5 Fundamental Facts About The Middle East & Oil

Bonus fact: gasoline is really just exploding dinosaurs

Who doesn't love cheap gasoline? Besides oil companies, North Dakota, and the overall global economy, nobody! The past year has seen a remarkable decline in oil prices, to the point where a drive from coast to coast can cost under $200. This has been great for the average consumer, but the global economy seems to be struggling to enjoy the benefits of a cheap car ride. Everyone knows the Middle East plays a big part in the petroleum trade (it's even become a classic and slightly racist TV trope!), but few understand exactly how this relationship works. Here are five major ways the Middle East and the global oil trade collide.

Wadiya Think Of My Fake Country?

It's All About The Petrodollars

One of the biggest changes to the global oil market occurred in the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon convinced the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to permanently measure its supply of oil in American dollars.  Prior to that, oil was quoted in whatever currency it was being traded in (dollars, yen, rupees, Galleons...).  This created a huge demand for American dollars since now everyone suddenly had to start trading in dollars to get any oil!  This gave America quite a bit of control over the petroleum market, even though America could not gain OPEC status at the time.  Other oil-rich countries like Venezuela and Iran want to switch to the Euro, but it's unlikely the U.S. will allow that to happen anytime soon.

Thanks Dick!

Even if Europe suddenly decides it wants to trade oil in its (controversial yet Greece-approved) currency, it is unlikely much would change because....

Saudi Arabia Calls Most Of The Shots

Ok, this one is a slight exaggeration.  Saudi Arabia does not have the (near) complete stranglehold on the global petroleum market that it used to, but the Kingdom's power in influencing global oil prices should not be underestimated.  Historically, Saudi Arabia has acted as a "swing producer."  No, this doesn't mean the Saudis are dancing to jazz music or swapping companions for a night (both of which are probably illegal in the Kingdom anyway).  Swing producer refers to the ability of Saudi Arabia to raise or lower the price of global oil at will simply by adjusting its own production levels.  The other Persian Gulf oil states (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the U.A.E.) can also help influence prices, but Saudi Arabia's 13% market share and ability to produce at least 12 million barrels per day means it is still a strong player.  The 1973 Oil Embargo, triggered by Saudi Arabia, is a harsh reminder of that.

Thanks Faisal!

Now before you grab your pitchforks and start getting angry at Saudi Arabia, remember that the role of swing producer has actually helped stabilize the market on several occasions.  During the Iran-Iraq war (when Iran and Iraq decided to massacre each other for almost ten years), Saudi Arabia compensated for the loss of both Iran and Iraq's oil supplies (since that was basically the first thing to get bombed) by raising its own production substantially.  This helped prevent a major oil catastrophe just as the United States and Europe were recovering from in 1970s oil shock.

Saudi's share of the oil market has declined in recent decades, so it isn't quite the global price fixer that it used to be.  This might be why the Kingdom has been flooding the market with cheap oil to keep prices down.  This strategy helps eliminate the Kingdom's competition (Russia, North Dakota's emerging oil market...), but also has the drawback of creating massive budget deficits.  Most of Saudi Arabia's power is based on its oil wealth, so you can rest assured that the Kingdom will begin trying to raise prices long before it gets into any serious trouble with its people.

Now THAT'S a welfare state!

Oh yeah, and there is one other potential oil producer Saudi Arabia is looking to undercut.

 

Iran Is Re-Entering The Global Oil Market

Few Middle East rivalries are more dramatic than that of Saudi Arabia and Iran.  We just covered this in detail in a couple previous posts, but relations have been pretty tough between these two since the 1979 Revolution.  Since then, the Kingdom and the Islamic Republic have been arguing continuously over which nation better represents Islam (hint: it's neither).  The hostile relations enjoyed by both countries (which has way more to do with regional power than just religion) is currently playing out in the global oil market as well.

I know that you're a a false prophet, but what am I?!

The recent deal struck over Iran's nuclear development program has also opened up Iran to begin selling petroleum to Europe again.  Previously, Iran had primarily been selling to Asian countries (China, India, Japan).  The lifting of many sanctions now means that Iran can sell directly to European markets, which some estimate can climb as high as 4 million barrels per day.  This is one reason oil prices have been falling so hard these past few weeks.  The escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran will probably continue to create uneasiness in the oil market for quite some time (setting fire to Saudi embassies and executing Iranian-backed protesters tend to leave a bad impression).  But fortunately, the United States will be somewhat sheltered from this instability because...

The United States Isn't That Dependent On Middle East Oil.....But Asia Is

Quick, where does the United States get most of its imported oil?  It's not Saudi Arabia, but it is another barren wasteland with extreme temperatures and funny hats.  It's Canada!  That's right, America imports roughly 37% of its oil from the land of hockey and maple syrup (and poutine).  Even at the height of the American-Saudi oil trade, the U.S. only imported about 35% of its oil from the Kingdom.  Now, only about 20% of American oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. We also produce nearly 9 million barrels internally, and may soon begin exporting our own oil to foreign markets.  All this means that the United States is mostly prepared to handle a Road Warrior type situation where Saudi and Iran try their luck in the oil market Thunderdome.

Two Countries Enter, One Country Leaves!

So America might be able to weather this (strictly hypothetical) crisis, but Asia will have a much harder time.  As alluded to before, China, India, and Japan import a massive amount of their oil from the Persian Gulf countries.  After many countries in the United States and Europe began diversifying away from Persian Gulf (read: Arab) oil for reasons such as economic dependence, relations with Israel), Saudi and Iran began looking towards Asian markets as future long-term buyers.  Since Asia's economic power is now directly tied to the Middle East, the region will remain extremely important even as its relative power in the global oil market starts to decline.  But what happens when we run out of oil, you say?

There's No Such Thing As "Peak Oil"

Nearly every year we hear the same doomsday scenarios about how the world is only 100, 50, or 10 years away from completely running out of oil.  These people probably own stock in renewable energy companies because the simple truth is that "peak oil" (this idea that we have already exhausted or will soon exhaust the majority of oil supplies) doesn't really exist.  Most of the time, when people talk about peak oil, they are referring to oil reserves that are both proven and accessible (after all, much of the world's known oil is just too hard to get at).  To be sure, the era of super cheap and easy to extract oil is starting to fade, but there are still hundreds of billions of barrels of oil which can still be recovered to turn a profit.

These estimates of the end of global oil forget that the petroleum industry is evolving over time.  Like a combustible energy T-Rex, petroleum technology continues to adapt to its surroundings, finding new and more ingenious ways of extracting oil.  Only a couple decades ago, oil from shale and tar sands was all but excluded from consideration.  As this technology is developed, it drives down the cost of extracting hard to reach oil.  In another couple years, drilling and extraction technology can easily open up new oilfields which were previously considered impossible or too costly to mine.

And yet this still happens!

The real threat to the global oil market is, of course, renewable energy.  Hydroelectric, solar, and nuclear power is far cleaner, more sustainable, and (sometimes) more efficient.  As we continue to innovate, even more efficient and sustainable energy production methods will slowly replace fossil fuels as the world's primary energy supply.  Though every nation will be changed by this, perhaps no region will feel these effects more than the Middle East.  If countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran do not take care to diversify their economies (like the U.A.E. has done), they will be left behind in the global economy. Fortunately for now, who wants to invest in renewable energy when gas is so cheap!

Time to buy a Hummer!  This won't be a bad decision in five years.

What Is America's Strategy In Iran?

"It is imperative as a matter of fundamental principles of diplomacy of multilateral relations, and frankly of wielding the great power of potentially going to war, that you exhaust all the diplomatic possibilities before you ask young men and women to put their lives on the line." -John Kerry

Secretary of State John Kerry & Iran Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

When a group of student militants seized the American embassy in Iran during the Revolution of 1979, everyone knew that American-Iranian relations would never be the same.  Iran's revolution, sparked in part by the actions of Iran's brutal (and American-backed) Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, resulted in the complete upending of the balance of power in the Middle East.  Iran perceived itself as surrounded by new enemies, and its aggressive actions in the following years helped ensure that became true.  Now, after decades of sanctions and isolation, Implementation Day has arrived in Iran.  A critical part of the recent international agreement surrounding Iran's nuclear development program, Implementation Day saw the lifting of many (but not all) trade sanctions against Iran.  Though controversial, this is part of a long strategy by the current administration to slowly bring about change in Iran.  This week, we investigate the long-term strategy for American-Iranian relations.

This Tends To Send A Bad Message

First of all, what are these sanctions anyway?  Basically, sanctions are large international agreements which tend to be directed towards specific nations.  In the case of Iran, these agreements are designed to prevent Iran from having access to the oil trade, stop certain officials from engaging in international banking, and block Iranian access to American made aircraft for commercial use.  Iran has also had substantial resources and assets frozen in international banks, meaning that Iran is likely to receive between $55 and $100 billion dollars in the coming months.  Though not all sanctions have been lifted (and most American businesses still cannot conduct affairs with Iran), Iran is set to receive a substantial boost from this development.  In all, Implementation Day means that Iran will effectively rejoin the international community as a participating member.

Also Carpets, They Can Trade Carpets Again!

Implementation Day has been directly connected to the negotiations of Iran's nuclear development program.  The major points of this have been reviewed several times on this blog, but what are the long term implications for the non-military strategy of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?  Essentially, the United States is seeking to change Iran's behavior by opening up the country rather than keeping it closed off and isolated.  The basic theory behind this is that as Iranians become more exposed to the outside world, they will want to take a greater part in it.  As the nation and its people become more dependent (and connected with) the outside world, they will be less likely to accept their government pursuing policies which threaten this relationship.  In short, either the Iranian government would have to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons entirely, or its people would eventually try to change their government.

Of course, this Liberal International Order (everyone trades with each other and holds hands) is somewhat idealistic.  But this has worked to generally prevent large scale conflict and promote international cooperation for decades.  Known as the Economic Peace Theory (or McDonald's Peace Theory if you are hungry enough), this idea states that countries with strong economic ties (and a McDonald's) very rarely go to war with each other.  Countries can still have substantial disagreements, but economic partners simply have too much to lose to risk going to war with each other.  In short, by opening Iran up to international markets and global influence, the West is looking to change Iranian behavior through persuasion and positive reinforcement (as opposed to the coercion of bombs and sanctions). 

The Great Peacekeeper Of Our Time

Will this strategy work?  Right now it is too early in the process to tell.  However, there are promising signs that Iran is looking to start a new chapter in its international relations.  Iran has a very large youth population (nearly 60% are under the age of 30), and these people are often far less enamored with the establishment than previous generations have been.  They hold a much more positive opinion of the United States and are typically less enthusiastic about Iran's radically religious government.  Still, Iran's clerics and the Revolutionary Guard force hold a lot of power in government.  Protests like the 2009 Green Revolution (which disputed the re-election of president Ahmadinejad) have been a sign in this favor of this direction, but it will take time (and the involvement of global influence) for substantial changes to occur.

Green Revolution Protests

Most people in Washington (except those very closely connected to Iran's regional enemies) want the same thing: a friendly and stable Iran, but they differ on the best approach to this.  Some want to bring about change through coercive force (more sanctions, bombing, further isolation), but this strategy has produced few meaningful results in several decades (and does little to improve relations).  We have seen the failure of this strategy in places like Iraq in 2003.  Military strikes would only set Iran's nuclear tech development back a few years.  It would also likely enrage the population and further convince Iran's leaders that the world is out to destroy them.  In order to bring about permanent change, the nation (and its people) itself needs to reform.  This only happens by demonstrating both the benefits of cooperation in the international system (sanctions relief, participation in the global economy) and the consequences of rebuking this system (isolation and sanctions).  Participation in the international system is usually very alluring to both governments and the average citizen.  Opening up Iranian markets in a responsible way is the best way to help reform the country in the long term.

TL;DR: Give Iran McDonald's, not bombs.

The Saudi-Iranian Rivalry In Context

"Diplomacy is fundamentally working with people, bringing people together to deal with difficult issues." - John Roos, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan

Can't We All Just Get Along?   (probably not)

Tensions have spiked in recent days between two of the Middle East's dominant powers: Saudi Arabia and Iran.  When Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shia cleric named Nimr al-Nimr (along with 46 others) last week for peacefully protesting the government's discrimination against its Shia population, many Iranians responded by setting fire to the Saudi embassy in Tehran, Iran.  And in response to the torching of its embassy, Saudi Arabia formally severed diplomatic ties to Iran (Bahrain and Sudan, being close allies, also followed suit).  This is essentially the international relations equivalent to giving a country the silent treatment.  But this behavior between the two countries is hardly new.  As we will examine this week, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry goes back much longer than just the past couple of years.

First of all, this is about much more than just the Sunni-Shia religious divide in Islam.  Though Saudi Arabia likes to proclaim itself as the champion of Sunni Islam and Iran does the same for Shia Islam, many Muslims do not look to these regional powers as the embodiment of religious piety.  This dispute has much more to do with the dynamics of nation-state power.  Both countries have large amounts of wealth, resources, and regional power.  Given their very close proximity, it is understandable that the interests of these two nations would inevitably clash.  Like France and Britain before the First World War, Saudi Arabia and Iran are looking to be the uncontested leaders of the region.  However, things weren't always so dramatic across the Persian Gulf.

For part of the 1960s and 1970s, Iran and Saudi Arabia had modestly friendly relations.  During this time, Iran was ruled by the American-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  Both nations enjoyed very favorable relations with the United States and even cooperated on a few regional issues.  However, as with so many things in the Middle East, this fundamentally changed following the 1979 Revolution in Iran.  The new (and extremely fundamentalist) regime was radically opposed to Saudi Arabia (and the United States as well), and relations quickly fell apart as the revolution continued to intensify in Iran.

Iranian Revolution: Ruining Everyone's Plans Since 1979

These problems were magnified greatly during the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980.  Iraq (being a fellow Sunni nation) enjoyed billions of dollars in monetary and weapons support from Saudi Arabia in its vicious war with Iran.  Iran threatened retaliation against Saudi Arabia multiple times (and even laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf to destroy Saudi tanker ships).  Incidents like the killing of over 400 Shia Muslims during a demonstration at the 1987 Hajj in Mecca didn't help the situation either.  Though their mutual condemnation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 helped improve relations somewhat, Saudi Arabia and Iran never fully regained the cooperation they once enjoyed. 

Eight Years Of War and Hundreds Of Thousands Of Casualties Later, Almost Nothing Changed

Today, the Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry is reaching another critical low point.  In Yemen, Saudi Arabia has been directly targeting the Shia Houthi rebels who took over much of the country last year.  These rebels, though not complete puppets of the Iranian government, still enjoy a substantial amount of support from Iran in its effort to create a friendly Shia government in Yemen.  The two are also at odds in Syria and Iraq.  Though both nations claim to be against ISIS, they each support a different faction in the region and are both looking to install weak (and friendly) governments so each can further their own influence in the region.

So what does this all mean for the future of the Middle East?  It is difficult to say this early if the severing of diplomatic ties is a temporary reaction to recent events or a long-term signal of extremely strained relations.  Still, many are worried that this issue could derail the (lukewarm) support these two nations have provided for diplomatic efforts to resolve regional crises like those in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.  Further complicating things, Saudi Arabia has also expressed concerns about the recent deal surrounding Iran's nuclear research program.  But it should be noted that this has less to do with the fear of Iran obtaining a weapon (since the deal makes that extremely difficult within the next fifteen years), and instead has much more to do with the regional power Iran can gain through the lifting of trade sanctions.  But all of this doesn't mean Saudi Arabia and Iran are on the brink of war by any means.  Though each will continue to subvert the influence of the other, both nations know that full-scale war usually creates more problems than it solves.

We All Know How Annoying Trade Sanctions Can Be

In all, Saudi and Iranian relations have hit a recent low point, but this is hardly a new development.  The behavior of each nation means that we are still very far apart from seeing a cooling of tensions or the establishment of friendly relations.  So long as Saudi Arabia continues to export its radical Salafi ideologies to subvert Iran, and so long as Iran's government remains packed with radicals and hardliners, the situation will likely continue to deteriorate.  The difficulty will be in reminding both nations that the other isn't going to go away anytime soon, and convincing each nation to abandon their radical agendas for regional power.  Without this, lasting peace and stability is impossible.  Perhaps the United States can play a role in resolving this, but we ought to be careful not to get dragged too far down into the maelstrom of the Saudi-Iranian conflict. 

TL;DR: Saudi Arabia and Iran have vastly different interests in the Middle East.  This conflict is escalating, but is unlikely to break out into armed aggression.

Is Iraq Winning The War Against ISIS?

“The strongest of all warriors are these two - Time and Patience.” - Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

The Iraqi Army Marching Into Ramadi

The campaign to defeat the so-called "Islamic State" (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of recent ISIS inspired attacks in Paris and California.  Politicians (and presidential candidates especially) have been particularly critical of the U.S.-led effort, describing it as slow and ineffective.  However, recent gains by the Iraqi army against ISIS-held positions are beginning to show the strengths of this initiative.  Just this week, the Iraqi army succeeded in retaking the strategic (and symbolically important) city of Ramadi from ISIS fighters.  This week, we re-evaluate the ISIS strategy and take a look at the battles still to come in this brutal war.

So what is the current strategy being employed by the American-led coalition and the Iraqi government?  Since the fall of Mosul in the summer of 2014 (which involved the embarrassing retreat of the Iraqi military forces), the United States has worked closely with the Iraqi government to rebuild and retrain its military forces.  This is drastically different from the effort to train moderate Syrian rebel forces in Syria (which has largely failed to produce an effective fighting force).  The Iraqi army has begun to succeed in its ground campaign against ISIS, while American (and allied) forces have bombed targets and provided substantial intelligence support.  The United States is also waging a similar strategy with the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq (who are all but independent from the central Iraqi government).  Though not directly working together, these forces are largely focusing on the fight against ISIS and rather than on their own personal political grievances.

An ISIS Compound Being Bombed

The liberation of Ramadi marks a significant milestone in the fight.  It is also part of a series of victories in recent months.  The Iraqi army has retaken nearly half of ISIS held territory and liberated cities like Tikrit, Kobani, and many others throughout Iraq.  Ramadi itself is important in part because of it's position near Iraq's capital Baghdad, and the ISIS-held stronghold of Falljuah.  Just as important is the political significance of Ramadi as the capital of Iraq's Sunni Anbar province.  Winning the support of the Sunni population is key to eliminating ISIS and creating a stable Iraq.  The Iraqi army, who all but abandoned the fight a year ago, is now behaving like a capable and disciplined military force.  In all, ISIS appears to be on the losing side of this fight.

But the war is far from over.  Taking Ramadi is one thing, holding this territory and bringing the fight to other besieged cities is another matter.  ISIS has dug into its positions in Fallujah and Mosul.  Mosul, the administrative "capital" of the Islamic State houses a population of over two million people (many of whom actually support ISIS).  ISIS left a provisional force behind to defend Ramadi (enough to slow their advance, plant explosives, and probably launch an insurgency), but they still maintain an estimated fighting force of several thousand.  The government will also have to provide an enticing political alternative to ISIS control in order to have any chance of preventing ISIS from returning.  Maintaining the peace in a region of intense sectarian differences is problematic.  The ability to hold Ramadi is key, and doing this without upsetting the Sunnis will be critically important. Finally, ISIS still holds significant territory (and the city of Raqqa) in Syria.  Tackling that issue poses an entirely different set of problems.

Though many have criticized the Obama administration for its strategy, few have offered meaningful solutions or drastically different policies.  One of the most extreme alternatives is that the United States should recommit its regular military forces into a ground battle against ISIS.  This strategy, though bold and emotionally appealing, would drastically complicate the long-term prospects for a stable Iraq.  The American military would need to regain the trust of both the Sunni tribes (who felt betrayed by the American backed Shia government) and the Shia (who criticize the United States for not showing enough support).  This is to say nothing of the fact that the Iraqi government has completely rejected the idea of a full American invasion (making the effort illegal in the eyes of international law).  As stated before in this blog, we often overemphasize the ability of the American military to complete all of its objectives.  Though militarily crushing ISIS in Mosul would certainly be achieved, a complete re-invasion would completely eliminate the fragile alliances being forced among moderate forces in Iraq.  In short, we could win the battle, but would almost certainly lose the war.

Everyone's A Critic

But we shouldn't make this all about us.  The real heroes of this fight are the Iraqi and Kurdish forces who are fighting and dying to retake their homelands.  So far, the Iraqi military estimates that it has lost over 6,000 fighters in the war against ISIS, while the Kurds report at least 1,300 casualties in their battle against ISIS in northern Iraq.  Though allied airstrikes and intelligence have proven to be very helpful, the bulk of the sacrifice is being made by Iraqis, for Iraqis.  With any luck, this war can help to bring Iraq's moderate elements together against a force which represents the worst of Iraq's problems.  The sacrifices made and alliances formed during this conflict have a much better chance of producing lasting peace than an American-imposed government.

Didn't Work So Well The First Time

In all, progress is slow, but it is still progress.  We can't let a couple of desperate attacks against in recent months trick us into making a big strategic mistake.  There is certainly room for improvement in this fight, and suggestions to deploy small forces in limited roles aren't completely ridiculous, but let's not pretend that America's allies are still losing this war.  ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the country or to Americans, but it does to the Iraqis and their land.  Ultimately, this is their fight, not ours.  

TL;DR: The Iraqi military (yes that's a real thing) is showing strong signs of improvement in the fight against ISIS.  America needs to be patient and stay the course.

One Small Step For (Wo)man In Saudi Arabia

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - President John Quincy Adams.

Formerly: Vote AND Die In Saudi Arabia

This past week, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia held municipal elections.  Given that the Kingdom is known for it's position as one of the last remaining absolute monarchies in the world, this development is somewhat remarkable.  Even more remarkable was the participation for the first time of women in the political process.  In all, nearly twenty women were elected to local positions in municipal government throughout the country.  Saudi Arabia is well-known for it's lack of women's rights (and basic representational government for that matter).  So are these elections a turning point for women in Saudi Arabia, or just a sham to make the Kingdom look good?

Saudi Women Registering To Vote

Since it's founding in 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an absolute monarchy controlled by the Saudi royal family.  The royal family contains around seven thousand people, many of whom are appointed to key government positions by the King (currently King Salman).  Citizens are sometimes allowed to petition the King on Saudi policy, but for the most part citizens have no real say in their government, human rights practices, or domestic and foreign policy.  From a Western perspective, this type of absolute control seems unsustainable.  After all, why would people support a government they can't change?  The answer lies in Saudi Arabia's vast petroleum wealth.  The country is able to provide the means of employment and success for nearly all of its citizens, so they often see few reasons to upset the status quo unless their quality of life decreases. 

Luckily Oil Lasts Forever!

So the recent elections have now included women in the political process.  This is a (small) step towards improving women's rights, but there are still vast differences and inequalities.  For instance, women cannot drive and usually need a male escort to go out in public.  Saudi society typically relegates a woman's role to maintaining the household and refraining from public life.  What drives this extreme conservatism?  Saudi Arabia adheres to an extremely strict form of Islam known as Wahhabism.  Named after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, this interpretation takes an extremely literal interpretation of the original texts of the Qu'ran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad.  While most other interpretations of Islam also highly regard these sources, most of them attempt to view their messages within the context of the time they were written.  Since these sources are over 1,500 years old, literal interpretations can seem very out of date in a modern context.  The Saudi family formed a strong alliance with al-Wahhab in the 1700s, and this partnership has lasted ever since. 

Scandalous!

However most other Arab and Muslim countries are not nearly as strict.  Some have nearly equal rights for women and have more representational systems of government.  They have also adopted much milder interpretations of Islam (and some are completely secular).  It is important to remember  that Islam originally gave women far more rights then they had enjoyed in the centuries before Muhammad.  The first Muslim community actively worked toward a more equal system (though there were still massive differences by modern standards).  It was generally assumed that men served public roles while women served in private life, but equal importance was to be given to each role.  Unfortunately, some interpretations seem to have lost sight of this original breakthrough in women's rights.

Still, the situation of women is gradually improving in the Kingdom.  Women are increasingly finding roles in professional careers and attending schools at an unprecedented level.  In Saudi society, women's rights are just one section of a much larger change in traditional society which challenges the well-established political/religious order.  There is also increased scrutiny on Saudi Arabia's flagrant human rights violations and its policy toward migrant workers.  Plenty of Saudis would like to see more rapid change, but since the government provides nearly all of the keys to success in the country, many often don't see much of a need for (or way to create) changes such as widespread representational government (why change what seems to be working for most people?). 

Polls Showing Support For Women's Rights

In all, this is a modest (though very positive) development for women's rights in the Kingdom.  Though a completely representational government for all citizens (both men and women) would seem ideal from a Western perspective, it would be disingenuous to assume that all countries should adopt our form of democracy (after all, look what that thinking created in Iraq).  Still, there are standards of equality of fair treatment which ought to transcend political ideologies.  A socially,economically, and politically active female workforce is a positive development for the Kingdom's continued growth.  It may be a small step, but to many women in Saudi Arabia, it could become a key turning point.

TL;DR: Women now have about as much political influence as men in Saudi Arabia.  Which isn't that much to begin with.

What Is Sharia Law? ...And Why Is It Always Creeping?

"Well I think this whole notion that somehow we need to say no more Muslims and just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean religious freedom’s been a very important part of our, our history." former Vice President Dick Cheney

Coming To A Supreme Court Near You? (Not Really)

As could only be expected following the (likely) terrorist attack in California last week, the debate over Muslims in American culture has been reignited with predictable veracity.  Some presidential candidates have even gone so far as to suggest that all Muslims be monitored and banned from entering the country.  This is, of course, completely ridiculous and in direct violation of America's founding principles (even Dick Cheney agrees!).  However, others have taken issue with a perceived threat from Islamic law (known collectively as Sharia), believing that America's Muslim population is attempting to make Washington look more like Riyadh.  This week, let's take a look at the reality of Sharia law in America.

That's Where Riyadh Is By The Way

First, it should be strongly noted that Sharia law is not a single, codified set of laws which can be easily and authoritatively referenced for every situation.  Like many other legal systems, it draws from a central set of general precedents, but leaves significant room for interpretation.   Generally speaking, Sharia law draws heavily from the Sunna (reported sayings and examples of the prophet Muhammad), but also contains elements of other ancient legal systems and practices.  There are four main schools of Sunni Islamic thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) and one main school of Shia Islamic thought (Ja'fari).  All of these place a different emphasis on the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), the Qur'an, and previous rulings by early Islamic scholars. 

The Main Schools Of Islamic Jurisprudence Throughout The World

But Sharia is more than just communal legal decisions. A large number of decisions found in the various interpretations of Sharia deal with family and personal life. The word Sharia is derived from the Arabic word for "way" or "path," and is typically used as a guideline for living a virtuous life.  Instructions on personal relationships, prayer habits, and dietary restrictions are the primary emphasis of Sharia practices among most Muslims.  This would include behaviors that are generally considered obligatory (giving of charity), encouraged, discouraged, and forbidden (consumption of pork or alcohol).

But It Tastes So Good!

So why is everyone so afraid of Sharia?  Aside from the general trend of Islamophobia, most people (incorrectly) equate the above mentioned examples with the rigid Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia found in Saudi Arabia (and to an even greater extent in ISIS controlled territory).  Though certainly among the most strict forms of legal jurisprudence in the world, even this has been somewhat mis-characterized.  For instance, though the strictest interpretation for the crime of theft (in the Wahhabi tradition) is the removal of a hand, it is often forgotten that this punishment is almost never carried out in Saudi Arabia.  And to prove adultery, for instance, requires at least four witnesses to the act itself.  This is an intentionally difficult burden of proof, which is often the point of the more strict interpretations. 

Still, such punishments are certainly considered cruel and unusual.  Thus, they are almost all completely incompatible with America's case law system.  Any judge with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence knows that most interpretations of Sharia law (in addition to other less-common forms of legal precedent) would be subordinate to proven and established legal methods of American jurisprudence.  Furthermore, the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of religiously based legal interpretations when they directly contradict American laws and legal precedent.

Don't Worry, This Is Still The Ultimate Law Of The Land

What does "Sharia" actually look like in America?  Typically it takes the form of local councils or private courts which can use some interpretations of Sharia precedent (obviously not the extreme stuff) in family and personal court cases.  In this way, there seem to be a couple limited areas in which some interpretations of Sharia could (theoretically) apply.  For the most part, this would take the form of private civil disputes involving Muslim family members or two Muslim parties.  In these cases, councils would be convened to use established precedents of inheritance, divorce, or other personal matters to resolve disputes (but only if both parties consent to this process).  This is, by and large, the only real possibility of Sharia law being enacted in the United States.  Finally, it should also be noted that Christian and Jewish courts have also operated within the bounds of the American legal system for decades.  They have already established how religiously based legal systems can work within the American system (and have mostly defined the limits of such inclusion).

Most Muslim Countries Only Apply Sharia In Civil Matters

In all, the "battle" over Sharia law in America is predominantly meant to fan the flames of Islamophobia and fear of a perceived loss of "Christian" values in this country.  Almost nobody is seriously considering a Wahhabi-style legal system where apostates are stoned in the street.  However, there may be some room for religiously based precedents to influence private matters between consenting parties in a case (where many would argue the government has no place anyway).  Most importantly, let's remember that the people living in or migrating to the United States from Muslim countries are usually trying to escape the more oppressive forms of Sharia in their homeland, not trying to bring it with them. 

TL;DR: Sharia encompasses a very wide variety of laws and rules and cannot be reduced into one coherent system.  There is absolutely no chance of it taking over the American legal system.

Why Are We So Quick To Want To Go To War?

“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.” -Herbert Hoover

The terror attacks this past week in Paris have dramatically reignited the lingering debate over the best course of action for defeating ISIS (which has been embedded in sections of Iraq and Syria for over a year).  While President Obama seems intent on "staying the course" regarding the current strategy (to provide military and intelligence support for allied groups already living in the region), many other politicians have begun calling for a much more direct confrontation with the so-called "Islamic State."  The desire to avenge those killed in Paris (not to mention Beirut and Baghdad, which few seem to mention) is understandable.  As is the frustration with the slow progress of the current strategy.  But does one major successful attack on a European city truly justify another massive armed intervention in Iraq?  This week's post will examine a few theories to try to understand why Americans seem so trigger happy in regards to the use of military force. 

Obama Defending His Strategy After The Paris Attacks

As much as we may not like to admit it, it should come as no surprise that there is a large cultural divide between the American population and its military.  Those whose lives involve boring commutes, mundane work, and uneventful evenings will probably never truly understand what it is like to be in combat (or to sign away your rights for five years).  On the other hand, those who have spent their entire adult life in the military can sometimes be vastly out of touch with America's rapidly changing society.  Most people seem to either blindly glorify the military or blindly vilify it, while portrayals of veterans seem to either show them as infallible heroes or damaged victims of combat.  Neither of these views are helpful.

Neither Is This

In The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich discusses how this divide is causing serious damage to America's domestic and foreign policy.  In conflicts since the beginning of the Cold War, the American public is increasingly becoming detached from the effects of warfare.  In essence, the American public doesn't understand the true effects of war anymore because the population no longer feels the effects of war.  When America entered the Second World War, for instance, the population experienced constant reminders of the war in daily life.  The draft, rationing, and community war planning organizations all reminded people that war had real and measurable effects for everyone involved.  Nearly every society in history has experienced warfare as a major, life changing event.  Now, as a nation we no longer feel the effects of war in daily life.  The invasion of Iraq commenced without any of these reminders (nobody was drafted, taxes remained the same).  As a result, few people felt any real consequences of the Iraq war besides possibly knowing someone in the military.  Since people don't see the consequences of war anymore, people might become quick to jump to a military solution for global problems.

Go Read It!

The other issue Bacevich mentions is that the American public is quick to forget previous military failures, only taking as cannon the successes of previous military campaigns.  The public tends to cling to reminders of past "stunning" military successes like the Second World War or the First Gulf War, thinking that marching an army into the enemy's capital will mean a clean and decisive military success.  Why bother with long and boring diplomacy when smashing the enemy to bits works better? (In most cases it doesn't.)  Fortunately, the harsh lessons of the Iraq war has helped change this mentality.  However, many people believe that just because the United States has by far the most powerful and advanced military that this guarantees victory.  As Bacevich argues, we assume that our dominant military position is a measure of our inherent greatness as a nation and an affirmation of our values (which we believe should, inherently, be imposed on the world).  On a conventional battlefield this power would likely translate into success, but modern unconventional battles (and especially the fight against ISIS) require far more than just raw power.

How Did That Work Out Again?

This isn't to say that everyone in favor of large-scale military action is ignorant of the horrors of war or the appropriate applications of force in achieving policy goals.  There are a number of senior military officials who support large scale operations to eliminate ISIS.  These individuals understand the sacrifice inherent in warfare.  America's military personnel typically aren't sadists.  They realize that sometimes violence is needed in order to protect the innocent and bring about order.  Nearly everyone recognizes that it will take violence to uproot ISIS from its strongholds, the question is whether the Americans, Arabs, Turks, Kurds, or some combination of these should be the ones to do it. 

In this decision, the American public ought to be very careful and judicious about decisions to go to war.  We are quick to "like" a picture of a soldier's homecoming or say "Thank you for your service" to someone in uniform on Veteran's day.  But do we really understand what that service means?  Months of training, years of living each day on the government's schedule, (not to mention the physical and psychological pain of death or injury sustained from combat) are all wrapped up in the soldier's experience.  We go out of our way to show how much we love the soldiers, but then ignore their needs once they return.  It would be disingenuous to engage in these (self-congratulatory) acts of Facebook patriotism while still voting every time to send these people into battle at every opportunity.  If we presume to have the power to make a decision as complex and dangerous as going to war, shouldn't we at least be able to name the current leader of ISIS?

Hint: It's This Guy

In all, the beauty of American democracy is that the average citizen gets to have some input (albeit indirectly) into decisions like sending its military into combat.  But this is also its curse.  When contemplating a decision like going to war, we ought to remember that war has real and profound effects on both the soldiers fighting it and the people caught in the middle.  This isn't a decision to be made just because we are upset about our allies being attacked or because some have grown impatient regarding the current strategy.  Instead, this decision should be made after careful considerations of all of the benefits and drawbacks of a large-scale sustained commitment.  There are several different courses of action to take against ISIS, so we ought to investigate all of them before immediately jumping to the most interventionist.  You wouldn't presume to tell a cardiologist the best treatment for coronary artery disease, so we shouldn't presume to know how to "solve" the situation in Syria and Iraq without learning about it first. 

TL;DR: The American public hardly feels the true effects of war anymore, making it easy to send someone else to war when some have never had to personally endure it.