In the holy city of Medina, in Saudi Arabia, Ahmed Abu Ali was taking the last of his final exams for a study abroad program when he was suddenly arrested by the United States government. The detention came as quite a shock. He did not know of any crime he had committed nor did he know why he was being arrested.

“Syria is not Libya,” Ambassador Peter Wittig emphasized as he responded to questions comparing global reactions to NATO intervention in Libya but not Syria. Edward Luck, U.N. Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect, echoed back, “Syria is not Libya.”

On a cold November’s evening I went to a debate between four people well known in the Dutch academic scene. Strange as it may seem, only one of the four interested me. Two had authored a book about the public controversy regarding Muslims and their place in Dutch society and another was one of my university professors who reminded me to complete an assignment I owed him. Then, there was the most famous expert on Islam in the Netherlands: Hans Jansen.

Last month, Wadah Khanfar, erstwhile Director General of Al Jazeera and now President of the Sharq Forum, an independent think tank dedicated to developing long-term strategies for Mideast development and social justice, visited London. Appearing at the Frontline Club, Middle East monitor, London School of Economics and the Chaltham House , Khanfar discussed the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera, and political Islam.

Usually the definition of “allies” means two territories, countries, or nations that are working together in order to further mutual interests. Pakistan and America have for decades been considered allies, as they fought to conclude the vaguely termed War Against Terror in Afghanistan. The United States and China are officially allies, too-- economic allies, working in tandem to promote trade, good business practices, and further develop the economies of both regions. Pakistan and China are also allies; Pakistan was one of the first countries to have recognized China. Since then the two have maintained a long, stable history of mutual aid and cooperation. Until recently these various treaties seemed to work in their individual spheres, rarely overlapping and never under danger from or suffering from fear of their ally’s other alliances...until now.

Many Western pundits would like you to believe that the movement behind the Arab Spring consists of nothing more than a few angry young revolutionaries and an army of bearded Islamists. This is, of course, far from the truth. Revolutionaries of all ages, and all walks of life, have risked their freedom and their lives to bring about change in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and beyond. Yes, they are angry and many are supporters of Islamist policies, but their messages are diverse and their successes have been staggering.

Last week, Stephen Walt wrote a blog post criticizing Mathhew Kroenig's "Time to Attack Iran" article in this month’s edition of Foreign Affairs. Walt adeptly pokes more than a few holes in Kroenig's argument and shows that Kroenig's entire analytical approach is flawed. That is, in making the case for going to war with Iran, Kroenig simultaneously provides the worst-case scenario when it comes to Iran's intentions and the price of US inaction, and best-case scenario when it comes to predicting how war with Iran would play out. Or as Walt puts it,

The West is mired in a financial crisis of its own making, a crisis that will take many years to escape and which offers only a bleak outlook. No one can fully predict when the economic crisis will end. But a 2011 article titled Why the decline of the West is best for us - and them by Prof. R. Vaidya Nathan argues that the West is not only in financial and economic decline, it is also in cultural decline, even as emerging markets continue to rise and do well.