Ugly Politics And Beautiful Game

Now that the World Cup is over, it’s a good a time to unpack all that happened. Not the actual play (although there were some absolutely gripping games), but the often darker political undercurrents that undergird the world’s biggest sporting event. From West Germany playing East Germany at the height of the Cold War to Nike being unable to provide the Iranian national team with cleats, the World Cup has never truly been divorced from the political realities of its time. At the World Cup, the beautiful game has never been just a game, and this is truer now then it has ever been. 

This World Cup saw a plethora of shocking upsets with heavy favorites losing to newcomers and underdogs. This is an apt metaphor for what we’ve seen happen in global politics, with what was once thought to be a deeply cemented world order slowly crumbling. The United States failing to qualify is a fitting allegory for America’s abdication of its global leadership position. And fitting, the specter of Russia looms just as large considering their position as host nation and their global ambitions on the international political stage.

Related: Candy Corn Sports… What Happened To Baseball?

Even while soccer’s powerhouse teams failed to perform, the effects of globalization could be seen in the style of play. While a nation’s playing style was once considered distinctive to each team, the majority of teams now adopt a much more technical style normally associated with European teams and inspired by European club football. Most countries’ star players play in one of the major European leagues, and if they don’t then they are influenced by the style of play broadcasted to millions around the world throughout the year. While nationalist leaders often decry the perceived threat of global homogenization no one dares do so when it comes to soccer. Just like in the global economy, it’s either adapt or die.

The effects of globalization could also be seen in the makeup of the teams vying for sports’ most sought-after championship. The final four teams all came from Europe, but a look at the names on the roster told a different story. Half of the Belgian and English teams had roots in Africa or the Caribbean. The Championship winning French team is made up primarily of players of an African background with a significant amount of Muslim players. This is in sharp contrast to the right-wing hyper-nationalism and racial identity politics that have begun to sweep across Europe.

There are many lessons that can be learned from this fact. France, plagued by xenophobia and Islamophobia, embraced their African and Muslim stars in a way that was both heartening and cautionary. The success of the French national team truly showed that immigrants can not only become members of society but that they can make significant contributions and make their country better.  On the other hand, immigrants don’t only matter when they succeed but their worth should come as an intrinsic part of their humanity.

Karim Benzema, the great Algerian-French player, once said, “If I score I’m French, but if I don’t I’m Arab.”

No matter how much we might wish that our sports be an escape from the realities of the real world the fact is politics permeates everything in the world around us. This is especially true when nations face off against each other in the world cup. The prolific sports writer Simon Kuper once wrote that when two teams take the field in the World Cup their nations’ histories take the field alongside them. At times this may mean that the beautiful game is besmirched by the ugliness of political competition. Then again, there are few things more emotionally charged than sports, so perhaps it’s fitting that politics is fought out on the pitch as well.  

Iran: What Comes Next?

On May 8, President Donald Trump took perhaps the most consequential foreign policy action of his presidency thus far and announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Despite the fact that Iran has verifiably been compliant with the terms of the agreement, President Trump has repeatedly characterized it as a “bad deal” and the promise to withdraw the United States from it was a central pillar of his campaign. Although it fulfills the President’s campaign promise, American withdrawal from the JCPOA is comprising international security, regional stability, and the United States’ role in the international arena.  

European allies including France and Germany had spent the past several months working to convince the administration to stay a part of the deal and have made their displeasure with this development clear, indicating that they will do what they can to save the deal without the United States. This is no small task and many European diplomats have admitted that it would be exceedingly difficult. The EU does have the option of imposing retaliatory sanctions to shield European businesses or having the European Central Bank invest directly in Iran, although given the strength and pervasiveness of the American financial system it is unlikely that this would be enough to maintain the deal’s benefits for Iran. Regardless a signal has been sent to our European partners that they cannot rely on the United States to display the international leadership they once did.

If and when it becomes clear that Iran will not achieve the economic benefits that the deal promised it is highly probable that they will resume their nuclear program. Hardliners within Iran will take this opportunity to make the case that diplomacy is futile and future agreements will become increasingly difficult. At the same time, the country’s more moderate President, Hassan Rouhani, will likely see his influence weakened. As the Iranian economy, which has already been suffering from unrelated US sanctions, continues to get worse, it is average Iranian citizens who will bear the brunt of the sanctions. This could lead to a degree of social unrest, although any protests are likely to get cracked down upon early and hard.

If Iran does reinstate its nuclear program it will be much harder to once again put together the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table to begin with. Sanctions against the Iranian regime were effective when the international community worked as a united front. Unilateral US sanctions are likely to have a substantially smaller impact on the regime’s actions. Many of the most effective US sanctions, known as “secondary sanctions” or sanctions, levied not on the Iranian regime directly but on parties doing business with Iran. The reimposition of these sanctions is likely to have the greatest impact as they will act as a significant deterrent to European businesses who were quick to begin doing business in the country after the sanctions were lifted. It will also impact American firms, such as Boeing which had a large deal in place to supply airplane parts to Iran’s civil airline.  

What will most likely happen?

The US sanctions will be enough to prevent Iran from getting the benefits of the nuclear deal, thereby causing the deal to fall apart, but not enough to curb its activities in the region.

Refusing to stick to the accords doesn’t just increase the likelihood that Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon in the near term, it also sets a bad precedent and undermines faith in the United States with regards to future international negotiations. This is especially pertinent considering the upcoming summit with North Korea. The deal that is reportedly being offered to Kim Jong-Un, economic relief in exchange for the cessation of the country’s nuclear program, is similar to the one that the Trump administration is now reneging on with Iran. If the US has proven itself unable to stick to a deal once agreed upon with Iran, why would the North Koreans expect to be treated any differently?

Regardless of what one thinks of the administration’s withdrawal from the deal, it happened. The question now is what’s next?

At the end of his speech announcing the American withdrawal, President Trump expressed a willingness to renegotiate the deal. There is however little indication of what the administration would hope to gain by doing so. In fact, the administration seems to have no clear strategy on the issue. The vague normative statements, half-truths, and political chest-thumping that have characterized the President’s comments on the issue are not enough. If regional and international security is to be maintained, it is essential that the administration has a clear strategy for how to handle Iran in both the near and long-term. 

Iran Wracked by Waves of Protests

Since December 28th tens of thousands of protesters have gathered all around Iran. The protests first began in the Northeastern city of Mashhad and constitute the largest outbreak of civil unrest in the country since the disputed 2009 presidential election and the wave of “Green Revolution” protests it caused. More than 20 people have died in the protests, which are still ongoing.

The demonstrations were initially sparked by concerns over the state of the country’s economy and the high prices of staple goods. After the lifting of sanctions under the nuclear deal, there was an expectation among Iranians that the economy would recover from its period of stunted growth, an outcome that has been slow to materialize. Youth unemploymenthas reached 40% and, not coincidentally, young people make up a large portion of the protesters. With all of these factors putting the country’s population on edge, the straw that broke the camel’s back and brought Iranians into the streets came in the form of a leaked draft budget which increased spending to the military and the clerical establishment while cutting subsidies for the poor.

Over the following week the protests developed from being focused on the state of the economy to being an open rebellion against the country’s repressive theocratic regime, with protesters chanting slogans such as “death to the dictator.” The country’s activist foreign policy has also become increasingly unpopular as many of its citizens struggle to make ends meet domestically. Iran has spent billions supporting proxies and allies in the region, such as the Syrian government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to a lesser extent the Houthis in Yemen.

The Iranian government has accused the protesters of being sponsored by foreign governments to create social unrest in the country and has cracked down pretty heavily on the protesters, using tear gas, water cannons, and other means in an effort to forcibly disperse them. According to human rights groups thousands of protesters have been rounded up and detained. Those arrested could potentially face brutal prison conditions or the death penalty, in a recent declaration made by the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Court. The regime has throttled internet access and blocked social media and messaging apps that had been used by the protesters to organize. As a result, the information coming out of the country began to slow leading to rumors of the protests dying out, but these turned out to be untrue. The government was also able to mobilize pro-government counter protests.

As of right now it is still too early to determine what will come of these protests. Some analysts are predicting the end of the regime while others expect the protests to fizzle out and amount to nothing. The protests seem to have no well-defined leadership, so it is unclear who, if anyone, would be able to lead a regime change. President Rouhani’s position has definitely been weakened and it is likely that the country’s security apparatus, especially the Revolutionary Guards will have seen their influence expanded asa result of their role in dealing with the protests.

Meanwhile, the US government has expressed support for the Iranian protesters. The Trump administration, which has already been openly hostile towards Iran and the Iranian government, has suggested the possibility of more sanctions depending on Iran’s reaction to the protest. The President has tweeted several times in support of the protests including tweeting that Iranians are finally “getting wise”. The United States requested an emergency session of the United Nation’s Security Council on the subject of Iran. The session was held on Friday and US Ambassador Nikki Haley took the opportunity to put Iran “on notice” that the US would not tolerate any human rights abuses. Other countries such as France and Russia voiced their dismay that the US was bringing what they viewed as an internal Iranian affair to the Security Council.

President Rouhani responded by saying that Donald Trump had no right to criticize Iran after calling them terrorists and preventing Iranians from entering the United States. Iranians don’t really care for President Trump and it’s unlikely that his tweets will have any effect on the protests. American sanctions as well as the United State’s wavering position on the nuclear deal are at least partially responsible for the economic stagnation that spurred the protests.

Is Tillerson Next?

Rex might be on the way out. On October 9, 2017, we published an article detailing his troubles with the State Department. Since then, rumors of his feud with Donald Trump have continued. Our initial article below might include some of the reasons for what seems to be his inevitable departure.

[Rex Tillerson’s War Against the State Department]

Rex Tillerson has had a less-than-illustrious tenure as Secretary of State so far. Perhaps it’s because he seems to be more focused on reorganizing the department than on, you know, diplomacy. His striking lack of success has lead many to call for his resignation and for him to be called the “most ineffectual secretary of state since 1898,” by respected Foreign Policy columnist Max Boot. 

The Trump administration has made it exceedingly clear that it does not consider diplomacy a priority. According to some metrics compiled by the New York Times, under Tillerson’s leadership, the department has had its lowest profile in nearly half a century. Democracy promotion has been erased from the State Department’s mission statement and the Trump Administration has made every effort to cut key foreign aid programs. 

Part of the reason the department has been so ineffective is because the administration has failed to fill an inexcusable amount of key positions. Only one Assistant Secretary of State has been confirmed and the vast majority do not even have nominees. (Here’s a list compiled by The Washington Post of unfilled positions.) To put this in perspective the United States is currently facing a nuclear standoff in North Korea without an Undersecretary (or Assistant Secretary for that matter) for Arms control. While the federal government’s hiring freeze has been rescinded it remains in effect at the State Department. Until recently, state department officials were not allowed to serve on the National Security Council omitting an essential perspective from national security decisions. 

Tillerson’s mismanagement of the State Department has caused many senior diplomats to leave, further weakening State’s ability to conduct diplomacy. At the same time, Tillerson has suspended the prestigious fellowship programs that allow bright young minds to enter the department. Some of these fellows have their salaries paid by outside institutions, so Tillerson is essentially rejecting free labor. On top of all these other issues, there is growing evidence that the Secretary of State is on the outs with his boss. According to several sources, Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with Secretary Tillerson.

Just like pretty much everybody else in the government, lawmakers on Capitol Hill also seem to be fed up with the Secretary. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that completely upended the administration’s plans to make significant cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy initiatives – providing $11 billion more than requested. Not only did they allocate more funds than Tillerson wanted, they also included management amendments in the bill that severely limit the Secretary’s ability to reorganize the department. For example, the bill limits the size of the Policy Planning Staff – something that Tillerson had been expanding and that career State Department officials felt was undermining their ability to influence policy.

Now to be sure not everything Secretary Tillerson does is awful. His willingness to distance himself from Donald Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville is admirable and some of his reorganization initiatives do make a lot of sense. But the State Department still needs to serve its primary function – namely advancing US diplomatic interests – something it has not been able to do effectively under Rex Tillerson’s leadership. The decline of America’s diplomatic arm can only lead to an increased reliance on hard (military) power. A Senate report sums up this issue pretty nicely: “The lessons learned since September 11, 2001, include the reality that defense alone does not provide for American strength and resolve abroad. Battlefield technology and firepower cannot replace diplomacy and development.” 

This article was originally published on 9 October 2017.

Al-Aqsa Crisis… Israeli Palestinian Fighting Continues

On July 14th the Israeli government made the decision to shut down Al Aqsa Mosque, the 3rd holiest site in Islam, after a clash that left three Palestinians and two Israeli officers dead. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Friday prayers were canceled. The Israeli government then proceeded to install security cameras and metal detectors at the mosque before reopening it. Palestinians rejected these measures as violations of their rights and of the status quo, and refused to pray in the mosque, opting to pray in the streets instead.

Amid continued protests, the Israeli government continued to add restrictions – preventing men under the age of 50 from entering the compound. Palestinians organized demonstrations in “a day of anger” and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas froze contact with his Israeli counterparts. The Israelis were worried about an escalating security situation and elected to install new security cameras to replace the metal detectors – a measure also rejected by the Palestinians as a move that expanded Israeli control over the holy site.

As of July 27th, Israel removed all the security measures and Palestinians planned to resume prayer in the mosque. The conflict seemed to have temporarily subsided – until minutes after worshippers returned to the mosque Israeli police wounded dozens with stun grenades and rubber bullets. The official Israeli reports states that they were attacked with stones but Amnesty International reports that Israeli actions were unprovoked. Palestinian Muslims have now returned to the mosque and services have resumed as usual but tensions are still simmering.

To Palestinians, this is about much more than just metal detectors and security cameras. This is a system that devalues Palestinians and enforces a systemic repression of a people who have been denied even the fundamental right to have a state. They are fighting to retain a status quo that disadvantages them to begin with because they fear what would happen to them if the status quo was done away with entirely. The Palestinians already face a lack of sovereignty and they see this as a further undermining of their identities. In case you think all this status quos talk is ridiculous, consider this fact: there is a ladder in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem that has not been moved in centuries because to move it would be to undermine the status quo, and that would cause a conflict between the different churches that reside there.

It’s not as if the response was strange or unexpected by the Israelis. It’s a known fact that any interference with Al Aqsa inflames tensions and escalates the conflict. The second intifada (the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation) was in part spurred by Ariel Sharon’s visit to the compound after the failure of peace negotiations and is called the Al-Aqsa intifada for that very reason. Jerusalem has always been and continues to be the line in the sand that cannot be crossed without inciting a violent reaction on both sides.

One important takeaway: Palestinian leadership had very little to do with the mass mobilization of the last two weeks. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority struggled to make themselves relevant regarding this tense situation. This is in part because the Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem are relatively isolated from the Palestinian Authority, separated by an Israeli checkpoint from the West Bank. This may, however, also be a sign of Mahmoud Abbas’s shrinking support, and the resulting weakness of the Palestinian Authority, with two-thirds of Palestinians calling for the octogenarian leader to resign. Abbas’s decision to cut off ties with Israeli government pending resolution of the conflict seemed reactionary and an attempt to satisfy his quickly shrinking base.

Long term, this further underscores the importance and the tensions surrounding Jerusalem and final status negotiations. Both sides claim the city as their capital, although the majority of the international community officially recognizes neither. The Palestinian capital, East Jerusalem, is under Israeli occupation and effectively cut off from the Palestinian Authority, and the Israeli government will not allow them to fund projects within the city. If there is to be any hope of a final settlement to the conflict, Jerusalem must be addressed and the status of its religious institutions, holy to the worlds three Abrahamic faiths, must be taken into account.

“Attack ISIS, Not Linda Sarsour”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tr0CFik2k&feature=youtu.be

Over the weekend, Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian Muslim-American organizer of the women’s march, gave a speech in which she used the word ‘Jihad’. And the Internet exploded.

Right-wing media outlets seized the opportunity to make it seem as if her speech was proof of Muslim-Americans attempting to foment ‘Jihad’ against the US and Donald Trump. Even prominent liberal figures attempted to distance themselves from Linda. However, anyone who took the time to actually read the text or listen to her speech could clearly see that her use of the word ‘Jihad’ was being completely and sometimes purposely misconstrued. It is clear that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the use of violence. She was giving a speech about speaking truth to power.

This type of reaction to the simple use of a word is absolutely ridiculous and blatantly Islamophobia. Such a reaction is essentially saying that Muslims cannot use a certain term in their religion because it makes people uncomfortable. Some pundits defended Sarsour; yet, they still criticized her word choice.

There are two important points that need to be made. First, she was quoting a hadith- a prophetic saying. So those asking her to “think about her word choice” are essentially asking her to change the wording of her religion to suit the needs of others. Second, Western analysts are continuously saying that moderate Muslims should “take back Islam” from extremists. I’m not even sure what that means, because when a moderate Muslim who is an outspoken civil rights activist like Linda uses the word ‘Jihad’, those same analysts turn against her.

Saying Muslims should stay away from words like ‘Jihad’ is to suggest that Muslims should stay away from all controversial topics. The word ‘Jihad’ means to struggle and is most often used to denote an internal moral struggle. It’s a word that has been appropriated by extremists and bigots. It’s also important to note that the only group that interprets the word ‘Jihad’ to exclusively mean terrorism is ISIS and their affiliates. That does not mean its meaning has changed nor does it mean that Muslims should shy away from using the word. Any argument to the contrary plays right into the hands of bigots and extremists, and further perpetuates Islamophobia.

 

Ideas Make This Country Great

As a Muslim-American, I spend a decent amount of time thinking about patriotism. This has become increasingly so as some far right politicians and “conservative media outlets” seem to be intent on suggesting that my citizenship and my religion are incompatible. So what does it mean to be a patriot? Does it mean blind support of everything the United States does? Does it mean that anything the government does, especially anything it does abroad, I have to support? Does not doing so make me unpatriotic?

My answer to all the above is no. American patriotism extends far past borders, political affiliations, and current administrations. It has nothing to do with any specific policy objective, and it has even less to do with politics. It is not nationalism. It is idealism.

Ideas make this country great. Concepts like diversity and pluralism. Values like freedom and liberty. The rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Being a patriot means standing by these values; no matter the circumstance, no matter the time period, and regardless of what may be politically expedient.

Patriotism has nothing to do with unconditional support of the government. In fact, I would argue that unconditional support of anything is toxic, and unconditional support of the government is almost certainly unpatriotic. When the NSA violates the constitutional right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches by conducting warrantless domestic surveillance it is unpatriotic to be unopposed. Thinly veiled attempts at retroactive justification by appealing to issues of National Security aren’t patriotic. They’re hypocritical and contrary to the ideals that this country was founded on. As Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

To make this more contemporaneous, when Donald Trump proposes a completely un-American Muslim Ban we can’t allow silence to take the guise of patriotism. Silence is not patriotism. Unconditional support is not patriotism. Standing up for American values is patriotism, regardless of who is in office and what their policies entail.

Kushner’s Miserable Peace Prospects

Last week I saw a headline that read “Kushner’s First Foray into MidEast Peace Reveals Challenges Ahead.” Wow. Breaking News: Trump’s son-In-Law finds out Middle East peace is hard. What a shocker.

It continues to amaze me that Jared Kushner, the real estate-heir whose only real qualifications are being born into the right family and marrying well, has such an immense policy portfolio. In fact, Jared Kushner is responsible for so much of the Trump Administration’s agenda that CNN has jokingly referred to him as “Trump’s Secretary of Everything.” When you consider all the policy areas that Mr. Kushner is probably the least equipped to handle, foreign policy is definitely in the top two (healthcare reform is arguably the other as it increasingly seems that no one in the Trump administration understands or cares how the American healthcare system works). Yet, somehow with no diplomatic experience, no background in the region’s complicated political history, and no evidence that he has a substantive grasp of geopolitics, the 36-year-old is one of the Administration’s defacto lead diplomats and is somehow in charge of brokering Middle East Peace.  (And he’s the subject of the ever-widening federal investigation, but that’s a topic for another piece.)

The headline quoted above might actually be a little generous to Kushner. His trip to the Middle East to meet with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and advisors didn’t just reveal challenges. It seems to have failed miserably. Kushner met with Abbas in Ramallah as part of the Trump Administration’s efforts to jumpstart peace negotiations that have been stalled since the assault on the Gaza Strip in 2014. He then proceeded to accost Abbas for not condemning an attack on Israeli soldiers, and according to Palestinian officials, merely listed Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s demands “and acted like Netanyahu’s advisors instead of a fair arbiter.”

“Greatly disappointed”, “tense”, and “furious” are just some of the buzzwords appearing in Arab and Israeli newspapers regarding the meeting. If the Trump Administration can’t get both sides to see them as a neutral party then peace talks are DOA. Perhaps putting someone with actual experience and knowledge of the conflict might be a step in the right direction.