EXPLAINING THE IRAN-CHINA DEAL

By Aria Zareibidgoli

Amidst tensions between the United States and China, the latter is pursuing a deal with another of America’s adversaries, Iran. The two countries seem to be in the closing stages of negotiations, developing an agreement that would signal increased cooperation in the decades to come.

The agreement signifies China’s defiance towards the United States’ aggressive policy attempts at isolating Iran and weakening its economy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, was initially supposed to relax the economic pressure on Iran through the removal and suspension of sanctions. However, the United States’ aggressive policy towards Iran resumed (arguably in a more drastic way than before) with the Trump administration’s abandonment of the nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions, and among other additional measures, the outright threat of further sanctions against any buyers of Iranian oil. 

These policies have succeeded in crippling the Iranian economy; the country faces a deep recession, a significant decline in oil exports and production, and a currency that is plummeting in value. Given these conditions, it’s not hard to imagine why Iran would actively seek a deal with its leading trading partner, China.

Many have described the deal itself as an economic lifeline for Iran; according to a leaked draft of the agreement, China will invest in Iran’s infrastructure, energy, transportation, and banking sectors for 25 years. These investments seem to total in at around $400 billion. In exchange, China will receive Iranian oil at a heavily discounted price. Additionally, the agreement suggests increased military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the two nations.

It’s important to consider this development in the greater context of China’s expanding influence. The agreement is the latest step in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a policy aimed at investing in the development of various countries, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Europe. If the two nations finalize this deal, it will further establish China as a competitor to the US in pursuing dominance in the Middle East. This is especially relevant now when the United States is seeking to diminish their military presence within the region.

Importantly, the deal has emerged after western nations failed to maintain economic commitments outlined in the JCPOA. Therefore, this development also underscores that, following the abandonment of the Iran deal, Iran has moved to further create long-term plans with non-western nations to achieve economic stability. Importantly, this means that in placing intense economic pressure on the nation, the United States has pushed Iran further towards its global competitor, China.

WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE A STEP BACK WITH ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN

By Carina Ritcheson

Resuming on July 12, 2020 and escalating on September 27th, the decades old territorial and cultural conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis re-emerged over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The region is internationally-recognized as Azerbaijani, but has an Armenian population. The fighting has no clear end in sight, aggravated by the intervention of Turkey, a historical adversary and oppressor of the Armenian people. Meanwhile, Russia has good relationships with both. From the realist American perspective, this is the perfect opportunity to preserve our role as offshore balancer. 

In 1921, Josef Stalin gave this land to Azerbaijan with an Armenian population. Conflict finally arose in the late 1980s with the Nagorno-Karabakh regional parliament voting to become part of Armenia. This led to war in the 1990s, resulting in millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead. A ceasefire was agreed upon in 1994, but a solution was never achieved. 

Presently, Russia and France are supporting Armenia, while Turkey has pledged its full support to Azerbaijan. The latter relationship revisits historical tensions within the region and provokes escalation. An old Armenian classmate of mine shared with me the current environment. He explains the Turkish involvement feels like a “continuation of the Armenian genocide.” Clearly, Turkey’s outright support of Azerbaijan, politically and militarily, worries Armenians.

Considering Russia’s role in the groundwork for this conflict, their hegemony in the region, and their healthy relations with both of their former satellite states, it makes sense for them to take responsibility. The United States does not have a role in this conflict. While we manage our election, failing Covid response, racism in America, and maintaining our international presence, Russia needs to fix this. As our past few presidents and many Americans believe, it is time to adapt to a new international system, one in which regional leaders fix a problem within their own means. 

While both sides are losing military personnel and civilians, what is on the mind of most Armenians are their troops. Turkish aid rendered Syrian mercenaries as fighters, many of whom came for the promise of a nearly $2,000 payoff. Young Armenian lives are being lost while the Azeris have the mercenaries. Azerbaijan has a population of 9.7 million people with a $46.94 billion GDP, which is grossly disproportionate to Armenia who has a population of 3.1 million and a GDP of $12.43 billion. It is not difficult to understand why Armenians see this as a humanitarian crisis and are pleading for help.

Although both sides accused the other of violating the October 12 ceasefire, with cooperation there can be a longer one. Perhaps, with the aid of more powerful regional countries, they will be able to broker a compromise and save their countrymen’s lives before history repeats itself. Russia has the opportunity to step in and make peace, which does not put our international role in jeopardy. This is America’s time to delegate and focus resources on our domestic concerns.

CYBER WARFARE IN THE ERA OF THE CORONAVIRUS

By Jule Voss

The importance of technology has never been more apparent than during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the 4.57 billion people who have access to it, the internet has become a lifeline during the pandemic, providing virtual options for employment, education, banking, health care services, psycho-social support, and vital information about the coronavirus. So what would happen if all government websites, news services, and financial institutions suddenly went offline for weeks at a time?

This is exactly what happened in Estonia and Georgia following Russian cyber-attacks in 2007 and 2008. Kremlin-affiliated hackers used distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) to shut down key online infrastructures in acts of cyber warfare. In these DDoS attacks, the hackers generated an overwhelming number of logon requests for specific IP addresses associated with the government, banks, and news sites to overwhelm the system and block access. 

In Estonia, the attacks were triggered by the government’s decision to move a Russian war memorial statue from the nation’s capital to a military cemetery; in Georgia, they were carried out as part of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. During the attacks, Estonia even considered invoking NATO’s Article 5—the provision for collective defense in the event of an armed attack against a NATO member.

While Russia has in many ways ushered in the era of cyber warfare, other nations, including China, the United States, and Israel, have been quick to follow suit. In one particularly astonishing case, a cyber weapon known as Stuxnet destroyed nuclear centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility, one of Iran’s primary uranium enrichment sites. The computer virus, which is widely believed to have been jointly created by the United States and Israel, targeted programmable logic controllers in Siemens centrifuges, causing the devices to spin out of control. No one was harmed by the attack, but the destruction likely set back Iran’s nuclear program by up to five years.

By many accounts, the Stuxnet virus is an example of the positive capabilities of cyber weapons—a targeted attack that avoided the kind of conventional military strike considered during the George W. Bush administration and which resulted in no human casualties. 

However, the Stuxnet virus also marks the start of a new era of cyber warfare in which the traditional rules outlined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law (IHL) may no longer apply. 

After discussions spanning multiple years, a UN Group of Governmental Experts appointed by the UN General Assembly in 2013 failed to research a conclusion about whether or not IHL— including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks against civilians—applied to cyber warfare. Without a comprehensive international framework to limit the use of cyber weapons, the safety and security of every citizen of the world will remain at risk.