Why Iran's Election Gives Israel The Nuclear Upper Hand

The United States has for years been both a mediator and flash point for international conflict, especially in the Middle East. Now, it could be stuck between two bitter enemies' nuclear posturing. It appears that Israel could be using the United States as leverage in its war of words with Iran, which could all be led back to US-Israeli relations and a dubious Iran election.

The smoldering conflict between Israel and Iran over both nations' nuclear programs was stoked Monday when Israel's Defense Minister (at right) said that "no option should be removed from the table" regarding his nation's stance on engaging a nuclear Iran. He did, however, concede that diplomatic steps would be ideal and the first option in addressing Iran's actions in its nuclear development, which Israel says is a grave threat.

The remarks came on the visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Israel in order to help work towards a more peaceful Middle East and just a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran's nuclear ambitions "futile."

Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated in recent years as Israel, thought throughout the international system to possess a nuclear weapon, has repeatedly drawn (and returned) threats from Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely for energy purposes. However, many nations believe Iran has goals of producing a nuclear weapon.

In 2005 at a conference in Asia called World Without Zionism, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "disgraceful stain" that "must be wiped off the map," according to a translation published by the New York Times. And this past April, Ahmadinejad triggered a walkout by UN members at a racism conference where he disputed the Holocaust.

Earlier this month, Israel sent two missile-capable war ships and a submarine through the Suez Canal as a posturing statement to Iran that it had the capability to reach the nation with its weaponry if needed.

The United States has a decades-long partnership with Israel, which has included supplying its military with weapons, which some say may extend to the nuclear category. The partnership has helped Israel remain strong in a region dominated by Muslims and strife with animosity towards the Zionist state.

That partnership had become somewhat strained within the past year as US President Barack Obama repeatedly called for dialogue with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Israel wanted its strongest ally to have no part in talks with its most bitter enemy. And in a roundabout way, Israel appears to have gotten its wish.

June 12 brought elections to Iran, which in turn brought massive waves of turmoil to the nation when widespread rumors of vote rigging led to major uprisings by Ahmadinejad's opposition supporters. A massive crackdown, including possible human rights violations, quickly soured what appeared to be a relationship between the US and Iran that could have at the very least led to the first conversation between the two nations in years. Only a week later, Iran's longtime nuclear chief stepped down from office.

With a possibly corrupt government seated in Iran, the last thing the United States would want to do is engage in talks with the Iranian government, not wanting to legitimise the government if the election were in fact rigged. It appears as though Israel noticed this, and has seized the opportunity to nuzzle up to its powerful western ally.

The United States is now in a tough spot as Israel pushes the envelope for a firm stance against Iran and its nuclear program. The US wants to ensure that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon with its nuclear program, but does not want to anger other Middle Eastern nations it has been working to rebuild relationships with after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also wants to leave the door open the tiniest bit for a possibility of future talks with Iran, which now appear to not be coming any time soon. And at the same time, it does not want to alienate its strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, by refuting that nation's stance on Iran.

Israel appears to know it has some wiggle room to push the envelope with the new US administration in addressing Iran, and looks to be acting swiftly, knowing that wiggle room could soon be reduced to naught. The rest of the week should be fairly telling as to how far Israel's own new government will go on the subject, as two major US advisers will be in Israel later this week.

It looks as though Israel will continue its stern offense in dealing with Iran, which is likely to issue a similarly strong response, and that the United States will again be searching for a safe spot in between.

Clashing Xinjiang Groups Have A Bloody History

Violence rocked the western Chinese province of Xinjiang Sunday in what has been called the most serious clashes since Tiananmen Square twenty years ago.

More than 1400 people were arrested by police Sunday and upwards of 150 killed after violence broke out between the region's two largest ethnic groups: the Uighur and Han Chinese. The two groups blame each other for the bloodshed, which may have spawned from a fight between the two groups at a toy factory weeks earlier.

But the factory skirmish was just a battle in what has been both a verbal and physical war between the two groups in recent years.

The Uighurs - Muslims, and originally of Turkic descent - have been the main occupants of the territory since the Qing dynasty, which ended in the early 20th century. But displaced Hui (the third largest ethnic group in Xinjiang) and Han Chinese have gained an increasing share of the population share over the years, with recent estimates putting the population split at 45 percent Uighur, 40 percent Han.

This increase of Han Chinese has spurned several tense inter-ethnic conflicts in the past two decades. The Chinese government has encouraged Han Chinese workers to set up businesses in traditional Uighur cities and has adopted rules the Muslim Uighur population says are unfair to their religion and culture.

Because of this, the Uighur population has been increasingly vocal in support of its own independent state. Peaceful nationalist political groups make up the majority of those calling for independence, but two Uighur separatist factions, including the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, have advocated physical confrontation with the Chinese as a means to independence.

These separatist groups have led to China taking an even tougher stance against the Uighur population. They have blamed Uighurs for supposed terrorist attacks, and blame for a 1997 incident that left at least nine Uighurs dead in the Xinjiang city of Gulja was placed on the Uighurs shoulders.

Last year, tensions ran high as protests by Uighurs were staged in Xinjiang at the same time the notorious protests in Tibet were taking place. The Chinese government accused Uighurs of instigating the Tibetan protests.

And most recently, four Uighurs have been placed in custody of Bermudan authorities after their release from prison at the hands of Americans in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Chinese have accused the men of being terrorists despite never being formally charged, and have demanded the Bermuda extradite the men to face charges in China.

The Han claimed many of the 156 killed and 1000+ injured Sunday in Urumqi were Han Chinese, while the Uighurs claimed most of the casualties and injured as their own.

Monday, Uighurs staged another protest in defiance of a major police presence in the city, shouting "God is Great," the same slogan that became their rallying cry during the 1997 protests in Gulja.

Limited press access and a government firewall banning most, if not all, internet access has made getting accurate and timely information out of Xinjiang difficult, only to be exacerbated by rampant accusations by either side. By looking at the recent past, however, it appears likely that the sporadic conflicts will continue and the relationship between the two groups will continue to boil as no middle ground seems to be anywhere in sight.

Trouble at the Top in Honduras and Niger

The recent political turmoil in Iran appears to have spawned several imitators in recent days, as controversies over the leadership of Niger and Honduras have brought the eyes of the international community away from the streets of Tehran.

Both situations have stemmed from fears that each nation's president was undermining the respective nation's constitution to seek more power. In Honduras, Manuel Zelaya was accused of plotting to throw out the Honduran constitution in order to grant himself a further stay in power, while Niger's Mamadou Tandja sacked the nation's high court when it rejected his appeal to extend his presidency another three years.

In response to Zelaya's attempts to push his presidency beyond 2010 after a maximum four-year term, the military, backed by a number of Honduran citizens unhappy with the president, staged a military coup Sunday and forced Zelaya (at right) out of the country.

The Honduran Congress then elected President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti as the nation's new president, who has since cracked down on protesters backing the ousted president, and has said that Zelaya will be arrested and jailed if he re-enters the country. Honduran citizens are also allowed to be arrested and held without charge for 24 hours, in addition to having their homes searched and being barred from assembling at night after a curfew was implemented Wednesday.

In Niger, Tandja's bid to stay in power was quashed by the nation's highest court, which he subsequently dissolved and followed up by electing a new cabinet, seen as a degenerative move in a nation that has been working to build a more stable government for the past decade.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of these two actions have been the reactions they have received from the international community, the same community that has been uneasy to firmly take a stance on a situation in Iran that bears some semblance to these two governmental crises.

US President Barack Obama acted hastily upon the news of the coup in Honduras Sunday, calling the new government illegitimate and for Zalaya to be reinstated. Wednesday, Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tandja's actions in Niger undermined the African country's "efforts over the last ten years to advance good governance and the rule of law."

Obama's actions have plenty of backbone. Wednesday, The Organization of American States, comprised of 34 North and Latin American nations, also condemned the coup and demanded Zelaya's reinstatement in 72 hours lest the nation be suspended from its spot within the organization. The UN General Assembly also called for Zelaya's reinstatement, among other things relating to the military overthrow.

The European Union Tuesday warned Tandja (at left) that should he continue his pursuit of illegal actions, he will risk losing aid support from the EU in a nation strife with poverty. The African Union has also sent a team of delegates to Niger to solve the ongoing political crisis.

It is curious how strong a response these two situations have received after the international community has largely tiptoed around the post-election turmoil in Iran. The likely factor behind the strong threats of pulling aid and membership for Niger and Honduras in comparison to a general lack of a tough response to Iran comes down to two probabilities. One, that these two situations are much more obvious and apparent than the speculation, despite some red flags, that Iran's government is illegally in power; and two, the fact that Honduras and Niger hold nearly no political or economical clout in the international community.

Both largely depend on other nations to stay afloat in the grand scheme of things, and haven't really any leverage in any sort of non-domestic situation, especially involving such major players as the European Union and United Nations.

It appears likely that because of this, the larger entities will have their way with things, and both coups will be short-lived - at least politically. However, socially, especially in Honduras where there are varying amounts of support for both the ousted and current government, it looks as though the aftermath of these two political shake-ups could leave lasting impressions on the governments and people of the two nations.