Just a Tad Bit of Sympathy on Top

            In the case you have yet to be interpellated in supporting the United States use of drones to bomb the Syrian government, it’s not too late.  Because this scenario is so extreme, in the sense that the United States might violate the United Nation Charter, it’s important to make sure everyone is on board with their ideology: there’s simply no room for stranglers.  Therefore, the United States, or more-so their ideological state apparatus of the New York Times, have chosen to utilize another tactic to get the remaining people on board to support the cause.  The first ploy to try to get people to support was reasoning.  The justification was that the Syrian government (although it’s no proof they’re the guilty party) broke United Nations Charter by utilizing chemical warfare and deserves to be punished.  The counter hegemonic logic I’m presenting, best articulated by The Real News, is that two wrongs don’t make a right.  The United States, too, would be in violation of the United Nations Charter should that engage in warfare with Syria, without approval from the United Nation Security Council.  The second ploy would appear to be sympathy.       

            Through the New York Times, the article presented focused on the number of refugees created as a result of this warfare in Syria between the rebels and the government.  According to the United Nations refugee agency, the number of people looking to relocate is roughly 150,000 people.  At this point, no nation can hold or desires to hold that many people at this one time.  Such panic have led the people to disperse everywhere, from neighboring countries to Europe to the United States.  Currently neighboring nations have closed off their borders to Syria, as they have met their fill.  In light of that, the United States is trying to take as many in as possible, but trying to evade letting terrorists come in with the deserving refugees.  As such, the screening process for the United States is much more stringent and seems to have a lot of people on hold.  In an attempt to combat this slow intake in the beginning, the U.S. has put forth a plan to allow 130,000 refugees the ability to come in within the next two years (U.N. Calls).

            Where does this leave us as citizens of a nation planning to intake 130,000 Syrians, who are seeing so many people uprooted from their neighborhoods as the result of a dangerous war?  We’re left to feel nothing but sadness and sympathy for so many people.  We would all hate to be uprooted from our communities and can certainly understand and/or relate to the struggles of these people.  Unfortunately though, it doesn’t seem like feeling sad is supposed to be the desired effect.  Yes, we’re supposed to be saddened, but we’re also supposed to be angry.  We’re supposed to desire that this nation get what’s coming for them.  We’re supposed to support the United States’ logic to use drones to harm the government of Syria.

            Unfortunately, we’re still in the same place that we were in with the other two blogs.  The United States still doesn’t have proper approval to impose war on Syria, nor do we know who the responsible party is.  Hence, pursuing war or attacking simply because we feel an emotion for those affected by the war only make us just as bad. 

Blog Disclaimer:

            As a disclaimer, it’s important to note that I love America.  I’m not anti-America, nor am I anti Syria.  I strongly hope and desire justice for those who are at fault for hurting so many Syrians.  I sincerely feel for their struggles and the lived realities they are forced to deal with daily.  The issue that I wanted to present though is the power of one story and the issue of the discourse the United States/ The New York Times is trying to present.  Whereas The Real News doesn’t mind calling out the United States government for possibly breaking international laws, The New York Times chooses to skirt the issue.  Although they presented an article stating that the United States were going to attack Syria, they failed to frame the story as it being against international law.  As a result, the articles that they release following the air strike only garners support for the actions of the United States, instead of holding them accountable.  Hence, people are left believing that the United States is fighting the “Good Fight,” instead of the unlawful one.  

The Reasoning

            By now, in the 21^st century, we all know the game plan of the United States.  Although we have no way of seeing it all, we certainly know what’s amidst.  Typically, it’s create a cause and build up support for it.  How might a nation build up support for its ideology?  To be honest, the answer is quite simple.  Most of the time, the government isn’t going to be the one to come out to say “You should support what we have decided to do because of such and such, now can you please comply?”.  That would be too straightforward and obvious.  Instead, the government of the United States, or any nation for that matter, used their ideological state apparatuses to spread said thoughts and beliefs.   Essentially, they go towards what people are used to and have comfort within, like churches, laws, or the media.  Since history seems to always repeat itself, it should be no surprise that that’s exactly what the United States resorted to this time. 

            Per my last blog post, it’s evident that the United States, the president in particular, would like to seek war with Syria.  Not the kind of war that makes the people mad, the kind of war that involves putting troops on the ground.  Instead, the president prefers to get clearance, from the Congress at least, to drop bombs and to use drones to decommission to Syrian government.  Considering that the government is supposed to be a representation of its people, it’s the president’s job to get the people on board.  And what better way than the “good ole” newspaper?  Not just any newspaper, but “The” newspaper; yeah, I’m talking about the New York Times. 

            One recent article released by the New York Times happens to be titled “U.N. Security Council See Video Evidence of a Chemical Attack in Syria.”  If you remember from the previous blog post, that was the rationale that the United States was trying to utilize to attack Syria.  They desired to do so simply because it was the “right” thing to do, since the Syrian government was suspected of using chemical warfare against the rebels.  As such, it’s a no "brainer" to now see this article as something that would, and was suspected to surface at some point or another.  Unfortunately though, the case isn’t as “sound” as it may seem. 

            The focus of the article is one doctor’s experience which dealing with the results of the chemical attacks.  It is his belief, based on the smell, that the guilty party used bleach as the chemical for the warfare.  They used it to attack three cities, and hurt around 120 people.  While this is, of course, a very tragic series of events, there’s still one big problem: no blame was assigned as to who is behind the chemical attacks (U.N. Security).  The only thing that is concrete is that people did become hurt, bleach was the chemical uses, and the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution forbidding the use of any more chemicals.  Those are all the known facts, well, at least the released ones.  Hence, with that being said, how can the United States be sure that the Syrian government is the guilty party?  For that sake, does it even matter?  It seems the United States have already decided which side they were going to support based on their involvement in training the rebels to invade Syria.  At this point, it’s probably no surprise but guess you spearheaded the research on this chemical attack.  Here’s a quote for you, “…in a closed-door meeting called by the United States to draw attention to suspicions of the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon in the war in Syria.”  Quite ironic that the United States happened to be the ones who called the meeting, wouldn’t you agree?

The Unlawful Offense

        Before I get too wrapped up in the right or wrong of the actions, it’s important to first say what’s going on.  As always, one needs context before they can understand the story.  Recently, the United States have decided that someone or some nation needs to take action in Syria.  That’s a war going on between the Syrian government and rebels that’s creating a ton of refugees.  Actually, the number of refugees is so many that it’s hard to find a place for them to reside.  As such, the United States have decided that they need to take action.

            As the United States planned for action in the Middle East, Syria to be exact, they came up with two avenues.  The first course of action they have sought is the training of rebels.  According to the New York Times, “the United States have been training Free Syrian Army people in Jordan to infiltrate into Syria.  Although the number said by the Times article is around 50, European reports actually estimate that the numbers are in the hundreds.”  Nonetheless, this course of action establishes one method the United States plan to pursue to quell the chaos in Syria and which side they support.  The second option that the United States plans to seek is that of air drone attacks or bombing the nation of Syria.  That happens to be where most of the problem comes in.

            In order for the United States to have the authority to bomb, and/or go to war with a nation, they must have approval from both Congress and the United Nations.  For the sake of clarity, I think it’s certainly worth repeating that the United States has to seek approval from the United Nations before ever entering war or using force with another nation.  To do so without their approval would be to go against the Security Council of the United Nations and to be in violation (US Attack).  At the point in time, the United States only seek to get approval from Congress.  By the way, that does mean that both the Senate has the House has to agree for President Obama to pursue war in Syria.  Should the U.S. go, too, the necessary route of the Security Council, they would have to get the majority of nine to agree that it’s okay for them to use force, and that must include the permanent members of the United Nations (US Attack). 

            On a side note, there is one way to avoid going through the Security Council of the United States.  The United States could always, somehow, claim self-defense from Syria.  Under the premise of self-defense, the United States would be able to attack Syria without getting the “okay” from the United Nations.  It’s important to note that this isn’t the path or plea the United States is pursuing; they aren’t foolish enough to claim self-defense (US Attack).

            In terms of the “so what” question, there’s two results the president could face should he not get approval from both places.  Should the president not get approval from Congress, he simply cannot use force, according to the Constitution.  According to the UN Charter, should the president not get approval from the United Nations, he is in violation of international law and would be involved in an illegal war.

            The main point to be made here is the United States doesn’t seem to care about that.  Whether they will be breaking international law or involved in the same criminal acts of other nation isn’t a concern.  The U.S. only seeks to get approval from Congress and that raps up the case.  For justification, the United States is trying to point out that Syria is using chemical weapons and that the nation is harming hundreds of thousands of people (US Attacks).  Regardless of what they’re doing, it still rings true that the United States would be just as bad for entering an illegal war and bombing a group that we’re “opposed” to.  

Claiming "American Sniper" as Truth

When the film “American Sniper” hit theaters in early January 2015, it was a box office success.  As it is described in the media, “American Sniper” is the story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle’s “pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and turns him into a legend. Back home to his wife and kids after four tours of duty, however, Chris finds that it is the war he can’t leave behind.”  While many have praised the film as being a gripping portrayal of the lives of our American Veterans abroad and the struggles they deal with once they come home from war, critics have argued that it perpetuates the historically dominant stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims as barbaric, heartless people who are the constant targets of American violence. 

Therefore, when the University of Michigan decided to host a viewing of the film at a University sponsored event for students, it is no surprise that it drew debate and controversy both on and off campus.  After a student petition circulated around campus garnering around 300 signatures to cancel the film screening, the University promptly responded by cancelling the film screening.  However, this was met with much contention and following a petition to reinstate the film screening, the University again decided to show the film, stating “It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event for students”. 

Proponents of showing the film on campus argue two main issues: 1) that the right of free speech gives the University the right to show any movie they so choose, and 2) that showing movies like “American Sniper” create dialogue on campus. 

Historically, it has been the role of academia and higher learning to question and critically discuss the status quo.  However, showing this film without discussion or round table dialogue claims and labels the film as truth.  We see in films like this the constant use of tropes such as the terrorist threat and savage war. Showing this film adds to the repertory of images that add to the dangers of a “single story” discussed by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.  When there is no counter narrative or counter hegemonic representations in popular, blockbuster hits, the single story is taken as truth.  This very idea can be seen in the plethora of tweets and racist responses towards Arabs and Arab-Americans after seeing the film. 

Portraying Arabs in the film as binary opposites perpetuates the single story we have seen throughout history.  Through a Eurocentric lens, the film is not a complex representation of Arabs but just adds to the stereotypes we have seen a million times over.  With mainstream media’s support of the University showing the film, both the filmmakers and mainstream media act as ideological state apparatuses, supporting the state and the war that it has continued to sponsor. 

We have seen through this class how dialogue can be helpful in critically thinking about the films we watch.  However, this can be done with planned discussion and healthy debate.  Showing this film without such discussion claims it as truth and does the very opposite of creating dialogue on campus. 

Sources:

http://www.michigandaily.com/news/umix-film-removed

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/

http://www.michigandaily.com/news/university-plans-show-both-american-sniper-and-paddington-friday

http://nypost.com/2015/04/08/michigan-nixes-american-sniper-screening-amid-student-backlash/

http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/04/16/the-university-of-michigan-american-sniper-and-the-state-of-college-campuses/

Germanwings Pilot: Why wasn't he a Terrorist?

On March 24, 2015, headlines flashed across all major international newspapers reporting on the crash of a commercial flight in the French Alps, just northwest of Nice, France.  All 144 passengers and six crew members on Germanwings Airbus A320 were killed.  Instantly, media reports began to fly, speculating the various causes of how the flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf, Germany mysteriously crashed.  A wide range of explanations immediately began to circulate, most of which centered around technical malfunctions or an idea that the crew lost consciousness or became incapacitated by a sudden loss of pressure on the aircraft. 

The greatest of these theories was linked to a previous crash involving an Airbus 321 operated by the airline Lufthansa in November of 2014.  While these were all seemingly viable explanations for the mysterious crash, they all proved to be wrong.  Ultimately, evidence collected by investigators uncovered radio correspondence and recordings that exposed the horrifying truth.  27-year-old co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, intentionally crashed the flight into the mountains. 

The media and the rest of the world tried to wrap their heads around the tragedy, attempting to make sense of the deaths of 150 innocent civilians.  Therefore, mainstream journalists and their millions of readers delved into the puzzling life of the young, marathon running co-pilot.  Eventually, the world was able to “make sense” of the tragedy, declaring Lubitz as mentally ill and suicidal, having previously been declared unfit to work by a doctor.  Further investigations revealed that Lubitz hid this information from his employer and reported to work, ultimately locking his co-pilot out of the cockpit when he made a trip to the bathroom, seizing the moment and intentionally crashing the plane. 

But what ideological work is the mainstream media trying to prove with this line of reporting?  The coverage surrounding the crash proves how the media works as an Ideological State Apparatus, interpellating individuals all over the world into ideologies that support the state, or in this case, the dominant discourse.  So what is the media in this case REALLY trying to support? Because Andreas Lubitz was a white man, it is clear that the media has tried every means possible to avoid considering him to be a terrorist.  In order to support the mainstream media’s task of avoiding the word “terrorist”, they have used words like “suicidal” and “mentally-ill” to justify his actions as anything but terrorism.  Moreover, airline CEO’s urged single pilots following this incident to get married, implicitly arguing that he wasn’t a terrorist but a misguided bachelor, who may have been saved if he was married. 

In a counter-hegemonic article posted online by Zak Cheney-Rice on mic.com, Cheney-Rice addresses this major issue of the media’s reporting on the plane crash.  As he eloquently puts it, “White people can’t be terrorists.  Disturbed? Yes. Mentally ill? Probably.  A troubled outcast? Of course. But “terrorist”? That term is reserved for a special type of person, someone with brown skin, a foreign-sounding name, roots in the Middle East”. 

The mainstream media’s reporting on this issue is a form of inferential racism.  Although it does not outwardly call all or any Arabs or Muslims “terrorists”, situations like this confuse and complicate the dominant discourse.  Therefore, by writing off Lubitz as mentally-ill, it allows the dominant stereotype of the Arab or Muslim terrorist to prevail.  Indirectly justifying and disregarding the actions of the white male covertly sends a message to readers across the world – that white men are incapable of the horrendous and incomprehensible actions of Arab terrorists. 

If Andreas Lubitz had converted to Islam or had a long lost aunt from the Middle East, the story may have been reported differently.  However, the dominant discourse remains, whether the reader is aware of the implications or not. 

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11492988/Why-did-Germanwings-Airbus-A320-crash.html

http://mic.com/articles/113896/everyone-s-trying-really-hard-not-to-call-the-germanwings-co-pilot-a-terrorist

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/24/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-map.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-germanwings-crash-airline-ceo-urges-pilots-to-marry/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-germanwings-crash-airline-ceo-urges-pilots-to-marry/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-andreas-lubitz-lufthansa-pilot-suicide.html

ISIS and the American Ideological Crisis of Faith

A large part of the ideological work being conducted through American ideological state apparatuses, such as the State Department and White House, over the years has focused on binary oppositions that reaffirm American values through the lens of a modern, multicultural America that nonetheless retains its emphasis on Christian ideals. In 2001, United States President George W. Bush declared “Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.” In the past year, this thinking has evolved further with the emergence of the ISIS terror group, and consistent, wall-to-wall sensationalized coverage of the terror group's every advance and accomplishment, running counter to the practice of Christianity worldwide.

While criticism of the horrific acts is common place, analysis of what US/Western foreign policy decisions may have led to the forming of the terror group constitutes a strong absence. An exploration of the West's relationship to the eruption of violence isn't even present. This absence divorces the actions ISIS is taking from any justification, essentializing the violence as being an inherent part of the nature of who they are. Their identity is framed as Muslim, tribal, and fundamentalist. A heavy focus is placed on the propaganda that ISIS disseminates showing violent acts designed to shock spectators. Conservative American media has taken it even further offering it as evidence of the perversion of Islam and as a rationale to a call to arms for the Christian community to confront the influence of Islam in the world. It's that sophisticated, racialized caricature that allows for a sharp, dynamic contrast to be presented against Americanism aligned again and again with Christianity.

Newsweek recently published “The New Exodus: Christians Flee ISIS in the Middle East." It focuses on the overrun of the mountain town of Maaloula, one of the oldest Christian towns in Syria where Aramaic, the ancient language of Jesus, is still spoken. By focusing on language, the article creates another binary between the historic origins of faith and the modern, giving greater value to modern expressions of the cultural history central to those Christian origins. It continues to talk about how Maaloula was once a place of religious tolerance for many centuries, but does a poor job of exploring what might have disturbed that tolerance. Considering it is a mainstay in West Asia, one of the first questions should be how peace was sustained for so many centuries prior to the present moment and how such a constant state of security has suddenly been disturbed. 

The article employs this absence to protect its central argument from real scrutiny. The article later on does get around to describing the attacks as being carried out on other populations besides Christians, but it does so briefly in just a few sentences. It then returns to its central theme of Christian opposition and oppression. The article places emphasis on the communities being the most ancient Christian communities in the world, saying “Some of the oldest Christian communities in the world are disappearing in the very lands where their faith was born and first took root.” It ties Christianity to a common Exodus trope where a people are pushed from their birthplace or land of origin and must fight for their just return in the face of hostility and persecution. The article uses strong Christian symbols and imagery, including that of a Christian bride and Jesus carrying the cross with a bullseye mounted at the center.

In the Independent Journal Review an article was recently published titled “ISIS Declares War on the Cross.”  Again we see a binary created, tied to Islamic/Christian oppositionalism. The article begins by describing recent ISIS "propaganda," describing it overtly as such. This same terminology of propaganda is never used in addressing the message making conducted by the United States. In fact, throughout the articles explored here, the activity of message making is entirely couched beneath a more common sense reportage that is presented as innately unbiased in the search of whatever truth may present itself. 

Also, sourcing of the video that the article addresses seems to be completely bypassed by claiming it was “allegedly” shot in so-and-so location. This has become a routine practice. This allows for news media to provide any information convenient to their argument with immediacy and without the editorial responsibilities that would normally be required in our public and educational discourses. Recently, a Rolling Stone article discussing sexual assault on the University of North Carolina's campus came under public scrutiny for its lack of journalistic validation of the facts, with Columbia University stating, “Rolling Stone article on gang rape was journalistic failure.” No similar high standard is being applied to the information being disseminated on ISIS and other terror groups, which constitutes one of the strongest on-going themes of the nightly, prime time news hour and the twenty-four hour news cycle.

On the “O'Reilly Factor” in recent weeks, a podcast was published titled “The War on Christianity Getting Even Worse." Podcasts as a medium break out certain, more consumable segments of the daily, twenty-four hour news cycle. This gives them greater dissemination in the public discourse and makes them a more central part of the conversation. In the segment lasting about three minutes Mr. O'Reilly states “It is open season on Christians.” What if a modern, American news commentator made a similar counter-hegemonic claim, “It is open season on Muslims?” This would clearly be against the naturalized discourse of common sense in American culture and would oppose the interpolation of viewers, listeners and readers seeing their own faith and cultural origins as naturalized. Yet, such a statement could indeed be interpreted as true with the recent, wrongful slaying of three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina.

The White House has been careful to frame its fight as not a fight with Islam, but one focused on terror in all of its forms. Although, Islam repeatedly is largely conflated with the population centrally impacted by the enforcement of that justice. The podcast goes on to frame its argument around a series of attacks on Christians internationally including “five radical Muslim killers” murdering a large number of students in Kenya, a suicide bombing in Pakistan killing twelve Christians, and the beheading of twenty-one Christians by ISIS in Libya, concluding “So you can see Christians are being slaughtered all over the place.” He ends the podcast with a survey conducted asking the question, “In America today, is the right of religious liberty being threatened?” It's conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. This question isn't addressing the rights of Muslim religious liberty, but simply Christian American identity. It imposes covert racism by not acknowledging the diversity of faiths in its argument of religious liberty, making liberty and Christianity a conflated entity excluding the broader diversity of practice and expression.

Finally, the news media fails to address West Asian outcomes as relating to the trauma and disenfranchisement related to war, poverty, and education. Violence as a systemic expression of persisting injustice and hegemony is unexplored. A good counterpoint to look at is how the news media looks at our own American violence on the South side of Chicago. In this case, it does frame the violence with a certain degree of sympathy in a context of poverty, racism and social oppression. These same themes are absent completely from the ISIS discussion. Instead, they're otherized as an Oriental force. Through animalization they're framed as being unable to constrain themselves from violence with impulses that are only satiated through violence and conquest. ISIS is presented unquestionably as a violent ideology threatening the very existence of Christianity in the the 21st century.

Sources:

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/251741-isis-terrorists/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4150640454001/the-war-on-christianity-getting-even-worse/#sp=show-clips

Iranian Dissolution and Israeli Parity

Iran has become a focal point in Asia since Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008. He declared in his speech in Sderot, Israel in 2008:

“I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game changing situation not just in West Asia, but around the world. Whatever remains of our nuclear non-proliferation framework, I think would begin to disintegrate. You would have countries in West Asia who would see the potential need to also obtain nuclear weapons. Many of these countries, including Iran, have ties to terrorist organizations. Which means that suddenly you could have loose nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists. That is our single- most important threat both to Israel but also to the United States of America. And so this is something that we're going to spend a lot of time working on.”

While Iran has been on the US foreign policy agenda for more than three decades, Obama’s two terms as President have seen it become a regular fixture in the American press as a place beyond caricature with characteristics of governance, leadership, and development. It’s finally been provided a greater degree of complexity in its political and social identity, even though still limited to fit a more policy driven rhetorical representation befitting its more center left hawkish view, that wasn’t available beforehand. However, that re-framing is still within the context of Iran's military capabilities and nuclear ambitions as seen here on CNN. If you Google Iran, there will be little else to read about. This in contrast with alternative Iran news sources such as Payvand which provides broad coverage of the Iranian country similar to that which you'd see of the US from American news sources. Once again, it's the politics which frame the reality. This all following the history of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Iranian Revolution in 1979 where Iran was largely represented as a barbaric nation descending back into the 17th century.

Instead of looking holistically at what led to the largest revolution in world history involving 10 million plus Iranians, the country was framed as a threat to American's security. The day to day non-stop coverage sensationalized and excluded real insight into the country’s motivations and thinking. Iranians in the U.S. were isolated, similar to circumstances of both Japanese Americans in World War II and Arab Americans after 9/11, by the Reagan administration. Iranian students at American universities had their school financing frozen, punishing a domestic population not responsible in any way directly for the taking of the conflict’s hostages. In 2003 PBS ran a program on Iran called "Forbidden Iran" re-establishing these same long held tropes surrounding the country.

These approaches create a binary where Iranians are contradictory without fluctuation to what America is by default. It fails to distinguish between the diverging viewpoints of Iranians or the existence of any secular society within the country. It makes their Iranian blood a distinguisher of their violence and anarchy, instead of providing rational arguments involving the impacts of social and political events. This not only harmed generations of Americans in their understanding of Iran, a country rich with knowledge, philosophy, and hospitality, but also created a marginalization of those more aligned to more democratic ways of thinking inside Iran. They were re-enfranchised into the Iranian theocracy by American media. That oversimplification and prejudice began to finally erode and shift in the past eight years.

In Obama’s speech he acknowledges that Iran is not the only country in the region with ties to terrorist organizations, however this continues the "language of terror" used repeatedly and interchangeably beside the names of nations in Western Asia which continues to project ideas of certain places primarily breeding terror. Yet the same arguments of ties to terrorism can be lodged against the US, with a history of involvement with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other rebel groups such as those in South America. If any US partners were to describe the US as such it would be cause for serious and immediate divisions.

Obama frames his argument for addressing Iran's nuclear program as a means to maintaining a nuclear non-proliferation agenda worldwide. The American multiculturalism movement of the nineties, a movement to present the US in the world as a more inclusive place to justify its direct involvement abroad, can be seen as influencing this re-envisioning of message-making and directly leading to the contemporary election of the first African-American President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world.  

President Obama also uses the security of Israel as reasoning for action, without mentioning that Israel itself has nearly four hundred nuclear weapons. This obfuscation of one significant part of the political reality of West Asia is reminiscent of long held American themes of Israel as a battle field for the Good Fight, projecting American power as a means towards maintaining the greater good. The Good Fight sees the failures in Vietnam not as a cautionary tale but as indicating a need for the realigning of American foreign policy to more closely match Israel’s own, reflecting from the Israeli victories during the Six Day War as a starting point. This provided a rationale for the growth in deployment and implementation of US military power globally.

In recent weeks, amid a growing rift between Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, a pending Freedom of Information Act request has ended, after years in litigation, in release of certain confirmation of Israel’s nuclear program. However, this isn’t the first time that such information has been released. The Bush Administration was also forced under a similar request to declassify documentation that alluded to the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program. Israel does not publicly acknowledge or refute the existence of its nuclear weapons capabilities. It doesn’t allow international inspections of which Iran has been subject to over seven thousand mandatory inspections to the International Atomic Energy Agency in the past ten years, an unprecedented amount in world affairs.  

Iran is also a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that governs the international norms of nuclear weapons. Israel is not. It's an international agreement where nations commit to non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Israel is given exception in how and what it can do with its program, while Iran must demonstrate unequivocally that its program isn’t violent. One possible motivation for Israel not being party to the agreement is that it doesn’t want to open up its nuclear program to any degree of international transparency and it continues to further arm instead of disarm. 

It could also be a reason why we see the US aligning more with Iran to better balance the political climate in the region, so there are greater consequences implied to the potential use of Israel’s nuclear weapons, or any other nation that decides to go down a similar path. Although Iran is framed as the threat, in fact our very own allies may be a challenge to American hegemony. Saudi Arabia has threatened to develop its own nuclear weapons program, and Republicans in the US Congress continue to suggest an agreement with Iran will only be an insincere pretext to war.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/politics/23text-obama.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/03/world/meast/isis-iran-airstrikes-reports/

http://payvand.com/news/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/thestory.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/tom-cotton-iran-several-days_n_7026180.html