraw when the Iraqi government is strong enough to protect its people and its borders.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama present distinct views and policies on the Middle East. In order to determine which plan is best for America currently and in the future we must consider the past, the present, and the future. Currently the US economy is in a state of turmoil. The stock market is declining as more and more people lose their jobs and money. Inflation is on the rise and recently the government passed a 700 billion dollar bailout to save the economy. On another front the US is losing legitimacy over its unpopular war in Iraq. Both American citizens and other countries are in favor of US withdrawal from Iraq. Talks of war with Iran also have both Americans and the International community on edge.

Obama's Middle Eastern policy relates more with Americans and the people of world. His more moderate and diplomatic approach would be more effective in achieving US interests and establishing global confidence. Although I believe that more time has to be spent in Iraq to ensure the Iraqi government's capabilities to protect its people and itself, the US economy is in recession largely due to the costs of the Iraq war. Finally, the troops have preformed honorably and have sacrificed greatly for this country. It is time now to take them out of harm’s way, bring them home to safety, and treat them as the heroes they are.

US Double Standard?

Brown Man, Marc, Tommy, and DuckBlogger thank you for your comments on my last post.
Marc ,I appreciate your comment, you seem very knowledgeable on the subject and I have visited your blog several times. Please keep us updated with the Kurdish struggle.

Tommy, unfortunately I imagine if the Kurds could just declare independence and get away with it then they would have already done that, but they are constantly being suppressed by Turkey and were getting suppressed by Saddam back in his reign. The PKK are labeled as a terrorist group by many countries, but you must remember that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. In my opinion they are freedom fighters.

DuckBlogger, I appreciate your comment as you have good background on the subject. Yes, I do believe that a Kurdish state would see much resistance especially from Turkey. I would not compare the Kurdish struggle to the Israeli struggle, but more to the Georgian struggle against the Russians. I can only hope that the international community has learned from the recent Russian and Georgian conflict and would not allow Turkey to interfere with Kurdish independence if an independent Kurdistan was created.



What I find to be most disappointing about United States foreign policy in the Middle East is its double standards. This double standard is apparent in US designation of terrorist groups and support for human rights. The United States claims to fight for peace, self-determination, and the rights of all human beings, but to me it seems that the US only supports this in some condition. For example, Turkey is a strong ally to the US, but the Turkish government is known for its human rights violations and violent acts against Kurds in the Eastern sections. Instead of protesting Turkish activities and punishing them for their actions the US remains quiet because Turkey is an ally. On the other hand the People's Mujahedin of Iran, which is responsible for many terrorist attacks in Iran that killed citizens and governmental officials, had not been designated as a terrorist group by the US until very recently. This is due to the fact that Iran is considered an enemy to the United States.

Another example can be seen in Pakistan. The US supports democratic governments around the world is extremely against dictatorships. Pakistan has a relatively democratic government in which governmental officials such as the prime minister are elected, but in 1999, an army general by the name of Pervez Musharraf ousted the democratically elected prime minister and took over Pakistan. His path to leader was clearly undemocratic, but the US did not take action to restore the former prime minister because Musharraf claimed to want to fight extremism. So I ask the question, Is it ok for the US government to treat a country’s human rights and democratic pursuit differently depending on whether they are an ally or enemy?

Nationalization of Banks

The economy is the greatest issue in America today. Both presidential nominees have spent a great deal of time on the issue. President Bush has pressured congress in passing the $700 billion rescue plan and the $250 billion to invest in banks. Different media sources have different viewpoints on the productivity of these efforts. The New York Times has a liberal bias and means that they are mostly in favor of governmental intervention in the economy. They recognize that it is a bold move, but they also say it will work like it did in the past. Fox news is a more conservative source. They do not like intervention, but recognize that it is currently needed. Fox unwillingly understands that there will be more government oversight of the economy in the future. Eunomia is a radically conservative source. They do not like any governmental intervention in the economy. They are afraid that we will turn into a European style. Criticize McCain for not taking a more conservative stance. CNN seems to be the most moderate. They have stories both criticizing and approving the government's action on nationalization of banks. Paul Krugman is the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner for Economics. He writes for the New York Times. He criticizes Henry Paulson. Krugman believes we are in a deep hole, but there are signs of improvement. Brad De Long is in favor of the nationalization of banks. Nationalization of banks is the only way to revive the economy.

The Kurdish Struggle

Tommy and Revan,
I do think the candidates were repetitive and I blame this on the organization of the debates. Each debate should strictly be about a certain topic so that it would not be repetitive and therefore candidates could give us their plans in more depth about the topic.
In terms of Middle East politics, the goals of both McCain and Obama are very similar; it is just their methods of achieving their goals that differ. Both strongly support Israel, want a stable and democratic Iraq, do not want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, and want to get rid of terrorism. Therefore it is only the policies that differ and I believe Obama’s policy to gain more support in the Middle East rather than just using military force, is the better policy for us to pursue.



The uniqueness of the Middle East is its diversity of religion, culture, and ethnicity all in a small region of land that is not resembled in any other area of the world. Although this diversity has led to the advancement and exchange among people, many times it has led to conflict. An example of this ethnic conflict is the Kurdish struggle to gain their own independent state.

The Kurds are a group of people that are strongly concentrated in Eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, and Western Iran. They are a largely Sunni Islamic people whose culture differs from the Arabs, Turks and Persians. Due to their ethnic differences to the countries in the region they believe it is their right to establish and independent Kurdistan, but obviously neither Turkey, Iraq, nor Iran is willing to give up any of their lands for another state. The Kurds have been oppressed by Saddam in Iraq and by the governments of Turkey and Iran. In order to obtain their independence some Kurds have joined a terrorist organization called the PKK which fights for Kurdish independence using guerrilla tactics. This group has recently been active mostly in Turkey, which contains the largest percentage Kurds, and has sparked a large scale conflict. Ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein Kurdish nationalism has risen and so has terrorist activity. Turkey who feels most threatened has begun air strikes on Kurdish rebels and the PKK in Northern Iraq. They have even sent ground troops into Iraq to diminish the Kurdish threat. In many cases it has been reported that Turkish troops have taken too harsh of actions on Kurdish citizens, but neither the US nor any international organization has tried to put an end to the violence. Unfortunately neither of the US presidential nominees has expressed a view on the conflict, and it will be interesting to see what actions they take if Turkey proceeds in suppressing the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Since the Kurds have a large population and have their own culture and identity, I believe they have the right to have their own independent state.

Last Night's Debate

Thank you Tommy and Brown Man for your comments on my last post. Here are the answers to your questions.

1. Why did Israel choose to retain the Golan Heights, instead of returning the land?
Israel claims that they are retaining the lands in order to create a buffer zone so that rockets fired by groups such as Hezbollah at Israel will not reach Israeli land. Lebanon continues to demand the land back and claims that Israel has kicked Lebanese people out of the lands and states that Israel is interested in expanding and taking over more land. Also after taking over the lands Israel has established settlements for Israelis in the Golan Heights region.


2. Why did the terrorist acts at Munich occur?
These acts were carried out by an Islamist terrorist group named Black September at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany. This group had ties to Fatah which is a political party in Palestine. Black September wanted to draw global attention to their struggle with Israel. They were radicals and acted in anger against Israel by capturing Israeli Olympians, holding them captive, and eventually killing them.



On another note last night the second of three Presidential debates took place between Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain. At the town hall debate, the focus seemed to be the economy which is by far the biggest problem in America today. In spite of this there were some questions about foreign policy. Of the four foreign policy questions three of them pertained with the Middle East. The first was about Iraq in which McCain continued to support the troop surge. He stated that Obama was unwilling to admit the troop surge was working. Unlike Obama who wants to set up a sixteen month withdrawal plan, McCain does not want to set a timetable. He continued to repeat that he would bring the troops back in victory and claimed that Obama had already accepted defeat. Obama struck back by stating that his initial judgment about not entering Iraq was the correct one and that McCain’s decision making cannot be trusted as he supported the beginning of the war.

The next question pertained with Iran and the nuclear issue. McCain answered first and stated that although he would love to solve the issue diplomatically, the military option was still on the table. He criticized Obama for wanting to hold direct talks with the Iranians without preconditions. McCain is in support for strong sanctions against Iran and has proposed that the US should develop a league of Democracies in order to pass harsher sanctions. Obama defended his idea of holding direct talks with Iran by presenting how the US had held talks with the USSR during the Cold War which in the end led to the fall of the Soviet Union and peace. Obama also believe that the military option should remain on the table, but only as a very last resort. On both Iraq and Iran, Obama’s plans seem to be much more realist, but wait for my next post for a more in depth description of the candidates stances as well as the one I see to be best fitting for America.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Now more than ever the Israeli-Palestinian issue is of extreme importance. Recently Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned and will leave office this November. With his replacement, Tzipi Livn, may come another set of policies towards Palestinians and another hitch in the US backed peace talks. According to the BBC, Livn has vowed to continue the peace talks with the Palestinians and she expressed Israel's desire for peace with all of their Arab neighbors. Livn also recognized the emense troubles that Israel faces with their attempts for peace as terrorist groups and extremist groups continue to use violence.

In order to fully understand the conflict today we must look at the history of this conflict. Historically the Palestinian region has been an area of enlightenment and culture along with violence and tension among the three main monotheistic religions. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have important religious history in the region. Although the conflict goes back centuries, I want to focus on more modern history, from mid 1900s on.

Here is a time line of the main events of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

1917: Great Britain gains control of the region from the collapsed Ottoman Empire.

1923: The land was divided along the Jordan River into two parts. Jews were only allowed to migrate to the area west of the river as the area east was reserved for Muslim-Palestinians. The Muslims were not happy with losing their land and began to attack Jewish-Palestinians.

1947: Jewish-Palestinians began organizing and the British turned the area over to UN control. the UN introduced resolution 181 which separated Palestine into Jewish areas and Muslim areas. The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Muslims still believed their land was being stolen from them.

1948: The Jews declared their own state, Israel and on the very next day six of their Arab neighbors declared war on the new nation. 19 months later Israel emerged victorious and gained some territory.

1967: The Six-Day War begins with Israel fighting Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Israel defeated all three countries and gained large amounts of territory; The Sinai Desert from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. Instead of returning the predominantly muslim areas, Israel occupied the region which caused much upheaval and creation of more Islamic resistance groups. Also occupation caused a severe refugee problem.

1982: Israel, in an attempt to improve legitimacy, returns most of the occupied lands except the Golan Heights of Syria.

Here is a nice video about the history of peace negotiations between the two:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7110000/newsid_7113900?redirect=7113998.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&asb=1

The Middle East and I

In order to understand an issue in the most balanced manner, it is essential for you to experience both sides of the argument. Experience is exceptionally important on the issue of US policy towards the Middle East. The United States and the Middle East are on opposite sides of the world and represent a difference in culture, language, and religion. Thus the two sides portray differing ideals and governmental policies. It is difficult for an American to understand the Middle East when they have lived in the West all their lives as it is difficult for a Syrian or Palestinian to understand American customs and policies.
Luckily for me, I have been able to experience both a Middle Eastern and American (western) lifestyle. I was born in Tehran, Iran one of the world’s few theocracies. I lived in Iran for four years, fully engulfed in Persian culture and Islamic traditions. At the age of four my family and I moved to the United States and here I was met with a new culture and ideals. By living in both the West and the Middle East I am able to see both sides in a balanced manner. I am able to decipher through the falsities and truths that both sides portray. The issue of Us policy towards the Middle East is greatly important to me because I would like to give others the same opportunity I had in understanding both sides of the issue before coming to any biased conclusions. By using my American-Iranian background, I can present factors that affect the Middle East and America in a balanced and unbiased approach.