The Attacks On Saudi Embassy

September 11, 2001 (herein referred to as 9/11) was a day in American history, which will be remembered as the most horrific attack on American soil. This attack, carried out by nineteen Islamic extremists, was associated with al-Qaeda, and involved the hijacking of four airplanes. Two of those airplanes were hijacked and flown directly into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. The third plane’s target was the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the fourth plane was brought down in Pennsylvania where it is believed the passengers aboard fought the hijackers. This horrific day in history cost over 3,000 people their lives, and was labeled the worst attack on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

Next, I am going to portray what the media thinks about the Benghazi attacks. Since the United States has helped the Libyan revolution, Libya has been a hot zone full of extreme radical Islamists loaded down with heavy artillery such as machine guns, mortars and rocket propelled grenades. To make it look as if the U.S involvement has been successful the Obama administration has sought out a plan of “normalization,” which means scaling down the security forces near the Embassy and Consulate to make it look like everything is okay. The security forces that had been in Libya, a sixteen man team of ex-Navy SEALs and Green Berets, was pulled out just a month before the attack. Christopher Stevens and the State Department regional security director

Furthermore, the Shah purchased billions of dollars worth of weapons of security from the US. In 1979 the realm was overthrown by extreme Islam’s that were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. The intention of the Iranian students was to display their displeasure against the Shah. Their demand was the return of the Shah for a trial followed by his death. In addition, they asked that the US stay out of their country’s affairs. Carter’s approach required the safeguarding of American hostages but also guaranteed an alliance with Iran. Carter’s tactics on the situation had devastating effects on his run for re-election (Hamilton, 1982).

Saudi Arabia and Iran are two countries that sit on opposite sides of the Sunni/Shiite divide, which can be argued as being the most prominent issue the Middle East faces today. Saudi Arabia is predominantly known to be a Sunni state, while Iran is largely inhabited by Shia Muslims. Both countries aspire to be the hegemonic powers of the region. Ethnically, Iran is known to be a Persian land, unlike Saudi Arabia that is known to be in the heart of the Arab world. These two countries are separated by the Arabian Gulf and throughout the twentieth century and up until today, the relationship between the two countries has been notoriously contentious. Within the past few years especially relationships between the two states have been very fragile with Saudi Arabia ending diplomatic ties early in 2016. The two states are strained over many issues of which are, interpretations of Islam, oil export policy and hegemonic regional leadership.

Various factors influenced the 1979 Iranian revolution, but at the core of this significant event was Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, led this movement to end the thirty-seven-year reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran (Diller 1991, p.152). The revolution was a combination of mounting social, economic, political and religious strains. The nation of Iran was never colonized, unlike some of its bordering countries, making its people intolerant of external influences. The Shah had gradually westernized and secularized his country, creating a strong American presence that was being felt

Iran was now unprotected, and a new power came into being. The Arabs invaded and the quality of life changed. “People fell into poverty as the greedy court imposed ever-increasing taxes. Tyranny tore apart the social contract between ruler and ruled that Zoroastrian doctrine holds to be the basis of organized life” (21). The Iranian people couldn’t survive with a ruler who had no sympathy or respect for them. Their life was being over run by foreigners.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:

Since the early 1900s the United States has been embroiled in Iranian affairs, something that would have great effects both in 1979 and now. The United States’ interest in Iran was originally spurred by the discovery of oil, but due to the Cold War U.S. interest in Iran grew even more for strategic reasons. To continue to exert their influence in Iran, the United States, through the CIA, installed shah Pahlavi as ruler. The shah was a cruel and strict dictator and was eventually overthrown and exiled. In place of the shah, an Islamic Republic came to power under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

After recent acts of terrorism, Barack Obama hopelessly tried to convince the Muslim American community that recent criticism towards them would stop. Throughout the speech, Obama tried to make the Muslim Americans feel as they were a part of America. In addition, he sent a message to America about the Muslim Americans. These Muslim Americans that Obama addressed are regular Americans striving for a great life. To prove that Muslim Americans are regular Americans, Obama discussed religious ties between Islam and Christianity and brought up the beliefs of some Founding Fathers. This speech was required due to the recent terrorist acts on American soil in San Bernardino and the horrendous attack in Paris. However, this terrorist fear has been present in Americans’ minds since 9/11.

A United States woman whose husband lost his life during the 9/11 terror attacks has sued Saudi Arabia, holding it partially responsible for the attack.

As Michael Axworthy states on the back cover of his book, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Iran is a “land of contradictions”. As this is true these contradictions is what makes Iran, Iran. Iran today is looked as the pinnacle of the Islamic faith in the form of a Government structure. Since 1979, Iran has been known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran will continue being an Islamic Republic for centuries to come. Iran has a rich history of intellectuals and scholars. Iran is known for its vibrant culture that dates back longer than the Western Ideals were even conceived. However Axworthy asks a question about Iran and its impact on the world’s history and the current events that we see in Iran today, Axworthy asks “Is Iran an aggressive power, or a victim?” This statement is a true paradox, can Iran be the next Nazi Germany, the next Soviet Union or the next Great Islamic Caliphate or is Iran just fighting to keep its culture alive from a vast array of attacks from foreign entities and internal struggles.

Nuclear proliferation in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear proliferation may could be inevitable or good for the United States. This is all speculation and only a possibility that could happen in the future. When looking at the current issue there is no evidence that Saudi Arabia is a country of concern for nuclear proliferation. With this information I believe we need to come up with possible sanctions other than war. Joseph Nye would state that power is getting the outcomes you want. The United States has the power already, and using that power to further influence how Saudi Arabia continues after this issue will benefit us in the long run. France and the United Kingdom are already trying to diffuse the issue. They are unsuccessful as of now and we could have more influence than they have

In order to promote a peaceful global climate, global accountability from outside countries is necessary to keep Saudi Arabia from infringing on the rights of individuals both within and outside their borders. The overall sociopolitical ideology of Saudi Arabia, operating culturally under a patriarchal system of absolute power, is dangerous to the fabric of humanity. Militant intervention into the

Carmen Bin Laden’s life was impacted by the inequalities of Saudi Arabian culture in a profound way. She became connected with Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family through marriage, and subsequently became a subject of hatred from United States citizens following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Her life was changed forever following this event, and she speaks her truth and the backstory surrounding her association with Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family in her memoir, Inside the Kingdom: My Life in Saudi Arabia. As a woman, she experienced an extreme suppression of individuality and freedom throughout her time in Saudi Arabia, and focuses the bulk of her memoir on these experiences. In the following essay, I will argue that the vertical power structure in Saudi Arabia, specifically manifested through gender inequality, is responsible for a culture of oppression that endangers global harmony. The framework of my discussion on will be based upon Saudi Arabian cultural norms as experienced by Carmen Bin Laden in her memoir Inside the Kingdom: My Life in Saudi Arabia. I will begin with a brief background on Carmen Bin Laden’s memoir, followed by an analysis of the Saudi Arabian political and family structure and its impact on the oppression of women. From there, I will discuss a few examples of inconsistent gender treatment in Saudi Arabia before placing the cultural climate in context through a discussion of the human rights