Introduction to Global Terrorism

The global terrorism is one of the most resonating socio-political problems that hounds the 21st century. It has been driven by the elements of unsettled socio-economic and political problems and issues that obviously generated from the Palestinian Issue, to the bloody history between Muslims and Christians, extreme Arab nationalism and religious bigotry or the so-called Islamic Extremism. Such explosive elements intertwined with the Muslim world have made almost every corner in the globe less safe to all of humanity than ever before. Terrorism has become the norm or part of life in the 21st century wherein the said problem affects all of us particularly the United States and its allies due to their unrelenting support to the state of Israel and the so-called global Western neo-imperialism. The United States as being the most powerful nation in world in the 20th and 21st centuries have gone series of modifications on its foreign policy and military strategies according to the changes in the global socio-economic, political and technological landscapes. This is because it needs to be adoptable to the said changes in order to perpetuate or sustain its top position in the global arena. The said adoptability of the United States is one way of innovating itself to protect it from its external enemies and proactive in dealing with risks and threats on its existence for decades. Such attributes have also been the major factors that has shape their military doctrine, national, sociopolitical-economic and foreign policy. The purpose of this study is to present series of discussion and analysis on Iran, its history, nuclear ambition and the future. Plus the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has played significant roles in shaping the political tensions between the Iran and the U.S. as the latter accuses the former of developing nuclear arsenals to dominate the middle east or may be the rest of the globe. As it is a fact that Iran has the most powerful military and weaponry in the middle east today which seems to rival the influence of the U.S. in the region and poses tremendous threat to Israel, U.S. allies and the latters global installations and interests.

Is Iran-U.S. War Coming?

Iran-U.S. Conflict Iran in the 20th and 21st centuries has played a major role in shaping the socioeconomic and political landscapes in the Middle East since its revolution in 1979 under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. On the same year, the revolutionary government drafted a theocratic constitution. The republican government of Iran is based on the said constitution wherein its citizens elect its leaders. However, the real power of the government resides from its state elders who have noted enmity with the United States, its Western Allies and Israel. It is a fact that the relationship of Iran with the U.S. has been intertwined with ugly conflicts particularly on the issue of the hostage taking in 1979 where dozens of U.S. embassy workers were taken hostage for 444 days. Iran has also drawn international criticism for its support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and its undying threats towards the state of Israel. It also rivals the power and influence

of the U.S. in the Middle East region due to Irans powerful military and weaponry (e.g. long-range missiles and military hardware) since the 80s up to the present century. In terms of oil resources, Iran has vast huge reserve, which makes it one of the moneyed Muslim states in the Middle East. Moreover, its military might was tested on 22 September 1980 the Iraqi army invaded Iran at Khuzestan, which resulted to the IranIraq War (Karsh, 2002, p.22). The result of the Iran-Iraq war had further worsened its relationship with the U.S. because the latter have supplied Iraq with sophisticated weapons and intelligence and financial aid, which have led millions of Iranians, lose their lives. During the George W. Bushs Idealist administration have labeled Iran as one of the Axis of evil (Moody, 1990). Due to its unrelenting support on Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite insurgents, extremists groups, commitment to destroy Israeli state and its partnership with North Korea who supplied it with sophisticated weapons, nuclear materials and hiring nuclear scientist in developing nuclear weapons. After the Bush Administration Iran is still a threat to the U.S. political and economic interests in the Middle East as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is very vocal in insisting on Irans right to acquire nuclear technology. The said president insists that such technology is for Irans energy program and for peaceful purposes but no one in the Western hemisphere is convinced, which also includes Israel-Irans mortal enemy. It has been noted that President Ahmadinejad once threatened to annihilate Israel (McCarthy, 2010). Such move of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambition is not only threatening the interests of the U.S. and Israel but also the E.U. and Sunni Arab states. As usual when there is a perceived threat like this the West are quick to offer some concession to the said rogue state by economic offers as a way to deter it from pursuing nuclear ambition. As the U.S. and its allies choose to reward this heinous behavior with a seat at the negotiating table certainly absent an unambiguous, verifiable foreswearing of terror promotion (McCarthy, 2010). Such move by the West is defined as Patient Diplomacy of which the present realist U.S. administration under Obama is employing towards Irans nuclear ambition. U.S. Policy Towards Iran Nevertheless, many idealist political experts believe that Patient Diplomacy is not the best approach by the Obama Administration and the rest of the global community to Irans nuclear ambition. It is because Iran despite of its being republican in form is also intertwined with strong element of extremism as its present president epitomizes it through his rhetoric statements and political views towards Israel and the U.S. As the staunch rival of the dominant Sunni states Iran as a Shiite nation has to find the ways and means to be a dominant military state in the Middle Eastern region for the purpose of earning the respect of the rest of the Muslim world by making itself a hero to the Palestinian cause/struggle against Israeli occupation and being a powerful enemy of the great Satan-the United States. As Iran strongly believes that possessing such weapon of mass destruction is the only way it would earn respect from the U.S., its allies and Israel. In addition, the said Shiite nation has seen the inconsistency and hypocrisy hounding the UN members themselves particularly the U.S. and its allies [who possess tons of nuclear

arsenals] plus its almost blind and unrelenting support to Israel in the expense of the Palestinians. How to handle Iran? The idealist would assert that the only way to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambition is through the use of decisive force or military solution. But such option however, is not what the world needs right now as the latter is still recovering from the recent global economic crisis and the complexities brought by the climate change, growing numbers of extremist, socio-political unrest and dwindling natural resources. In short, the global community cannot afford to instigate a major conflict in the Middle East because the said region as of the present is the very lifeblood of their respective economies. Plus it could possibly snowballed into a world war and increases the numbers of Islamic extremists That is why the U.N., the U.S. and E.U. nations adopted the realist perspective of Patient Diplomacy. However, such effort seems to be futile from stopping Iran in attaining nuclear technology. In short, Patient Diplomacy is seemingly not the best way to stop Iran considering that they failed to address the hounding issues and reasons that are behind such nuclear ambition. Like the pestering issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, hypocrisy of the nuclear armed nations like the U.S., U.K., France which seem to portray a scenario that they are the only ones who have the right to own such technology or weapons. The issue of vendetta (its unresolved historical conflict with the U.S.), the economic sanctions, religious and political conflicts and intertwined global economic and political interests of the latter is another factor that seemed to motivate Iran to pursue such deadly technology. Irans boldness and determination to pursue its nuclear program is also motivated by the support it gets from Russia (its number one ally and supplier of technology, arsenals and military logistics), China, North Korea and Pakistan (its known suppliers of weapons and nuclear raw materials) and strong alliance with Syria. Afghanistan and its implications on the looming U.S.-Iran conflict On September 11, 2001 the United States have been attacked on its own soil by foreign enemies who executed the said mission successfully killing 3,000 innocent civilians. These attacks were in the form of hijack commercial aircrafts commandeered by Al Qaeda operatives in a suicide mission in plunging the twin towers in New York, and Pentagon in Michigan. According to the article NYC links first death to 9/11 toxic dust the overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse (MSNBC, 2009). The Aftermath of the gruesome and dreadful attacks of 9/11, the United States with the support of the UK, Australia and Northern Alliance invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, which was called by George W. Bush the War on Terror. According to the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan states that:

The military campaign, led by U.S. general Tommy Franks, was initially dubbed Operation Infinite Justice but quickly renamed Operation Enduring Freedom, due to perceived religious connotations of the former. British military operations against Afghanistan were codenamed Operation VERITAS the purpose of Operation Enduring Freedom was to target Osama bin Laden, suspected of planning and funding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, and his terrorist network al-Qaida, as well as the Taliban government in Afghanistan which allegedly provided support to al-Qaida and gave them safe haven (2009) Up the present the United States and some of its NATO allies remain in Afghanistan to continually fighting the illusive Taliban and Bin Laden. Nevertheless, there are noted resurgence of Talibans strength and streams of random attacks all over the country, which have killed increasing number of Americans and their allies. That is why the present U.S. administration is planning to add more troops to the country in order to mitigate the threats of the terrorist group in taking back Afghanistan under their control. The socio-economic and economic landscapes have been powerful factors on how it would start and how it would end. It also shapes military doctrines, national and foreign policies of any nation like the United States. The 9/11 attacks have been the major cause of the transformation of the U.S. foreign policy from being adherent to the doctrine of non-engagement and containment or the so-called policy of Deterrence was abandoned by the Bush administration and adopted the Bush Doctrine a militant form of U.S. Foreign policy-that consequently caused severe damage to the nations global PR image. Because the new Foreign Policy have been the main cause of the highly unpopular 2nd War on Iraq and War in Afghanistan wherein the Obama Administration have no choice but to continue to carry the cross of disgrace created by its predecessor-the 2nd Bush Administration. It has been the main reason why the War on Terror on Afghanistan continues up to the present, which the body count of American soldiers and their allies continues to climb. The new administration had renounced major political, economic, and foreign policies of its predecessor wherein it tries to use foreign diplomacy as way of mending the black eyed global image of the said country but the sad thing is the problem of terrorism continues. It is a fact that Afghanistan poses a direct threat to both the U.S. and its allies considering that there is significant build up of strength of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces on the said country as of the present. The Obama Administration has no choice but to continue The War on Terror the Bush Administration had started. It seemingly cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan because it serves as a direct threat to the U.S. homeland security, its global installation and interests and its allies. As we all know Afghanistan played a very significant role in the 9/11 attacks because it served as the breeding ground of terrorism and ultra-dangerous terrorists. Pulling out the U.S. forces would be too risky to venture and could possibly create another deadly terrorists attacks if the present administration fails to defeat or neutralize the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

The threat of Iran in conniving with the Taliban and Al Qaeda is very real wherein it the latter can be used as the global arsenal of Iran against the U.S., its allies and global installations/interests. Considering that Al Qaeda is much more subtle, has global network, and widely disperse even in the U.S. soil. Iraq and its implications on the looming U.S.-Iran conflict Again, September 11, 2001 attacks have significantly served as a turn point of the U.S. foreign and military policy transforming it from the policy of non-engagement or deterrence to the Bush Doctrine that emphasizes pre-emptive strike. This new doctrine or U.S. Foreign Policy has transformed the U.S. to be a global aggressor that consequently drained away the popularity and moral ascendancy of the said country. Because of the two major wars it had produced the Iraq War and Afghanistan wars, which have also drained billions of dollars of American taxpayers money for years now. It has been noted that the U.S. invaded Iraq to pluck out Saddam Hussein from proper but have made the poor country very unstable up to now and the invasion of Afghanistan to flush out Al Qaeda and Taliban and hunt down Bin Laden the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. It is undeniable that the end of the Bush Administration did not end the two wars in which the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan-the so-called launch pad of the Al-Qaeda forces and the Taliban that poses national security threat on the U.S. and the rest of the globe. The Obama administration inherited the two wars particularly Afghanistan and Iraq wherein it becomes his focus to win the war on terror. But there is another war looming in the Middle which would involved the military powerhouse-which is Iran accused by the U.S. as responsible in sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups. Iran has been labeled by the George W. Bush administration as one of the Axis of Evil due to its stinging criticism on U.S. foreign policy, and its suspected development of Weapons of Mass Destruction like creating nuclear arsenal enough to vaporize Israel, and other U.S. key allies. In fact Iran has strong stakes or political-economic-religious interests in Iraq considering that the majority of the Iraqi populations are Shiites who have been oppressed, exploited and inflicted by its Sunni majority during Saddam Husseins regime. In fact Iran has its bloody history with Iraq during the so-called Iran-Iraq War in the 80s. Nevertheless, when the brutal dictator was toppled by the Americans Iran took the opportunity to exploit the situation by supporting Iraqi insurgents against the U.S. forces and sponsor militant Shiite so they can take control the Iraqi Shiite leaders and the rest of the Iraqi Shiites. According to CRS Report for Congress, Katzman, K. (2007) states that Irans influence over the post-Saddam government in Iraq is substantial and growing because the dominant parties in Iraq have long-standing ties to Tehran. A key U.S. concern is that Iran, seeking to ensure the political prospects of its protges, has expanded support for Shiite militias that are responsible for much of the sectarian violence. Since December 2006, the Administration has stepped up efforts to reverse Iranian influence in Iraq, but some see this as an indication that the Administration intends to confront Iran more broadly. This means that losing Iraq to Iran by the U.S. would mean tremendous havoc on American political and economic interests in the Middle East and it would mean a catastrophic security dilemma for Israel and other key allies in the region and beyond. Conclusion

The best way to avoid a military showdown with Iran is to end the unseemly pandering and infinite patience shown toward Tehran. Even as the extended hand should, indeed, remain available, the cost of refusal must be upped dramatically -- before it is too late. In addition, yes, Iran is vulnerable. Its economy is shaky, domestic fissures have been revealed, and the country is far from being self-sufficientA toughened approach may not be a sure-fire recipe for success. But, then again, waiting, hoping, blustering, and dispensing an occasional slap on the wrist -- the core elements of the global strategy to date -- haven't exactly done the trick, either (Harris, 2010).The approach employed by the present U.S. Administration, E.U. and the U.N. is more of a realist perspective. Realism is a political philosophy that encompasses approaches that give more autonomy to distinctively political thought. This is not meant to imply that politics is amoral or immoral; rather, appropriate standards of evaluation arise from within politics rather than from an external moral standpoint (William, 2005). The so-called Patient Diplomacy employed by the U.S. et al is driven by this philosophy because any form of military action against Islamic states like Iran would only widen the chasm between the West and the Islamic world. Moreover, the only solution in solving such issue is to deal first with the states that support Iran like Russia et al wherein if the latter refused to relinquish such support on Iran then they must be economically sanctioned by the U.N. not by the U.S. and its allies alone. However, because Russia significantly owns nuclear arsenals and has relative economic and military might where such action may be next to impossible or could lead to eventual global armed conflict more catastrophic than WWII. Resolving first the IsraeliPalestinian issue maybe the best solution in stopping Iran in pursuing its nuclear ambitions as the latter tends to intertwine such pestering issue and continued global domination of the U.S. Nevertheless, realistically Irans real agenda is to become a military power in the Middle Eastern region wherein it has the desire to dominate the Sunnis-its staunch religious rival for centuries. In order to attain successful solution that would stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions is through collaborative efforts by the United Nation members and OIC and not through U.S. and its Allies efforts. The U.N. and OIC as global organizations composed of different nations who may be the only political bodies respected by the Muslim world which makes Israelis involvement out of the question. Efforts to implement more aggressive actions or decisive actions like military actions may be seen as legitimate and justifiable solution if it is conducted by the U.N. and OIC in stopping Irans nuclear ambitions (a very remote possibility in the realistic point of view). Irans present socio-political landscapes have obviously regressed from its democratic ideals and its so-called "Democratic Revolution" as seen on its brutal crackdown on the opposition protesters. Alternatively, the U.S. and its allies can formulate strategies (e.g. divide and conquer) that would make the Sunni Arab States become hostile to Iran by capitalizing on the latter is real ambition and agenda-to dominate the Muslim world. Because once Iran owns nuclear warheads no Sunni Arab states would be able to resist Irans political and economic agendas and the spread of Shiite Islam. This scenario tends

to portray that Iran is more an extremist state, which makes it a very possible threat to global peace and stability if it is able to acquire nuclear arsenals. Another option the U.S., its allies and Israel should employ is through the use of W Comprehensive Diplomatic Engagement. It is a form of psycho-emotional interaction between opposing camps (e.g. the U.S., Israel, Iran, Palestinians and Sunni Arab states). The arbiters or organizers of the peace negotiations must be composed of OIC and UN representatives respected by the opposing camps must possess emotional intelligence, pro-active and creative skills that would create synergy on the opposing parties complex interests or agendas to come up with win-win solutions for the conflicts like IsraeliPalestinian issue, U.S.-Iran historic conflict, Irans controversial nuclear ambition and the Arab-Israel conflicts. The negotiators of opposing parties must eliminate elements of idealism and extremism and replace it with proactive, mature, realistic, practical and globalist attitude or perspective in order to come up with Win-Win solution design to diffuse the tension and hostility between the Palestinians and Israelis, Arab and Israelis, U.S. and Iran in order to illegitimatize the latters nuclear ambition. It is because if the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis it would snowball into significant diffusion of Arab-Israeli conflict, U.S.-Arab enmity and consequently makes Iran is nuclear ambition becomes unnecessary. Moreover, if Iran insists on pursuing nuclear ambition then its real agenda will be exposed which makes it the new enemy of the Sunni Arabs and other Muslim states in the region. Face-to-face communication is considered the most effective way of establishing rapport and mutual understanding between conflicting nations, especially in working out with the highly emotionally charge and pestering issue of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Nevertheless, before such negotiation takes place, the government heads and ambassadors of the negotiating nations must first separate the people from the problem. Once we separate the people from the issues, both sides can focus on the issues and retain a professional working relation between them. We must address the issue of difference itself, keeping ourselves and the discussions focused, and ensure that it does not become personal. As this can and will only waste time, and lead us away from the substantive "heart of the matter (Shapiro, 2006, p.105). The focus must be on interests (which is the collective interest of all the nations in the Middle East and the global community), not positions (hidden political-economic agendas); generate options for mutual gain; and insist on using objective, proactive, global, practical, achievable, and realistic criteria in order to attain an objective outcome that will produce collective benefits for all parties involved as well as the global community. If tensions prop out during the negotiation become too overwhelming, it will be appropriate for them to have an arbiter (e.g. U.N. Head, or a third party nation leader who is highly respected by all parties). The said conflicting nations must not appoint patriotic, emotional, and extremist negotiators, but only the best, proactive and most objective persons.

The negotiating panels of nations must be bound with a common vision and set of values with strong determination to finally end the conflict and create a socio-political and economic landscapes in the Middle East that do not need any nuclear weapons. They must communicate extensively in sharing accurate information, sincere opinions, concerns and learning. They must work in order to make decisions and fulfill all obligations arising out of mutual commitments, with realistic expectations of high selfaccountability, mutual accountability and accountability to their respective citizenry and to the global community. Human interaction, individual differences, interests, and complexities are the elements that usually cause conflict in any society, organization, nation, or community of nations. In order to resolve such inevitable friction, open communication is vital. Communication is the key to mutual understanding. Conflict can be prevented, minimized, and even resolved through open communication, which allows opposing parties to connect and know the mind of the other. Hearing both sides of the story and deciding on a convergence that meets the best interests of both are essential steps to conflict resolution which of course applicable in resolving Irans nuclear ambitions. Patient Diplomacy as being implemented at the presents is therefore futile and more decisive, immediate, but proactive and strategic approach is needed before such problem would become a dreadful global crisis.
References Harris, D. (2010). Irans nuclear program: crunch time. The Huffington Post Oxford University. Retrieved 10 Sept. 2010 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/irans- nuclear-programcru_b_302719.html. Williams, B. (2005). In the beginning was the deed: realism and moralism in political argument Princeton. Princeton University Press. Moody, S. (1992). Bush doctrine: exporting hypocrisy in the Middle East. McCarthy, A. C. (2006). Whither the Bush doctrine?. National Review Retrieved 10 Sept. 2010 from Karsh, E. (2002). The IranIraq War, 19801988. Osprey Publishing, p. 22 Amuzegar, J. (1993). Irans economy under the Islamic republic. Victoria House. Shapiro, D. (2006). Teaching students: how to use emotions as they Negotiate. Negotiation Journal. New York. vol. 22, issue 1, p. 105. Katzman, K. (2007). Irans influence in Iraq. CRS Report to Congress. Retrieved 10 Sept. 2010 from http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/80209.pdf MSNBC. (2009). NYC links first death to 9/11 toxic dust. Retrieved 10 Sept. 2010 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831750/ Economic Expert (2009) U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan, Economic Expert website, Retrieved 11 September 2010 from http://www.economicexpert.com/a/U:S:invasion:of:Afghanistan.htm