The political landscape in the Middle East has shifted dramatically in the past few months. This shift has had an impact not only in the region, but also in the West. Part of the change is a result of the “Obama Effect” which culminated in his Cairo speech to the Arab and Muslim world.
Over this period there have been a number of changes in regional governments. Israel has elected a hard right Likud led government whose policies on settlements and a Palestinian state have led to a confrontation with the US. The disputed Iranian election has caused the Islamic regime to focus more on internal divisions than on foreign affairs.
All this has caused Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to see Iran as a less reliable ally and to reach out to the US. Authoritarian Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose policies are at odds with the views of their citizens, are happy to see Iran, their regional rival, distracted. On the other hand, they are concerned that their citizens may follow the lead of the Iranians and demand regime change.
Israel’s hard line position on settlements has opened it up to strong pressure from the West. Britain has cancelled several military contracts with Israel citing the use of these weapons in the Gaza war as a violation of UK law.
The US, particularly, is struggling to decide how to navigate this shifting landscape. There seems to be agreement within the administration to engage with Syria. However, with respect to Hamas the divisions within the administration are exposed. Obama’s conciliatory words toward Hamas in Cairo and former UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering’s meeting in Geneva with Hamas leaders prompted a denial by Hilary Clinton that the administration had changed the Bush era policy of isolation or that the administration had anything to do with the Geneva meeting.
The US and Israel have reached a stand off on settlements and there appears to be little room for compromise. One side will have to cave in. How to deal with this situation has divided the Obama administration. This reality prompted a reporter to ask State Department spokesman Robert Wood if the US was considering sanctions against Israel. (The fact that this question would even be asked shows how much the landscape has changed.) Wood’s response was “It’s premature to talk about that.” The next day a different spokesperson felt it necessary to deny that the US would exert economic pressure on Israel.
Anyone who claims to know how this will play out is smarter than I. One thing is certain. The world is a different place.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The gift that keeps on giving
Following the brutal crackdown by the Iranian government on pro-reform demonstrators, an air of relative calm and melancholy appears to have settled over Iranian cities. (Some thoughts on this from an Iranian are here.) What the ultimate outcome of the events of the past month will be, only time will tell. “Victorious” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has returned to the public stage although with a somewhat more subdued message.
Israel’s hard-line politicians and their neo-conservative and neo-liberal supporters in the US, who advocate for a policy of economic and military confrontation with Iran, must be breathing a sigh of relief. For them Ahmadinejad is the gift that keeps on giving. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been trying to persuade the Obama administration that Iran is the highest priority in the Middle East and the Israeli/Palestinian issue should be put on the back burner. Just when American pressure on freezing Israeli settlements was becoming intense, along comes Ahmadinejad to save the day.
For those advocating confrontation with Iran, it is important to have a public foil in power in Iran. Just as George W. Bush was an easy target for the hardliners in Iran, Ahmadinejad also provides an easy target. Bellicose rhetoric in the west helps provide support for hard-liners in Iran and undercuts the reformists who want dialogue with the west. Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in the US have stepped up to help Netanyahu change the subject.
John “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” McCain criticized Obama for not using more confrontational rhetoric regarding the suppression of peaceful demonstrators. Neo-con spokesperson William Kristol has criticized Obama for being “resolutely irresolute” with respect to confrontation with Iran. Reverting to the Bush administration’s “carrot and stick” approach, Hilary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton has called for “even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime". Former Iran special envoy, now in the White House, Dennis Ross has called for a brief 90 day diplomatic effort followed by force, arguing that “the use of force against Iran will look dramatically different should good faith, direct negotiations be tried and fail.”
All of this was modest compared to “loose lips” Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden’s statement that the US would not stop Israel from attacking Iran. This may have been a case of opening his mouth without engaging his brain so typical of Biden. The next day Obama said that the US has “absolutely not” given Israel a green light to attack Iran.
The denial, however, was lost in Iran as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei used Biden’s statement to rally his divided people against “meddling” western leaders. Since the vast majority of Iranians support a peaceful nuclear program, the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability is to persuade them that they don’t need nuclear weapons and that such development is not in their national interest. This will require engagement, compromise and sustained diplomacy. The rhetoric of confrontation will not get the job done.
Israel’s hard-line politicians and their neo-conservative and neo-liberal supporters in the US, who advocate for a policy of economic and military confrontation with Iran, must be breathing a sigh of relief. For them Ahmadinejad is the gift that keeps on giving. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been trying to persuade the Obama administration that Iran is the highest priority in the Middle East and the Israeli/Palestinian issue should be put on the back burner. Just when American pressure on freezing Israeli settlements was becoming intense, along comes Ahmadinejad to save the day.
For those advocating confrontation with Iran, it is important to have a public foil in power in Iran. Just as George W. Bush was an easy target for the hardliners in Iran, Ahmadinejad also provides an easy target. Bellicose rhetoric in the west helps provide support for hard-liners in Iran and undercuts the reformists who want dialogue with the west. Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in the US have stepped up to help Netanyahu change the subject.
John “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” McCain criticized Obama for not using more confrontational rhetoric regarding the suppression of peaceful demonstrators. Neo-con spokesperson William Kristol has criticized Obama for being “resolutely irresolute” with respect to confrontation with Iran. Reverting to the Bush administration’s “carrot and stick” approach, Hilary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton has called for “even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime". Former Iran special envoy, now in the White House, Dennis Ross has called for a brief 90 day diplomatic effort followed by force, arguing that “the use of force against Iran will look dramatically different should good faith, direct negotiations be tried and fail.”
All of this was modest compared to “loose lips” Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden’s statement that the US would not stop Israel from attacking Iran. This may have been a case of opening his mouth without engaging his brain so typical of Biden. The next day Obama said that the US has “absolutely not” given Israel a green light to attack Iran.
The denial, however, was lost in Iran as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei used Biden’s statement to rally his divided people against “meddling” western leaders. Since the vast majority of Iranians support a peaceful nuclear program, the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability is to persuade them that they don’t need nuclear weapons and that such development is not in their national interest. This will require engagement, compromise and sustained diplomacy. The rhetoric of confrontation will not get the job done.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
What now for Iran?
The events of the last couple of weeks in Iran, in which millions of courageous Iranians from all walks of life have taken to the streets in the face violent repression to protest a stolen election, have produced riveting real time theater around the world. These events have also drastically changed the political landscape not only in Iran, but also in the US and in the Middle East. As the Iranian conflict moves from the streets to the back rooms of the Iranian political elite, political leaders of all stripes will need to figure out how to navigate this changed landscape.
In the space of two weeks the Islamic Republic has changed from what Mohsen Milani calls “a stable institutionalized system of governance with both authoritarian and democratic features, with domestic constituencies …” (What I call a pseudo-democracy.) to a brutal, repressive military dictatorship. As the street protests fade, the Iranian political elite, hardliners, moderates and reformists, are working behind the scenes to understand how to deal with this new reality. It will take time for their decisions to emerge.
In the US, the searing images of young Iranian women in headscarves facing down riot police and being shot down for their efforts will take a long time to fade from the American consciousness. No longer will the American vision of Iranians be that of radical fanatics and quiescent, repressed, powerless women. They will be able to get by these stereotypes and see them as people like themselves, struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families. Their perspective on American Iranian policy will certainly be different.
In the larger Middle East, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria who have counted on support from the Iranian regime may begin to question the stability of this support base. Whatever the face of the Iranian regime that emerges from the current conflict, it will be different from that of the past. A reformist or moderate government will be more open to engagement with the west. A hard-line regime will be distracted by the complex question of how to deal with a majority of the population, including almost all of the educated elite who are the backbone of the economy, who do not support them. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria may find it expedient to hedge their bets and improve their relations with the west.
Faced with this changing landscape US policy makers will be faced with difficult short and medium term policy choices. In the short term, the Obama administration, in my opinion, should maintain its low profile and allow the Iranian people to sort this out. In the medium term, a policy of public, full engagement seems to be the best choice. We can only deal with the government we have, not the government we wish we had. With a hard-line regime, engagement is not likely to bring about much immediate change, but the internal and external pressure will be on the Iranian regime.
As Dr. Martin Luther King said in 1965 on the steps of the Alabama state capital:
"I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?"....
"I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again.”
"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.”
"How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow....”
"How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
In the space of two weeks the Islamic Republic has changed from what Mohsen Milani calls “a stable institutionalized system of governance with both authoritarian and democratic features, with domestic constituencies …” (What I call a pseudo-democracy.) to a brutal, repressive military dictatorship. As the street protests fade, the Iranian political elite, hardliners, moderates and reformists, are working behind the scenes to understand how to deal with this new reality. It will take time for their decisions to emerge.
In the US, the searing images of young Iranian women in headscarves facing down riot police and being shot down for their efforts will take a long time to fade from the American consciousness. No longer will the American vision of Iranians be that of radical fanatics and quiescent, repressed, powerless women. They will be able to get by these stereotypes and see them as people like themselves, struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families. Their perspective on American Iranian policy will certainly be different.
In the larger Middle East, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria who have counted on support from the Iranian regime may begin to question the stability of this support base. Whatever the face of the Iranian regime that emerges from the current conflict, it will be different from that of the past. A reformist or moderate government will be more open to engagement with the west. A hard-line regime will be distracted by the complex question of how to deal with a majority of the population, including almost all of the educated elite who are the backbone of the economy, who do not support them. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria may find it expedient to hedge their bets and improve their relations with the west.
Faced with this changing landscape US policy makers will be faced with difficult short and medium term policy choices. In the short term, the Obama administration, in my opinion, should maintain its low profile and allow the Iranian people to sort this out. In the medium term, a policy of public, full engagement seems to be the best choice. We can only deal with the government we have, not the government we wish we had. With a hard-line regime, engagement is not likely to bring about much immediate change, but the internal and external pressure will be on the Iranian regime.
As Dr. Martin Luther King said in 1965 on the steps of the Alabama state capital:
"I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?"....
"I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again.”
"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.”
"How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow....”
"How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)