Iran's Election - A Contrarian View

I admit that I didn’t think that Iranian protests would still be dominating the news headlines, more than 10 days after the election results were announced, but here we still are.

Strangely enough, it seems that this still is the story, and it doesn’t seem to be nearing a happy ending. Of course, I don’t have an interest in one outcome or the other, nor do I favor one candidate or another. Indeed, all along, I thought, and still do, that both candidates are establishment candidates, and that within Iran’s power structure, either one would serve the regime rather well. And, to a large extent, I also believed that Iran’s presidential elections are, for the most part, fair and free, once you accept the selection criteria of the official candidates.

What I find perplexing and, indeed, disingenuous, is this impassioned support for Mir Hossein Moussavi in the West. All of a sudden, this committed Islamic revolutionary and ex-Prime Minister who served under Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iraq war, has miraculously been transformed into a quasi-liberal reformer and even the anti-establishment candidate, by many in Western media and political circles.

To be clear, I never thought that much of President Ahmedinejad. To me, he always seemed a quasi-comical character whose loose lid was craftily leveraged by the real power brokers within the Iranian regime to their own advantage, particularly in regard to the relationship with the West in general, and America, in particular. That’s not to say President Ahmedinejad is a toothless figurehead, but, by most accounts, the President is more of a super-mayor of sorts, rather than the final arbiter at the top of the power pyramid of Iran. And, from a PR perspective, I have always thought that, as a provincial layman, President Ahmedinejad, was more sincere to, and reflective of, his wide base among Iran's poor and downtrodden, but that he did a great disservice in representing this ancient and rich people and civilization to the rest of the world.

That said, Mir Hossein Moussavi, until recently has been…well, a “has been”. By most accounts, he is not a name that resonates with most Iranians. He lacks the real power base that Ahmedinejad has among the lower segments of Iran’s economically deprived population, while not appealing to the upper echelons who despise the entire Islamic establishment, of which he has always been an integral part.

All of this is to say that I believe, based on my own reading of the situation, that given the candidate choice offered to Iranians in the election, it was, likely won by President Ahmedinejad, as the regime asserts. I am not claiming that the elections were faultless, but the charge that this election was rigged rings hollow to me. Instead, what I am seeing are significant segments of the Iranian population, who have long been frustrated and alienated by a cocktail of social, economic and religious grievances with the regime, taking advantage of a great opportunity to register their displeasure and anger, aided and abetted by a biased and 'invested' America, well-armed with high technology, and modern traditional and social media.

I am no apologist for the Iranian government, to be sure. As an ardent secularist, I find any system of government with any hint of religion utterly objectionable. However, I am just as committed to judgement based on facts and objectivity. Now, let’s consider, for a moment, the opposite of what’s presumed and presented by Western media: WHAT IF President Ahmedinejad had, indeed, won the election? What would be expected of the Iranian authorities? Are they supposed to sit idly by as they see many of their people being manipulated, from outside, into causing civil strife and threatening the security of the regime? Would they not be expected to protect the regime and impose order?

Finally, regardless of the outcome, I find American and Western positions on the election results myopic and self-defeating. President Obama’s instincts were right at the beginning, when he chose not to interfere and take a strong official position on what should be a purely Iranian issue. However, it quickly became politically costly for him to remain measured, and he was pressured into taking a progressively stronger position. This tells me that the West, and America in particular, has not learnt from its past mistakes in the Middle East in general, and in Iran, specifically. Fifty five years after the CIA's overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in ’54, which opened a wound between Iran and America that has yet to heal, here comes America and the West, again interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, and supporting one group of Iranians against another.

To me, there can be no winner here. If President Ahmedinejad emerges from this crisis on top, Obama’s efforts toward improving the political climate for a direct dialogue with Iran will have been significantly undermined. And, if by chance, the regime loses and some sweeping change envelops Iran, America’s gain will surely be short-lived, as the will of large and significant segments of the Iranian population will have been thwarted by America’s meddling yet again. And the stage will then be set for another round that is good for neither Iran nor America.

Syria: the Key to Regional Peace

President Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell said last Friday that Syria has “a key role to play” in forging a Middle East peace.  Mr. Mitchell, who is a respectable diplomat and a seasoned hand at negotiating peace agreements is partially right.  Syria is, indeed “key” to a broader Middle East peace.  But, in my opinion, Syria is the key, and not a key to a peace agreement.  Here’s the logic:

On the political front, having earned its credentials as a frontline resistance state championing the nationalist Arab and Palestinian cause against Israeli occupation, and having paid the price for that role – militarily, politically and economically, Syria today, can confer a certain legitimacy on any peace agreement between Arabs and Israelis, that no other Arab country can. As evidence, an agreement with Egypt since 1979 produced no breakthrough in Israel’s relationship with the wider Arab World.  And, even the 1993 Oslo Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, led by their iconic torch-bearer, Yasser Arafat, produced no peace dividend with other Arabs, in large part, because Syria was not included.

On the military and security front, an Israeli-Syrian agreement would effectively bring an end to the state of war between the two countries, and with it, an end to Syria’s alliance with, and support for, countries and organizations that are committed to the armed struggle against Israel.  Militias and parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas would be “encouraged” to pursue their agenda politically, rather than militarily.  Given Syria’s “strategic relationship” with Iran and its borders with Lebanon and Israel, such an agreement would deliver security to Israel’s only remaining borders, which would translate to a dramatic improvement in regional security.

Of course, the above presumes that the terms of such peace agreement meet Syria’s floor for an historic settlement.  If so, in spite of its small population and economy, a peace agreement with Syria would bring a darmatic improvement to the political and security landscape of the region, and swing open the gates for bilateral and regional agreements, that would enable Israel to be finally integrated into the broader region.

This is why Syria is, and will continue to be the, not just a, key to broader Middle East peace.

Iran's Elections

Like it or not, within the limited Islamic constitution of the Republic, Iranian elections are to a fair degree free and healthy.  Multiple candidates from different backgrounds, with competing programs and agendas engage in a healthy and vibrant debate about all facets of Iranian life – social, economic and political, covered and supported by hundreds of newspapers and print publications as well as a bustling cyberspace.  Turnout is quite high, reaching or exceeding 80% across all social segments, but especially among young people.  And, the winner is neither predetermined nor assured.

Isn’t this what democracy is all about?  Sure, it’s not perfect, given that all candidates have to be approved by an unelected Guardian Council to ensure compliance with the goals and ideals of the Islamic Revolution.  But, let’s not make the good the opposite of the perfect.  These are far freer elections with more integrity than those electoral travesties carried out in the rest of the Middle East, including the farse that happened in Lebanon earlier this week.

And, notwithstanding the outcome, Iran’s elections indicate that given Iranians’ practice and comfort with democracy, when the Constitution finally is changed and Iran is no longer an Islamic theocracy, Iranians’ transition to a broader vibrant, and maybe even liberal, democracy will be relatively painless.

Compared to Egypt, the only comparable Arab country in size, where “elections” are tantamount to a referendum on the single candidate who has been in power for 29 years, with the state’s media, institutions and resources dedicated to his adulation, offering no platform or agenda, inspiring no debate and generally securing no less than 95% of the vote, Iran’s has all the hallmarks of a real Middle Eastern democracy, albeit within Iran’s very imperfect Islamic framework.

A note on Lebanon's elections

Regardless of their outcome, last week’s Lebanese elections were a sham, and presented a poor example of democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

Money from Saudi Arabia, through its protégé (and Saudi national), Saad Hariri, bought off votes by the tens of thousands in this small country.  As an example, Lebanese immigrants from as far away as Europe, Canada, US and Australia were offered a free trip (read vacation) to Beirut, paid for by Hariri, in exchange for their vote. 

Result notwithstanding, with minor change in distribution among the major political blocks, the political scene continues to be dominated by the same sect-based clan leaders and warlords who have ”managed” the country during its violent 16-year civil war, including Walid Jumblatt, Michel Aoun, Samir Geagea, Nabih Berri, and a couple Jemayyels.

This does not bode well for the future of Lebanon.  With a veto-yielding minority, the new “majority” can rule no more effectively than before.  And, Lebanon will remain weak, divided and fractious, and will continue to serve as a battlefield for regional heavyweights to wage their proxy battles. 

Obama's Cairo Speech

Last week, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim World from Cairo.  It was a fantastic speech in form, though in substance, it was far less spectacular.

First, on the form:  In a region where symbolism matters a great deal, his choice of venue, words, tone and sentiments sent the right conciliatory message to the emotional and spiritual Arab and Muslim worlds.  This signaled a radical departure from all previous American administrations, and showed Obama as someone with a personal and genuine understanding and respect for Islam.

This was not easy to do.  President Obama struck a very fine and difficult line, balancing between upholding America’s values and respecting its sensibilities, and showing respect for the Islam's own values and sensibilities.

Now, on substance:  President Obama’s speech was short in the one area that remains key to the betterment of the relationship between America and the Muslim world.

Having set the right tone with the Muslim world, and reaffirmed America’s ‘unbreakable bond’ with Israel, President Obama did not deliver on his own call to say in public what is said in private.  Specifically, Obama failed to adequately address publicly what is universally acknowledged to be the single underlying issue that continues to be a festering wound for Arabs and Muslims:  the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

It is resolutely inadequate to say that America will not recognize Israeli settlements.  Several American presidents before Obama have made similar statements, without delivering on that pledge.  To be clear, though the United States has not officially “recognized” settlements as Israeli territories, the outlines of an agreement are evolving to include recognition of certain “facts on the ground”, particularly in the West Bank, which effectively translates to a demand for Palestinians to cede strategic and, in some cases, historical, territories (e.g. areas around Jerusalem and Hebron) in return for a solution.  Not recognizing settlements is no concession.  Indeed, the floor of a solution must be the end of the occupation and the full removal of all illegal settlements.

Understanding his political realities at home, the fact remains that without the courage to address this fundamental, cornerstone issue, the Cairo speech remains a beautiful oratory, hollow of real meaning and devoid of action.  Forty two years after the occupation of 1967, America continues to be misguided into thinking that the resentment that Arabs and Muslims have toward America is based on some purported opposition to American or Western values and lifestyles, when it is, in fact, based purely on America's unjust foreign policy.  The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the subjugation of millions of Palestinians, with the tacit support of successive American administrations serve to inflame a people who see it as the ultimate in injustice and the epitome of hypocrisy by the West in general, and America in particular.  For those who are more conspiratorially inclined, they see it as part of a grand strategy (when Iraq, Afghanistan and some imagination is added) to dominate the Muslim people, land and resources in some historical clash of Christian and Muslim civilizations. 

The fact is that the Arab and Muslim people, who for the most part, adored America and her values as recently as the 1950s and 1960s, cannot reconcile America’s demand for freedom, democracy and human rights and her insistence on adherence to international laws, with the American provision of diplomatic cover and support to consecutive left- and right-wing Israeli governments who perpetuate a policy of methodical dispossession and humiliation of their brethren in Palestine, and the systematic judaization of the holy city of Jerusalem.

For forty two years, Americans and others have been hearing this – in public and in private. Over the years, this occupation has become the rallying cry that extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists have exploited to carve out an otherwise-undeserved role, serving only to radicalize their societies while offering no agenda for social, economic and political development.

Closing the gap of mutual misunderstanding and suspicion is helpful, but won’t change the reality that Arabs and Muslims have a real grievance with.  Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories and the establishment of a sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian state is a moral imperative and a political prerequisite to an Arab-Israeli settlement, and the gateway to the amelioration of the relationship between America and the Arab & Islamic worlds.

President Obama’s intentions for a better relationship between America and the Islamic world are not in question, but how much of his political capital he is willing to spend to improve it is.  The question remains after the Cairo speech. 

Syria's Ambassador to Lebanon

This week, with much media fanfare, Syria's newly-appointed Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul-Karim Ali arrived to assume his post as the head of Syria's new embassy in Beirut .  The exchange of embassies between Beirut and Damascus has long been a lynch-pin demand by Lebanon's anti-Syria camp, to symbolize Syria's recognition of the independence and sovereignty of their country.  Since 2005, in the wake of the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, this demand for diplomatic exchange was, disingenuously, adopted and championed by the US and Europe, and parroted by their 'moderate' Arab allies (who are anything but), such as Saudi Arabia, each for their own unique reason, but none for the sake of Lebanese sovereignty.   The US, in its bid to weaken Iran's regional influence, saw in Hariri's assassination an opportunity to drive Syria out of Lebanon, thereby weakening the long-enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, as well as a chance to punish Syria for its anti-Iraq war position.  For many in Europe, such as France and Germany, this was an opportunity to mend strained relations with the US after the discord over the Iraq war.  And, for non-moderate Saudi Arabia, it was an opportunity to wrestle political influence in Lebanon from Syria.  So, after decades of active acquiescence to Syrian management of Lebanese political and security affairs, each country had its own self-serving reason for suddenly demanding an end to Syrian presence and the establishment of official diplomatic relations.

So, now, with the opening of the Syrian embassy and the appointment of the Syrian Ambassador, we can say that, finally, Lebanon's independence has been recognized and its sovereignty assured.  Right? 

Well, not really.  Ironically, the fulfillment of this demand will, with time, serve to further undermine the very sovereignty it was meant to recognize.  Briefly, here's the logic:

Syria's new Ambassador will be part show and part business.  There is no doubt that, to some degree, he has been assigned to placate the West and close the loophole that the anti-Syrian Lebanese camp and its backers have been using to propagate their charge that Syria does not recognize Lebanon's independence and seeks to undermine its sovereignty.  In addition, for Syria, Lebanon has been, and will remain, too strategic and too intertwined with Syria for relations between the countries to just run through embassies.  Indeed, though there will be a role for the new Syrian Embassy in Beirut, most key issues will continue to be managed directly by the various Syrian government institutions in Damascus with the relevant parties in Beirut.  

However, Ambassadors' work in their assigned countries is guided by protocol and rules set by the Foreign Ministry of the host country.  Being the weak and divided state that Lebanon is, US, French, Saudi and other Ambassadors in Beirut criss-cross the country and issue statements (in many cases very much resembling orders) about issues extremely internal in nature - from trade union and municipal council elections to civil servant appointments and security investigations. In other words, foreign Ambassadors in Beirut (especially US, French, Saudi and Egyptian) interfere, unencumbered, with the most internal Lebanese issues, hence violating the sovereignty they claim to be championing. 

On the other hand, Syria imposes and enforces strict rules on who, when and how foreign diplomats engage local businesses, organizations, political parties and people.  As such, beyond the standard call for more democracy and human rights, foreign Ambassadors in Damascus, including those of the US and Europe, do not interfere in internal Syrian affairs.  

Now, in compliance with Syria's restrictive environment, and consistent with the behavior of his counterparts in Damascus, the Lebanese Ambassador will have somewhat limited freedom of movement and even less leverage.  His contact with the Syrian government and political circles will be minimal, beyond the Foreign Ministry.  On the other hand, again, consistent with his foreign counterparts in Beirut, the Syrian Ambassador will meet with politicians, organizations, businesses and other parties.  He will issue statements and outline Syria's position on all sorts of issues - both those of regional concern, as well as others of a very local flavor.  Before long, the Syrian Embassy in Beirut will become what Anjar used to be:  an outpost of Syria's political power.  But unlike Anjar, it will be official this time. Politicians, current and aspiring, will line up to visit, seek favor and pledge allegiance to Syria, as they know that Damascus continues to yield real power in Beirut.  

I suspect that, in just a short time, the Lebanese who have been relentlessly calling for Syria to open an embassy in Beirut will come to regret it.  From 2005 until this past week, Syria had no official diplomatic presence in Beirut and those Lebanese who were tied to Damascus or sought Syrian favor had to make the 90-minute trek over the mountains to go to Damascus in person.  With the opening of the new Embassy, Syria will be more accessible to them right there in Beirut. 

So, Mabrouk?  Maybe...but for whom?  I suspect the Syrians have more to celebrate.   The demand for an exchange of diplomatic missions was a good deed driven by a bad motive.  With the opening of the Syrian embassy, the Lebanese chickens have come home to roost...in Syria! 

Media & Netanyahu's Iran threat

In the May 17th New York Times Op-Ed section, Jeffrey Goldberg, the national correspondent for The Atlantic, opened a rare window into Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's mind.  In response to a question about Iran, a close advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu told Goldberg to "Think Amalek".  

To fully understand this statement and its implications, one needs to go back to the Bible to place it in its right context.  In Samuel (15:2-3), the Lord says to Saul:  

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

This is chilling....or should be.  To suppose that this specific reference was made in random or without contemplation is foolish.  This cannot correctly be understood except as a clear and deliberate threat that Israel will annihilate the entire Iranian nation - infrastructure and people - to pre-empt a possible (perceived or real), future Iranian threat.  Now, imagine for an instant, if any other head of state (especially a Muslim one) had issued a statement with so radical an existential threat to an adversary.  How would the Western (and particularly, US) media have reported it? 

Even more disturbing:  This threat wasn't some hear-say account of a statement said in private, nor was it reported on some little heard-of publication or obscure blog.  This was directly attributed to the Israeli Prime Minister's senior advisor and published in the New York Times without denial or explanation from the source.  

It's shocking, though unfortunately not surprising, that such an egregious threat of 'ethnic cleansing' would go so underreported by a media that seems to, otherwise, hang on every subtle nuance made by other world leaders, about issues so much more benign. 

In a region where such references and insinuations carry a lot of weight and have a real impact on diplomacy (or war), it is no less than the professional duty and moral obligation of responsible media to report it in its correct context .  And, at minimum, we should expect our media to report the news in a fair and unbiased way.  Instead, the reporting of this story (or lack thereof) lends credibility to the charge that Israel is treated very differently in US media than the rest of the world.   This journalistic transgression does a great deal of disservice to fair-minded Americans and injustice to all peace-loving people, Israelis included.