The killing on Friday of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh might bring more within it than what it seems like. The latest assassination is putting Israel, the US and Iran in a very sensitive position. According to Barbara Salvin “Why Was Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed?”, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh isn’t about stopping a bomb — it’s about preventing diplomacy. Joe Biden doesn’t have to let it work.

The Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal pushed Iran to produce a large amount of uranium, but it is not close to the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has said repeatedly that it will go back into full compliance with the nuclear agreement if the Biden administration agrees to do the same, and lifts the onerous sanctions piled on by President Trump. However, the recent assassination of its top nuclear scientists has made Iran take a step back and made the diplomacy between Iran and the new US administration under the leadership of Joe Biden harder.

The Trump administration is fearing an expected return to the Iran nuclear agreement by the Biden’s administration. Both the current Trump administration and Israel are fearing that such action would revive Iran’s struggling economy and make it harder to contain its influence in the Middle East.

 

The nomination of the Biden administration may mean more than it seems when it comes to US foreign relations and policies. Under the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia was President Donald Trump’s first overseas visit, which sheds the light into the strong ties president Trump built with the crown prince including the US protection and full support. Saudi Arabia received an enormous  support during the last years, such as weapons’ sales, denial of the Khashoggi murder and the involvement in the Yemen war. During the last five years 2014-2019, a quarter of US weapons’ sales went to Saudi Arabia, and up from 7.4 percent in 2010-2014. Following that, Saudi Arabia began its military involvement in the war in Yemen in March 2015. A war that carries a major humanitarian cost within it.

Luckily, the new Biden administration has made the US position in regards to Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen very clear. The new administration is giving a needed hope around the world {…..and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil,” Biden said in October. The Biden administration may play a major role in the Yemen war, it may impact the ending of the war through enforcing a diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia.

The war in Yemen involves multiple external actors, which makes its ending complicated. However, the US with the lead of president Joe Biden and the support of the democratic party can reduce the gravity and make an end to the humanitarian war.

The use of chemical weapons particularly in the Syrian’s civil war  has been creating so much concern to the international community. According to the reading, “The Future of Chemical Weapons” raises questions about the civil war norm and mot importantly analyzes the Syrian case and its role in further proliferating the use of chemical weapons. The reading discusses three crucial points, first is that chemical weapons have demonstrated limited military utility in Syria. Second, the costs of use have been repeatedly demonstrated by the international reaction to their use. Lastly, the use of sarin—a nerve agent—has attracted a stronger international response than the use of chlorine.

Recently, according to the Middle East monitor article “Syria’s representative to UN: Damascus did not use chemical weapons and does not possess them anymore”, Bashar Jaafari confirms that Syria does not have chemical weapons anymore and did not use them. Also, Syria today is taking a different path through  fully cooperating with the inspection organization in place. According to the latest news, “Syria is currently hosting a delegation of experts and inspectors who arrived two days ago and will stay until 24 November.”

 

The Syrian civil war tends to be an ongoing multi-sided civil war, which has multiple actors involved in it. In one side, the US , Turkey and in the other side Iran and Russia. The article clearly states how Syria’s civil war long has provided a free-for-all battlefield for proxy fighters. But in its ninth year, it is drawing major foreign actors into direct conflict, with the threat of all-out confrontations becoming a real possibility.

Russia tends to have a major role in the Syrian civil war, because of its long history with Syria and its military bases. Also, Turkey has a key role in its need to overthrow the Bashar regime even though it did fail with the direct US and Russia  involvement.

The civil war in Syria is far from being a normal civil war or an overthrow of the Bashar regime, it is actually the new political confrontation , seek for world power and expansion of either the US or the Russian influence. I see it as the new indirect cold war era, between both sides once again. “The history repeating itself”, however this time will end up by destroying the middle east and getting control over it.

Half billion people around the world live in continuous violence, that is unstoppable. In many of these places, from the Middle East to Africa, not the police officers or government officials that enforce the order and security within the war zones. However, it is the blue-helmeted troops of the United Nations. According to the Crisis of Peacekeeping reading, UN peacekeepers make up the second-largest military force deployed abroad, after the U.S. military. Their role is mainly set out to protect civilians, train police forces, disarm militias, monitor human rights abuses, organize elections, provide emergency relief, rebuild court systems, inspect prisons, and promote gender equality.

The UN as an organization did and still facing challenges, in regards to creating world peace in war zones around the world. The failure of the UN in avoiding conflicts is ongoing, and the best example for that will be the situation of Yemen (the longest war). The UN failed to regain stability in the Yemen region. I think that the failure can be result of multiple factors, such as  the structure of the organization itself. The power of the security council members in making war zones decisions can be viewed as conflict of interest.

According to the “Crisis of Peacekeeping” reading, the reason for this failure is a lack of resources; since the UN relies on contributions from its members. Also, the question of fundamental misunderstanding about what makes for a sustained peace.

Russia’s relationship with its neighbors has long been tensional. From Georgia in 2008, to Ukraine in 2014, to Syria in 2015, Putin has always laid the blame for Russian aggression squarely at the West’s feet. Historically, and before the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers during the world war II. However, the relationship between both did not end well. As a result of years of tensions, the soviet union collapsed and nations within it declared their independence; and the Baltic states sought an international recognition. As a result, a new leader came believing that  the empire’s collapse was a “geopolitical catastrophe.”

According to the reading, “The Return of Geopolitics Past” Russia had long functioned as a “dark double” to the United States in its self-definition as a world power. Under the presidency of  Vladimir Putin, the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula  from Ukraine in early 2014 was the most consequential decision of his 16 years in power. The invasion in Crimea tends to be very crucial in determining the motives. The question of why invading neighboring territories tends to be more historical, post cold war and the collapse of the soviet union. The goal might be to gradually recapture the former territories of the Soviet Union and by that expand  Russia’s borders or simply because of geopolitical ambitions.

The Bolton,R. Chicago journal of International Law article “Should we take global governance seriously ?” discusses the different factions within the US regarding global governance. The article states the different understandings of global governance depending on people level of education. According to the article, highly educated group better understand the meaning behind global governance and the importance  in discussing it  comparing  to everyone else.

In order to keep the international security stable, global governance should consist on different aspects such as the legitimacy and authority of the use of force through constraining and limiting the nation-states themselves. For instance, the use of military force is one of the major decisions around the world and it is crucial when it comes to the worth of global governance. Limiting the decision making of military use of force helps in the diminution of sovereignty and the advance of global governance. Generally, global governance should be taken seriously either now or in the future; as the globalism category believes in. In regards to the US, the importance of the topic will result in a reduced constitutional autonomy, impaired popular sovereignty, reduction of our international power, and limitations on our domestic and foreign policy options and solutions.

The concept of global governance has always been fundamentally a major topic for decades. It has been approached differently within the framework of international relations and considered as a response to the current globalization process.