The Arab Spring and the fall of Arab leaders, particularly US-allied dictators such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, have led to much consternation in many circles. While few would refute that the likes of Mubarak, Libya's Qaddafi, or Syria's al-Assad are genuinely good guys, some argue that the stability provided by these despots is preferable to the unknown vacuum that will result after their downfall. Particularly, it is argued, that with radical Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, waiting in the wings, these secular dictators are a safer bet for Western interests.
There is little doubt that another Iran (an Islamist led regime) would not bode well for US interests in the Middle East. Even Syria, the most anti-Western regime currently experiencing Arab Spring turmoil, could tilt further towards the Iranians. However, these fears are considerably overblown. There is much ground to believe that even if Islamist groups gain greater control in these countries that the outcome will be more benign than many doomsdayers predict.
First, it is far from clear that many Islamist groups want to control their governments. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, has disavowed any attempt to control the legislature and is running an incomplete slate of candidates. Arguably this is because many Islamists are concerned that the next general government will fail and thus feel it is best to be in opposition, not in control. Furthermore, many prefer to target the softer realms of government - welfare, religion, health services, etc. - and are not quite ready to take on the higher politics of foreign policy and economic affairs.
This later point dovetails with the second reason to avoid fear over the changes in the Middle East. The Islamists have, for decades, been a force of opposition. This is a relatively easy role to play, particularly when a country's leadership consists of dictators or military juntas. However, as Islamists step out from this role two trends will emerge. First, there will be growing divergence within the movement. As an opposition they could remain strong and united in saying "no;" as leaders they will invariably differ in how to proceed. [This may be another explanation for why the Islamist leadership is wary about taking full control of the government - they wish to get their base in line before power splits them apart.] Invariably such dissension will weaken the movement and undermine their ability to create serious harm.
The second trend to emerge will be that of moderation. Those who assume leadership positions in democracies with strong non-Islamist bases will be forced to tailor their message and policy goals in order to maintain their position. For instance, Egyptian Islamists have long disparaged the peace accord with Israel, but it seems unlikely that, once running the country, they would choose to create a new enemy on their border by repudiating the deal. Such moderation will lead to further fractionalization of the movements and more amenable rulers.
Finally, it is doubtful whether the Islamist parties, particularly in their present manifestations, will be able to maintain significant popular support to dominate their respective countries. While they have historically been the most vocal and organized critics of the Arab regimes, the Arab Spring has largely been a secular movement. In fact, the recent revolutions largely discredit the Islamist movement, which has failed over the past decades to achieve what these secular, youth movements have achieved over the past year. The Arab Street does not want to shift from secular dictatorships to theocratic ones. This partially explains the moderation of the Islamist movements but will also explain the inevitable rise of more secular parties.
None of this is to say that the next few years will be a time of peace and harmony in the Middle East. Nor is it to suggest that the West's interests will always be paramount under these new regimes - new democracies will undoubtedly be fickle. These new countries will not be younger, carbon-copies of the West but youthful and unique states that blend democratic institutions with experiences and expectations of the Arab and Muslim world. Many policies may be anathema to America sentiments, for instance the treatment of women. However, it is arguable that despite what a Western would call "missteps," most new democratic regimes will not be nearly as threatening as some fear.
In a sense, the un-repression of the Islamists will be their death knell. Their ideology will be unable to withstand the open competition natural to democracy. The superior systems of democracy and freedom will undoubtedly win the hearts and minds of the people, as the Islamists will be forced either to moderate or splinter off into smaller groups. While this may not happen immediately and it is quite possible to have a seriously wrong turn in the short-run, over the long-run it is relatively clear that such an ideology cannot have a long-lasting hold. One only need to look at the current struggles in Iran (and possibly soon to be second revolution) to understand this point.
The West would be wise to co-opt this to the best of their ability. They should facilitate the removal of the current regimes, like Syria, to not only be perceived by the Arab masses as friends of freedom but to undercut the Islamist movements. This will not only provide greater input and sway into the new regimes, but allow more Western-friendly parties to flourish. Additionally, the West needs to exploit the inevitable divisions within Islamist movements, cultivating the most moderate and marginalizing the extremists. While this will not ensure an immediate win on all fronts, it will guarantee the best possible long-term outcome for both the Middle East and the West.
[For two interesting articles that expand on these arguments see "The Rise of the Islamists" by Shadi Hamid and "Terrorism After the Revolution" by Daniel Byman both published in May/June 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs.]
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Does a Teetering Iran Vindicate the Iraq War? - A Middle Eastern Domino Theory
The recent protests in Iran have added some cracks to the otherwise stable foundation of the Iranian Islamist regime. While the government is still overwhelmingly strong, the democracy movement has the ability to drastically change the political dynamics in the Middle East. Although far from a sure bet, the new Iranian revolution may very well be the second step in a modern day, Middle Eastern ‘domino theory’- preceded by the War in Iraq.
One of the more vocal criticisms of regime change in Iraq was that it unbalanced the region. Iraq kept Iran in line. By removing the Iraqi threat Iran was unleashed. However, as Robert Kaplan points out in a recent Washington Post editorial, this may have been part of the plan. (See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303114.html?wpisrc=newsletter.) In the short-run, a rise in Iranian power is less than desirous; however, it may inevitably let loose a path to real change in the Middle East.
Because of the removal of the Iraqi threat, Iran made a grab for greater regional and international power. The regime was better able to flex its muscle and meddle in regional and foreign affairs without having to be preoccupied with its Western border. This led Iran to directly challenge America and Europe.
Iran’s power move, while seemingly bad for America, had two main effects. First, it caused rebalancing amongst the Arab states. The ‘moderate’ Sunni Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia were now faced with a more imminent danger from Iran. Today, these two states now face numerous new threats to their rule, both domestically and regionally, from an unencumbered Iran. With one foe out of the picture, Iran can increase its focus on these remaining two contenders for regional hegemony. With an increase in Iranian-sponsored terrorism and a direct threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, it is only natural that the various Sunni Arab states would need to join forces against the upstart Iran. This is beneficial because it pushes these countries closer to the United States, and enables greater strength and flexibility in the region.
Second, Iran’s excessive aggression promoted a pro-democracy movement. The Iranian revolution was born of disgust with the ruling clerics. Amongst the chief complaints, was Ahmadinejad’s bellicose language and antagonism of the West. While certainly not the only cause for revolution, the Iranian leadership’s aggression was a spark that helped incite the powder keg. The moderate reformers were unwilling to see an extremist such as Ahmadinejad lead their country into direct conflict with the U.S. It is unlikely that Ahmadinejad would have been as aggressive, and therefore as repulsive to his people, had Saddam Hussein still been in power.
One possible, fortunate outcome would be a spread of pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East. As the Arab Street watches the tumult in Iran, it is natural to question the leadership of the remaining Arab despots. While no large movements have started yet, there is considerable talk in the Middle East about the need for reform. Kindred spirits in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are realizing that they can fight for greater rights and freedoms and throw off the yokes of their respective regimes. Lebanon, for instance, has already rejected the Islamist movement of Hezbollah and turned towards the West.
To what extent the Iranian revolution spreads throughout the Middle East is still very much up in the air. The extent of the Iranian reformists’ success is, of course, a huge factor. The repressive measures of the Arab regimes will also play a role. Likewise, reform could come in many shapes- from wholesale regime change to more gradual, internal policy changes. However, this is a profound opportunity for real change in the region- change that has the chance of drastically altering global politics.
One of the more vocal criticisms of regime change in Iraq was that it unbalanced the region. Iraq kept Iran in line. By removing the Iraqi threat Iran was unleashed. However, as Robert Kaplan points out in a recent Washington Post editorial, this may have been part of the plan. (See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303114.html?wpisrc=newsletter.) In the short-run, a rise in Iranian power is less than desirous; however, it may inevitably let loose a path to real change in the Middle East.
Because of the removal of the Iraqi threat, Iran made a grab for greater regional and international power. The regime was better able to flex its muscle and meddle in regional and foreign affairs without having to be preoccupied with its Western border. This led Iran to directly challenge America and Europe.
Iran’s power move, while seemingly bad for America, had two main effects. First, it caused rebalancing amongst the Arab states. The ‘moderate’ Sunni Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia were now faced with a more imminent danger from Iran. Today, these two states now face numerous new threats to their rule, both domestically and regionally, from an unencumbered Iran. With one foe out of the picture, Iran can increase its focus on these remaining two contenders for regional hegemony. With an increase in Iranian-sponsored terrorism and a direct threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, it is only natural that the various Sunni Arab states would need to join forces against the upstart Iran. This is beneficial because it pushes these countries closer to the United States, and enables greater strength and flexibility in the region.
Second, Iran’s excessive aggression promoted a pro-democracy movement. The Iranian revolution was born of disgust with the ruling clerics. Amongst the chief complaints, was Ahmadinejad’s bellicose language and antagonism of the West. While certainly not the only cause for revolution, the Iranian leadership’s aggression was a spark that helped incite the powder keg. The moderate reformers were unwilling to see an extremist such as Ahmadinejad lead their country into direct conflict with the U.S. It is unlikely that Ahmadinejad would have been as aggressive, and therefore as repulsive to his people, had Saddam Hussein still been in power.
One possible, fortunate outcome would be a spread of pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East. As the Arab Street watches the tumult in Iran, it is natural to question the leadership of the remaining Arab despots. While no large movements have started yet, there is considerable talk in the Middle East about the need for reform. Kindred spirits in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are realizing that they can fight for greater rights and freedoms and throw off the yokes of their respective regimes. Lebanon, for instance, has already rejected the Islamist movement of Hezbollah and turned towards the West.
To what extent the Iranian revolution spreads throughout the Middle East is still very much up in the air. The extent of the Iranian reformists’ success is, of course, a huge factor. The repressive measures of the Arab regimes will also play a role. Likewise, reform could come in many shapes- from wholesale regime change to more gradual, internal policy changes. However, this is a profound opportunity for real change in the region- change that has the chance of drastically altering global politics.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Little Obama That Could
Finally, Obama has realized the errors in his ways and has come out with criticism of Iran. (See the White House website for the transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/). The majority of what he said was strong and appropriate.
He began with a strong criticism of the harsh, repressive actions the Iranian government has been taking to quell the growing revolution. He stated, “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.” This, of course, was the easy part. Any sane person should easily be appalled by the tyranny of the Iranian regime. However, given his track record thus far, Obama should be commended for speaking out.
Obama also correctly emphasized that Ahmadinejad’s attempted ploys at blaming the West for the reformist uprisings are subterfuge and an attempt to direct the Iranian energy to a supposed foreign foe. As mentioned in a prior post (See here: http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-and-ahmadinejad-are-stumbling.html), this is a prime strategy that the Iranian despot could use to diminish reformist momentum. If successful, such a strategy would portray the revolution not as an internal movement, but as a foreign dictated coup attempt. Obama was right-on in stressing that this was not the case.
Obama also spoke to the Iranian people’s right to have their votes counted and voices heard. He criticized Iran’s oppression and correctly pointed out that repressive actions will stand on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, Obama did not go far enough in criticizing the sham of an election. While he voiced opposition to Iran’s method of dealing with revolution and voiced support for the general notions of freedom and democracy, he was silent on the real-world issues that started the revolution.
Furthermore, Obama offered no concrete discussion on what can and should be done. While apparently somewhat folding under Republican pressure (and common sense), Obama still seems to be covering his bases by leaving open a path to cordial relations with the Iranian leadership. As expressed earlier, Obama should have made concrete statements regarding the wrongness of the electoral fraud and pushed for actions that would right these wrongs.
While he did not go far enough, at least he is headed in the right direction. Most likely this is because he realizing the error in his ways. Unfortunately, it has thus far been too little, too late. But with Obama baby-steps seem to be the way to go. It is not too late to salvage his Carter-esque foreign policy. Hopefully, he will wise up quickly.
He began with a strong criticism of the harsh, repressive actions the Iranian government has been taking to quell the growing revolution. He stated, “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.” This, of course, was the easy part. Any sane person should easily be appalled by the tyranny of the Iranian regime. However, given his track record thus far, Obama should be commended for speaking out.
Obama also correctly emphasized that Ahmadinejad’s attempted ploys at blaming the West for the reformist uprisings are subterfuge and an attempt to direct the Iranian energy to a supposed foreign foe. As mentioned in a prior post (See here: http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-and-ahmadinejad-are-stumbling.html), this is a prime strategy that the Iranian despot could use to diminish reformist momentum. If successful, such a strategy would portray the revolution not as an internal movement, but as a foreign dictated coup attempt. Obama was right-on in stressing that this was not the case.
Obama also spoke to the Iranian people’s right to have their votes counted and voices heard. He criticized Iran’s oppression and correctly pointed out that repressive actions will stand on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, Obama did not go far enough in criticizing the sham of an election. While he voiced opposition to Iran’s method of dealing with revolution and voiced support for the general notions of freedom and democracy, he was silent on the real-world issues that started the revolution.
Furthermore, Obama offered no concrete discussion on what can and should be done. While apparently somewhat folding under Republican pressure (and common sense), Obama still seems to be covering his bases by leaving open a path to cordial relations with the Iranian leadership. As expressed earlier, Obama should have made concrete statements regarding the wrongness of the electoral fraud and pushed for actions that would right these wrongs.
While he did not go far enough, at least he is headed in the right direction. Most likely this is because he realizing the error in his ways. Unfortunately, it has thus far been too little, too late. But with Obama baby-steps seem to be the way to go. It is not too late to salvage his Carter-esque foreign policy. Hopefully, he will wise up quickly.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran and Ahmadinejad Are Stumbling. Obama, Time to Step Up!
As the protests continue in Iran, President Obama is unsurprisingly mum. With domestic turmoil unlike any seen since 1979, the Iranian reformists are showing their displeasure with the iron-fisted theocracy and its stooge Ahmadinejad. The momentous rebellion (soon to be revolution?) is perfectly poised to bring about real change in one of the biggest threats to American security.
As Robert Kagan eloquently points out in the Washington Post (See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter) , Obama is acting in a pure realist fashion. His stated goal is to dialogue with Iran. Any behavior that annoys or upsets the current leaders of Iran is supposedly detrimental to Obama’s aims. So he chooses to remain relatively quiet about the gross abuses. Obama sides with the enemy because he wants to leave avenues open to dialogue when the protests flare out. This of course assumes that whatever happens in the short-run, the Iranian leadership will remain in power in the long-run.
He buttresses this by claiming to take the high ground. America does not want to meddle in Iranian affairs is his message. He states, “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the U.S. that is encouraging those reformers…. What I’ve said is, look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision….We are not meddling.” This argument essentially assumes that reformist Iranians will be thwarted if they perceive the Americans as controlling and dictating the movement.
This, to some degree, may be true. However, the argument misses an important subtlety. The US is often criticized when it ‘helps’, but it is also criticized when it fails to help. The fact of the matter is, it is not about whether the US helps or not, but how it helps. There is a whole spectrum of actions the US government can take to show support and give assistance without leading the charge. A simple show of solidarity by outwardly condemning the Iranian election abuses would go far to strengthen the moral of the Iranian reformists. Any freedom loving individual would find much strength in hearing his fight recognized and legitimated. Beyond that, the US can offer political pressure on Iran and assistance in enabling the Iranian protestors to get their voices heard above the government censorship.
Any action in favor of the protestors can and will be used by Ahmadinejad to drum up anti-Americanism. The strategy is undeniably successful with parts of the Arab and Persian worlds. An America portrayed as colonial and imperialist, meddling in Iranian affairs can raise deep-seeded emotions. However, as he has shown, Ahmadinejad does not need America to do anything to use this tactic. The Iranian despot is already blaming the US for instigating the protest (See MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31380861/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa). If the bankruptcy of Obama’s Iranian policy wasn’t already clear, this puts the final nail in the coffin. Why bother trying to avoid meddling, if you are accused of it anyway?
The fact of the matter is, that the US has a huge potential to do a lot of good, and Obama is squandering it. John McCain and many others recognize this and are calling for more action. Obama seems so blindly obsessed with being the anti-Bush and pursuing his ‘talking’ policy that he is failing to see what is right before his nose. The Iranian regime is teetering; freedom needs a gentle push from America.
As Robert Kagan eloquently points out in the Washington Post (See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter) , Obama is acting in a pure realist fashion. His stated goal is to dialogue with Iran. Any behavior that annoys or upsets the current leaders of Iran is supposedly detrimental to Obama’s aims. So he chooses to remain relatively quiet about the gross abuses. Obama sides with the enemy because he wants to leave avenues open to dialogue when the protests flare out. This of course assumes that whatever happens in the short-run, the Iranian leadership will remain in power in the long-run.
He buttresses this by claiming to take the high ground. America does not want to meddle in Iranian affairs is his message. He states, “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the U.S. that is encouraging those reformers…. What I’ve said is, look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision….We are not meddling.” This argument essentially assumes that reformist Iranians will be thwarted if they perceive the Americans as controlling and dictating the movement.
This, to some degree, may be true. However, the argument misses an important subtlety. The US is often criticized when it ‘helps’, but it is also criticized when it fails to help. The fact of the matter is, it is not about whether the US helps or not, but how it helps. There is a whole spectrum of actions the US government can take to show support and give assistance without leading the charge. A simple show of solidarity by outwardly condemning the Iranian election abuses would go far to strengthen the moral of the Iranian reformists. Any freedom loving individual would find much strength in hearing his fight recognized and legitimated. Beyond that, the US can offer political pressure on Iran and assistance in enabling the Iranian protestors to get their voices heard above the government censorship.
Any action in favor of the protestors can and will be used by Ahmadinejad to drum up anti-Americanism. The strategy is undeniably successful with parts of the Arab and Persian worlds. An America portrayed as colonial and imperialist, meddling in Iranian affairs can raise deep-seeded emotions. However, as he has shown, Ahmadinejad does not need America to do anything to use this tactic. The Iranian despot is already blaming the US for instigating the protest (See MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31380861/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa). If the bankruptcy of Obama’s Iranian policy wasn’t already clear, this puts the final nail in the coffin. Why bother trying to avoid meddling, if you are accused of it anyway?
The fact of the matter is, that the US has a huge potential to do a lot of good, and Obama is squandering it. John McCain and many others recognize this and are calling for more action. Obama seems so blindly obsessed with being the anti-Bush and pursuing his ‘talking’ policy that he is failing to see what is right before his nose. The Iranian regime is teetering; freedom needs a gentle push from America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)