Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on the earth, where the income per capita is only $446 per year. So when the US Department of Defense announced that Afghanistan may be holding more than a trillion dollars of mineral wealth under its soil, the future prospects of Afghanistan suddenly seemed a little brighter.  Some have even stated that Afghanistan could be the Saudi Arabia of minerals.

Great news, right? Not necessarily. First and foremost, Afghanistan will have to stabilize to even attract foreign investors. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, Afghanistan, with a population of 27.2 million people, saw $300 million in foreign direct investment in 2008. That might sound like a lot, but Trinidad and Tobago, a much smaller country of only 1.3 million  inhabitants attracted over $3 billion in that same year. Even if foreign countries and businesses eventually decide to heavily invest in Afghanistan (and that’s a big if) some examples from around the world show that an abundance of natural resources can create a lot of problems. These problems are often referred to as “the resource curse”. Nowhere is the resource curse more evident than in Africa.

Nigeria’s resource curse is synonymous with its oil problems. Nigeria’s political instability and history of systematic corruption has left much of its oil wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. Rather than being a force for development throughout the country, Nigeria’s oil wealth has far too often fallen prey to government mismanagement or worse - outright graft. Corruption isn’t Nigeria’s only oil problem. Rebel groups in the oil rich Niger River Delta resent both the government and foreign oil companies who ignore the environmental and social problems that come with drilling. Throughout the years, these rebel groups have kidnapped foreign oil workers, and attacked oil rigs making investment by foreign countries less attractive.

Elsewhere on the continent, the mining of diamonds have fueled deadly conflicts and activities of warlords throughout Africa. Charles Taylor, who faces charges of war crimes at The Hague, used diamond exports to fund his support of insurgency groups in Sierra Leone while he was the president of Liberia. Thankfully, the practice appears to be on the decline due to sanctions by the UN, increased international visibility, and a conflict-free diamond certification process.

While these problems may sound unique to a continent continually ravaged by war and prone to corruption, they also exist in abundance in Afghanistan. It’s not hard to imagine mineral wealth squandered by an already corrupt Afghan government. It’s equally easy to see a future in which minerals are used to fund tribal conflicts or even aid terror groups. It would be wonderful to believe that mineral wealth could create jobs, raise the standard of living, and solve many of Afghanistan’s problems. But in its current state, it may be more likely that the minerals would just create new ones.

From cafes in Paris, to street markets in Nairobi, soccer (or football as its known in much of the rest of the world) is the topic of conversation for millions around the world. FIFA, soccer’s organizing body has enlarged the number of participating nations from 13 at the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 to 32 in the 2010 games. The hosting of the World Cup in South Africa is testament to the growing accessibility that is soccer around the world. No other sport has as large of a reach as soccer, and it provides opportunities for players from around the world to excel. Soccer is perhaps the most widely globalized aspect of world culture.

So why hasn’t it caught on in America? Soccer is perhaps the last real example of American isolation. . Sport is the one area in which American influence isn’t truly worldwide.  America’s national pastimes, baseball and football have little reach across the globe. Although baseball and basketball stars have seen modest successes overseas, their fame is much more limited than global stars like Christian Ronaldo or David Beckham. It’s telling that a German, Ghanaian, and and a Guatemalan can all relate on a basic level about a subject that most Americans have little to no real awareness of. In a world where globalization has tied even the most improbable nations together, America stands alone yet again.

This isn’t to say soccer is a completely foreign to Americans; it’s just that it’s viewed in a much different light. In a large number of nations around the globe, soccer is the national sport. In America, it’s best known as a popular afterschool sport for school aged children. For much of America’s history, soccer has been an afterthought, trailing far behind baseball, football and basketball in terms of commercial popularity. The fact that millions of American children play soccer hasn’t quite translated to enthusiasm for major league soccer events.

That doesn’t mean Americans will always only associate soccer with AYSO (American Youth Soccer Association) games and SUV driving soccer moms. The phenomenon that is soccer is beginning to seep into the American psyche. The World Cup being staged in the United States in 1994, certainly helped bring Americans more awareness of the sport. The arrival of highly paid European players to the US’s Major League Soccer (including David Beckham’s $250 million five-year contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy), show that investors believe that soccer can be a winner in America.

Whether you’re a sport fan or not, it might a good sign that more and more Americans are following soccer. It might help us become more connected with the world, or at least give us greater exposure to those outside our borders. Sports have always been a source of quiet diplomacy. America should use every chance it gets to engage other nations through peaceful means, and soccer is a great way to do that. Of course, soccer won’t bring world peace overnight but it’s a worthy goal.

Almost two weeks after the heavily disputed Iranian elections, the question still remains: Was the election rigged? According to the Guardian Council’s spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, “[There were] No major irregularities in Iran's election,” yet they have requested a 5 day extension to continue their investigations. Meanwhile on the streets of Tehran, people continue demonstrating and get beaten and killed as a result, as a report from McClatchy News describes.

My name is Shams, a pseudonym. My parents are from Iran and Pakistan and I was born in the U.S. I grew up in all three countries and speak all three languages fluently. I spent my teenage years growing up and attending school in Tehran. I have been living in the U.S. for the last 9 years. As I watch events unfold in Iran, I can’t help but feel a mixture of guilt, rage, excitement and reservation. On one hand, after having lived under the Islamic Regime and experiencing the oppression first-hand, I know how exciting and incredible these demonstrations are and how much hope they are eliciting worldwide. Yet, on the other hand, I have strong reservations and doubts about what the Iranian government wants the world to know or see and what is actually happening behind closed doors.

Chaos has been allowed to erupt in Iran because the rulers are divided. On closer observation, there is a lot happening in the leading ranks. Clerics, parliament members and other civil servants have been voicing concerns over the elections and the violence that has ensued in opposition to the results. Ahmadinejad, supported by Iran’s Supreme Leader, is seen in this video, meeting with clerics and talking about a change that will take away the right to vote. While Rafsanjani, his main rival and head of the Assembly of Experts, held an emergency meeting with the same body to discuss post-election matters. This body also has the constitutional power to depose the Supreme Leader. According to the Huffington Post, Rafsanjani’s meeting was seen as a possible threat to the current government and brought about the immediate arrest of his relatives as “a clear warning from the hard-line establishment to a cleric who may be aligning himself with the opposition.”

When I lived in Iran, life was normal in the most basic sense of the word. We had our parties, met with boys, ate, drank and made merry, but all out of sight of the authorities. Yet, we wanted more. We wanted the chance to voice our opinions without being arrested or shut down. We wanted the ability to walk down the street without being persecuted for what we were wearing or not wearing. We wanted to listen to music and show our art publicly, even if it had controversial subjects. But we were too afraid. We were afraid of all that we heard from those who had gotten arrested and beaten for speaking out, wearing what they wanted to, or listening to loud rock music…

I returned to visit in 2005, when Ahmadinejad had just won the elections, and what I saw was very disheartening. I saw a population of young and talented people wasting away by means of drugs, alcohol and a general sense of indifference. No one was concerned about rights or freedoms; they just wanted to escape reality.

At this pivotal moment in history, I watch the demonstrations and masses of people all over the country pouring into the streets, speaking their minds and standing together, with tears in my eyes. It has made me wildly joyful and filled with hope to know that those same indifferent people from a few years ago are rising up to the challenge of fighting for what they want: freedom.

So, what will become of my people and country? All I can do is pray that none of the lives that have been lost, the suffering or the anguish experienced is in vain, and that whatever change takes place is for the best and is defined by the people.

A week has passed since the disputed Iranian elections, and reliable information from Iran has been more and more difficult to come by. One relatively well-publicized event though took place Tuesday, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flew to Russia to participate in his first foreign policy trip as Iran's newly re-elected president. The reason: a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a political alliance between Russia, China, and several former Soviet states, with a few nearby nations like Iran maintaining "observer" status.

While nations like the U.S., Germany, and France expressed concern that only massive vote fraud led to Ahmadinejad's re-election, a far warmer reception lay in wait at the SCO. "The Iranian elections are the internal affair of the Iranian people," declared Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov. Ahmadinejad spoke briefly, criticizing the U.S. and the "international capitalist order" while ignoring the rising protests back home.

Ahmadinejad's SCO speech was brief, but its symbolism important. Russia and China's warm reception for a "stable" yet undemocratic Iran speaks to a larger push to organize developing nations in alliances that exclude nations like the U.S. Shortly after Ahmadinejad's return to Iran, the SCO played host to a summit of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), which represent the most influential of developing economies. According to a Goldman Sachs report, by 2050 the BRIC nations could surpass the current leading economies, with smaller developing nations like Iran rivaling Canada and Italy in total output.

In the streets of Tehran today, there is still hope that a promised vote recount will yield a fair result. But friends of electoral justice in Iran would do well to take note of the indifference of many global players to the outcome in light of other economic and political ends.

In recent weeks, news reports from Iran depict the run-up to this Friday's presidential election as a raucous affair replete with street parties in Tehran and shocking debate theatrics. Some commentators note that Iran's urban youth are coalescing behind the candidacy of Mir Hussein Moussavi, a former prime minister who promises to improve Iran's international image and who is deemed the strongest challenger to current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For his part, Ahmadinejad draws support from the urban and rural poor who have benefited from generous government subsidies and loans under his watch.

The newly energized campaigns fly in the face of suggestions that Iran's presidential elections don't matter, since the unelected Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue to control key military and political power regardless of the victor. This is the view held by many U.S. conservatives, who are opposed to "dialogue" with Iran and who have criticized President Obama for pursuing diplomatic rather than military means in the Middle East.

But there are also suggestions that many Iranians considered life to be better under Mohammad Khatami, the president from 1997 to 2005 who promoted stronger relations with the West. In recent days, Moussavi's supporters have taken to the streets dressed in green and waving portraits of Moussavi with "A New Greeting to the World" written in English underneath. As occurred in Lebanon last week, where pro-Western parties defeated Hezbollah candidates, the Obama administration is quietly hoping for a more moderate political turn in Iran.

Watch the Global Pulse episode on the latest developments in Iran here.