This bipartisan legislation will now move on to the U.S. House of Representatives, and if passed, it will go to President Obama.

Although this legislation does not specifically mention China as a potential violator, officials on both sides of this discussion trust that China is the prime target for this reform.

Those in favor of this legislation believe China to be guilty of currency manipulation, which is simply the purposeful intervention of a government to alter the value of their currency.

This can either be in increasing or decreasing the value of one nation’s currency in comparison to that of another country.

For the case against China, this manipulation – if factually correct – has the effect of generating an artificial value of the yuan and impacts trade by making Chinese exports much more desirable to the U.S., and U.S. exports to China much less desirable; therefore contributing to a greater U.S.-China trade deficit.

Supporting this sentiment, Paul Krugman, a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University said in a New York Times column, “We can and should take action against countries that are keeping their currencies undervalued, and thereby standing in the way of a much-needed decline in our trade deficit. That, above all, means China. And none of the arguments against holding China accountable can stand serious scrutiny.”

The proponents of this legislation advocate that this reform legislation will place greater consequences for countries, like China, who they accuse of artificially valuing the yuan.

This depreciation of the yuan, they argue, is creating job loss and an unfair trade deficit in the United States and that this reform will help to provide the U.S. with the necessary legal provisions required to counter currency misalignment, and in effect counter massive job loss and the trade deficits.

Opposed to the legislation, John Soper, of John Carroll’s economics department, said, “Given that 79 senators voted for this, it’s equal stupidity on both sides. They are pandering to the no-nothings in society who are unhappy with unemployment and with an unemployment rate above 9 percent for two years, people start to do really crazy things and congressmen, and senators, are simply reflecting what their constituents want.”

Although this legislation is bipartisan and passed with a safe majority in the Senate, some still have reservations about the possible repercussions of this legislation. China is the United States’ fastest growing export market, and many fear that this reform act is sending a message that will begin a trade war with China.

For instance, Soper said, “If this goes through, the first thing the Chinese will do is pass similar foolish regulations.  Tit for tat. Retaliation is the first response after the shot over this bow and who will that help?  We [the U.S.] are a signatory in the World Trade Organization, and these types of restrictions put us in violation of the WTO.”

This concern over a potential WTO violation is echoed by those in the Cato Institute who indicate that treating currencies that have been artificially undervalued as an actionable subsidy will in all likelihood fail to comply with the rules of the WTO.

It is clear that this legislation calls into question a greater gamut of concerns than simply jobs and trade deficits.

The U.S. relationship with China will be affected if President Obama does sign this legislation into law; yet at this point it is still up to the House to decide if the benefits outweigh the potential costs of reform and if the justification provided in the legislation is applicable to China’s alleged offenses.

Occupy Wall Street protestors painted their faces to resemble zombies and marched through the financial district, Monday, Oct. 3, 2011, in New York. The protests have gathered momentum and gained participants in recent days as news of mass arrests and a coordinated media campaign by the protestors have given rise to similar demonstrations around the country. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Some members indicate that the original plan was to mimic the protests that occurred earlier this year in countries like Spain, Egypt, and Israel. Although this protest began in New York’s financial district as a group of college students, the movement has spread across the country to reaching cities on the west coast.

This newly found nationwide support of “Occupy Wall Street” came after several hundred protesters were arrested in their attempt to reach Union Square this past Saturday.

In their journey to reach their destination of protest, they blocked the Brooklyn Bridge and were met with resistance from the NYPD.   The tactics of the NYPD were seen by the protesters, who thus far have a commitment to non-violence, as an aggressive affront to their peaceful campaign.

On Monday, the protesters took to a more creative form of peaceful action. Many dressed up as “corporate zombies,” with full make up while pretending to eat fake dollar bills.

Regardless, this escalation in the events surrounding this movement have encouraged some to travel to New York to take part, while others in cities like Columbus, Ohio and Los Angeles have been inspired to lead demonstrations of their own.

The specific 1 percent the campaign is protesting against is in reference to banks and the insurance and mortgage industry.

While many in the group, and in the country in general, have frustrations surrounding the recession and may blame those that were in charge of the institutions that contributed to the financial downturn, Larry Cima, an economics professor at John Carroll, said “They [those involved in the demonstrations] do not think about this, but there are new people in the banks and other institutions that they are protesting and that the people, who largely mismanaged, are gone.”

This leaderless group welcomes people of all genders, race, and political affiliation and utilizes social media outlets, such as Twitter and Facebook, to organize.

The majority of the demonstrators are in their twenties and are for the most part unemployed. Although this group does not have a uniform message, many are advocating for a more equal economy. One demonstrator went so far as to indicate that he held communist ideals.

In response to such proposals for economic reform, Cima said, “If you look at the facts and look at Japan and its economic wonders and how it rose up from the ashes, or Western Europe, which is an industrial marvel built on capitalism, you will see that capitalism works and that these people do not know what they are talking about.”

In addition to the movement’s denouncement of the current state of the economy, there are also those present in the group that also decry U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, the U.S. state of the environment, and various other situations in America.

Regardless of the message or the opinion of the group, the media coverage surrounding the campaign is mounting and more events are planned throughout the country.

Despite this, it is still unclear whether this populist group will span into a lasting movement or have a mainstream political impact.

In last week’s issue of The Carroll News, they featured the “Facemashed” article. I was especially struck by the article because also on the front page was the story regarding Andrea Teodosio, an individual who brought great things to our campus and touched the lives of so many. She was truly an embodiment of kindness no matter the occasion.

This contrast in articles, just reminds me how much of an impact we have on one other. Unfortunately, instead of using our time here to celebrate what others can offer, we find ways to judge one another. We have the opportunity to make the lives of our peers better. This is an awesome gift that we all have the ability to do. This Facebook profile, along with the female version, is a degradation against human dignity.

Although these profiles may not have been created with a malicious intent, they have emotional repercussions beyond the scope of what we can see.

Having looked into the matter, both sites are grotesque and offensive. By joining, we are giving them justification for their behavior. I urge you to remember that we are members of a university that encourages us to be men and women for and with others.

That being said, I implore you to encourage your friends not to join these types of groups and remind your friends that we are adults who can and should rise above such blatant disrespect. Although the different profiles may be secret, the friends list is not. By participating in these sites you may bring unforeseen future ramifications.

I hope we can all come together and work past these conflicts. To all those affected by this site and other forums like it, I want to express that you are a valued member of our community and can be a force for change in society.

We are the sum of all our parts and when others choose one part to classify a person, they neglect the other qualities that you possess. Ultimately, we are all free to make our own choices. I just hope we can all work to make choices that will raise people up rather than tear them down.

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you never know when it will be too late.”

All the best,

Rita Rochford

Student Union President

These talks, which the United States is set to mediate, are scheduled to resume this week. The announcement to expand Israeli control into East Jerusalem, which was made public while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel, interrupted the initial plans to bring these two adversaries together. In protest, the Palestinians withdrew from the indirect discussions.

The United States responded to Israel’s bold declaration by insisting that Israel freeze its settlement plan. Despite U.S. pressure, Israel officially discarded this demand under the pretense that it should maintain control over all of Jerusalem. Contrary to this Israeli belief, Palestinians hope that East Jerusalem will one day serve as their capital, pending the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel and Palestine have not engaged in direct peace talks since late 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza. Since this skirmish, which Israel says was prompted by hostile militant rocket fire over an extended period of time, Israel has advocated peace talks without preconditions. 

Palestine, however, firmly maintains that Israel must freeze settlement building inside Palestinian territories it acquired after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Although Israel still refused to accede to a total freeze, it did concede to a partial postponement in construction.  

Those like Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, have made it clear that for peace to prosper, Israel must cease their settlement plans. In addition to Palestine’s reservations regarding Israeli expansion into occupied East Jerusalem, the Arab League reiterated the need for an Israeli halt prior to direct peace talks.

Although concerns are still prevalent, the Arab League issued statements of support for the indirect talks to continue. The Arab League is a regional association composed of member states ranging from Southwest Asia to North and North East Africa.  

Even with such an endorsement for the proximity talks, those in the Arab League, such as the Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabir al-Thanistill, are hesitant to trust Israel.

However, regardless of any possible reservations, the Arab League’s decision provides the political clout necessary for Palestinian Pres. Mahmoud Abbas to protect his faction, the Fatah Party, from public disapproval. The United States is credited with aiding in this decision as shown by its continued diplomatic endeavors. Israel has also shown approval of such a backing by the Arab League.

These talks are anticipated to last several months and will serve as a precursor to any direct negotiations. However, before these indirect talks will take place, the political factions located in the West Bank will first have to approve the plan.

In reference to its current pronouncement, cruelty to animals in various forms, including animal fighting, is already outlawed in the United States. However, this case, centered on a 1999 law that prevents the trafficking of portrayals of cruelty to animals, addresses how this law specifically criminalizes the depiction of animal cruelty rather than the action itself. This law, passed and signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, was designed to specifically target “crush” videos in which women literally crush small animals with their bare feet or high heels.

According to Sara Schiavoni, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “While this decision may make our skin crawl because of the content of the protected ‘speech,’ it’s not all that surprising. Nor is the justification novel, evidenced by the 8-1 vote. Since the mid-1960s, the Court has resisted trying to place a societal value on the content of speech, instead valuing ‘speech’ in and of itself.”

“Once the Court decides that the act in question is ‘speech,’ they begin with the presumption that it is protected by the Constitution,” said Schiavoni. Although originally meant to respond to a sexual fetish, evidence suggests that this law has been used more to prosecute individuals distributing dog-fighting videos. As a result of the broad use of this law, the Court struck it down. This ruling is in response to Robert J. Stevens, who was sentenced to a 37-month prison term for his work as a small-time film producer. Stevens never took part in any of the instances he later accumulated and distributed, but under the 1999 federal regulation was criminally responsible for trafficking even though some of the unlawful activity occurred outside of the United States.

In support of the 1999 federal law, the government defends that these exposés fail to contribute enough to the public to warrant protection by the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito, the sole dissenter, argued that the decision uses a framework of theoretical instances that safeguard this form of decadent amusement. Furthermore, while Alito finds fault with comparing depictions of animal cruelty with that of hunting, as Roberts argued, he sees the similarity between “crush” videos and child pornography.

Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the government does not possess the authority to limit demonstrations of speech on the basis of its subject matter, suggestions or implications.  Despite this, Roberts acknowledges certain exceptions to speech, such as defamation and slander, which are outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Although this ruling serves as a victory for civil libertarians, those in the Humane Society have requested that Congress enact a narrower law to combat “crush” videos and depictions of unlawful animal fighting.

At the heart of this legislation, approximately $36 billion will be directed over the next 10 years to finance Pell grants. Pell grants are part of a federal program designed to provide funding to promote undergraduate and post-baccalaureate education on the basis of financial need. Students can then take these grants and select one of 5,400 different participating institutions to seek academic enrichment.

The passage of this bill will essentially minimize the role of private lenders, who currently receive payment if students default on loans. Instead, students in need can look to the federal government for direct loans that are designed to keep rates down. To determine the rates of these loans, “the government will look to the private market for guidance,” said Linsday Calkins, a professor of economics at John Carroll University. “But it also depends on what their objectives are. If they want more people to go to college, then they’ll charge a lower interest rate,” said Calkins.

“At the same time, that could result in more defaults, which would cost the government more money,” she said.

Those like Rep. George Miller of California, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, asserted positive sentiments alluding to the potential for America to keep jobs in the country. He also noted that the legislation will better prepare the nation’s youth to contribute to a global economy.

Although those in favor, such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, view this  legislation as significant reform for middle and working class Americans to obtain the means necessary to fund a higher education, those opposed view it as superfluous.

Some estimates calculate that the United States taxpayers will save $60 billion over the next 10 years by cutting out these lenders, who had been profiting off of the old system.

“The banks profited because there was no risk involved in lending to students. Even if students defaulted on the loan, the government would have picked up where the students left off,” said Calkins.

However, critics worry that such a shift will be detrimental to those who work in the banking industry. For instance, the banking community has actively voiced dissent in reference to this legislation arguing against educational savings as a means to cover health care costs. Concerns have been raised about the potential loss of banking jobs and mounting, unprovoked government involvement.

In addition to these hesitations towards student loan reform, funding towards education is also a source of contention. In an original estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, savings were approximated at $87 billion.  This figure is significantly higher than what is available and has resulted in cutbacks from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act passed by the House in October.

The consequence of such cuts has eradicated plans to improve graduation rates from community colleges; although, these colleges will still receive some assistance resulting from the legislation.

Despite depicting Iraqi commitment to vote in the face of danger, this statistic also reflects the inclusion of a party that largely boycotted the last elections, the Sunnis. There was concern leading up to the elections that there would be more Sunni disapproval after the disqualification of some 500 candidates on the basis of speculation of ties to the Baath Party, Saddam Hussein’s banned faction. This decision, however, was overturned by the courts that ruled to wait to decide on disqualifications until after the elections.

According to Mona DeBaz, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “We did see a better Sunni participation even though overall participation was down. Allawi seems to have attracted more of the Sunnis because he is a more secular leader and, even though he is a Shiite, the Sunnis feel more comfortable with his representation.”

Through this election, the people of Iraq are choosing among over 6,000 individuals in varying parties or coalitions who will in turn create the new Iraqi government, including the prime minister. The two front-runners for Prime Minister are incumbent Nouri Maliki of the State of Law coalition and former interim leader Iyad Allawi of the Al-Iraqiyya, or the Iraqi National Movement.

Although all the votes have been cast, it will still be days until a winner will be announced. This delay has led to accusations of fraud that have been made on both sides of what has turned out to be a very tight election. In reference to the validity of these allegations, DeBaz said, “A lot of it will have to deal with how long the results will take to announce.  If the results take longer to announce, there may be more allegations made.”

Even once results are made public, it seems unlikely that one single coalition will have a majority. This will result in further uncertainty as the winner attempts to negotiate to form a new coalition government that will elect the prime minister.  After the 2005 election, Maliki was only successful in achieving his post after months of compromise and discussions.

There is hope that these elections, which are perhaps the most open and democratic elections in all of Iraq’s history, will result in a government that is fully capable of governing a sovereign Iraq. However, much of this success will be determined only after the votes have all been tallied.

“The success or failure of the Iraq elections will be based on how long it takes to form a coalition government,” said DeBaz. “There were months of violence after the 2005 general election because there was a power vacuum and if this takes a long time, there may be more violence. The secret to stability is to get a coalition together as soon as possible.”

The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, is viewed by China as a dangerous figure who seeks Tibetan independence from China. In spite of this, many other nations, including the U.S., see him as a peaceful, non-violent leader. In fact, the Dalai Lama is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In an attempt to curb Chinese disapproval, the White House minimized the coverage of this meeting to focus on the issues at hand rather than the politics surrounding it. The administration even went so far as to publicly keep the two leaders from appearing together. Additionally, to address Chinese criticisms, the U.S. still maintains that Tibet is a part of China, not a separate entity.

In response to White House actions, Beijing finds it inconsistent for the U.S. to recognize Tibet as a part of China and to meet with an exiled leader. This meeting draws attention to the separatist sentiments of many Tibetans as well as emphasizes China’s questionable record on human rights.

Others who dissaproved of the meeting, such as Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute, see this as a political ploy to detract from America’s economic situation as the nation proceeds toward midterm elections.

Although the Dalai Lama has frequented the White House for about two decades, starting with Pres. George H.W. Bush, China remains adamantly opposed to U.S. recognition of this leader. As such, they have voiced their condemnation of the meeting; however, no specific repercussions were mentioned by Beijing prior to the engagement.  Yet, the Chinese government did go so far as to beckon the United States ambassador to directly relay their disapproval.  Although it is unclear how China will respond to the meeting, in reference to the arms sale, China has threatened to sanction the companies involved in providing the weapons.

According to Pam Mason, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “They [the United States] are risking less cooperation from China on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear weapons program, to energy, to other global security issues. Also, the United States and Chinese economies are very deeply intertwined. So, in addition to security, there could also be economic fallout from real Chinese disapproval. It is unclear whether rhetoric is just rhetoric.”

Obama reportedly kept the scheduled meeting based on the United States dedication to human rights.  Nevertheless, there are many that believe more is occurring than just a discussion of human rights in Tibet.

“In general, China is really returning to the center of the world stage after a long absence. China and the United States are testing their relationship in many ways, and this is an occasion for the testing of the relationship without doubting America’s sincerity and commitment to human rights,” said Mason.

Regardless of the potential ramifications surrounding the meeting, during the talk, Obama affirmed U.S. support of Tibet’s cultural distinctiveness, including its religious preferences.

He also expressed support for human rights protections towards Tibetans. Now only time will tell the ramifications to the Chinese-United States relationship.

This declaration came days before the fifth anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri – the father of the current prime minister – who was killed in a bombing while protesting the Syrian government’s role in Lebanon. Although Prime Minister Saad Hariri blames Syria for the bombing that claimed his father’s life, along with the lives of 21 other people, he still seeks to carry on good relations with his eastern neighbor.

While Hariri’s message was meant as a warning to Israel, Avigdor Lieberman – Israel’s foreign minister – sees it instead as something Hariri was compelled to articulate. However, even with this stance, Israel issued warnings to its citizens discouraging them from traveling to Islamic countries. 

Hariri’s coalition has a narrow majority in Parliament over Hezbollah’s political alliance, although Hezbollah still has veto power in Hariri’s Cabinet. Israel equates Hariri’s situation in government to that of a captive that may never be free of Hezbollah. In fact, in 2008 when the Lebanese government attempted to limit Hezbollah’s influence, Lebanon experienced a wave of sectarian violence throughout Sunni neighborhoods.  

Israel and Lebanon, or rather Israel and Hezbollah, are no strangers to conflict.  In 2006, Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers, which instigated a 34-day long war resulting in the death of over 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians. Nevertheless, Hezbollah declared the exchange a victory since it not only survived, but also hurt Israel. 

Still, Hezbollah professed it would not have acted in such a way had they been able to foresee the desolation that ensued. This, at least for the time being, reassured Lebanon that Hezbollah would not try to provoke another Israeli attack.

Israel, however, is not quite as assuming. According to Mona DeBaz, a political science professor at John Carroll, “Israel feels threatened by Hezbollah,” especially now that it is part of the Lebanese government.

“Israel would feel no regrets at all for attacking Lebanon if it were provoked by Hezbollah,” said DeBaz.

Hezbollah has its strongest foundation in the southern region of Lebanon. What began as a guerilla force progressed into an institutional organization that has an active voice in the Lebanese government. With Iranian support, Hezbollah has established schools, clinics, farms and various other services to provide for many underprivileged Shiites in Lebanon.  

Hezbollah’s link to Iran is largely ideological, as both are members of the Shiite sect of Islam; however, the relationship is also deliberate and designed to spread Iran’s influence throughout the region.

The northern and southern regions formed the Republic of Yemen in 1990 following the fall of the Soviet Union. Prior to this, the two regions experienced years of antagonism, largely relating to South Yemen’s decision to adopt a Marxist style government in the years following British rule. This decision resulted in hundreds of thousands of South Yemenis fleeing to North Yemen, which was a republic. 

Although formally united, Yemen still faces a secessionist threat from the south. Furthermore, a group of Shiite rebels known as the Houthis, located in northern Yemen near the border with Saudi Arabia, constantly provoke violence with Yemeni government forces. 

Yemen, like most of the Middle Eastern nations, has a Sunni majority, and the Shiite Houthis feel marginalized by the Sunni majority. Since last November, the Houthis have been engaged in a military confrontation with Saudi forces. 

Some Saudi officials claim that Iran, the most populous Shiite country in the Muslim world, is secretly providing military and financial support to the Houthis, although Iran denies this claim.

Additionally, Yemen faces widespread corruption, poverty, high illiteracy rates and struggles in both the northern and southern regions. This combination of violence, lawlessness and economic backwardness has created an ideal environment for al-Qaida.  

The government must also deal with its arms market, considered the largest arms market in the Middle East, with an estimated 20 million guns.

Yemen, the poorest nation in the Middle East, first gained attention from the United States in 2000 with the bombing of an American destroyer that claimed the lives of 17 sailors. Although the U.S. government was able to create a partnership with Yemen in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, its focus as a potential threat resurged with its alleged connection to the Christmas Day bombing plot.  

In response to these threats, the United States remains committed to working with Yemen’s government to prevent additional attacks. The Pentagon is reportedly spending over $70 million over a two year period to assist Yemen’s military, coast guard and Interior Ministry with training and equipment. 

Administration officials – concerned that Yemen could turn into a new haven for jihadists similar to that of Afghanistan, Pakistan  and Somalia – hope to continue to cultivate their relationship with President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Although the threat of terrorism training bases and terrorist operations in Yemen is worthy of concern, the impoverished nation also faces a plethora of other perils to its population of over 20 million. 

One such peril is the demographics of its population. Comprised of about 10 million children, half the population is under the age of 15. Of those aged 15 and over, only approximately 50 percent are literate, with most of that figure being male.

To further Yemen’s problems, both its water and oil supplies are expected to run out in five years. Oil is this country’s main source of economic intake and limited water supplies have already resulted in riots. The government’s widespread corruption makes dealing with these dilemmas difficult and fuels the aforementioned desires for an upheaval, especially with the Houthi rebels in the north and the secessionist groups in the south, with which al-Qaida is expected to be working.

Although the White House hopes to remain close to the Yemeni government with Hillary Clinton’s recent visit, additional foreign aid seems contingent on Yemen raising their standards domestically to provide more for their citizens, such as ensuring women more rights and protections. 

Yemen has little, if any protection for young girls’ rights and in many cases results in child brides, with some girls marrying at as young as eight years old.  The situation these “brides” are then put in leads to serious psychological trauma and contributes to the estimated 20 percent of married women who have been sexually abused.

So, while the threat of al-Qaida is a plague to Yemen, it is not the only concern the nation faces.  Domestically and internationally, Yemen has a lot of ground to cover before being free of the financial and political limitations with which it currently contends.

While many in support of this decision view it as a rightful extension of freedom of speech that had been denied for decades, others in dissent worry that with this newfound power, the role of corporations will disenfranchise the individual voter.  

Kevin Snape, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “The implication of equating speech to money, under this ruling is then if you do not have money then you seemingly do not have speech.”  

In addition to this he said, “It potentially and dramatically changes the balance of power between the individual and corporation, and now we need to find a new balance point for fundraising.”

According to The New York Times, President Barack Obama expressed his dismay over the decision, stating that this ruling is “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Countering these criticisms, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court ardently maintains that the prior statutes restricting corporation and union contributions unconstitutional.  

Many, like Roberts, argue that during an election, the ability to speak matters most. Therefore, hindrances to doing so, especially in this case, are a violation of the freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision provides corporations and labor unions with the constitutional right of freedom of speech. 

In reaching this conclusion after first hearing arguments and then inviting both parties back for an uncharacteristic second hearing, the court overturned two legal precedents designed to regulate the role of business in elections.  

This judgment becomes even more significant when applying it to the seemingly narrow scope of the case brought before the Supreme Court involving an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary called “Hillary: The Movie.”

The Federal Elections Commission had limited the ability of Citizens United, the group producing the film, from advertising their documentary during the 2008 Presidential Primary season; thus, sparking the legal battle.  

While some speculated the ruling would be in relation to the bipartisan McCain-Feingold law that prohibits soft money contributions to national parties to use towards advertising in favor of, or opposing specific candidates, the result had larger ramifications.  

The ruling, while addressing the specific issue at hand, went further to apply that in all instances, corporations should be guaranteed freedom of speech. 

The Court ruled that since money is an extension of speech, corporations have a right to use their profits to support their interests. In response to this arguably broad ruling, Snape said, “This is one of the biggest examples of judicial activism since Roe v. Wade.”

The Supreme Court was left fervently divided over the outcome, with the “conservative wing,” composed of Justices John Roberts,  Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, while  the “liberal wing,” composed of  Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the dissenting opinion.

Stevens, perhaps the most adamantly opposed to the ruling, expressed his disagreement in a 90-page dissent.  This decision also highlights the impact of Justice Kennedy as a “sway” vote in issues as controversial as this.

Although many leading Democrats, including President Obama, are opposed to the unfettered freedom corporations are now able to exploit in the political arena, Congress will be left with little current legislation to work with in terms of developing campaign finance reform.

This decision came in the months following General Stanley McChrystal’s assessment of the situation in which he reported that the fate of the war in Afghanistan hinges upon receiving more troops and adjusting the strategy. Before issuing his final decision, Obama consulted a number of experts and received advice from many of his advisers.

Neither Obama nor McChrystal rely solely on numbers to change the course of the war in Afghanistan. As a result, the proposed strategy seeks to ensure protection of the Afghan people, as well as to pressure the Afghan government to strengthen its military and be prepared for a transition of power in the absence of U.S. forces.

A great deal of focus will also be placed in the southern regions of the country to counteract the Taliban’s expansion. In particular, the Helmand Province, which is a Taliban stronghold and major producer of opium, will experience a strengthened U.S./NATO presence.

The cost of this plan is estimated at $30 billion for its first year.  With no set plan for funding, Obama looks for transparency and truthfulness in these discussions. Many Democrats in Congress, who feel that U.S. resources are better used at home rather than fighting overseas, met this commitment to Afghanistan with aversion.  Some even recommended applying a war surtax to generate additional funding.

While Republicans largely support the president’s decision to increase troop levels, an area of contention rose around the inclusion of a timetable to begin removing U.S. forces by mid-2011. Some fear it sends the wrong message to Taliban militants.

According to Mona DeBaz, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “This deadline puts pressure on the Afghanistan government that they cannot depend on the U.S. forever.  However at the same time, by telling the Taliban when American forces are going to leave, it gives them the opportunity to wait it out and hide in the mountains.”

Those in the White House have responded by pointing out that the timetable is not set in stone and will depend upon the situation in the districts of Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has further addressed concerns, explaining that the transition will occur gradually and operate on a conditions-based agenda.

In response to the increased U.S. commitment to Afghanistan, NATO has responded by pledging an additional 7,000 troops from at least 25 member nations. “A lot of the European countries want to stand up with the U.S.’s large commitment especially as the U.S. image has improved internationally with President Obama’s election,” said DeBaz.

The proposed figure, combined with the 30,000 troops promised by the U.S., brings additional troop levels closer to the 40,000 that General McChrystal requested in his September report. Although details surrounding this announcement are still vague, Germany and France are expected to play a large role by providing over 3,000 troops each.

However, neither nation will commit to anything prior to the conference on Afghanistan, scheduled for late January. Should this proposal come to fruition, NATO forces on the ground would operate with 47,000 troops excluding U.S. forces, which will be over 100,000 troops.

Gates and others believe that by July 2011 it will be evident if the change in strategy has paid off.  The new goal seeks to ensure the government of Afghanistan is protected and stable enough to thwart Taliban threats as well as to counteract their momentum.  This new goal replaces the drive to eliminate the Taliban completely which some, like Gates, would consider an everlasting commitment.

In addition to the troop increase, Obama also announced that he will increase pressure on Pakistan to fight militants in its North West Frontier Province, which has become a sanctuary for the Taliban to plan attacks on American forces in Afghanistan.

However, prior to his scheduled trip, a North Korean patrol boat crossed into waters controlled by South Korea and, in doing so, instigated a military response from South Korea.

When the South Koreans initial attempt to warn the North Korean patrol boat was unsuccessful, South Korea started firing at the vessel to drive it away.

While this reaction ended with minimal damage to the South Korean vessels, North Korea reported one casualty suffered by the South Koreans with several others wounded although it has not been confirmed by North Korea.

North Koreans claim to have been in their own waters and blame South Korea’s efforts to prevent cooperation between North Korea and the United States as the reasoning behind the attack.

In response to this notion, Pamela Mason, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “It seems unlikely that South Korea was trying to hinder bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S. South Korea has a huge stake in a more normal kind of politics in the region.”

This dispute between the two Koreas is not the first. In 1999 and 2002, navies of both countries interacted in a violent fashion ending the lives of sailors on both sides.

In these instances, the waters involved have been controlled by South Korea since 1953, as established by the United Nations after the Korean War.

Despite this border decision, which was heavily guided by the United States, North Korea has grappled with recognizing the border as belonging to the South.

Although there has been over six years without a naval conflict, the election of South Korean President Lee Myung Bak in 2008 has caused increased pressure between the two countries.

Mason furthered this sentiment, saying, “This event reflects a more tense relationship between South Korea and North Korea since the election of Mr. Lee.”

North and South Korea’s land border also reflects the increased tension between the two nations.  According to Mason, “The land border between North and South Korea is also very militarized and tense.  The U.S. has troops stationed on the South Korean side and we coordinate with South Korean troops along the border.”

On the South Korean side, their troops have been placed on heightened alert since last Tuesday’s event, although no provocations have been detected across the border. South Korea has also sent additional naval ships near the disputed waters to deter any further North Korean provocations.

North Korea responded by stating that South Korea would pay a “dear price” for the naval confrontation.

Even with this altercation on the seas, the United States will deploy Stephen Bosworth as an envoy to North Korea by the end of this year, assuming all goes to plan.

This assignment was prompted by an invitation from North Korea to establish talks to work through the complications surrounding their nuclear weapons program.

Rather than use these talks to negotiate between the U.S. and North Korea, the U.S. hopes instead to encourage North Korea to rejoin the six-party talks it abandoned earlier this year, which also included the countries of South Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

While the reasoning behind North Korea’s actions is unclear, it is speculated that the goal of this conflict was to engage in bilateral talks with the United States. If this is the case, then North Korea has achieved such a goal through Bosworth’s assignment.

“It sounds like North Korea was testing South Korean control of those waters,” said Mason, “while also trying to insert itself more into talks between President Obama and South Korea, President Obama and Japan, and President Obama and China.”

Dressed in uniform and armed with two handguns, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered the Soldier Readiness Center while over 400 people were going through a medical screening. These men and women were in the process of returning home or preparing to serve their country abroad. While most in the center were military personnel, civilians were also present and account for one of the 13 lives lost. Hasan’s actions were eventually halted after being shot four times and, after it became apparent that he would survive, he was put in protective custody.

Although the motivations behind Major Hasan’s shooting spree remain unclear, investigators are doing everything they can to find answers. Among these leaders, President Barack Obama has issued several statements of condolence and reassurance to the victims’ families.

Included in the investigation is the search to uncover potential ties Hasan may have had with terrorist organizations.  This search is largely based on Hasan’s religious affiliation to the Muslim faith and his past interactions with a radical Muslim leader, Anwar al Awlaki. Awlaki, believed to reside in the country of Yemen, posted sentiments of support towards Hasan’s actions. Thomas Evans, a John Carroll University psychology professor who focuses on violence and aggression, said, “He became enthralled with Awlkai’s radical teachings.”

Despite these circumstances, based on current evidence it does not appear that Hasan had any links to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, officials seem to believe that Hasan is solely responsible for the rampage which they believe was caused by a number of contributing factors. However, many still have placed the blame on the Muslim religion rather than the individual’s interpretation of religion.

Hasan, a military psychiatrist, was to be deployed to the Middle East by the end of this month. As a practicing Muslim, it is reported that he had great qualms killing those who shared his faith.

Evans said, “Hasan was immersed in all of these veterans coming back and needing to be debriefed which reminds him of all the dead Iraqis.  This solidified his [fundamentalist] religious commitment.” 

On this point, Evans said that “what could be considered as triggering the event was the news of his deployment and that he could not face killing Muslims. In his mind, the thought of going to Iraq forced him to make a decision.”

What’s more, Evans elaborated on Hasan’s fundamentalist position reporting that “He had made statements to military students declaring the Islamic law supreme to the United States constitution.”

In response to this blame placed on the Islamic faith, many Muslims have vocally shown opposition placing blame also on the structure and pressures of the military itself.  Nationally, the Council of American-Islamic Relations has verbally condemned Hasan’s actions.

With 13 dead and another 30 injured in the shooting at Fort Hood, the military base must now recover in the wake of tragedy and decide how to prevent future outbursts of violence.

However, on Oct. 20, the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, issued an invitation for the large-scale conversion of Anglicans, who are the original branch from which the Episcopal faith came. 

In fact, through the guidelines of this process, entire parishes or even dioceses will be able to convert through a practice which in the past had been assessed on a case by case basis.

The reasoning behind such a bid would be to encourage traditionalist Anglicans, who like the Roman Catholic Church, oppose the ordination of women priests and openly gay bishops, to join in the Catholic faith.

In order to provide a viable option for traditionalist Anglicans to convert, the Catholic Church has allowed for Anglicans to keep certain tenets of their faith.

For example, under the provisions of this proposal, married priests would be able to remain so and the Vatican would also allow for some differences in liturgical, as well as spiritual, practices. 

While the ramifications of this process will be based largely on religion, should parishes or even dioceses convert as one, ownership rights of formerly Anglican Church buildings and land could cause further grievances.

This concept presents difficulties as to the extent to which the different liturgical and spiritual practices will be upheld, and how it will be decided still remains to be verbalized. 

Paul Lauritzen, a professor of religious studies at John Carroll University,  said, “There are significant differences in liturgical rights and practices and how these will be worked out practically is unclear.”

This arrangement also poses questions as to the stance of the Roman Catholic Church in terms of married priests. The Catholic Church maintains that the situations leading to Anglican priests remaining are entirely different conditions.

However, to simultaneously refuse originally Catholic priests to become married is a predicament that could lead to more internal problems.

Although this conversion process will apply to all sects of the Anglican faith, dissension between traditionalist Episcopals in the United States and Anglicans of the Church of England has triggered a split which has led to a more conservative traditionalist organization in the U.S.  As such, it is presumed that this proposal will have the greatest impact in England.

Another concern addressed by Paul Murphy, Director of the Institute for Catholic Studies at John Carroll University, deals with true traditionalists and theological differences.

“This does not simplify or resolve existing theological conflicts either among Catholics or other churches,” said Murphy. “In some ways it actually highlights them.” 

This idea relates to the effectiveness of the Pope’s policy, whether an Anglican traditionalist will be able to overcome the theological difference and join the Catholic faith is debatable.

In addition to this, Murphy continued by asking, “What if the Anglicans set up a parallel structure to attract Catholics who would like to see women and or gay clergy?” 

This expands upon concerns about what this move by the Catholic Church means to the dialogue between the Vatican and the Anglican faith. 

When this decision by the Catholic Church was announced, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not present.

Although the ramifications of this process will be based largely on religion, should parishes or even dioceses convert as one, ownership rights of formerly Anglican Church buildings and land could cause further grievances.

The direction of the Catholic Church might not be well-received by Catholics, as well as truly traditional Anglicans.

According to Murphy, it also shows that the Catholic Church is “trying to demonstrate a greater willingness to dialogue with those who are culturally and theologically traditionalists outside of the Church than it is willing to dialogue with progressive voices within  the Catholic Church.  This could exasperate tensions within the Catholic Church.”

Regardless of the outcome, an increase in general members may not be the goal of the Vatican, but rather a greater unity of traditionalist views.

U.S. Army soldiers from 4th Battalion, 25th Field Artillery Regiment, are seen here patrolling the Jalrez Valley in Afghanistan’s Wardak Province on Sept. 28. President Barack Obama has vowed not to decrease the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan, but remains uncertain as to whether or not he will increase the number, as many military officials are suggesting.

Entering into the eighth year of the Afghanistan War, the Obama administration is facing difficult decisions on how to proceed. President Barack Obama has maintained that the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will not falter in terms of current troop levels and the focus of fighting the insurgents. However, it is undecided whether sending additional troops is the right course of action.

This past May, Obama selected General Stanley McChrystal to replace Gen. David McKiernan to take command of the 100,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. Upon request of the president, McChrystal produced an assessment of the situation which reported a need for a more effective strategy as well as requesting 40,000 additional troops.

In recent months, the Taliban –  under the decentralized leadership of Mullah Omar, who may be aided by Pakistani intelligence – has been gaining ground in the northern and western portions of Afghanistan.  This has allowed them to expand their range of maneuvers, thereby forcing a narrowing of NATO troops throughout the country.

Attacks have also escalated as shown by an attack on Oct. 3 that claimed the lives of eight Americans.  This large-scale attack is responsible for the largest loss of American life in over a year in the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal advocates a strategy which will enhance the protection and support of the people from this spreading insurgency.  He hopes to lessen the separation from the NATO forces and the citizenry of Afghanistan.  If successful, the hope would be to gain support from the people while also turning them away from the Taliban’s propaganda.

In accordance with this view, George Vourlojianis, an instructor of military history at John Carroll University, said, “We went in 2001 and dismantled the Taliban.  We now have an obligation to help build the infrastructure, help the economy, and boost the hearts and minds of the people.

“We also need to prepare the Afghanistan police and army because, ultimately, this war must be won by Afghanistan,” he said.

McChrystal has publicly and privately verbalized his sentiments on how necessary it is to take away from the Taliban’s momentum and shift it back towards the U.S. and NATO forces.  He views the success of the war in the long run as dependent upon making a turnaround in strategy in the next 12 months.

In terms of McChrystal’s heavy focus on the short-run, Vourlojianis said, “I do not think you can reduce it to that simplistic of a formula.  However logically, if you cannot win in the short-run, you will not win in the long-run, and Afghanistan is a war for the long-run.”

Although McChrystal places a huge emphasis on the short-term goal of taking momentum away from the Taliban by utilizing additional troops, the White House is still deliberating on the proper course of action. While critics blame this delay on politics, Obama maintains that the only reason for delay is to ensure that a strategy is decided prior to actually sending additional troops.

The Obama administration, throughout the decision-making process, has made clear that while they will take McChrystal’s suggestions into consideration, his proposal is not the only factor with which they will decide.

For instance, a concern is that by sending additional troops, the Taliban will be able to launch a propaganda campaign that may cause more opposition from Afghani people towards American forces.

Obama, while facing growing opposition to the war from a number of leading Democrats, is also trying to make certain that all sides of the political spectrum are included in discussions.  Therefore, he has invited both Republicans and Democrats to discuss possible strategy options.

This strategy Obama plans to focus on will be reflective of his focus of keeping America safe from terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida.  As a result of this concept, many, like Vice President Joe Biden, have proposed keeping troop levels relatively the same and emphasize the use of surgical strikes. This approach would direct more resources towards counterterrorism than what is currently in place.

However, on the Republican side of things, congressmen such as Sen. John McCain are calling for a quick response by the White House in favor of McChrystal’s proposal of increasing troops. The fear of delaying this decision translates into the fear of soldiers dying.

Whether more troops will outweigh the Taliban propaganda and truly support the U.S. NATO effort is a decision left up to the White House.  It is expected that Obama will decide on this matter in the coming days.

This ousting was supported by members of Zelaya’s own party in Congress as well as many of the business elite and was implemented by the military. Currently, Honduras is under the rule of Roberto Micheletti, the head of the interim government.

Regardless of this sentiment from within this Central American nation, the majority of countries throughout the Americas, including the United States, was and remains fervently in opposition to Zelaya’s removal.

During the early days of the regime change, demands by those nations who opposed the overthrow of President Zelaya as well as the interim Honduran government were made.

However, over three months later, a compromise has yet to be reached. Countries in Europe and the America’s are avidly insisting on the restoration of Zelaya to his presidency whereas the de facto government remains firmly opposed to this idea.

In reality, the law has been violated on both sides of the controversy.

Those in favor of the coup had legal provocation to remove Zelaya from power; however, the use of the military to forcibly exile him was also in violation of the law.

In the absence of President Zelaya’s governing, Honduras is facing a worsening financial crisis, the revocation of visas for prominent business leaders to the United States, instability in their government and diminishing supplies of international aid.

Amongst the foreign aid being cut, many humanitarian groups, including John Carroll University’s immersion trip, have been postponed or even canceled until a peaceful resolution is achieved.

In addition to external dissensions, Micheletti has also suspended several civil liberties including certain freedoms of the press, demonstration, travel and so on.

Much of this emergency decree has been used to quiet Zelaya supporters.

The Honduran Congress, in its first marked disagreement with their de facto leader, has publicly spoken against such restrictions even going so far as to threaten to restore the rights themselves should Micheletti not correct them himself.

Reacting to pressures at home and abroad, Micheletti finally complied with these demands to remove such restriction. However, he did so at a very slow pace.

These actions, while unsettling the Honduran citizens, are also causing negative ramifications from the governments that already believed the overthrow was a violation of law.

Several of these same governments, even those in Europe, have withdrawn their diplomats in response to these measures as well as the statements made by the interim government; thus making discussions difficult.

Ted Steiner of the Center for Service and Social Action in reference to the Sociedad Amigos de los Ninos, an organization which John Carroll works closely with for the Honduras immersion trip, said, “They were happy to see him go.  They felt he was a crook.”

Although Zelaya’s presidency is marked with corruption, the true concern by many Honduran’s was his possible alteration of their constitution in an effort to extend his presidency.

With all this, there are still those in Honduras, some of whom supported the coup, who would prefer his rule to the chaos that currently ensues.

Despite this exiling, this past week Zelaya successfully reentered Honduras and remains in the protection of the Brazilian embassy.

As a result of Brazil’s favorable actions toward Zelaya, their relations with the interim government have greatly suffered.

Micheletti has even gone so far as to threaten a revocation of Brazil’s diplomatic standing if they did not choose between fully protecting Zelaya or to release him for trial.

While it appears negotiations between Micheletti’s government and supporters of Zelaya are not far off, a resolution to this calamity may still be.

When a group from the Organization of American States was invited by the interim government, only one member was permitted to engage in talks.

This exclusion of members illustrates Micheletti’s reluctance to invite all parties involved to come to a rational consensus.

Some possible proposals include restoring Zelaya to power until Honduran elections in November. Although Micheletti may be fundamentally opposed to this, it may end up being the most probable solution.

If the November elections occur without reinstating Zelaya, it is uncertain whether other nations will see the election as legitimate.

In accordance with this idea, Ted Steiner said, “Our hope is that it will come to some sort of a resolution with the elections, although it is unclear whether or not such an election will be recognized.”

Despite this and U.S. pressures on Israel, Obama’s words seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Israel, at the expense of potential peace negotiations, seems determined to continue building.  

As a result of Israeli resistance, in this same speech, Obama shifted gears to also call for peace talks without preconditions, thus eliminating the necessity for an Israeli settlement freeze prior to peace negotiations. 

Pamela Mason, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “President Obama has been left with many looming disasters with respect to foreign policy and no one is above criticism.” 

She also said, “But in light of the glacial pace, standstills, and in some ways worsening situations, to complain that President Obama is changing or adjusting the means with which he is pursuing his goals is to condemn his distinguishing between ends and means and his determination to pursue his ends or goals in the most effective way.”

From early in his presidency, Obama has shown avid resistance towards all forms of Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. 

In fact, the administration was so bold as to assert that no peace talks should take place until Israel agrees to put a halt to their illegal settlements. This stance even includes natural growth settlements that allow for children to build homes near their parents. 

This position against Israel’s expansion in the West Bank is in accordance with international law, which finds Israel’s actions illegal and does not recognize the legitimacy of many of these communities.

While this rhetoric expresses strong sentiments, Israel’s total lack of respect toward it leaves the White House with few options other than to change course.  

Obama, as shown in his address to the United Nations, is still stressing the need for a settlement freeze. However, in light of the Israeli response, he is instead pushing more for peace talks without preconditions.  

The hopes of these talks would be to resolve, or at the very least discuss, the issues of Palestinian refugees, borders for a future Palestinian state, security between both countries, and the fate of Jerusalem.  

Working to solve these issues could have wide-ranging effects from overall security in the area to increased trade between the nations.

Although the international community, as well as Israel’s ally the United States, opposes further settlement in the West Bank, Israel views Eastern Jerusalem as part of their capital.  

Therefore, Israel, under the conservative Likud party government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was elected earlier this year, can see no reason not to continue developing communities in what it sees as its own land.  

These construction efforts have led to over 100 settlements starting in 1967 when Israel first began occupying the West Bank. 

At best, Netanyahu will agree to a limited reduction on some settlement growth, which currently is not enough to satisfy the Palestinian Authority. 

Roughly a week before Obama’s decision to scrap the settlement freeze precondition, Netanyahu approved the construction of hundreds of new settlement homes in the West Bank, signaling his defiance of Obama’s calls to freeze settlements.

Even with President Obama’s efforts with respect to peace talks, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, views a halt of Israeli settlement as a must before a dialogue can take place.  

Abbas believes the building of more settlements in occupied territory, which is comprised of historic Palestine, will make it too difficult to discuss the creation of a future Palestinian state.  

Overall, the Palestinian Authority seems disappointed in the lack of success from the U.S. in preventing Israeli settlement.

This shift in Obama’s tactics in the Middle East is reflective of the complicated and frustrating issues of the region.  

According to Mason, “Peace between Israel and Palestine in whatever form has alluded U.S. presidents for decades. Peace in the Middle East hinges on peace between Israel and Palestine. The two-state solution is seen by the U.S. government as the best way to achieve and maintain peace between the two countries.” 

This idea is difficult since Netanyahu and Abbas have significantly strong and contrasting goals in mind.  

For instance, Israel seeks to be recognized by the Arab nations as a Jewish state, while Palestinians  are fighting simply to establish their own state.  

This battle for land has been both violent and devastating. It has also lasted for decades and has dragged the region into four bloody wars. 

However, peace between these two groups has been a goal for the Obama Administration since day one, and he has made it his main foreign policy goal.

See a map of Iran's assumed missile range

However, based on more recent information, which reports a shift in the development of long-range missiles to short to medium-length missiles, the Obama administration has opted for a plan that will incorporate a more flexible form of protection. This change in strategy reflects the advice of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, and is based on the updated assessment of what type of threat Iran actually poses.

Prior to publicly announcing what is perhaps the greatest shift in national security policy from the Bush administration to President Obama’s; the president first reached out to the prime ministers of Poland and the Czech Republic. Under the Bush plan, both of these countries were to be recipients of missile defense technology capable of solely preventing long-range missiles.

The missile defense proposals of President Bush were met with great aversion from Russia; thus, the less ambitious system of the new administration came of great relief to Moscow.

President Obama also reiterated America’s commitment to defend any member of NATO as well as reassure Poland that the United States would honor President Bush’s promise of anti-missile batteries. Even with these assurances, officials from Poland and the Czech Republic admitted that they felt far more protected from Russia under the Bush missile defense plan than the new configuration.

Although this decision was welcomed by many world leaders ranging from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, numerous Republicans were concerned. Mona DeBaz, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said that the Bush plan “built off the Star Wars days of the Reagan presidency.”

In regards to the missile shield based in Alaska which protects America’s western coast, DeBaz said, “Some now fear the eastern coast will not be as secure as if the Bush plan had been implemented.”

Many Republicans in Congress, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. John McCain vocalized their opposition with this plan alluding to allegations of disregarding or underestimating the true threat of Iran while simultaneously accusing the president of giving into Russian desires. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton joins in their concerns by adding his fears about this poor choice for U.S. national security.

Prepared for this criticism, the White House still maintains that this new system will improve the missile defense abilities in terms of protecting Europe and U.S. troops in the area. President Obama looked to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was appointed under the Bush administration, to publicly address further concerns regarding the modification.

Gates referenced the updated information reporting that Iran has changed focus from the accelerated development of long-range missiles to increase the production of medium to short-range missiles. The White House has decided that U.S. defense capabilities must reflect that change.

According to DeBaz, “Iran is still producing long-range missiles; however, the more prominent threat is their focus on short to mediumrange missiles.” Whereas the Bush plan would take several years to go into effect, the design of the new plan allows it to be implemented up to seven years sooner.

According to the Obama administration, the new approach to missile defense will be much more adaptable and enhance an already established system. The defense system would be implemented first with warships carrying missile interceptors followed by a land-based defense system.

With all of these far less ambitious plans, Russia is currently quite pleased, although potential conflicts between U.S. strategy and Russia are being downplayed.

Even so, Russia’s contentment may lead to improved trading relations, a joint effort to combat the Iranian threat, and a discussion on reducing nuclear arms. It is even supposed that with the newfound agreement between the U.S. and Russia, hostile feelings felt toward Russia by former Soviet Satellites might be replaced with more practical relationships. The Obama administration also aims for a positive response in regards to Israel.

Currently, tensions are high between Israel and Iran given their nuclear potential. The Obama administration hopes to take action that will ease this tension.