Iran's Nuclear Weapons

The whole world has been watching Iran closely over the past few years, especially when it became known how close they were to having nuclear weapons. While I do not like how Obama handled the Syria situation (the fact that he kept changing his mind on what he wanted to do), I did like him ultimately deciding to take a more diplomatic route. It appears that he is taking this same diplomatic route with Iran. 

Hassan Rouhani, Iran's newly elected president, appears to be more complying and willing to work with the international community compared to his predecessors. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently met with one another to discuss the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons, and Rouhani seems very pleased with how the meeting went. I believe this is a good thing for the world as a whole. If we can control Iran's nuclear situation, the whole world will feel safer. I hope that Obama continues on with this diplomatic approach and doesn't jump the gun. This meeting between Kerry and Zarif marks the first meeting in more than 30 years between high level officials if the two countries. While I have disagreed with Obama on many things he has done during his two terms, the handling of the Iran situation, as of now, is one that I agree with. 

There is great optimism that there will be a meeting set between Obama and Rouhani. Rouhani does not just want to talk to Obama, he wants to talk to all of the countries who are skeptical about the stability of Iran. He wants to make the world feel at ease and wants to be more open. I certainly did not expect this to happen, but I am glad to see a more diplomatic approach is happening. We will see how this will unfold after the meetings take place, and I hope that my optimism of the situation will still exist. 

Attack in Nairobi

The extremists are back in full force. The recent attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi is believed to come from an Al-Qaeda affiliated group named Al-Shabaab. What is most troubling to me is the way in which this attack was carried out. Al-Shabaab has recruited dozens of people from all over the world to communicate their messages, and they do so through social media sites like Twitter. The attack at the mall has left at least 59 people dead and over 175 injured. This number is expected to rise. The location of the mall was not arbitrary, it is believed it was chosen as the location due to the high volume of Westerners whom frequently shop there. As I mentioned, this group is using social media to get their message out. Before the attack occurred, Al-Shabaab tweeted that all of the Muslims should get out of the mall so they don't get killed.

I am curious as to how to US and international community will respond. We are still fighting the "War on Terror" but it seems to me that the number of terrorists is increasing exponentially with each passing day. The police force of the world (AKA the United States) will certainly have some reaction to this attack. Will it be the usage of more drones? More troops sent to "protect" the rest of the world? The leader of our soon to be empire, Barack Obama, will have a hard time not doing anything on this matter. It makes me curious if the timing of this attack was orchestrated to send the US a message. It has been less than a couple of weeks since the US threatened to attack Syria and the Assad regime. It is known to everyone that Assad has ties to terrorist organizations and has promised that he would use these connections if a US attack did occur. My claim that this attack was to send the US a message from Assad has no evidence to back it up, but I am saying that it would not surprise me if that was the case. Does Assad want US troops to be occupied somewhere else in case of something bigger triggers? Who knows, but it would not surprise me.

These terrorist groups live and die on media attention, and as of today, this story is on every news site all over the world. The more attention this attack gets, the more likely it is that Obama will demand some sort of attack. It is only a matter of time before Secretary of State, John Kerry, will feel the need to make his mark on history. His plans on Syria fell through, thanks to Putin, and now Kerry is looking for another event to which he can pull the trigger.

This is a story which I will closely be following over the next few days to see how everything unfolds. Will Al-Shabaab continue to use social media as a way to warn fellow Muslims of an attack? My guess would be that they will continue to do so. The more attention they get, the more likely it will be that their organization gains support and increases in membership.

Obama's Speech on Syria

President Obama gave a speech on Tuesday, September 10th, regarding the current situation in Syria. During this speech he asked Congress to strongly consider voting in favor of a US led attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad. However, Obama would first like to try a more diplomatic route in which Syria gives up their chemical weapons to the international community; this effort was led by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many people have been making jokes that Putin is doing more to keep the US out of war than Obama is. Nevertheless, nearly everyone agrees that Obama taking a more diplomatic route is indeed the right move at this point.

Obama's speech was bold and full of promises. One promise, in particular, is that he said he would not put military troops on the grounds of Syria. I find this a hard promise to keep, as there are exigent circumstances that could come as a result of the US using drones or other weapons. What happens if the US does invade and Syria retaliates? Where will our troops go then? Back to Iraq? Maybe to Jordan? What if Iran backs up Syria and attacks the US? There are too many possible situations that could go badly for the US as a result of us intervening and attacking.

Another thing I found interesting was the emphasis POTUS put on chemical reasons as the only reason we need to invade. The Syrian Civil Way has been going on for years, with over 100,000 people killed. If Syria does give up their chemical weapons, will Obama back off of the issue? There is nobody to say that Assad won't kill his people through other means with other weapons. What will Obama do if another 100,000 people get killed by something other than chemical weapons? I believe this issue is too fragile to get involved in. Contrary to what POTUS said in his speech, the United States' national security is not in jeopardy currently, but it will be in jeopardy if we choose to get involved.

After POTUS' speech I went to read two articles: one from Fox News and the other from CNN. I wanted to see how each news source depicted his speech. Fox News, of course, took a heavy Republican standpoint and quoted Rand Paul, a vocal opposition of being involved in Syria, as well as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. McCain and Graham are in favor of a US led attack, but Fox made them seem against Obama and against trying a diplomatic route. Fox, like many people, did say that it was good for POTUS to take a more diplomatic route. They brought up the RNC and how America is losing credibility as a result of POTUS constantly changing his approach to the Syria situation. They never bring up what the DNC had to say on the matter. Fox did, however, quote Nancy Pelosi and Blumenthal, both Democrats. I thought it was good they at least brought the other side in on the story, even if it was at the very end.

CNN took a slightly different approach to the matter. They ran a more non-partisan piece which brought out the standpoints from both parties. Both articles were published on 9/11/2013, but only CNN brought up Putin and how he was the one who was actually leading the diplomatic approach. They interviewed Republican Senator Bob Corker (TN) who said that POTUS is making it difficult for Congress to back him on anything as he is so scrambled with what he actually wants to do. Corker states that Obama is constantly changing his mind on Syria and what should be done. However, if a more diplomatic approach can be taken, then I believe it should be taken. CNN points out that although Obama is switching back and forth on what should be done, they say that although it was shaky for Obama to get to this diplomatic approach, the shaky way is better than an unapproved and unnecessary strike. CNN definitely did a better job of reporting the Obama speech than Fox did. CNN took a nonpartisan and unbiased approach to the situation.

The point I want to leave with this post is to show how two major sources report the same story. Both sides heard Obama's speech, but they did not report it the same way. One side was biased and only reported certain things. The other side took a more nonpartisan approach. I believe this is important because many Americans rely on one of these media outlets as their main source of information. It is more than likely that if Fox is being biased on this issue and not taking all facts into consideration, then its followers are taking this same bias into conversations with friends and family.

I'm sure by now mostly everyone has heard of the current situation going on in Syria. If not, then the short updated version is that Syria has used chemical weapons on its own people, and now the President of our police-state, Obama, is contemplating whether or not the US should lead the world on an attack against Syria. I say Obama is contemplating, but it is blatantly obvious what his intentions are. He was just in Sweden stating that "the international community cannot be silent." He clearly wants to lead a strike into Syria.

What baffles me is that Obama has asked Congress to vote on whether or not we should send troops into Syria. It has already been established that Obama does not need permission to send our troops there, so why is he seeking "permission"? It seems unlikely to me that Obama will just drop this issue if Congress votes "no" on this issue. It will definitely make his decision easier if Congress votes "yes" on this issue. Obama has nothing to lose from a political standpoint; meaning that if Congress votes no, and Obama still decides to send the troops in, there will be no political ramifications from his decision. 

We have seen a wide array of support and opposition from the members of Congress. Colin Powell famously wrote in his biography: “War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.” An issue that many people have with this issue is that the US was not attacked by Syria, and they are not a serious threat to our people or country. Senator Rand Paul is one of the lead politician's leading the opposition side. He has stated: "The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate." I believe many people share this same belief. If Syria does not care about its people and has no problem using chemical weapons against them, it will be unimaginable what they will do to US troops. This is not our war, and there is no clear end game if we do decide to go into this hostile territory. What are the ramifications if we do invade? How will Iran react? There are many negative outcomes that occur from the US invading. I agree with Rand Paul and the other people in opposing this attack.