"With words we govern men" – Disraeli

So, the gears are set in motion now as Barack Obama has sent an official letter to President Medvedev proposing to cease the European Missile Defense efforts in Poland and the Czech Republic if Moscow collaborates with Washington on pressuring Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program. This is not the way talks should begin over the European anti-missile shield and Iran between Moscow and Russia. Obama has not yet made a name for himself in the international arena, if anything, Hillary actually tainted the view of the way the world views the foreign policy of the new administration in Washington. At a press conference with the Spanish prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev stated clearly that he is not going to settle for any exchanges with regard to the anti-missile defenses in Europe and that he viewed it as an unproductive approach. The implications of decisions made on the subject of cooperation between Moscow and Washington regarding Iran were discussed in an earlier article, so now, things start moving, and it looks like not in the direction which will actually bring the results intended.

Foreign Policy of the US

It is clear to anyone paying attention to politics that Obama does not have much experience with foreign policy and most likely will stumble along the way in his first year as he learns how other countries operate and how to deal with different nations. Entrusting his foreign affairs to Hillary is more than an indication that he is not yet at the level of knowledge about the international arena as one might hope. Obama won purely because of his domestic policy promising change to save the US from total collapse and good marketing. His foreign policy platform was only concerned with telling the Americans what they wanted to hear – stopping the war in Iraq.

Now, the reality sets in, and it is not as easy as it looks. America does not have the leverage that it had in the nineties over Moscow, when Yeltsin would pull back on certain national interests in return for support for the new Russia from the West. Obama’s letter to the Kremlin seems to indicate a lot of false assumptions over the way Russia has set itself in the international politics. The White House seems to put a lot of emphasis on the European anti-missile defense, not realizing that Russia is not really concerned with it as much as it is with further extending its influence in Central Asia and cooperation with Iran on weapons trading and technological research and development.

It is extremely wrong of Obama to try and put Russia in a position that would be beneficial only to the US national interests. International politics does not work like that. In the international scene today, if one county wants to further their national interests abroad they have to take into consideration the other side’s interest as well in order to facilitate cooperation in any given area. The new administration should not put pressure on Russia’s national security in order to get what they want. They need to give Russia something to benefit their national interest abroad in order to get Moscow’s cooperation. Considering the possible benefits of Moscow-Tehran relations for Russia, Washington will have to find another way and give a lot to with regard to Russian national interests.

Evidence of Direction

Every time a person representing a foreign policy speaks to anyone, they usually think about the way their words will be viewed else where. Clinton seems to miss this point. If there are two countries bumping heads, and a third country comes in and pledges support for one of the sides, it becomes an enemy of the other. As the saying goes, “My worst enemy’s worst enemy is my best friend.” So, ipso-facto Clinton’s words restating “unshakeable” support for Israel pits the US against Iran. This does not necessarily provide good ground for Russia to consider siding with US to pressure Iran to disengage their nuclear program.

A senior Obama administration official was quoted in the New York Times as saying that Obama’s letter to Medvedev is like, “saying to them [Russia], put up or shut up.” Once again, this shows the direction of the new administration in the White House as disregarding the US’ weakened position in the world with respect to other world players like Russia, EU, Chine, etc. The US does not have the credibility they had during, and for a short period after, the Cold War. The war in Iraq truly discredited US position in the international arena and to gain this credibility back Washington will need to show that it is willing to consider other powers’ interests when making foreign policy.

Conclusion

The recent letter to Kremlin from Washington is evidence of the direction that Obama’s administration is taking with regard to foreign policy. Clinton is a hardliner, which conflicts with Obama’s intent on actually talking to nations previously sanctioned against. Her words to a journalist recently stating that she thinks that talking to Iran will bring about no results and therefore should not be done shows that the current foreign policy in Washington differs from Bush’s only with regard to Iraq.

Russia can counter the European missile defense. That’s a fact. U.S. will need to withdraw this program first in order to gain any ground with Russia without bluntly stating that this program will be shut down only if an exchange of some sort happened. All in all, Obama’s letter and Hillary’s reiteration of US’ support for Israel alienates Russia and Iran in terms of foreign policy and actually deepens the divide between the US and Iran.

Name:* Country, city: Valid e-mail:* Your message:

Enter the digits below: submit!

One of the key areas of today’s political world is the Middle East. To the West, oil is a very important aspect, and thus peace in the Middle East means relatively low prices for oil. However, this article is not about the oil or the relationship between the West and the Middle East, but rather about the intricacies of the conflict going on between Israel and its neighbors, and what lies at the essence of the numerous wars that have torn through the region in recent decades. After all, Israel seems to really tick off many of its neighbors.

Looking at the map of Israel and its neighbors, it is important to note a few things that people take for granted when looking at the map and don’t necessarily pay attention to. It is the location of water sources and the vitality of it regarding the existence of the countries located near it. What strikes one even more when looking at the map like this, is that there is only one true source of fresh water for Israel and many of its neighbors – the Jordan River. Considering that water is scarce in the region, nations located around the river have historically gone to war in order to secure the flow of water to their populations. Even in the Old Testament, many stories are about the Jews fighting for the Jordan River Valley.

Needless to say, water is the main focus of many wars in the region. At essence of the rivalry between the Jews and the Muslims is the control of the water sources, which is vital to survival of any nation located in a desert environment. To quote the former prime minister of Israel Moshe Sharett, “Water for Israel is not a luxury. It is not just a desirable and helpful addition to our [Israeli] natural resources. Water is life itself.” And so, to sustain its life, Israel has built up a strong military to assert not only its dominance in region to counter any insurgency, but to dominate the water resources of the Jordan River.

Israel’s military has taken over many areas in order to secure water for themselves and to make sure that no hostile neighbor will have control over its water supply. The West Bank, for example, is a highly strategic area for Tel Aviv because it allows for control of nearly half of the river. The Golan Heights, an area that was taken from Syria as a result of the Six-Day War, is the key to controlling the headwaters of the Jordan River, thus securing the flow. Israel also built a National Water Carrier, which redirects water from the river to the eastern part of Israel. Israel’s control of most of the Jordan River is reason enough for the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Jordanians to be extremely frustrated with Tel Aviv, which takes most of the water for its irrigation, drinking, sanitation, and other needs. Another area to note is that West Bank is where the Palestinian Authority is located. Not being able to control the water for the benefit of their fellow Muslims only upsets the Palestinians more, in addition to already being extremely irate over the fact that they are virtually powerless against Israel using their territory to pump water for itself.

Finally, the Israeli Water Administration has recently stated that Israel is experiencing the worst water crisis in 80 years due to low rainfall and growing demand from within. The Jordan River does not have nearly enough water to fully supply Israel’s population, let alone its neighbors that receive a fraction of the water that Israel gets. This could be a prime cause for another conflict brewing, because when people become desperate, they resort to desperate measures. Israel is already importing water from Turkey. Nevertheless, Turkey is not the friendliest of nations to Israel, and after recent events in Gaza, Turkey is not too fond of helping out the Jewish State.

To sum up, water is a lifeline for many nations in the Middle East. Control of the headwaters and its main distribution is the key to dominance in the region. Today, when looking into the events going on in and around Israel, one of the reasons that may indicate a potential conflict between Tel Aviv and its neighbors, is water shortage and the approach of all sides involved in the problem at hand.

Name:* Country, city: Valid e-mail:* Your message:

Enter the digits below: submit!

The United Arab Emirates have recently signed a weapons contract worth close to $US 6.5 million at IDEX 2009. Most people would ask why the UAE need such expensive state-of-the-art weapons. The answer lies deep within Washington’s foreign policy and U.S.-Iran relations. The emirates are located along the Strait of Hormuz. It is a vital chokepoint through which millions of barrels of oil pass everyday. On one side of the Strait are the UAE, on the other is Iran. Looking at the map, it becomes no wonder that the U.S. has an interest in this small, yet very relevant part of the Middle East. In addition, Saudi oil being shipped stateside travels through the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and then into the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea and into the Indian Ocean.

Washington has invested a lot of money into securing the Strait of Hormuz. This includes putting sanctions on Iran and doing its best to keep it from having any say in operations in the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding waters. To illustrate just how important the UAE see the security of the Strait of Hormuz, let’s take a look at some statistics provided by NationMaster:

Air force personnel 4,000
Armed forces personnel 65,000
Army personnel 59,000
Branches
United Arab Emirates Armed Forces: Army, Navy (includes Marines), Air Force and Air Defense, National Coast Guard
Conscription No conscription (AI).
Conventional arms exports $US 3,000,000.00
Conventional arms imports $US 1,246,000,000.00
expenditure > % of GDP 1.93 %
Expenditures 3.1 % of GDP
Expenditures > Dollar figure $US 1,600,000,000.00

For a country the size of the UAE, this is a large commitment to keep peace. Considering that the UAE do not really get involved in conflicts, it spends a lot of money on keeping such a small army up to date.

The UAE are actually really concerned about Iran becoming more powerful because then it will raise an ideological base in the emirates, causing foreign investors to leave. In 2002, the UAE had attracted around $US 3 billion of foreign investment. In 2005, that number was already at $US 12 billion. Some estimate that FDI in the emirates is around $US 19 billion. This growth is staggering and provides has made the UAE one of the top foreign investments hubs in the Middle East.

The UAE do not want this investment to go away and they want to have a firm hold on their wealth. However, an arms race in any region has generally meant a rise to hostilities. Although the UAE do not have a force strong enough to fight off Iran or to provide a formidable military to counter that of Iran in case security of the Strait of Hormuz is threatened, the emirates do have Washington’s backing. The UAE have agreements in place with the United States that allow for collaboration and American involvement on the ground of national interests in case the Strait of Hormuz is threatened.

Although this is small news, and seems insignificant due to the UAE not being a big international player, the fact that it is building up its military and investing heavily in national defense prompts Iran to do the same to have a balance of forces in the region. The fact that there are U.S. Air Force bases in the UAE and other bases that are ready to accept an expeditionary force of U.S. personnel only makes Iran more nervous. In turn, this makes a conflict between Iran and U.S. more likely because Washington deems the Strait of Hormuz as a chokepoint and in America’s national interests to keep it secure.

Name:* Country, city: Valid e-mail:* Your message:

Enter the digits below: submit!