A nuclear Iran will go one of two ways. It will either have no obvious effect, the weapon won’t be used for fear of repercussion yet conventional wars will continue; a stalemate. Or, the Middle East will face the prospect of a complete breakdown as either Iran is pre-empted, Israel feels cornered by the likely arms race or technology is leaked; the only recourse available will be war.
This essay argues that neo-colonialist discourses were present within the U.S. at the time of the Afghanistan War and served to demonise and essentialise Islamic culture in general, whilst removing from debate the historical political landscape of Afghanistan. Such historical accounts are essential to understand the roots of women’s insecurity in the nation, which persist to this day.
Nationalism only really played a crucial role in Iran regarding the ever present spectre of foreign encroachment within the country, firstly by the British, and subsequently by America and others. The desire to end this state of affairs was a powerful uniting force that rallied everyone under the banner of nationalism.
A narrow application of Article 51 would allow keeping control on unilateral use of force, at least given the awareness by states of the political costs of unlawful actions. Widening the scope of self-defence could bring the erosion of the basic purpose of the UN Charter regime, i.e. the ban of military force in inter-state relations and the promotion of peace.
The development of air power in the realm of the military emerged almost at the same time as aviation itself due to the accelerating features of the First World War. With air power’s inception, it became possible to make strategic strikes against the enemy’s centre of gravity without the necessity of making contact in a traditional land or sea war.
It appears there is a trade-off between the security of some and the liberty of others. This perception of a trade-off between security and liberty is particularly convincing when evidence from the on-going war on terror is used to illustrate the argument. It is possible to argue that any trade-off between liberty and security is short-term and illusory.
A Purist’s perspective is necessary in negating the worst excesses of Idealism, as is the latter necessary in doing so for the former. Such paradigmatic vibrancy can only be a good thing for Postcolonialism and the self-critical arena that this has created means that the approach will go from strength to strength in its project of postcolonialising the dominant mode of Orientalism.
The Bush administration’s support for missile-defence was motivated by a desire to maintain freedom of action, and thus unipolar hegemony, vis-à-vis ostensibly un-deterrable rogue states. However, it is evident that BMD is strategically flawed, technically disputed and has the potential to destabilise existing arms dynamics.
Britain would have moved towards Free Trade in 1846-1860 even if the Irish Potato Famine had not occurred, due to the inability of the protectionist system to benefit the British economy in any significant way encouraged many to consider the alternative approach, namely free trade.
The dominant Western rhetoric enforces the portrayal of Hamas as a static organisation, its violent and ‘fanatical’ behaviour rendering it as innately characteristic while contradictory evidence is marginalised as irrelevant. This myopic approach has failed to understand Hamas, and for peace ever to be achieved this paradigm must be broken.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.