Germany, Israel, Iran

"Germany, Israel, Iran”

On September 28, 2009, Iran reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guards had successfully test-deployed medium-ranged, liquid-fueled Shahab-3 missiles, along with solid-fueled Sejil-2 missiles. The report came just days after the United States, France, and Britain had used disclosed information of what was once a secret nuclear processing plant that was under construction in Iran. The three nations had disclosed this information to impose a stronger sense of urgency that a threat exists with Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium. Iranian officials had claimed that the launchings were peaceful in nature, but also claimed that the missiles were capable of reaching any nation that poses a threat to Iran (Cowell & Fathi, 2009). The news was very confrontational in all Europe and Russia, but for the purpose of my report I will be focusing on how the behavior of Iran affects Germany; more to the point, how Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany should handle the threat posed by advances of nuclear technology in Iran.

Iran’s capital, Tehran is located approximately 2,179 miles linear from Germany’s capital, Berlin. The maximum range of the Shahab-3 and for the Sejil-2 missiles are approximately 990 miles (Vick, 2007), and 1200 respectively (Sanger & Fathi, 2009). The ranges on these missiles are not even enough to strike targets within 500 miles of Germany’s most southeastern borders from Iran’s most northern border, but Iran would not have to destroy targets within Germany to cause major damage to German Interests. Obviously Chancellor Merkel is going to be concerned with the thought of rockets threatening any targets within the European Union, but one state, Israel, should have her much more concerned. The worry is that Iran is becoming closer to creating a nuclear warhead that will match the 1000 pound capacity of these rockets so that it may be fired at Israel whose state neither denies nor confirms having nuclear weapons (Cohen, pp. 11-12).

Israel is a state that was born out of the holocaust as masses of Jewish Europeans began immigrating to Palestine against British authority after World War II. Instead of continuing to imprison captured Jews, the British decided to turn the problem over to the United Nations. It was decided by the United Nations that the Jews would have their own state within Palestine. Until then, Palestine had been largely controlled by Arabs until German property in Palestine was confiscated by British authority after Germany was defeated in 1918. By 1922, German influence in Palestine had been restored as Germany began to see economic value in trade that was occurring. By 1925, the Zion movement had brought many Jewish European settlers to Palestine where Germans credited the Arab population as being unwilling to develop postwar Palestine, and instead credited the development to Jewish capitol and labor (Nicosia, pp. 7-10).

According to the CIA’s World Factbook, Iran currently has a population of 66,429,284. Of the total population, roughly 59,122,062 are Shia Muslim, 5,978,636 are Sunni Muslim and 1,328,586 belonging to other religious affiliations including Judaism (Central Intellegence Agency, 2009). While not having directly threatened the destruction of Israel, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made many public statements claiming that the holocaust was a myth and anti-Zionist claims that the regime that reigns over Jerusalem be “wiped off the map” (Bronner, 2006). The anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic remarks made by Ahmnadinejad in conjunction with test firing the medium-range missiles would suggest to Germany that Iran was demonstrating their technology in attempt to show the power and capability of their state, and to intimidate opposing nation states with the ability to strike Israel if provoked.

Chancellor Merkel is left in a tough situation. Germany has the fifth largest economy in the world and is ranked first in exports with 72 percent of its exports remaining in Europe. Germany also ranks second only behind the United States in imports largely due to Germany’s consumption of energy which is supplied largely by Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. These states are known to be volatile and problematic within the international community (Covarrubias & White, pp. 49-54). The problems concerning the United States coming to an agreement with Russia on how antiballistic missile defense systems was crucial not only to German security, but to Israeli security and German political policy.

It has been Germany’s foreign policy that the use of “constructive engagement” can be used to build a standing relationship with Iran. Germany’s current ethos is set largely in part by humiliation of the holocaust. The implication of soft power instruments as opposed to hard power is meant to assure that politics are used when attempting resolve global and domestic issues as opposed to the hard power of force, which is to be used as a final measure (Covarrubias & White, p. 58). This is one reason why Chancellor Merkel had asked that the 20 warheads being stored within Germany’s borders be removed. As part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Germany agreed to not partake in the manufacturing of new nuclear warheads. Instead, it has shared use of 160 warheads with the United States (Dempsy, 2009). It is also policy for Germany to view Iran as a rational actor; however, this policy may not be the wisest seeing as President Ahmadinejad has not shown himself to be exactly rational.

In the theory of Realpolitik we have used analogy of the billiard ball effect. This analogy describes how the balls of a billiards table can be thought of as nation states acting and reacting to pressure applied by a larger billiards ball. Each ball is proportional in size to its corresponding relative actor. With this method, we can conclude that each rational actor must accept the imposition of larger state actors. If this is the case then there should be little to deal with when matters come to Iran. Even though Iran is a sovereign nation, it is still less powerful than Germany when it comes to military and purchasing power. So, why has Iran not accepted that it can either accept Germany, along with other larger actors, as superior states or be destroyed?

We can conclude from Ahmnadinejad’s missile testing and unwillingness to negotiate with world actors on nuclear policy that, by Realpolitik (unfortunately called systemic realism by nation-states) that he is not acting rational. Germany, however, would not be a realist actor. This is not to say Merkel is not realistic in her goals, but that she would be more toward Germany’s ideals on politics without force. Idealists believe that democracies will never fight other democracies but will fight those who impose upon democracy.

If Iran does choose to continue with nuclear production, Germany will have to face the possibility of war. While Germany is working to diminish nuclear warheads, Iranian leaders are working to develop them and show themselves as a world power capable of creating advanced technological weapons. Since Israel neither confirms nor denies the possession of nuclear warheads, Iran may be inclined to use nuclear force against Israel.

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been the deterring factor of nuclear war since the cold war. Even though the United States has negotiated a new missile shield agreement that is strategically placed to defend against Iranian attack, MAD has remained the world’s number one defense against nuclear attack. It would seem that Iran would be incapable of pulling off a first strike attempt against Israel in that they would unlikely to thwart off a second strike. Even if Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, its allies still are capable of responding with a second strike.

Even though this theory of nuclear destruction being mutually assured is what has been protecting the world from nuclear war, it is extremely scary to think that the only thing that rational states assume that is keeping a state from first strike is that the opposing state is rational enough to care if their nation is destroyed or not. Chancellor Merkel has pushed for negotiations with Iran concerning the halt of any nuclear development and even the removal of warheads shared by the United States from Germany. Not only will Germany’s export trade suffer if any European state is damaged from a nuclear strike, but the human rights Germany has upheld in their nation since the end of World War II will be imposed upon, as nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately.

As we saw the rioting that occurred in the streets of Tehran over Ahmadinejad declaring himself the victor over his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi, Iranian citizens do not wish for the tactics and leadership of Ahmandinejad; therefore, it would be unfair to use indiscriminate force against the state. Chancellor Merkel also sees that Ahmandinejad wishes to return Israeli land back to Islam. Any attempt to deny a state to exist is a pure violation of human rights (Fathi & Worth, 2009). This is why Chancellor Merkel will choose to side with the missile defense shield set in place to defend against missile attack from Iran and will continue policy against nuclear development in Iran.









Works Cited

Bronner, E. (2006, June 11). Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Central Intellegence Agency. (2009, November 11). Middle East: Iran. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Central Intellegence Agency - World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

Cohen, A. (1998). Israel and the Bomb. New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Covarrubias, J., & White, C. (2007). Germany and the Middle East. In J. Cavarrubias, T. Lansford, J.
Cavarrubias, & T. Lansford (Eds.), Strategic Interests in the Middle East: Opposition or Support for US Foreign Policy (pp. 49-54). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Cowell, A., & Fathi, N. (2009, September 29). Iran Test-Fires Missiles That Put Israel in Range. The New York Times , pp. A-12.

Dempsy, J. (2009, October 28). Ridding Germany of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html

Fathi, N., & Worth, R. F. (2009, June 15). Defiance Grows as Iran's Leader Sets Vote Review. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html?sq=iran%20protest%20riot%20presidential%20election&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

Nicosia, F. R. (2000). The Third Reich and The Palestine Question. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Sanger, D. E., & Fathi, N. (2009, May 20). Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html?scp=1&sq=Iran%20Test-Fires%20Missile%20With%201,200-Mile%20Range&st=cse

Vick, C. P. (2007, February 15). Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm

Dear America's Toughest Sheriff

Flag Burning as Iconoclasm

“One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” were the words we would repeat from our muscle memory. We had no idea what we were pledging allegiance to, less what the words pledge and allegiance even meant. Yet we pledged ourselves day in and out before this flag. The flag detail ceremony is highly prized by many Americans. They stand tall and proud as it is being raised and lowered. To these Americans, the flag represents their country, their god, and above all, their freedom. But what freedom is exactly held sacred beneath this flying flag?
There are several laws governing the display of a flag. If broken, they are punishable and can even amount to jail time. In the case of William B. Mummford, the removal of the flag was death(1). The cost of dropping the flag is that it must be burned. Many protestors have used flag burning in demonstration. I feel this is stating that America is falling and we will burn if we do not take action. However, the Citizens of Flag Alliance does not agree my feelings. The alliance states that the flag represents our unity and that our system of democracy, constitutional rights and freedoms are all unified by our flag. “It is our ‘trademark’.” Corporate America. I’m reminded by a scene from Chuck Palahniuk’s book Fight Club where the members of Project: Mayhem are set on a quest to kill two birds with one stone by destroying a piece of corporate art and a franchise coffee shop.
Even though burning the flag is seen to be unjustly by many, the case has been brought up all often in the past few decades. In 1989, Texas man named Gregory Johnson was tried and convicted for burning the U.S. flag in protest of the reelection of President Reagan(3). Even though there is no federal Supreme Court decision of flag burning as being unlawful, there are certain fire and peace codes the courts may arrest you for. The court’s decision was later appealed as there was no evidence that Johnson had actually endangered any one’s wellbeing(4).
I believe that as a symbol of freedom, we should be free to display the American flag in any way we choose. If that means flying it over a lighted path, draping from our door, modeling it into clothing, or laying it ablaze on the sidewalk while urinating on it to put it out, then so be it. Anti-flag burning members argue that our forefathers died for that flag, but I believe they could not die for something as vain as a flag. It was what the flag represented; our freedom to speak and be heard. To express ourselves in the manner that best displays our feelings and emotions; that and not having to pay taxes.

None

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Homosexuality is a term that refers to the sexual relationship held between members of the same gender. Most recently this lifestyle has been looked down upon and has forced many to remain “in the closet” about their sexual desires. However, this was not the case for boys and older men in ancient Greece.

The term homosexual was not used to describe the relationship that was held between two males during the classical Greek period. The relationship that was commonly depicted on much of the classical Greek pottery was known as "paiderastia" which translates to “boylove”(1) . This was the relationship that existed when an adult male selected a junior “eromenos” male from a separate family. Upon approval of the boys family, the adult male (referred to as a “erastes”) was to take the boy to a andreian clubhouse where the boy was to receive gifts. Afterward, the two would spend 2 months in the countryside where the adult was to teach the young junior to hunt and fight (Halperin, 56).

Halperin writes that it was ritual for the erastes to give the eromenos their first sexual experience. Much like women of the time, the young eromenos was not to enjoy the experience. He was to accept the dominance of the older male. Halperin stated that even though copulation was ideally achieved without penetration as to spare effemination of the eromenos, this was not usually the case (Halperin).

Conflicting writings have may have stated that Halperin’s findings of domination in the young male may have been skewed slightly from how most men felt about their younger partners. Thomas K. Hubbard at University of California has translated a recorded dialect that was held between Syracuse ruler, Hieron and the poet Sinonides of Ceos. In the conversation Hieron states that as a tyrant, he does not enjoy taking from the boy what he could just simply ask for.

“For when a boy loves you in return, how sweetly he looks back at you, how sweetly he asks questions, how sweetly he answers; and the sweetest of all and the most erotic is when he fights with you and argues. But to enjoy the charms of an unwilling boy," he said, "seems to me to be more like robbery than love-making. In fact, a robber at least gets some pleasure from his profits and from making his enemies unhappy; but for a man to take pleasure in the unhappiness of the person he loves and to be hated in return for his love and to force himself on someone he makes miserable: how could this not be a nasty, debasing experience?” (2).

This dialog also has me curious on exactly how women were treated. If the statues of Aphrodite were placed in rooms to be seen as statues of erotic behavior, shouldn’t have female partners been looked at in the same respect as the young male partners? After all, was it not the women that were mothers of these great, masculine men?

In some cases, affairs between women were documented in the poems of Sappo, a poet from the island of Lesbos. In her poems she glamorizes the Spartan women for their athleticism and freedom to compete nude with the young male Spartans (3).

The homosexual love affairs between Greek soldiers was also common. One instance is Achilles and Patroclus. An image depicts Achilles bandaging his friend Patroclus and is seen as being homoerotic by many scholars. The relationships were held valuable by the soldiers in that it was thought to be that one would fight harder for one's lover than they would for one's neighbor. Homer noted this in the mistake of organizing troops by village than by friendship (5).

Today, homosexuality is regarded as culturally unacceptable in Greece. The citizens of Greece for most have denied the relationships held between the same sexes of their early ancestors. The 2002 movie “Alexander” shows the homosexual relationship held between Alexander the Great and his childhood friend, Hephaistion. The film was a flop in Greece as it was in theaters for only 4 days (6).

Although homosexuality is seen as morally wrong in today’s Christian dominated culture, ancient Classical Greece was in a different time with far different cultural concerns. As the world became more involved with a single creator, it became more involved with self-control. The Greeks had not concerned themselves with forbidden as Christians did. The Greeks figured the desirable was okay just as long as it was not in excess. They felt that they had these urges for their male partners for a reason and the morality should not be an issue (Foucault, 68).

Bibliography

5. Aeschylus: Translated by Anthony Hecht and Helen H. Bacon. (1991). Seven Against Thebes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Halperin, D. M. (1990). One Hundered Years of Homosexuality: and other essays on Greek Love. 29 West 35 Street, New York, NY 10001: Chapman and Hall, Inc.

4. Hubbard, T. K. (2003, April). 2.4: Xenophon, Hieron 1.29-38. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome: http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ancienthomosexuality/readindex.php?view=18

1.Oxford Classical Dictionary: The ultimate Refference Work on the Classical World. Third Edition Revised. (2003). Entery on ancient Greek homosexuality. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

3. Sappic Love. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2007, from http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Plat.+Sym.+191&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166