Ugly Politics And Beautiful Game

by with One Comment FeaturedGen Z

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?

by with One Comment FeaturedGen ZGlobalInternational

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.