Camille Cressman

The U.S. holds long-standing, relatively hostile relationships with several Middle Eastern countries. Iran is no exception. The past is marked with several tenuous agreements, such as the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, when both sides agreed that the U.S. would lift sanctions if Iran agreed to halt its nuclear research. Following President Trump’s pull-out of the Iran nuclear deal and subsequent reinstatement of harsh sanctions, the unfriendly relationship between the two countries has become even more aggressive. This came to a head on January 3rd, when the U.S. assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military figure, as he arrived in Iraq to meet with politicians and military allies [1]. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “severe revenge” on the U.S., but as of yet, the only retaliation has been to launch 12-15 missiles at several Iraqi bases housing U.S. forces, with many believing that Iran “deliberately chose targets that would not result in loss of life” [2].

The Kurds occupy an interesting space in global affairs. Both ideologically and structurally, they differ greatly from their friends and enemies. Structurally speaking, they’re one of the world’s largest stateless nations, residing in Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Armenia, but they’re not particularly welcome in any place they occupy. The easiest way to sum up the last 100 years of Kurdish statelessness is to say that the Kurds have always had a bad time. Under Ottoman rule they were oppressed, and after WWI, they were promised a state of their own. The new Turkish state, however, refused to give the Kurds the rights or the land necessary to establish their promised autonomous state. As a result, the Kurds have always had, to put it nicely, a difficult relationship with the Turkish government. Kurds in Turkey and Iraq are members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which serves as the military and political institution of the nation. Since 2015, the PKK and associated insurgent groups like the People’s Protection Units (YPG) have been in direct conflict with Turkey, initially accusing Turkey of allowing Islamic State soldiers to cross its border and attack Kurdish cities. As the United States strives to maintain amicable relationships with its fellow NATO member Turkey, it doesn’t seem to make sense that there would be any sort of relationship between the United States and Kurdish forces. So, why does a stateless, radical ethnic group that the Turkish and Syrian governments deem terrorists have such an important, albeit rocky, relationship with the United States?

During the 2004 Democratic primaries, The New Yorker ran an article about the two Democratic frontrunners, John Kerry and Howard Dean. In the article, they write that Democratic voters were “seeking above all this year a candidate who can beat Bush” [1]. Dean represented the anti-war, anti-establishment outsider who tapped into voters’ frustrations, while Kerry, with twenty years of experience in the foreign and domestic policy better fit the “cold calculus of electability.” Ultimately, Kerry’s impressive resume secured him the nomination, but he lost.

Nine years ago, activists in Tunisia, empowered by their ability to effectively organize via new forms of social media, began massive protests for democracy and freedom. New media has inspired global citizens to effectively act together to work toward a fairer society with flourishing civil liberties. Unfortunately, this optimism was short lived. Authoritarian governments and militants throughout the world soon became social media literate themselves, hijacking these platforms to spread misinformation, sew discontent, and inspire and organize militant groups themselves. At the close of this same decade, we can look back at these formative years of the early 2010s and easily recognize both the potential virtue and terror of social media. The proliferation of new media has certainly opened up politics and access to information to a greater number of people than ever before, but by the same token, there are very few ways to control misinformation, and international diplomacy has become incredibly sensationalized and, perhaps, overdramatized. Above all else, it is clear that new media has forever altered how political actors handle domestic and international affairs—for better or worse.