An Update on Ukraine: A Big Player in the Middle East

Between the war in Iran, political debates over redistricting, a possible coming invasion of Cuba after the capture of the President of Venezuela, the Reform Party growing in the UK after local elections, the defeat of the Prime Minister of Hungary at the ballot box, a growing war in Mali, the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump, and much, much more, it can be easy to forget that Ukraine is in the middle of a war with Russia.  With the war entering its fifth year and limited territorial changes, Ukraine has taken a back seat in terms of media attention.  However, there have been some interesting developments recently that might be worth bringing up for anyone interested.

With the recent war in Iran, Ukraine is getting a lot more attention from Middle Eastern countries as many are interested in buying anti-drone technology from Europe’s breadbasket.  Ukraine has been pursuing deals with countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar with more to come.  This would allow for the exchange of military expertise and create joint manufacturing lines between Ukraine and its partners.  Those countries get the technology to defend their countries while Ukraine gets a hefty payday and new technology that it can use in its war with Russia.

The main reason for interest in drone technology has to do with Iran’s war with the US.  Iran has been hitting targets in those countries despite their original neutrality.  Targets have included the capital of Saudi Arabia and civilian infrastructure in the UAE.  With Iran’s love of using drones, there comes a need for using new technology to shut them down and Ukraine’s own history of drone warfare makes them a prime supplier for drone defense technology.  Keeping in mind that Russia and Iran have a history of drone trade, then that means that Ukraine’s experience in fighting them is even more vital.

Of course, Ukraine isn’t just making financial deals on drone tech or selling them to those countries.  Ukraine has already sent 200 military advisors to the Middle East to help with that technology.  Likewise, Ukraine has also admitted to helping shoot down Iranian drones in the region.  So Ukraine is becoming an active participant in the Iran War, even if indirectly.

What’s interesting is Ukraine’s motivations for being involved with the war.  Now, the money is an obvious incentive, or one could say that President Volodymyr Zelensky is doing it out of the kindness of his heart.  However, there is a consistent bogeyman at the heart of Ukraine’s actions, and that bogeyman is, of course, Russia.

Due to Iran’s depleted stockpiles, Russia is supplying Iran with drones as well as targeting information and other support.  There were also rumors that Supreme Leader Motjaba Khamenei was hiding in Russia to get medical care.  So Russia is also an active participant in the Iran War, and opposition to Iran does serve the objectives of Ukraine as well so long as that is the case.

It’s not just the Middle East though that’s interested in Ukraine’s tech.  Zelensky said that about 20 countries are interested in his drone technology, and that includes European countries like Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany.  A Dutch company that was helping the US track drones even said that Ukraine played a role in developing its technology.  So Ukraine is redefining warfare and technology in the modern day and for the future.

With that in mind, it’s probably important to understand the US is likely going to need Ukraine going forward just as Ukraine needed the US during its own war.  The US is still developing its own drone technology and warfare approach, and with drones redefining war in the 21st century, it will need the support of countries like Ukraine that have had that experience.  Also, with Russia supporting US enemies like Iran and China, that means that we’ll need countries that have a history of dealing with Russia as they do benefit from the international conflict.  For example, Russia was actually set to benefit with oil sales due to the shortage from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and corresponding price hikes, but Ukraine’s attack on the Russian oil industry has reduced that windfall.  So Ukraine will be a vital US ally if we let it be, and it seems like it is playing a key role in dealing with the consequences of our own wars.

As for Europe, the future is increasingly becoming the East.  Poland now has the largest land military in the EU which makes it a dominant country in the region.  Meanwhile, Germany has deployed its own troops outside its borders for the first time since WWII, and they deployed them to Lithuania which has a border with Russia.  So the future of Europe is increasingly becoming the East, and that will have consequences for the West.

So all of this shows just how internationalized war is in modern times.  The US goes to war with Iran, Iran gets support from Russia, Iran attacks the Middle East, the Middle East buys tech from Ukraine, and Ukraine plays a role in the US’s foreign policy objectives.  One could say we may already be in WWIII, but that may be too premature a call.  Regardless, Ukraine will be positioned to be a big player in world affairs if it can survive the war with Russia, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for it.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: An Overview

With the President’s decision to start a war with Iran, I thought it would be a good idea to get a book on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military that seems to be running the Iranian Government.  Fortunately, Amazon didn’t disappoint as they had a book readily available.  That 2023 book was “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Defining Iran’s Military Doctrine.”  The book gave me an overview on the Corps’ history, military tactics, purpose, and overall impact on the region.

Now, the book itself isn’t a thorough history book or overview of the IRGC itself.  Rather, it serves mostly as a literature review of other writings on the military force and a general background on them.  It wasn’t super in-depth, but I enjoyed it as someone unfamiliar with the IRGC because it served as a primer for understanding them and their relation to US policy.  So, I’ll be giving an overview of its contents as I’m hoping that may help others understand it and the current war as well.

To start off on its history, the IRGC was created by Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, as a paramilitary organization to defend the revolution that brought him to power and ousted the Shah.  Its primary focus was purging institutions, especially the military, of elements disloyal to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and enforcing edicts passed by the country's leaders.  Over time though, its role greatly expanded as it ended up supplanting the country’s military, the Artesh, and controlling the country itself.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC saw its role greatly expand in defending the country against the invading forces of Saddam Hussein.  Shortly after that, the death of Supreme Leader Khomeini resulted in his replacement by Ali Khamenei.  According to the book, the IRGC helped with his rise to power and he, in turn, greatly expanded their power in the country.

With the IRGC serving as the institution defending Khamenei’s reign, it played a key role in keeping the government in check.  Almost every President elected in the 90s up until the mid 2000s was a reformer, and the IRGC opposed every attempt at reform.  It sent orders to the President, put down protests, and worked to make sure its own people were constantly in control or running the government.

Then, in 2005, it helped get hardliner and Mayor of Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected President.  Despite not being seen as an intellectual heavyweight, Ahmadinejad did continue on his predecessor’s push to privatize the country’s economy.  Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad had a bunch of the government’s companies sold to people with ties to the IRGC, which was not the point of privatization.  So after that, the IRGC started to control the economy and thus the country at large.  The only thing worth consideration is that Ahmadinejad’s successor also attempted reform, and failed, so the history of Iran’s civilian government is to try and fail to reform what is now a military dictatorship.

Now, going back to the Iranian Revolution, the book also chronicles failures in the US to actually address Iran throughout its history.  Specifically, back during the Shah’s reign, Jimmy Carter wavered in his support for the Shah which Khomeini used as justification to return to Iran and that lack of confidence led to the Shah’s overthrow.  The Reagan Administration was equally inconsistent as it on one hand supported Saddam’s war with Iran, and then sold weapons to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua.

After that, the next three US Presidents, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush didn’t really have much of an Iran policy as they all became focused on Iraq.  In the vacuum that was created by Saddam’s removal though, Iran started greatly expanding its military network into Iraq and improving economic ties with them.  So the US didn’t have a consistent policy on Iran until the 2010s, and its actions greatly helped Iran expand its influence in the region.

The book then discussed Obama’s policy of negotiation with the Iranian government and the 2015 deal that was struck and Trump’s decision to withdraw.  The book tended to lean more in favor of Obama’s approach, which is why it notes more flaws in Trump’s proposal like how they started building more centrifuges after the US withdrew from the deal.  The withdrawal was also used by the IRGC to portray weakness by President Rouhani and justify curtailing his attempts at reform.  In short, the US hasn’t had a serious approach towards Iran until 2015 and now we are in the midst of a war with them.

Of note, the book also discussed the IRGC’s approach towards war.  Specifically, they support an emerging tactic known as “Hybrid War” which is still being defined.  The idea is that the IRGC uses a combination of military tactics including conventional war, guerilla war, terrorism, and cyberwarfare to complete its military objectives.  It also supports militias and paramilitary organizations in other countries such as Iraq and the Houthis accomplish its goals internationally.  So it’s not fighting a traditional enemy as they’ll support whoever or whatever to accomplish their military objectives.  As a result, a conventional war is not what’s going to take them down.

Finally, the book discusses what that means for future negotiations and handling Iran BEFORE the US’s invasion which took out Khamenei.  It did have some key points such as that Iran would never abandon its missile program so the focus should instead be on addressing its nuclear program.  It also notes that Islam is, ironically, becoming less of a focus for the IRGC as they become increasingly focused on controlling and maintaining the government.  Similarly, they would prevent the government from doing anything without their approval which meant any actual negotiations would not be possible without their approval so they would be a key roadblock to any meaningful negotiations.  A lot of this is irrelevant now that we are at war and Khamenei is dead, but there is one point that remains clear: the IRGC is the main power in the country, they have no intention of doing anything the reduces their power, and a lot of what they want is at odds with the US’s objectives in the region and the country.

I’m not posting this not to say I agree with every tenant of the book, but more to give a brief overview of it.  A lot of this does explain how we got to where we are, what’s going on now, and what we can expect after the war.  For that reason, I recommend giving the book a read.

The Future of the Political Parties

 

A previous blogpost dealt with the future of the Republican Party under Donald Trump.

However, that same post left off asking what that would mean for the party as a whole.  Well to steal a line from Captain Barbossa, the parties are to “be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound”.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the parties will be tomorrow what they are today.  In fact, I predict that, based on personal experience, the parties will actually grow to reflect each other over time while the differences become more regional than ideological.

It’s a bit of a cliche to talk about how divided American society is now.  A Gallup poll shows that the political parties are more ideologically divided now than before.  More interesting though is that the parties are also extremely divided along territorial lines with the Democrats dominating the cities and the Republicans dominating the countryside.

Another interesting trend is that many people are fleeing blue states in favor of red ones.  After all, blue states lost more congressional representatives in the last census while red states picked them up.  One could claim that’s irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as once red states like Georgia and Arizona are now purple, but, on the flip side, purple states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida have been voting Republican more consistently these days.  So there is a growing territorial reshuffling of where the national power center is and that’s likely to continue.

So it’s likely that people are splintering into areas where people are closer to their political beliefs or, at least, not in favor of policies that hold their states’ economic growth back.  However, elections in the U.S. are run by states, not landmasses.  There are still decent sized enclaves of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states.  So, what happens to them as their states become more ideologically captured by either party?

Well, I was knocking doors for Michelle Davis last month during the campaign and some conversations I had may provide the answer.  There were several anti-Trump homes that told me they were voting in the primary just to stop Michelle from winning because she was endorsed by the President.  With Indiana having a Republican supermajority in the legislature and no statewide elected official that’s affiliated with the Democrats, it seems these voters believed it was better to vote in the Republican primary, which is legal since Indiana has a functionally open primary system, to get a more moderate or anti-Trump candidate since the Democratic is unlikely to win regardless of the nominee.

One could make fun of Indiana for being a one party state, but that’s true for other regions as well.  I knew people who lived in Chicago who simply didn’t vote there because Dems always won so voting there was a waste of time.  I had the same experience in Bloomington, Indiana because the conventional wisdom was that Republicans never win so it was always better to run as a Democrat.  Point is, everyone knows a region that’s essentially a one-party state and current redistricting battles are making more of them.

Which brings us back to the Greg Walker voters I was talking to that were voting just to oppose Donald Trump.  Honestly, it’s likely that may become a more likely phenomenon as the states become increasingly captured by their respective parties.  It’s possible that more voters may find themselves joining or running in parties they don’t necessarily connect with because that’s what party is in control in their area.  After all, there is no way to have influence without being involved in the community, and if you aren’t part of the local party, it’s harder to influence politicians.

With the growing regional divide, that likely may determine what the parties look like going forward.  It may no longer be conservative vs. liberal or libertarian vs progressive, but rural vs urban or south vs west coast.  Ironically, this may lead to more moderate candidates and decreased ideological polarization because it means the candidates will need to balance out the new factions in the party.  So there would be less ideological divides, but more regional divides instead.

Now I’m going to wrap this up by acknowledging that I’m not very good at making predictions.  After all, if I was then Bob Iger wouldn’t have returned as Disney’s CEO and Pete Buttigieg would have been the Dem nominee 2020.  However, I do notice trends so discussing possible consequences of those trends is still worth considering.  After all, one of my predictions may not come true, but that doesn’t mean a different possibility I haven’t thought of may address the reasons behind it.

However, with growing pushes to make it harder to vote for political opponents to win going forward, from redistricting to making Indiana a closed primary state, joining the dominant party may be the only way to be engaged in politics locally or higher.  With Republicans enjoying a slight advantage in terms of registration, that would definitely bode well for them nationally.

So will this be the future of the party or will something else happen entirely?  Only time will tell.  However, never forget that many of the state senators that got primaried last week had been in the state senate for decades.  It will be interesting to see who’s still in office in 20 years.

The Crown of Thorns

My spiritual director once told me to do a daily rosary.  In addition, he told me to reflect on each mystery as I did it.  I’ve found myself doing this now for months since then and it has increasingly made me feel closer to God the father, the son, the church, and the Virgin Mary.  However, of all the mysteries that stick out to me the most, the one that I keep coming back to is the crown of thorns.

As it says in the book of Matthew, as Christ was scourged by the Romans during his trial, the Roman soldiers took Jesus and placed a crown of thorns on his head.  The intent was to mock him for his title of “King of the Jews,” a moniker they nailed above his head on his cross.  Yet ironically, since he was the “King of the Universe,” that parody crown became the symbol of Christ’s authority over his subjects: us.

In the Greek and Roman world, crowns were fashioned as wreaths and made out of different plants or flowers and had different representations.  For the Greeks, they were a sign of victory at games, association with religious ceremonies, or for performances.  The symbolism was continued by the Romans, but the wreath eventually became more associated with military accomplishment and power.  Julius Caesar himself wore a wreath made of laurels to symbolize his military victories and it was normalized for emperors to wear by his nephew, Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor.  For Christ though, his crown was not made out of laurels, roses, or gold, but instead thorns.  They would have been thick enough to dig into his head and inflict great pain on him as he carried his cross for his crucifixion.

It’s also a fitting symbol for God’s love as it is an inverse of the curse that was inflicted on Adam.  As Adam was being punished for accepting the forbidden fruit “And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field’.”  Many historians and theologians accept Christ’s wearing of the thorns as redemptive for this reason.  On his head, as he is sent to die, he is carrying the pain and weight of those sins, including the original one.

In many ways this is also an inverse of Roman culture and leadership.  In Rome, strength was idolized as the symbol of man’s authority and ability.  The man who committed the most conquests, asserted himself the hardest, and fought the most wars was usually the one who was awarded the highest honors.  Unsurprisingly, 75% died of unnatural and usually violent causes, proving that they were the poster children of the phrase “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Christ, meanwhile, sacrificed himself for us so that all, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, would be reconciled to God and could be with him when they die.  That action is a reflection of what Christ said in his sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” a promise he also makes to the poor in spirit.  So the great King of the earth conquered and redeemed not through violent conflict, assertion of power, or military strategy, but taking on the role of a servant and sacrificing his life.

We are called to imitate that willingness to sacrifice and that humility in service to God, the church, and our fellow man.  To prioritize others and to love them at great cost to ourselves.  That’s why the crown of thorns is such a powerful symbol.  Because it reminds us that our suffering and sacrifices redeem us and our neighbors the same way Christ’s sacrifice redeemed us.

I personally connect with it as well because it is also a symbol of leadership.  Many people imagine positions of power represented the same way the most do: A golden crown representing strength, wealth, pleasantry, or freeness from pain.  In reality, leadership is a sacrifice because of the requirements and responsibilities one has to take as they rise.

A good leader always has to put the wellbeing of the team and the mission above their own needs.  To constantly be deprioritizing themselves and willing to make sacrifices so that whatever project they are working on can be seen to fruition.  Those sacrifices could include longer hours, greater passion, greater financial sacrifices, or simply spending more time with a struggling teammate to help them complete a task.

In addition, the failures of the team are a reflection of the person who leads because, as former President Harry S. Truman would say, “The Buck Stops Here.”  There’s no one higher the blame can be passed to, and the leader always has to take responsibility for where the team goes because they are the one driving those following their direction.  Never forget that Adam ate of the tree and yet blamed his wife, shirking his own responsibility.  So if a project fails, even if someone else can be blamed, it always comes back as a reflection of the person who put that person in that position and let them go as far as they did.

That’s why the crown of thorns is the most appropriate symbol for leadership: because it is a sacrifice to suffer the responsibility of the team.  To actively be willing to guide people in a direction towards a hopefully good end and help them accomplish what they never could on their own.  It’s what Christ did when he sacrificed himself for us on the cross, and it’s what we do when we help others get to where they need to go.  It’s why I like to say, “If you can’t feel the thorns, you’re not wearing a real crown.”