MIDDLE EAST CRISIS INTRODUCTION The history of the Middle East region in the past 100 or so years has

been violent. Due to the importance of the region primarily due to the natural resources, geopolitical interests have seen immense power-play at work affecting local populations. This section gives a brief time line of the events that have affected the Jewish and Palestinian people from the creation of the modern state of Israel to the conflicts of today

AIM GENESIS The first time a Western power got soaked in the politics of oil in the Middle East was toward the end of 1914, when British soldiers landed at Basra, in southern Iraq, to protect oil supplies from neighboring Persia. At the time the United States had little interest in Middle East oil or in imperial designs on the region. Its overseas ambitions were focused south toward Latin America and the Caribbean (remember the Maine?), and west toward east Asia and the Pacific. When Britain offered to share the spoils of the defunct Ottoman Empire after World War I in the Middle East,

President Woodrow Wilson declined. It was only a temporary reprieve from creeping involvement that began during the Truman Administration. Its not been a happy history. But its necessary to understand that past, even if only in its general outlines, to better make sense of the present -- especially regarding current Arab attitudes toward the West. Truman Administration, 1945-1952. American troops were stationed in Iran during World War II to help transfer military supplies to the Soviet Union and protect Iranian oil. British and Soviet troops were also on Iranian soil. After the war, Stalin withdrew his troops only when Harry Truman protested their continued presence through the United Nations, and possibly threatened to use force to boot them out. American duplicity in the Middle East was born: While opposing Soviet influence in Iran, Truman solidified Americas relationship with Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, in power since 1941, and brought Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), making it clear to the Soviet Union that the Middle East would be a cold war hot zone. Truman accepted the 1947 United Nations partition plan of Palestine, granting 57 percent of the land to Israel and 43 percent to Palestine, and personally lobbied for its success. The plan lost support from U.N. member nations, especially as hostilities between Jews and Palestinians multiplied in 1948, and Arabs lost more land or fled. Truman recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after its creation, on May 14, 1948. Eisenhower Administration, 1953-1960 Three major events marked Dwight Eisenhowers Middle East policy. In 1953, Eisenhower ordered the CIA to

depose Mohammed Mossadegh, the popular, elected leader of the Iranian parliament and an ardent nationalist who opposed British and American influence in Iran. The coup severely tarnished Americas reputation among Iranians, who lost trust in American claims of protecting democracy. In 1956, when Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, a furious Eisenhower not only refused to join the hostilities; he ended the war. Two years later, as nationalist forces roiled the Middle East and threatened to topple Lebanons Christian-led government, Eisenhower ordered the first landing of U.S. troops in Beirut to protect the regime. The deployment, lasting just three months, ended a brief civil war in Lebanon. Kennedy Administrations, 1961-1963 John Kennedy was supposedly uninvolved in the Middle East. But as Warren Bass argued in Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, John Kennedy tried to develop a special relationship with Israel while diffusing the effects of his predecessors cold war policies regarding Arab regimes. Kennedy increased economic aid toward the region and worked to reduce its polarization between Soviet and American spheres. While the friendship with Israel was solidified during his tenure, Kennedys abbreviated administration, while briefly inspiring the Arab public, largely failed to mollify Arab leaders. The Johnson Administration, 1963-1968 Lyndon Johnson was absorbed by his Great Society programs at home and the Vietnam War abroad. The

Middle East burst back onto the American foreign-policy radar with the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel, after rising tension and threats from all sides, preempted what it characterized as an impending attack from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and Syrias Golan Heights. Israel threatened to go further. The Soviet Union threatened armed attack if it did. Johnson put the U.S. Navys Mediterranean Sixth Fleet on alert, but also compelled Israel to agree to a cease-fire on June 10, 1967. Nixon-Ford Administrations, 1969-1976 Humiliated by the Six Day War, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to regain lost territory when they attacked Israel during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur in 1973. Egypt regained some ground but its Third Army was then surrounded by an Israeli army led by Ariel Sharon (who would later become prime minister). The Soviets proposed a cease-fire, failing which they threatened to act unilaterally. For the second time in six years, the United States faced its second major and potentially nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union over the Middle East. After what journalist Elizabeth Drew described as Strangelove Day, when the Nixon administration put American forces on the highest alert, the administration persuaded Israel to accept a cease-fire. Americans felt the effects of that war through the 1973 Arab oil embargo, rocketing oil prices upward and contributing to a recession a year later. In 1974 and 1975 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated so-called disengagement agreements, first between Israel and Syria, then between Israel and Egypt,

formally ending the hostilities begun in 1973 and returning some land Israel had seized from the two countries. Those were not peace agreements, however, and they left the Palestinian situation untouched. Meanwhile, a military strongman called Saddam Hussein was rising through the ranks in Iraq. Carter Administration, 1977-1981 Jimmy Carters presidency was marked by American Mid-East policys greatest victory and greatest loss since World War II. On the victorious side, Carters mediation led to the 1978 Camp David Accord and the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, which included a huge increase in U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt. The treaty led Israel to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. The accord took place, remarkably, months after Israel invaded Lebanon for the first time, ostensibly to repel chronic attacks from the Palestine Liberation Organization in south Lebanon. On the losing side, the Iranian Revolution culminated in 1978 with demonstrations against the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and culminating with the establishment of an Islamic Republic, with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on April 1, 1979. On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students backed by the new regime took 63 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran hostage. Theyd hold on to 52 of them for 444 days, releasing them the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president. The hostage crisis, which included one failed military rescue attempt that cost the lives of eight American servicemen, undid the Carter presidency and set back American policy in the region for years: The rise of Shiite power in the Middle East had begun.

To top things off for Carter, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, eliciting little response from the president other than an American boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. Reagan Administration, 1981-1989 Whatever progress the Carter administration achieved on the Israeli-Palestinian front stalled over the next decade. As the Lebanese civil war raged, Israel invaded Lebanon for the second time, in June 1982, advancing as far as Beirut, the Lebanese capital city, before Reagan, who had condoned the invasion, intervene to demand a ceasefire. American, Italian and French troops landed in Beirut that summer to mediate the exit of 6,000 PLO militants. The troops then withdrew, only to precipitately return following the assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemeyel and the retaliatory massacre, by Israelibacked Christian militias, of up to 3,000 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, south of Beirut. In April 1983, a truck bomb demolished the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. On Oct. 23, 1983, simultaneous bombings killed 241 American soldiers and 57 French paratroopers in their Beirut barracks. American forces withdrew shortly after. The Reagan administration the faced several crises as the Iranianbacked Lebanese Shiite organization that became known as Hezbollah took several Americans hostage in Lebanon. The 1986 Iran-Contra affair revealed that the Reagan Administration had secretly negotiated arms-for-hostages deals with Iran, discrediting Reagans claim that he would not negotiate with terrorists. It would be December 1991 before the last hostage, former

Associated Press reporter Terry Anderson, would be released. Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Administration supported Israels expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied territories. The administration also supported Saddam Hussein in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, which ended in 1988. The administration provided logistical and intelligence support, believing, wrongly, that Saddam could destabilize the Iranian regime and defeat the Islamic Revolution. George H.W. Bush Administration, 1989-1993. After benefiting from a decade of support from the United States and receiving conflicting signals immediately before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein invaded the small country to his southeast on Aug. 2, 1990. President Bush launched Operation Desert Shield, immediately deploying U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to defend against a possible invasion by Iraq. Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm when Bush shifted strategy from defending Saudi Arabia to repelling Iraq from Kuwait, ostensibly because Hussein might, Bush claimed, be developing nuclear weapons. A coalition of 30 nations joined American forces in a military operation that numbered more than half a million troops. An additional 18 countries supplied economic and humanitarian aid. After a 38-day air campaign and a 100-hour ground war, Kuwait was liberated. Bush stopped the assault short of an invasion of Iraq, fearing what Dick Cheney, his defense secretary, would call a quagmire. Bush established instead no-fly zones in the south and north of the country, but those didnt keep Hussein from massacring Shiites following an attempted revolt in the

south -- which Bush had encouraged -- and Kurds in the north. In Israel and the Palestinian territories, Bush was largely ineffective and uninvolved as the first Palestinian intifada, or uprising, roiled on for four years. In the last year of his presidency, Bush launched a military operation in Somalia in conjunction with a humanitarian operation by the United Nations. Operation Restore Hope, involving 25,000 U.S. troops, was designed to help stem the spread of famine caused by the Somali civil war. The operation had limited success. A 1993 attempt to catch Mohamed Farah Aidid, leader of a brutal Somali militia, ended in disaster, with 18 American soldiers and up to 1,500 Somali militias and civilians killed. Aidid wasnt caught. Among the architects of the attacks on Americans in Somalia: a Saudi exile then living in the Sudan, largely unknown in the United States: Osama bin Laden. Clinton Administration, 1993-2001. Besides mediating the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, Bill Clintons involvement in the Middle East was bracketed by the short-lived success of the Oslo Accords in August 1993 and the collapse of the Camp David summit in December 2000. The accords ended the first intifada and established Palestinians right to self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank and established the Palestinian Authority. The accords also called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. But Oslo left unsettled such fundamental questions as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, the fate of East Jerusalem, which is claimed by Palestinians, and

continuing expansion of Israeli settlements in the territories. Those issues, still unresolved by 2000, led Clinton to convene a summit with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak at Camp David in December 2000, the waning days of his presidency. The summit failed. The second intifada exploded. Throughout the Clinton administration, terrorist attacks orchestrated by the increasingly public bin Laden punctured the 1990s post-cold war air of quietude, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the bombing of the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer, in Yemen in 2000. George W. Bush Administration, 2001-. After deriding operations involving the U.S. military in what he called nation-building, President Bush turned, after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, into the most ambitious nation-builder since the days of Secretary of State George Marshall and the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Bushs efforts, focused on the Middle East, have not been as successful. Bush had the worlds backing when he led an attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 to topple the Taliban regime there, which had given sanctuary to al-Qaeda. Bushs expansion of the war on terror to Iraq in March 2003, however, had less backing. Bush saw the toppling of Saddam Hussein as the first step in a domino-like birth of democracy in the Middle East. But while Bush talked democracy regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, he continued to support repressive, undemocratic regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and North Africa. The credibility of his democracy campaign was short-lived. By 2006, with Iraq plunging into civil war, Hamas winning elections in the Gaza Strip

and Hezbollah winning immense popularity following its summer war with Israel, Bushs democracy campaign was dead. The fact that globalisation due to integration of world economies is able to generate economic impacts in different countries is well known, but the phenomenon of self immolation having similar economic ramifications is unheard of. The recent protests across the Middle East had its roots in Tunisia when on December 18, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi burnt himself when local police authorities seized his produce and publicly humiliated him. This caused a major uprising in Tunisia against unemployment and subsequently led to the fall of the 23year-old regime of the ousted President Zine El Abedine Ben Ali. Due to similar conditions of high unemployment, high food prices and similar governments, 12 deaths have taken place till date through self immolation as the unrest continue to grip the Middle East and North African countries. While the US and the EU are still battling the effects of recession, the Middle East crisis threatens to stall the pace of global economic recovery and fears of a double dip recession looms large. Egypt, which is now taking centre stage of the Middle East protests, has forced oil and food prices to inch higher. Oil prices, specifically the price of Brent, the reference for crude oil sales across the world, increased to $103.37 a barrel, the highest level since September 2008 amid speculation that the Egyptian crisis could have a contagion effect on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Soon after the Tunisian protests, an unemployed Egyptian set himself on fire in Alexandria and what followed was a series of self-immolutions in the capital city of Cairo that rocked the 30-year-old regime of Hosni Mobarak. Egypt is a $200 billion economy and the largest country by population in the Middle East. Given its size, it's a major voice in the Arab world and any disruptions could be very significant. In just 10 days of the political unrest, Egypt is estimated to have lost $3.1 billion as a result of the ongoing crisis and is slated to lose $310 million daily until the protests wane significantly. The world witnessed oil prices climb from $75 a barrel to $100 a barrel in just a week, as the Egyptian protests threaten to stall the shipments of crude oil along the Suez Canal and the Suez- Mediterranean pipeline. Egypt at present produces close to 700,000 barrels a day, which roughly makes up 1 percent of the global oil output. Any shortfall in Egypt's ability to produce oil in the short run would be easily met by the members of the OPEC countries and have little impact on global oil production. Egypt however has control of the Suez Canal and the Suez Mediterranean pipeline, which saw close to 2 million barrels of oil being shipped every day. Both the Suez Canal and the Suez-Mediterranean pipeline oversee 2.5 percent to 4 percent of the global oil and gas shipments. As such, if oil traffic gets clogged in any manner like in 1956 or after the 1967 Israeli war for eight years, the results could put brakes on the world economy.

The Suez Canal and the pipeline are so important that the only alternative for ships would be the longer route around Africa's Cape of Good Hope. According to the US Energy Department, the costs for using the alternative route if the Suez Canal and the Sumed pipeline (also known as Suez-Mediterranean pipeline) were to close would be adding 6,000 miles to the vessel's journey. Such is the importance of the Suez Canal that crude oil prices could reach $200 a barrel if the Egyptian crisis leads to the closure of the Canal according to Rafael Ramirez, oil minister of Venezuela. This would easily surpass the earlier peak of $147 a barrel reached in 2008 and if oil prices were to reach that high, the world would witness another recession with catastrophic results. While the possibility of the Suez Canal and the Suez Mediterranean pipeline being closed amid the rising tensions strikes fear among policymakers. Another major worry is the Egyptian crisis entering its second week and showing no signs of withdrawal either from President Hosni Mobarak or from Muslim-brotherhood led protestors. If the unrest continues, there is a high possibility that the moderately affected Middle East countries, like Saudi Arabia, could see renewed protests and endanger oil supplies. Fierce demonstrations and street protests were staged in Jeddah, after an unidentified man burnt himself alive on January 21. A week later, thousands of demonstrators protested against poor infrastructure after floods ravaged Jeddah. Saudi Arabia accounts for 12 percent of global oil production and if it were to be

gripped by violent protests, oil prices could very well go over the roof. One country that will be watching the Middle East crisis closely is Bangladesh, especially because 90 percent of Bangladesh's oil demand is met from international markets. Last year, Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC) imported 4.3 million tonnes of oil, which cost $2.6 billion to the exchequer. This year, BPC plans to import 4.5 million tonnes of oil at a cost of $3 billion. However, oil prices having surged from $75 a barrel to $100 a barrel might cost BPC an additional $1 billion or even more. Bangladesh has over the years tackled such an upward spike in oil prices by passing subsidy burdens to the corporation. BPC, in turn, has incurred losses for the past five years and subsidies on domestic fuel prices have led to higher budget deficits and diversion of funds meant for education, healthcare and employment. Policymakers world over are trying to gauge the economic impacts that the Middle East crisis might have on their economies as oil and food prices continue to soar. As politicians around the world look forward to a stable and peaceful Arab world, speculators try to understand whether the Egypt contagion would spread to the rest of the Arab world causing major volatility in oil and commodity prices. For Bangladesh, stakes are high as a lengthier turmoil could have a similar story back home.

US involvement InMiddle East democracy, United States involvement in Middle East politics, Peter Beinart said that direct endorsement from the United States of certain political parties in democratic elections is detrimental to the system itself, on Thursday at Suffolk University. Beinart, a political writer and journalist, held a discussion with Public Radio Internationals Marco Werman for about 40 people regarding the current foreign policy of the United States in light of recent events in the Middle East at Suffolks Modern Theatre. Our credibility in the Middle East is going to be dependent to a significant degree on whether we are willing to accept that parties that are willing to play by the democratic rules of the game should be allowed to run and we should support their participation, Beinhart said. I hope the Obama administration is going to recognize that its better to let Islamic parties run as long as they are willing to eschew violence and put themselves up for a democratic term. Beinart added that Obamas foreign policy strategy should still be given a chance to prove itself. I dont think its fair to see Obamas foreign policy in the Middle East as a complete failure. He has accomplished one thing for sure- he took the attention off the United States, he said. When former President George W. Bush was in office, Beinart said, he was perceived as a veritable villain by

the constituents of Middle Eastern countries, which stirred up a significant amount of anti-American sentiment. This made it easier for the regimes to distract their populations by using those hostilities for their own purposes. Boston resident and lecture attendee Lisa Smedberg, who previously lived in Dubai, said she remains highly interested in the political happenings in the Middle East. I think Obama has a very difficult job, Smedburg said. And I think saying less right now about it and just watching it unfold is probably the best way to handle questions of foreign policy. The United States should limit its involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, Smedburg said, but maintain an active interest in its development. We tend to look at this situation in terms of how it affects America, when really this is not so much an American issue as it is a domestic issue, said Kim Bilderback, a Boston resident. I think being aware of the fact that we have interest in the area but respecting that this is a local phenomenon is appropriate, and Obama seems to be doing a nice job of walking that fine line. During the talk, Beinart was asked where United States foreign policy is going. I dont think that the American government has been able to process this dramatic a change [in Middle East politics], and also I think we realize that in many ways, our influence is rather limited, he said. What we think of as American ideals may be on the march in the Middle East, Beinart said, but American power is probably on the wane.

We are not going to have a series of regimes that are looking exclusively to the United States for their main alliance as they have in the past, he said. Beinart also said that gradual withdrawal of American military from the Middle East is a necessary step in strengthening our economy. American military power is only as good as American economic power, he said. Right now our economic engine is not strong enough to sustain our military footprint, and I think the challenge is going to be some retraction of that military footprint. However, Beinart said this might be less of a challenge than experts seem to make it out to be. I think we can afford to be a little less apocalyptic about what we need to be able to leave Afghanistan, even under difficult circumstances. Oil. That is what the modern Middle Eastern geopolitics have usually been about. Given the vast energy resources that form the backbone of western economies, influence and involvement in the Middle East has been of paramount importance for the former and current imperial and super powers, including France, Britain, USA and the former Soviet Union. Prior to the discovery of oil, the region had been a hotbed for religious conflict and wars over other rich resources and land. The declining Ottoman Empire paved way for the rising European imperial and colonial powers interested in securing various territories and controlling access to Asia. In more recent times, interest in the region has been due to the energy resources there.

As a result, for centuries, western populations have been acclimatized to a type of propaganda and vilification of the Arab and other people of the Middle East, and of Islam in general. This was especially so during the European colonial times, as so vividly examined by Edward Said, in his well-respected book, Orientalism. This negative stereotyping has served to provide justifications for involvement and to ensure stability for the national interests of the powers that want to be involved in the region. This cultural stereotyping and racism has occurred in the modern times too. Often, especially in the 1980s, war films depicting an Arab or Islamic group as the bad guys were common place, sometimes reflecting prevailing turmoils at the time. Even in the 1990s, those ideas continued, where the bad guy was often a despotic Arab from one of the rogue states and as a result of the terrorist attacks against the US in September 11, 2001 and the resulting War on terror, such imagery is likely to continue. Over such a long time then, such boundaries of discourse about the Middle East have already been framed. To overstep those boundaries is to be labeled anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, anti-West or some other equally negative label. For most journalists in the mainstream then, self-censorship is often the course, sometimes unknowingly. To maintain superiority, control and influence over the region, the West has placed corrupt Arab leaders into positions of power and supported the overthrow of those that are not seen as favorable. This has also served to keep their populations at bay, in return for militarization, power and personal wealth of the elite. Sometimes this has been done in the name of fighting communism. The

common theme underlying it though has been the struggle to control access to important resources such as oil. The Middle East is the most militarized region in the world and most arms sales head there. A suppressed people that sees US influence as a major root cause of the current problems in the Middle East has led to a rise in Islamic militancy, acts of terrorism and anti-west sentiment, anti-US in particular. When looking at some of the actions of the US, it can often be seen why this is unfortunately so.

PRESENT SITUATION

a.

EGYPT The current political situation in the Middle East is one of great fluidity as events continue to unfold at breathtaking speed and the key question is how far will (Tunisian and Egyptian) contagion spread, and which regime (in which country) is likely to fall next?While the rapid collapse of the Tunisian regime caught even the most seasoned Middle East experts by surprise, Middle Eastern analysts were

unable to anticipate the fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Even on 10 February, a day before Egypt's former-national intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, announced that President Mubarak would be leaving his post, very few experts foresaw that the latter would have stepped down less than 24 hours later. While it is clear that the fall of Tunisian president Ben Ali provided inspiration for the Egyptian protests, Mubarak's fall from power is likely to set a yet even more ominous precedent for other countries in the region. Egypt has long been the benchmark country for other Arab regimes with political events emanating in Cairo having historically played a "gamebreaking" role in the wider Arab world. In 1952, for instance, following the Nasserist revolution and the coup against King Farouk dynasty, Egypt produced an inspirational Arab socialist model and embarked on a programme to establish foreign policy parity and alliance with the Soviet Union. In doing so, Egypt stepped forth to provide a level of leadership in the Arab world. Despite the many 'leadership' conflicts waged against Egypt (notably by Saudi Arabia in Yemen in the early 1960s) Egypt came to occupy a central pillar of stability in the region. Indeed, even after Egypt's peace treaty with Israel (Camp David Accords, 1979)

Cairo has demonstrated a new form, although hotly debated, form of regional leadership, rekindling US engagement and allowing that external power to operate (largely) unhindered in the region. Other factors, especially that most of Egypt's neighbouring Middle Eastern populations share common grievances (ie, massive social inequality, human rights violations, state-sponsored corruption, media censorship, etc) as well as a strong degree of religious-ideological cohesiveness (Islam), compels many experts to suggest that Egypt's latest political tumult is once again likely to engulf much of the region. Escalating violence across the region should be viewed with caution Many of Egypt's Arab neighbourhood continues to experience states of social and political crises. Anti-regime protests continue to spread across the Middle East with Algeria, Bahrain, Libya and Yemen all undergoing violent convulutions. Jordan had already become engulfed in widespread protests prior to Mubarak's departure, leading to the resignation of key government figures in Amman. Deaths are occurring in most, if not all, of the affected countries, with at least 3 protestors killed in Bahrain just prior to this writing. In Teheran, which went through a bloody round of anti-regime protests following the disputed

presidential elections in 2009, has seen fresh clashes erupt last week during the funeral of a student killed in antigovernment protests. While there appears to be no end in sight to the current political crisis in the Middle East, a degree of caution should still be maintained when considering the question of "how far and how widespread?" the ramifications might be. Certainly some countries, particularly those in North Africa, are likely to witness clashes of varying intensity in the ensuing weeks. A closer examination of developments in the region, as well as deeper analysis into the nature of some of the grievances of the protestors, may provide some evidence to challenge the view that revolts will occur indiscriminately all over the Middle East, as some analysts now claim. While we do concur with the view that common grievances, ideological similarity and similar technological instruments (i.e. internet blogs, facebook, twitter) unite protestors across the region, one should also take into account the diversity of political and economic systems that govern individual Middle Eastern countries and its sub-regions (including the Maghreb, Mashreq, the Gulf, the Gulf Monarchies, etc). States of the region vary from authoritarian regimes, quasidemocracies, monarchies, constitutional

monarchies and theocracies, whilst also including some of the richest (i.e. UAE, Kuwait) as well as some of the poorest (i.e. Yemen) countries in the world. Taking such factors into account, one needs to be cautious when applying a cavalier approach and assuming that protests will spread indiscriminately throughout the region. Nasserism and Arab socialism, after all, while finding euphoric support in some Arab countries, was virulently opposed by others.

b.

LIBYA

The crisis in Libya comes in the context of wider unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The surge of what looks like spontaneous and ground up pro-democracy protests has been spreading throughout a region long controlled by authoritarian regimes from left and right of the political spectrum, and both pro and anti-West. Peaceful protests against the long-running oppressive Qadhafi regime in February resulted in a violent crackdown. As the situation quickly escalated ordinary citizens took up arms to help free themselves from Qadhafis brutal regime. Despite some military defections, the opposition has generally been a disorganized and out-gunned rebel force. As Qadhafis forces increasingly targeted civilians the opposition appealed to the international community for a

no-fly zone to limit or prevent the bloodbath that Qadhafi threatened. The West appears to have responded with what looks like a genuine humanitarian intervention attempt. Yet, when looked at a bit more deeply, there are many murky often contradictory issues coming to the fore that complicate the picture. These mixed messages make the future for Libya uncertain. Civil war is how some commentators have already started to describe the conflict, which would imply a long drawn out conflict, not a quick fix that the West hoped for. Details have emerged of huge casualty figures in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where troops have launched a brutal crackdown on protesters. More than 200 people are known to have died, doctors say, with 900 injured. The most bloody attacks were reported over the weekend, as funeral marches were said to have come under machine-gun and heavy weapons fire. Human Rights Watch says at least 173 people have been killed in Libya since demonstrations began on Wednesday. Benghazi, the country's second city, has been a leading focus of protests against four decades of rule by Col Muammar Gaddafi. Continue reading the main story

 Start Quote Tripoli is very important, it's got people from all over Libya. Everybody's watching and waiting End Quote Sara Tripoli resident Western politicians condemned the violence in Libya. During a phone conversation with Col Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke of London's "grave concern" at the escalation of violence, a statement said. Libya's actions were "unacceptable and would result in worldwide condemnation", Mr Hague said. The US state department said it was "gravely concerned with disturbing reports and images coming out of Libya". "We are working to ascertain the facts, but we have received multiple credible reports that hundreds of people have been killed and injured in several days of unrest - and the full extent of the death toll is unknown due to the lack of access of international media and human rights organisations," spokesperson Philip Crowley said in a statement. Mr Crowley said the US had raised their concerns with Libyan officials, including Foreign Minister Musa Kusa.

France was "extremely worried" by events in Libya, Minister for European Affairs Laurent Wauquiez said, criticising Tripoli for a "totally disproportionate" use of force. But Libya has also tried to use its leverage with the European Union, warning Brussels it could suspend cooperation against illegal migration if the EU encourages pro-democracy protests. 'Tense and scary' In a rare public admission of the unrest in Benghazi, Libyan state TV said on Sunday that an "armed people's base" in the city had come under attack and had its walls breached. That news emerged as anti-Gaddafi activists on Twitter reported that a barracks in Benghazi had "fallen". There was no way to confirm that report. Libya is one of several countries in the region to have seen pro-democracy campaigns since the fall of longtime Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was forced from power on 11 February. BBC Middle East correspondent Jon Leyne says the unrest in Libya is the most serious challenge yet to Col Gaddafi. Libyan authorities have imposed severe media restrictions.

Foreign media are largely absent from the country and internet traffic from Libya has been throttled in recent days, web analysts report. Libyan activists opposed to Col Gaddafi, as well as Libyans operating from outside the country, are using social networks Twitter and Facebook and video-sharing site YouTube to share information and images of the protests. But much of their information is extremely difficult to verify. Activists say they are reluctant to provide specific details of new protest locations in case security forces decide to attack their rallies. Reports are beginning to emerge of protests in the capital, Tripoli, but information is scarce and difficult to confirm. One woman, who gave her name as Sara, told the BBC the situation in the city was "very tense and very scary". "Tripoli is very important, it's got people from all over Libya. Everybody's watching and waiting. Gaddafi makes us sick. This is a war," she said. massacre' The doctor in Benghazi, known as Braikah, described to the BBC how casualties had been brought to the city's Jala hospital - most of them with gunshot wounds.

"Ninety per cent of these gunshot wounds [were] mainly in the head, the neck, the chest, mainly in the heart," she said. She said the Jala hospital mortuary had 208 bodies and another hospital had 12. However, it is not clear whether all of these bodies stem from Saturday's violence. Continue reading the main story Mid-East unrest: Libya Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has led since 1969 Population 6.5m; land area 1.77m sq km Population with median age of 24.2, and a literacy rate of 88% Gross national income per head: $12,020 (World Bank 2009) Country profile: Libya Another doctor told the Associated Press news agency of similar numbers of bodies, but said they had been taken to the morgue since the violence began earlier in the week. As Braikah spoke to the BBC she said new gunfire was audible within Benghazi, alleging that security forces were firing on crowds of people attempting to bury some of those killed in recent days. Her account could not be confirmed, but many of Saturday's deaths are thought to have happened in the same way.

Witnesses said troops had used machine-guns, mortars, large-calibre weapons, and even a missile, against the mourners. Opposition supporters said the attack was unprovoked, although security sources suggested some protesters had thrown firebombs at a government compound. The Dubai-based Kalam institute has issued an appeal on behalf of a group of religious and clan leaders from across Libya, urging "every Muslim, within the regime" or anyone helping it [the regime]: "Do NOT kill your brothers and sisters, STOP the massacre NOW!" Most of Benghazi is said to be controlled by antigovernment protesters. There have also been reports of anti-government protests in other eastern cities, including al-Bayda and Dernah, as well as Misrata further west, about 200km (125 miles) from the capital Tripoli. Austria announced on Sunday that it was sending a military plane to Malta to prepare for the evacuation of Austrian and other EU nationals from Libya or other Arab countries.

c. LEBANON According to most mainstream media outlets, the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Hezbollah in mid 2006 sparked off the crisis in Lebanon. While Hezbollah has been firing many, many rockets at civilian targets in northern Israel, Israel has retaliated with air strikes at Beirut and elsewhere, bombing civilian infrastructure. The UN has described both sides as committing war crimes. Thousands have become refugees in Lebanon and Israel, as innocent civilians attempt to flee bombardment. Bush and Blairs stance give the appearance of a green light to Israel to continue its wave of attacks in order to route out Hezbollah, but they too have received criticism from around the world for this. But there were a number of incidents before the kidnapping that contributed to this latest crisis.

US INTERVENTION It was Ben Ali first, then Hosni Mubarak, who is next? This question is in the minds of all the freedom-desiring citizens of the world. Unchallenged autocrats are really being challenged by the suppressed, deprived, poor and suffering citizens, irrespective of religion, political ideology, age, sex and education or professional status. The only demand of those revolutionary people is a free and just society where citizens can enjoy freedom and better living standards.

Revolutionary people are not bothered whether the protesters are Islamic or non-Islamic. This is the concern of the western society and Israel, who are the real source of power of those autocrats. Why do those western countries support illegal rulers, and for whose interest -the people of the country or western countries or Israel? It is clear that the problem has been created due to the blind support from the western countries to those illegal autocrats, who have been abusing power for their personal gain. Just after the resignation of Hosni Mubarak, the Swiss government froze his bank account. Obviously, Mubarak did not ask them to freeze it, nor was there a formal request from the Military Council of Egypt. So, why did they do it? Analysts are now concerned about the real outcome of those revolutions in the future. Will the people get real freedom and better lives, or will it be a shift from one regime to another pro-western regime? This concern have been prominent due to the recent disclosures by WikiLeaks about the US-Israel plan in 2008 over the current changes in the Egyptian government, along with the assistance to the youth leaders of this revolution. No doubt the Egyptian people had no choice except revolution, but still there is a chance that the achievements may be hijacked by agents of occupational forces. Why has the Obama administration intervened in the regime shift in Egypt? The answers are:

-US is losing its control over the politics of the MiddleEast due to invasion of Iraq and unconditional support to Israel. To restore its image, US is now trying to establish a so-called democratic government, but it will ultimately serve the interest of US and Israel; -The Obama administration is becoming more concerned about the attacks by terrorists, whose breeding centres are autocrat-run countries. If those autocrats are ousted the US can control the extent of risk for the next several years; -Due to prolonged economic crisis and resistance from the opposition, the Democratic government is losing popularity and the people have started criticising it for not withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, Obama has not closed the notorious Guantanamo and other secret prisons. Citizens of US, especially of Asian and African origin, have started to think whether they will vote again for Obama or not. In this situation, the "recovery of the so-called democracy in the Middle-East" will be considered as a historical step by the US. The people of the US will obviously appreciate this step, which will ultimately help Obama to return to power the next term; -The fall of the Egyptian government was imminent as the suffering people were angry because of the drastic fall of their living standards and oppression by the law enforcing agencies. If the change had been brought about by the general citizens under the leadership of the Islamic Brotherhood it would have been a really significant loss for US-Israeli interests in this region. The US and Israel

understood this clearly, which is why they want to control the forthcoming changes in Egypt and other autocrat-run countries in such a way that at least neutral governments come into power. Realising this, Islamic Brotherhood and El-Baradei have already said that they will not challenge the Israel-Egypt peace-treaty; -Finally, Obama is keen to establish democracy as well as justice for the citizens of the Muslim world, which may be the reason for intervention of his administration in Egypt and other countries. Moreover, Obama will also be able to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinian government if an Islamic Brotherhood-led coalition comes to power in the next election. Any significant peace treaty between Israel and Palestinians will take him to an unreachable height. Now, the million-dollar question is whether the Arab world will really able to enjoy the freedom and build a knowledge-based society or not. How far will the changes sustain in the long-run if US and Israel lose interest due to the policies of the forthcoming government? Will this change actually enhance the rule of the people of autocrat-run countries, or will new forms of occupation capture the world? What will be the impacts of the changes in China and other closed countries? Can these revolutions really challenge the rule of the so-called unchallenged autocrats? We have to wait for the final outcome. We can say surely that the people's sacrifices and peaceful movements can't go invain.

Israel-Iran War Draws Closer (Posted by War and Conflict Journal in Iran_, Israel, Middle East, nuclear crisis Tags: iran, iran war, Israel, nuclear crisis, Syria | Add comment ) On August 21, 2010, Iran, with Russian aid, began inserting the fuel rods into the Bushehr reactor. Some analysts believed that Israel would not risk an attack after August 21 for because of the risk of serious nuclear contamination throughout the Gulf region if the reactor were to be destroyed. However, other analysts see evidence of war preparations by Israel, Syria, and Iran. Clues these analysts see include: Ongoing publicity and concern in Israel over the Gallant Scandal, which some Arab sources see as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from war preparations by Israel. The presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Mohamed Ali Jafari in Damascus, apparantly for discussions on coordinating Syrian, Hezbollah, and Iranian military responses to an Israeli strike. Statements made by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas saying that direct peace talks with Israel were not in the likely because a big military surprise awaits the Middle East. The Middle East's Unprecedented Political Crisis Analysts of the Middle East region are no strangers to a wide range of major public disorders, violent clashes between state and opposition groups and geopolitical risk. That said, 2011 has already brought unprecedented

tensions and political crises to this, among the most volatile regions in the world. The Presidential regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, in power for 23 and 29 years respectively, which seemed stable at the end of 2010, collapsed with blinding speed. The present Tunisian authorities are now calling for the extradition of ousted president Ben Ali from Saudi Arabia (where he fled immediately after his demise) while the whereabouts of Egypt's former-ruler Mubarak, a decorated Egyptian general and hero of the Arab-Israeli wars, is presently uncertain. The assets (indeed fortunes) of both men are being hounded at the request of the new authorities in Tunis and Cairo. Parliaments are effectively nonfunctional in both countries, while national constitutions are being rewritten. While euphoria - reminiscent of the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe - has accompanied the ousting of the Tunisian and Egyptian presidential regimes, it should be remembered that these street revolutions achieved their aims at the cost of many civilian lives. The army is effectively in control of both countries, and although democratic elections may indeed have been the objective of many of the rotestors, for the moment they remain a yet distant aspiration. U.S.-Israel Relations In Relation To Middle East Crisis As a result of the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel entered the eastern parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank in a war of self-defense. It is very important to recall that Israel entered these areas after it was attacked, and after

it requested that the Jordanians not join the Egyptian war effort. There were Jordanian artillery attacks throughout Jerusalem and all of Israel, as well as movement of Jordanian ground forces into areas that were previously no-man's land. There is presently a marked shift underway in U.S. policy on Jerusalem. True, no U.S. administration accepted Israel's annexation of Jerusalem in July 1967. Nonetheless, in the past we saw the U.S. and Israel coming to a modus vivendi with respect to Israeli policy in Jerusalem, when Israel built various neighborhoods in the eastern parts of the city, from Ramat Eshkol to Gilo to Ramot. A neighborhood called Har Homa in southeastern Jerusalem was established in 1997 during the Clinton administration to ease the considerable shortage of housing in the Jewish sector. On two occasions, the Arab bloc initiated a draft resolution in the UN Security Council to condemn Israel for constructing Har Homa. On both occasions, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson, vetoed those resolutions under instructions from the Clinton administration. The Oslo Agreements in 1993 do not require a freeze on construction in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Furthermore, under the Oslo Agreements, Jerusalem was treated as having a completely different status than the West Bank and the city was kept under Israeli control, while seen as an issue for permanent status negotiations in the future. It is possible to discern a growing view, which has been reported in the Washington Post, that the Obama administration intends to put on the table its own plan for Middle East peace, based on a nearly full Israeli

withdrawal to the 1967 lines, that most Israeli planners view as militarily indefensible. As the Palestinians see this scenario unfold, their incentive to re-enter negotiations will decline as they look forward to the prospect that an American peace plan will be imposed. If indeed there is such a plan being prepared, then the recent U.S.-Israel tensions over construction in east Jerusalem may only be Act I in a much longer drama that the two countries are about to face.

We are in a period in which the U.S.-Israel relationship appears to be in flux, but it is hard for many observers to establish whether the policies of the Obama administration represent a sharp break in U.S. policy toward Israel or a continuation of past U.S. policies. Will military ties between the two countries be affected? According to a charge that has been associated with officers in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Israel's disagreements with the Palestinians, or Israel's construction efforts, have a negative effect on the U.S. military posture in the Middle East, with some reports even going so far as to suggest that they risk the lives of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, on the basis of past experience, is it likely that the U.S. and Israel will ultimately resolve their differences, or are the present gaps between the two countries so wide that their long-term relationship will change?

US POLICY ON MIDDLE EAST The United States has long term national interests and vital engagements across the Arab World and with Israel and Iran. This reveals various links and resources exploring those Middle Eastern relationships as well as the role of U.S. foreign policy in various regional issues and organizations including the Arab League, Organization of Ismalic States, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and more.

IMPACT ON BANGLADESH Finance Minister AMA Muhith expressed his worries about the Middle East (ME) crisis and oil price hike, saying the untoward events and trends may impact the country's remittance inflow and foreign currency reserve negatively. Muhith said this while presenting a report in parliament on budget expenditure and economic situation of the country in the first six months of the current fiscal year. The finance minister said, while it is imperative to increase the public and private sector investments, a rise in fuel and food prices on the world market may fuel expenditure on imports. As a result, the foreign exchange reserve may fall significantly in future, he added.

According to the report, by the end of December 2010 the foreign exchange reserve was $11.2 billion, while Bangladesh Bank data show the reserve is already on a downward curve. On March 8, it stood at $10.36 billion. On the remittance situation, the finance minister said, under the prolonged impact of the global recession the export of manpower to the Middle East labour markets decreased in the first quarter of the current fiscal year causing a downslide in remittances. But in the second quarter, the remittance inflow improved slightly owing to some measures taken by the government, he added. The minister said the remittance inflow will return to normalcy in future but, at the same time, he expressed apprehension that the recent upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East may delay the maturation of the government initiatives. In the report, the finance minister dwelt on the inflation situation and said the whole world has been experiencing a rise in inflation due to a hike in food prices. The minister said, due to the rise in the fuel prices on the international market, and as the food production did not evenly meet expectations throughout the world because of adverse weather, the prices of food commodities will continue to shoot up globally. As Bangladesh is an import dependent country, its economy experienced an adverse impact. Besides, the

pressure of high inflation in India had weighed on inflation in Bangladesh. However, the finance minister said, since the economic trend was satisfactory in the first six months of the current fiscal year, the GDP target of 6.7 percent may be achieved after all. On the progress of Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiative, Muhith said the PPP policy has already been gazetted. He said the PPP offices have been set up and manpower has been appointed to some offices. The process of appointing the chief executive of PPP initiative and some other officials is underway. The registration of Bangladesh Infrastructure Finance Fund as a company will soon be completed, the finance minister said. Once these activities are complete, various projects will be financed through the PPP initiative, he said. IMPACT OF MIDDLE EAST CRISIS ON GRAPH Due to crisis the impact on middle east has shown on graph Author: Marco Pantelakis and Marat Terterov

ATTRIBUTION: Own work, all data taken from the CIA World Factbook

CONCLUSION