Israel and Iran
Israel attacked Iran. This was prompted by a series of exchanged heated attacks between the two countries for a period. It all started some years ago when Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu had said the US should do more than just imposing sanctions on Iran to ensure they get rid of the nuclear weapons. This made the Iranian government see this as a way of the Israel government of turning their backs on them. Israel then stated it did that just to ensure that the neighbors of the Iranians and all people around the world are free of nuclear attacks or nuclear effects if it occurs. However, a heated exchange of words between the governments ensued ever since. Israel then decided to send missiles to Iran to silence them. However, they responded by declaring they will fight them, and a war erupted.
Historically, Israel has been known by the American government to be a strong war nation. It has been viewed as a nation capable of standing by itself alone and fight a powerhouse nation to the last breath and even win. Iran, on the other side, started developing nuclear weapons to protect it. Iran believed that other powerful nations have an interest in their oil and therefore, need to come up with a way of protecting their resources. However, this led to sanctions being imposed on the Iranian nation to suppress their ability of developing the nuclear weapons. Israel prime minister, therefore, asked the US president to declare red lines that would have enabled the US to access the Iranian nuclear plants via an attack on them. He claimed that failure to do this would trigger attacks by Iran on Israel and other nations. However, president Obama claimed that if given time, the sanctions would ensure Iran does not acquire more nuclear weapons. He warned Israel against attacking Iran since that would just trigger unwanted regional battles between them and countries around.
Currently, war is raging. After the attack by the Israelites, Iran has now responded by arming its defense force. This has led to more able and willing Iranians joining the battle as soldiers, but they are clearly untrained and have very little positive effect on the defense of the Iranians. The Israelites on the other hand have had their military jets on the Iranian air. The sudden attack that was, however, eminent to occur at one time has in the past two days of its occurrence left 200 people dead including two US soldiers in Iran who were sent there for purposes of imposing sanctions.
This war is set to continue and rage more. According to analyst, Iran is probably working on a nuclear weapon to fire at the Israelites so as to end the war and send a stern message to the rest of the world, especially the US and powerful European nations. With this in mind, the Israelites are also doing the same to counter. They are trying to create weapons of massive destruction that will end the war, but it is unknown what particular kind. Iran is also targeting US bases in Iran and her neighbors. They blame the US for the ongoing war since it failed to agree on how to manage their nuclear plant and ended up imposing sanctions. Though the nuclear program was stated to before peaceful purposes, the Iranians are very likely to turn that around during this time of war.
The United States, being clearly involved in this fight, whether willingly or not, therefore, has to take a step towards stopping it. This step will involve strategies that need to be put down immediately to help end the war. Peace is important since it might make the two countries the best of partners in the future. Hence, there are two possible policy approaches that the United States government should use to help end the war. Despite there being other solutions, these two have been recommended. If such a civil war is ended by negotiation, it, historically, is more likely to recur. Therefore, for negotiations to occur, it has to be strengthened by implementation of strategies to ensure it does not occur again. These strategies should include stern consequences that will be faced by the country that will inflict harm on the other after it has been resolved in this manner. Promises made to the two countries after the war during the negotiation should be achievable and must be kept. The US should therefore, ensure that it should make promises that it is able to deliver and so should the two countries. A mixture of both and threats should be issued. The threats should be as believable as the benefits.
Another policy approach towards solving this war is to support the lesser privileged in the war. In this case, since the US has imposed sanctions on Iran, they are the less privileged and should support them in overpowering Israel who attacked them and ensure they stop the war. To do this, they have to involve negotiations and issue continuous threats on the Israelites. The Israelites should be warned against what will occur to them in case of a loss and should be made to quit. The US should promise to make the situation in Iran better and prevent them from attempting future attacks.
These two are good options. The best option is to negotiate a way forward. Negotiation, in many countries and past civil wars has been a successful way of resolving such conflict. During the civil war in El Salvador, the United Nations negotiated an agreement that ended the war. The UN made it easier for the president of that time to directly negotiate with the FMLN and this later led to a conference in New York that led to the end of the war. With agreements made, the National Guard was abolished and replaced National Civilian Police, which was helped by the US government to investigate cases of murder and the most serious cases. This shows that it is a better way of resolving such a conflict, and it minimizes the chances of such a war to recur. Even in the event that it is to recur, already there are measures put in place in the agreement to counter the recurrence.
In Afghanistan, tension arose during war with the US. This was because of unsurely with what next was going to occur in the war. This prompted for negotiations that were then led by President George Bush and declaration of a global war on terror. The Al Qaeda had been involved in many terrorist attacks including attacks on Iraq itself. The war had been going on for seven years, and new options of dealing with it were running out. The country’s economy was falling sharply, and desperation led to tension and in the end negotiation had to occur.
If the US responds with negotiation, more links to the country are likely to occur. Through talks, lesser lives are lost, and more people have an opportunity to have some of their cries of change heard and addressed. Unlike supporting of one side, this creates a situation of sitting on the fence. Here, the negotiating body is assumed neutral and concerned about the welfare of both sides. In supporting one party, this is likely to create hatred among the nation that has not been sided with. This country will most likely wish to revenge in case they lose. In the event that they win, they will most likely wish to be declared superpower and will want to attack other countries.
Another effect of this is that the number of deaths occurring will increase. In this case, the war might occur for a long time, and this will just see more lives lost. If the war ends instantly, it may involve taking over of the other country. This might lead to the losing country being colonized or events in it being dictated by foreign parties. Freedoms and rights will be limited, and this will mean a new fight for freedom.
Many Arab countries are reluctant to have the US be part of their internal conflicts. This is because the US, in most cases might end up consuming and controlling their recourses. A negative attitude has developed on the United States effect on conflict resolution. The Afghanistan for example has had the US troops stick around for four more years. This prompted the new president, Barrack Obama to put it into his agenda to withdraw soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The afghan people, prior to that had attacked US bases in the country and killed a few US convoys and citizens. This has in turn left many Americans have the fear of visiting such countries.
Failure by the US to intervene has also been viewed negatively by many countries. The US, being a super power and one of the greatest nations is expected to have the responsibility of intervening in such conflicts. In 2010, reluctance by the US government led by president Obama to intervene in the Arab appraisals was faced by many reactions. France was almost endorsed to lead the fight resolving process, but meetings were held to see to it that the US was involved. NATO attacks had already set attacks on Libya, but this was seen as a way of ensuring the US came into the conflict resolution process.
The United States has a role to play in the civil wars and conflicts between countries. This role mostly involves bringing peace to the involved nations. For this reason, it is important to know the happenings and legacies left behind by previous occurrences in solving of such issues. The state department of defense, therefore, has records on previous happenings. The department of foreign policies should also ensure that it has histories of happenings of wars and resolution efforts by other bodies, including the United Nations on such matters. The approach to solving such matters starts with knowing the cause. This will enable the US know if it is a recurrence or a first time occurrence. This way it becomes easier to solve such conflicts.
In conclusion, wars arise due to misunderstanding. These misunderstandings lead to word exchanges between conflicting parties, and in the end a physical battle ensues. Such battles have very server effects on the country’s citizens and more so the economy. These conflicts need to be solved. Solving using third parties is vital since the third parties are mostly neutral. The United States of America has proved to be one of the most involved third parties in resolving international conflicts. In resolving these conflicts, the US has had to carry out research and caution in doing so.