Bombing in Egypt's north

A bombing in Egypt's northern city of Alexandria has raised fresh fears of an Islamist extremist revival. On 1 January, a bomb, possibly a suicide bomber, exploded near a church in Alexandria. The blast killed 29 people and wounded 79 others. There have been no claims of responsibility; however, the target indicates that Islamist extremists were the likely culprits. Egypt has had a long and troubled history of Islamist terrorism but in recent years has successfully avoided any major incidents. Attacks that have occurred have been relatively unsophisticated and carried out by lone wolf extremists or small groups of self-radicalised elements unrelated to larger bodies. In recent months there have been increasing concerns that al-Qaeda through its affiliate the Islamic State if Iraq may conduct attacks against Christian interests in Egypt. The ISI has issued several threats against the local Coptic church for its alleged detention of two Muslim woman. Although the claims are unfounded the ISI has used the 'detention' to stir anti-Christian sentiment in Egypt, where tensions are already elevated between the majority Muslim population and large Christian minority. It is possible that an ISI cell conducted attacks; however, as stated the attack remains unclaimed and may well have been the work of a lone wolf. MECASR will continue to monitor this incident with interest. Any ISI involvement will and should cause significant concern for locals and foreigners alike.

Tunisia's unemployment conundrum

Protests against unemployment are being reported with increasing frequency across Tunisia. The protests were sparked by an attempted suicide in mid-December by a local youth who set himself ablaze in protest over his employment status. The incident sparked widespread protests across the country and revealed that frustration at government's economic policy is heightened and growing. Tunisia has one the regions most literate and educated population, however, joblessness remains a significant obstacle to long term stability. Unemployment is officially 14% however is significantly higher among the 18-30 year old demographic. The government's economic policies have also focused on tourism and most new jobs are aimed at low skill workers. With tens of thousands of unemployed graduates in the country, the government will need to act decisively to avoid a sustained protest movement which could eventually come to challenge the central government.

Agent Jaws, Israel's silent underwater killer

In a bazaar twist in the shark attack saga (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=198399) local officials accused Mossad, Israel's spy agency, of complicity in attacks that have targeted divers off the Sinai Peninsula in recent days. The claims are ridiculous but do highlight a common thought running through the minds of many in the Middle East that see an evil Israeli hand in all negative incidents. Israel has been blamed for a host of incidents in recent years, including establishing a United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon - clearly a stretch. Its secret service has also been pinpointed in high level assassinations in the UAE, Iran and Syria – more likely. Whether the claims are based on fact or not they present Israel with a fantastic 'win' in the psychological war against its enemies, namely the Arab world. It has proven its military ability on countless occasions and its secret service is among the most efficient and ruthless in the region. Claims of shark attacks directed by Israeli GPS devices will leave the Israeli intelligence community in stitches. Don't expect them to refute the claims though.

Obama in the Middle East and Central Asia - Report card on 'perceptions'

Relations with Muslims - A+

Obama has said all the right things. Key note address in Cairo addressing the relationship was key to projecting an image to the region that he cared about Muslims. Backlash at home where perceptions that he was Muslim hurt him politically.

Iraq conflict - B-

Decision to withdraw was good for his home support; however, a deadlocked government and increasing brazeness of extremists a worry. Did he withdraw too soon?

Afghanistan - C

Increase use of drones to target Taleban. Doomed to fail. Generations of mujahadeen are waiting to replaced the depleted leadership ranks. Taleban growing in strength. Obama and Karzai forced to negotiate.

Pakistan - D

Increasing use of drone attacks in tribal areas. Counter-productive. See above.

Yemen - B

Measured approach to counter-terrorism in Yemen. Obama has clearly learnt that a measured approach is best. Increased aid to Yemen and intelligence supply. Obama needs to see results soon though otherwise will come under increasing pressure to do more ie boots on the ground or drone strikes.

Wikileaks, War Crimes and al-Qaeda

With the release of the classified documents on Iraq by Wikileaks it is now clear that Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11 and that the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq had more to do with the new presence of US troops than the friendly atmosphere of the Saddam regime. This also fits logically. Why would Saddam Hussein harbour al-Qaeda extremists when during the 1990s he was under immense pressure from the UN over WMDs and other issues. Facing enormous difficulties domestically, supporting al-Qaeda would have been foolish. However, al-Qaeda, which in the early 2000s was still strong and itching for a fight, the chaos caused by the US invasion would have provided its fighters with a perfect opportunity to battle the infidel on home ground, which they duly did and continue to do. The reasons then for the Iraq war are...who knows. Queue the International Criminal Court please. To view the wikileaks documents on the Iraq war, check out their website http://wikileaks.org/

Iraqi PM Maliki tours Iran

Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki is currently visiting Tehran, Iran. The Western media have angled this visit as a clear sign that Iran's influence in Iraq is growing and that this is essentially a bad thing. And the Iranians are not helping with this point of view. President Ahmadinejad regularly denounces the US and threatens Israel with nuclear destruction. However, the objective viewer must see the visit for what it is. It is becoming increasingly likely that Maliki will be able to form a government with the backing of the al-Sadr bloc in parliament. If a government is imminent would it not be prudent to visit, arguably, the regions strongest military and political power? The fear mongering in the press is a problem and bolsters the US view of Iran as a destabilising force in the region.

Ramblings on Iraq, International Law, Realism etc

After eight and a half years the United States has finally withdrawn in part from the conflict in Iraq. Although presented as a success debate continues to swirl over the initial motivation for the invasion. "Was it a just war?" many will ask. I have decided to present the pros and cons of the invasion below. Many points are debatable of course. I am a realist humanist liberal so there are overlapping value systems and many pros could well be in the cons section and vice versa.

 

Pros for invasion

 

1. Removed and evil regime and saved thousands of lives.
2. Prevented said evil regime from attacking other states in the region, particularly Israel and Kuwait.
3. Introduced democracy to Iraq for the first time.
4. The conqueror continues to support the new regime in establishing a democratic order.
5. Other evil states were shown that if you mess with humanity you will be overthrown.

Cons of the invasion

 

1. A sovereign state was conquered without just reason (the W.M.Ds were never found)
2. Hundreds of thousands have perished. Millions maimed physically and psychologically.
3. Iran's counter-weight has been removed allowing it to support pro-Shiite interests in the region and threaten Israel with nuclear destruction.
4. There was no consideration of the underlying tensions in Iraq pre-invasion between Kurd, Sunni Arab and Sunni Shiite and what an invasion would do to the relationship between the two.
5. The conquerors own security was subsequently compromised. The invasion was not properly marketed to the world and it now looks like a power and oil grab.
6. The conquerors evacuation at a time of political infighting smacks of irresponsibility. You caused this mess, you should stay and clean it up.
7. Other evil states were shown that if you mess with humanity you will be overthrown but only if there is a reasonable possibility that you don't have WMDs, the ultimate game changer.

 

There may be more and some aren't exactly great points but I think you get the general idea. Deliberating on this type of issue would be difficult. An international criminal court would need to evaluate the conquerors initial reason to go to war, was it justified. I think we have a case for saying that the conqueror believed what they wanted to believe. If a realist where to look at this he would likely say that no it wasn't justified. The reason Bush senior didn't whack the Iraqis in 1990 was that they needed a strong counter-weight to Iran. So what of the odd scud hit Israel, two major political groupings balanced each other and Saudi Arabia, Sunni, was protected by Sunni dominated Iraq. The guy on the street would also probably argue that the conqueror only invaded for the oil in the country. We see the billion dollar contracts floating about, we see the movies showing collusion between the Bush family and the interests. Its an obvious human desire to want more. So that leaves us with a problem. The international courts would rule against, the realist would rule against and the man would rule against. So what was the conqueror thinking? Easy - They were thinking they could get away with. Final point, is it healthy to have a state like that? Has the United States become the ultimate dictator? It has all the wealth, all the power and if left in the hands of the irresponsible, we have problems. Who is next I wonder?