If serious disputes arose between Islamic revolutionary actors, America and others might be able to exploit them. But will such serious disputes arise?
Former president of the Middle East Policy Council Chas W. Freeman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times this weekend. The topic was the relationship between Wikileaks and the Iranian regime.
Faced with the prospects of a yet another failed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration indicated last week that it was willing to provide a number of incentives to the Israeli government in return for a 90 day freeze in new settlement constructions.
Whatever popular support they may have enjoyed before coming to power or just afterward, radical Islamic revolutionaries have quickly proven themselves to be harsh authoritarian rulers wherever they have had the chance: in Iran (1979), in Sudan (1989), in most of Afghanistan (1996 - 2001), in par
Many fear (and many others hope) that American withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to a takeover of these two countries by radical Islamic forces, who will then be in a stronger position to spread to neighboring countries. The U.S.
Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama strategy toward the “War on Terror,” one aspect of it is now clear: the President is determined to withdraw American forces both from Iraq and from Afghanistan. American combat forces have already left Iraq.
On November 9, Jordanians went to the voting booths to elect 120 members of the country's lower house. The elections were called two years earlier than scheduled, after King Abdullah dissolved the previous parliament in November 2009 following complaints of corruption among MPs.
When he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama argued that the manner in which the Bush administration had prosecuted the “War on Terror” had done America more harm than good.
The “War on Terror” is not taking place in a void. Other geopolitical developments affecting international relations on a global scale are also occurring.