SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The New Middle East

FEBRUARY 10, 2011

The New Middle East

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The president has found his fall guy, his collective fall guy, for his failure to see that several sort-of U.S. allies were in terrible trouble: The intelligence community, we are now told, was to blame. But the truth is that, if anyone is at fault for misreading the Arab world, it is Barack Obama himself.

Not that many other presidents and their administrations have seen these realities clearly. (John Foster Dulles, secretary of state to Dwight Eisenhower, believed he could transform the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser from a Soviet satrap into a pro-Western republic. Alas, Nasser had other ambitions.) Nonetheless, there is a basic difference between Obama and his predecessors. They wanted to enlist Arab countries in the world of democracies. Obama’s conceit was the other way around. He had little interest in changing Arab governments. Rather, he would get them to admit us into their world. It turned out, however, that Obama’s intimacy was actually just suck-up stuff. Was his narrative, told in his 2009 Cairo speech, of an eighteenth-century treaty between the United States and Tripoli even a simulacrum of the truth? Many people at the speech actually knew the facts. They were not fooled. And, like Obama’s grand emblematic gesture—his graceless curtsy before Abdullah, the monarch of Saudi Arabia—the speech brought the president a good deal of ridicule and not a single diplomatic asset. (The same consequence of the bow before Hu Jintao of China. And the dictator of Russia. His truckling to tyrants is more than a bit creepy!)

Actually, it all began in Turkey, where Obama spent two days near the beginning of his presidency. What possible agenda could he have had to spend two days there? To smooth the path of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s already heavily clericized country to European Union membership? If so, he hadn’t cleared it with the Europeans, who have no interest in seeing Turkey join. In any case, there was nothing reciprocal from the Turks to the president. Not even a vote for a mild economic-sanctions resolution against Tehran in the Security Council.

Of course, it is not only the American encounter with Arab and Muslim governments that has been a coruscating failure. Every item on Obama’s international agenda has come to naught, to say nothing about matters that were of habitual U.S. concern since the administration of John Kennedy, like the fate of democratic capitalism in Latin America or the human rights trajectory of Africa. Even the Russian relationship, apparently smoothed over with an insignificant treaty on atomic weapons, has been roughed up by Moscow’s treatment of its former satellites. The president has also made a fetish of the United Nations, as if Eleanor Roosevelt were still filling it with moral splendor. Worse yet, his U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, has created a cult object out of the organization’s Human Rights Council, retrofitted a few years ago to be more attuned to world realities. Rice could not even prevent the General Assembly from scheduling a tenth anniversary jamboree celebrating the notorious anti-Semitic Durban conference.

 

Such was the setting—in Washington and the Middle East—when on December 17 Mohamed Bouazizi set himself aflame unto death. Tunisia was ready to blow up, and it did. The French, who have long purported to be the caretakers of Tunisia, were as surprised by the event as my eight-year-old grandson. As I write, there is relative calm in the country. But it is only relative. Yesterday, it seemed as if the ruling party, the Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD), a conceit of 23 years, having had all its meeting places closed, was about to be dissolved. A crowd burned a police station, and at least three demonstrators were killed. The prime minister dropped his membership in the RCD, yet remained prime minister.

Anyway, the big protests, the huge protests, were in Egypt. Apparently, the American president was not kept well-informed by the intelligence community. It’s my view, though, that facts wouldn’t have helped him. Obama is burdened by his assumptions, which he takes to be a pretty good approximation of the truth. He certainly did not share in the emotions for an immiserated people who had taken to the streets in the long-time absence of more conventional paths. Their message was “this is not the way to live,” and they had lived that way for more than six decades. This somehow never touched our chief executive. Perhaps he believed that the massive but orderly crowds who greeted him on his 2009 visit were the reality of Egyptian society, poor but not insurrectionary. This reflects a blithe innocence about the cruelties of life. Maybe Obama believed that the Cairenes and the Alexandrians and the masses along the delta as well as the population that is being dragged into the expanding desert will take whatever is shoveled to them.

We don’t know what the next stage in Egypt will bring. There is a chance that the asymmetrical forces arrayed in the country will leave Hosni Mubarak—whom John Bolton correctly stated the president has treated like a “used Kleenex”—in control. Or Suleiman. Or someone else from the republic of generals and colonels. I know that one of the other contenders, Mohammed ElBaradei, who briefly had the inside track with journalists, especially American ones, has not a chance. He is a vain but weak man and, despite his pretensions, was recognized by the crowd for what he is. Another person suddenly nominated by the unknown knower is Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League and former foreign minister of Egypt. He has also been The Economist’s favorite for more than a decade, probably because he can be trusted to hate Israel. Yes, it is “hate” with quotation marks. I doubt, however, that the officer corps wants to lose its weapons for the fourth time. And, anyway, who will pay for such a war?

Which brings us to the Muslim Brotherhood. I wouldn’t count the fraternity out. Everybody concedes that it commands the loyalty of 25 to 35 percent of the people. That could be enough to run the country. But, even if it doesn’t drag itself to the very top, it is bound to be a real player, setting limits on what can be done and fixing absolute minimums that won’t be so minimal at all. This is a civil war in Egypt, although maybe more a cultural war than a political one.

Jordan is also in peril, with perhaps 70 percent of its demography being Palestinian. If you read Ethan Bronner’s recent New York Times pieces from Amman you might well come to the conclusion that the population—not excluding the native East Bankers—actually hates the king and queen, perhaps her more than him. I know that Rania is a fashion sensation and a thrower of lavish parties. But that hardly compensates for an economy that is in every way dysfunctional. Unlike his father, Abdullah has not a second- but a third-rate mind. His Arabic is not better than my Hebrew. What’s more, I am told by reliable sources that Papa Hussein spoke classical Arabic with an eloquence and subtlety that was poetic. I visited the Hashemite monarch several times, once during the middle days of Passover when Jews are forbidden the eating of leavened bread. Hussein had commanded his chef to make proper Passover bread. This was both elegant and transcendent. (Queen Noor had a grievance with both me and Michael Kinsley, who was editor when The New Republic published a slighting story about her majesty. And then someone in our party told the queen, who was having shoulder problems, about a Chinese acupuncturist in Jerusalem, who, I believe, made periodic visits to Amman thereafter.) The country has a long and peaceful border with Israel. Under what circumstances does it stay that way? Remember also that Islamism is far from a dead letter in the kingdom.

There’s turmoil also in Yemen, which my guess is most Americans cannot locate on a map. Still, we have Special Forces there and are fighting a sometimes clandestine, other times quite open war against the soldiers of the Prophet. Hillary Clinton was in the country just a month ago, and she told a Sanaa audience that “there are terrorists operating from Yemeni territory today, ... some of whom, I am sorry to say, are American citizens.” Maybe she thought this was a surprise. In any case, she added that “this is an urgent concern for both of us.” Clinton then went into her routine spiel about Washington wanting “to address the underlying causes of the violence, including poverty and social inequality.” Shall we set a schedule? Let’s say we aim for 2015. OK: 2020.

There is one Middle Eastern country that has experienced little disruption. That is Syria. There is reason for this quiet. Twenty-nine years ago this month, Hafez Assad set the Syrian Army upon Hama, a largish city with a heavy concentration of Sunni adherents to the Muslim Brotherhood. The media didn’t much notice it at the time, but the Syrian military took out some 20,000, and maybe as many as 40,000, people. Robin Wright, an expert on the region, wrote subsequently that this was “the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people.” Bashar Assad rules from a tiny minority of Syrians, the Alawites, who are not especially pious. But the Syrian Baath, their political incarnation, has established genial relations with two Shia regimes: one, the ayatollahs in Iran; the other, the huge millenarian Hezbollah cohort that has now taken over Lebanon, leaving the Christians divided and the Sunnis terrorized. Due to Security Council Resolution 1701—which ended the 2006 Lebanon War in a manner that allowed Hezbollah and its two partners, Iran and Syria, to continue pouring weapons into the battle zone—Hassan Nasrallah is now ready to strike at any time. Some Israelis say he wouldn’t dare, so ferocious would be the Israeli response. But who knows? In any event, during Obama’s presidency, the administration has lavished so much attention on Damascus that even I am stunned to see that it has had zero effect.

 

There is one fact about the manifestations of Arab discontent that has barely been noticed by our oh-so-astute observers. And this is that Israel has played no role in the grievances of the people on the street. Not that they love Israel, surely not. But they recognize their suffering has nothing to do with Jews. These eruptions in the streets of Arab countries are not a Jewish matter or an Israeli matter. They have to do with the contempt of Arab rulers for Arab citizens.

These stormy happenings around the region might have been anticipated by someone in Washington had the president not been fiercely gripped by Israeli settlements in the West Bank and new housing for Israelis in Jerusalem. If we are to believe Al Jazeera—and there is no reason to doubt it—the Palestinians had already forfeited to Israel the most substantial of these. And Israel had long ago, both explicitly and implicitly, given up the heart-and-soul lands of the Jewish biblical inheritance. For whatever reason, the most belligerent Palestinians and Israelis have clung to these issues as if they were the salient obstacles to an agreement. What was actually left in dispute were: first, the modalities of rule in the Old City; second, the ostensible “right of return” of Palestinian refugees unto the fifth generation; and third, recognition by the Arabs of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. I don’t believe that these will be resolved in the near future—and maybe not ever. They are not necessary for long-term calm to prevail. So maybe there won’t be a formal peace agreement. So what?

Amidst all this upheaval, the Johnny-one-notes are still playing the same boring and obsolete tune. In a letter to the president on January 18, when Arab streets were already filled with tanks and tear gas, several dozen of the least distinguished but self-important men and women in public life urged that the United States support a Palestinian initiative in the Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the territories. This is actually mischief for its own sake.

There are many security matters that have long been ignored by those addicted to the fetish of settlements. These matters are increasingly urgent: the impenetrability of the border between Jordan and the West Bank, the security of the Sinai from insurgence in Egypt, the upper hand of Hezbollah not only on Lebanon’s frontier with Israel but in Lebanon more generally, whether Hamas takes over the West Bank. How safe will Tel Aviv be—let alone Jerusalem and the Galilee and the Negev—if Salam Fayyad is not prime minister of the half-state of Palestine, but a Hamas militant rules and rules for God? This letter on the settlements is so very out-of-date that it is hard to believe it was ever relevant. The same goes for the Obama administration’s policies.

Martin Peretz is the editor-in-chief-emeritus of The New Republic. This article ran in the March 3, 2011, issue of the magazine.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 76 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

76 comments

Iran too - ? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/02/wave-of-support-for-demonstrations-on-february-14.html

- Sophia

February 11, 2011 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only the last few paragraphs of this meandering, resentment-filled article are useful. ...I don't much agree with Obama's apparent assumptions about how he should deal with the Middle East, but I don't think Peretz makes much of a case here, when he seems to blame much of current problems on our president.

- Curran1

February 11, 2011 at 3:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty, I voted for Obama in part because of your very articulate and consistent support. Now you are like a convert who has become the most extreme in wanting to string up his former co-religionists. Get real Man. Obama is a human, neither as good as you hoped nor as bad as you now equally naively believe.

- bufatutu

February 11, 2011 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Pee-wee school of diplomacy: I know you are but what am I.

- rayward

February 11, 2011 at 7:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia Iran too!!!! The Middle East in uproar!! And Obama is presiding over it. Give him his due Marty!!

- RedState

February 11, 2011 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Marty might have something thoughtful, insightful and well-informed to say on the amazing events in Egypt, so I gave this piece a try, with some reservations. After all, Marty is a smart, well-educated person who has focused on issues in the MIddle East for a long time -- but he can also be an annoying and bilious bore. Still, I ventured into the piece with some hope of catching him on a good day. What a disappointment! After the second paragraph, the tone and focus of the piece became quite apparent - another piece of trivial hate mail for President Obama. Supposedly, Obama is guilty of a "graceless curtsy" and of sucking-up to dictators. As if the events in Cairo have their origins in the two years of President Obama's administration. As if we would be better off with McCain / Palin, or more of the Bush / Cheney strategy for remaking the Middle East. Really, how much more of this kind of trash is TNR going to publish? What is the serious reader to make of such nonsense? Is this meant to be taken seriously? Peretz likes to use TNR as a vehicle for all his resentments and prejudices, and so the reader who engages with a piece written by this man ends up needing a shower to feel clean. By the end of just two paragraphs, I am already disgusted, and resolved not to bother next time Marty puts his poison pen to work again. One wonders whether Peretz and Mubarak both could be convinced just to go away. Enough already. Neil

- purcellneil

February 11, 2011 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Martin Peretz is relentless in his view of the world through a single monomaniacally narrow prism. As much as I have enjoyed this publication over the years, I simply can no longer tolerate his grip on TNR. Yes, with respect to this piece, my comments are ad hominem; but kindly cancel the remainder of my subscription. Edward Feinglass, M.D.

- efeinglass

February 11, 2011 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Martin Peretz you are the man who speak the truth and to the point. Please never stop writing for our sake.

- Poupic

February 11, 2011 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually there is every reason to doubt the so-called "Palestine Papers" released by Al-Jazeera to make mischief for Abbas & Co. Read Professor Barry Rubin's takedown.

- mgorvine

February 11, 2011 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty - missed you!

- jneuberg

February 11, 2011 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mubarak is out and the Egyptian army is in power, now.

- arnon

February 11, 2011 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty, go away - you resigned for good reason - you're like Mubarek, refusing to go. More arrogant, ridiculous libel from an old fool. Go away.

- WandreyCer

February 11, 2011 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is shit and it is the last thing I ever read by Martin Peretz.

- Sancho

February 11, 2011 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR flushed but it needs to flush again.

- Sancho

February 11, 2011 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Completely incoherent. The man's spleen has totally displaced his mind. Even though he has long been nasty and obsessed, there used to be some semblance of an intellect there. Not any more.

- roidubouloi

February 11, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to the Middle East: a young friend called me this morning - extremely worried about Ahmadinejad's comments - claiming this moves us closer to a ME "without Israel" - and toward an Islamist region free of "interference" from the US and Israel (as though Israel weren't part of the ME - ). I think he's whistling in the dark and maybe the Iranian regime is who should be worried. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ahmadinejad-egypt-unrest-hails-a-mideast-without-u-s-israel-1.342745 There's a danger of extremists getting the upper hand for sure but past a certain point fear of extremism can't hold back the tide of people who want to join the modern world - really the exact opposite of state repression or religious repression - this was a revolution by Google and Facebook - and a triumph of democratic ideas - it's truly absurd for Iran to be trying to take credit for it.

- Sophia

February 11, 2011 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer:

Marty, go away - you resigned for good reason - you're like Mubarek, refusing to go.
That's not fair to Mubarek, who, one could argue, has on occasion done right by Israel.

- misterbones

February 11, 2011 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like other commenters, I gave it another shot, hoping to get a little jolt of old style Peretz contrarianism. But alas, I know the drill nowadays, "Ramble, snark, rant, rant, rant, snark, ramble, ramble, snark..." My favorite part is where he says that Obama could have seen this whole Egypt thing coming if he hadn't spent his time being obsessed with the settlements.

- rufus2fus

February 11, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, it is true that the Arab countries have no democratic tradition. And it is also true that we must approach them from a sense of what is in our national interest. And it is also true that Egypt may derail badly once the freedom festival winds down. And it is also true that Syria is willing to play by what Tom Friedman called "Hama Rules" and so Assad is unlikely to go the way of Mubarak. All this said, this piece is unhinged from reality and deeply unfair. Doubtless Mr. Peretz purchased TNR back in the 70s to have a platform for Zionist advocacy and I have no problem with that. I have been to Israel five times and I'm glad it's there even though the only thing visibly Jewish about me is my long-ago circumcision (in Cincinnati's Jewish Hospital no less!) and perhaps my sense of humor. But support for Israel should not presage this sort of tendentious presentation. Really, Mr. Peretz, I should have expected the former head of Social Studies 10 to be capable of something less stridently unbalanced.

- cforeman

February 11, 2011 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I know that one of the other contenders, Mohammed ElBaradei, who briefly had the inside track with journalists, especially American ones, has not a chance." From what I hear, this seems to be true. It seems also that the only thing the opposition could agree on was the removal of Mubarak. With him gone that opposition is not a unified force any more.

- arnon

February 11, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some interesting and positive news from Egypt, if the poll is correct: "New Poll Reveals Egyptian Views on Protests" http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=543

- arnon

February 11, 2011 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

efeinglass - I share your outrage. I urge you to stay and continue to contribue to whatever discussion you feel you can contribute. With today's issues tThe last thing we need is doctors bowing out of intelligent debate and discussion. Stay with us, friend.

- Tristan

February 11, 2011 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Curran. What a waste of an article this is, other than the last few paragraphs. And I generally agree with what Peretz has to write.

- mattgu10

February 11, 2011 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone else feeling an exuberant joy and foolish optimism tonight, brought on by the scenes and sounds of Cairo celebrating her liberation? I must say I am deeply moved. Neil

- purcellneil

February 11, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's a pretty good chance that Obama is also responsible for yesterday's earthquake in Chile. On a more relevant note, it's difficult to imagine any president playing this very differently from or better than Obama has (with some nuances). It's easy to imagine one playing it more stupidly, however.

- ironyroad

February 11, 2011 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps stupidly was the only way to play it. Sometimes we are deprived of intelligent choices by circumstances so outlandish and beyond our control that no matter how and what we say or do, we act stupidly. It's the stuff of Greek tragedies.

- noga1

February 12, 2011 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or maybe it wasn't our "play" in the first place.

- roidubouloi

February 12, 2011 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: lest one think you are somehow in favour of stupid strategies and old dictators, could you please explain your last post? Practically in every sentence of Marty's - whatever this thing is - there is an assertion that is either untrue or at least unprovable. My subscription is up, and crap like this does not help in getting me to renew.

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Neil about foolish optimism - having seen the same nonsense thirty-two years ago to the day (of Iran's revolution), and seeing the crash literally two days later when the executions started .... I am with Burke (and Frum put the quote up) that it is too early to congratulate the Egyptians - or, for that matter, rue the fate of Israel. We ought to remark that in 18 days of protests, not one American or Israeli flag was burned in anger (at least, I have seen no images), and no one was screaming Down with Israel or Down with America. No tragedy there. Obama's handling of the final, pathetic hours were precisely what could and would be expected of the President of the United States, and not even all of Marty's bile could lay any blame on Obama for this. Mubarak is gone; the Egyptians are embarking on the same sort of journey that W promised the Arab world, but without invasions and Abu Ghraib; the US President struck the right note, more or less, in public: whatever the misgivings, there is something to be said about that.

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...it's difficult to imagine any president playing this very differently from or better than Obama has (with some nuances). It's easy to imagine one playing it more stupidly, however." One can imagine anything but it would be stupid to blame Obama for the events in Egypt thus far. We in the West in general and in the US in particular keep talking about “democracy” and when peoples without democratic institutions in place rebel we are shocked. Reminds one of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 against the Soviets. We called for uprising but when it happened and they expected our support we were “shocked, shocked” and did nothing after the uprising was put down with tanks. We didn’t cause the overthrow of Mubarak but we did create the climate for it to occur. We have been urging democratic change in the Arab world since, at least George W. We got what we wished for. The Egyptian change of regime may be benign to what could occur if we get uprisings in Algeria or Jordan. The last time there was an uprising in Algeria nearly 300 thousand people were murdered. I can’t see a Jordanian uprising having beneficial effects on the region. I am not surprised that there is so much rejoicing in Gaza, South Lebanon and Teheran.

- arnon

February 12, 2011 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting interview with Scharansky in J Post. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=207745

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 12, 2011 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"lest one think you are somehow in favour of stupid strategies and old dictators," I am at a loss to understand why anyone moderately intelligent would think that. Obama's ambiguities during the Iranian protests remain a mystery. He could have spoken easily in support of the rebels, unconstrained by any obligation to Iranian rulers for maintaining the peace and preventing war for the last 30 years. His ambiguities about Egypt were more understandably stupid since he did have that obligation. He was a little like a man caught in the crossfire between his wife and his mother. No matter what that man said or did, it would be stupid. No way such a man could satisfy the emotional and moral demands of any of these rivals, not even the option of remaining a disinterested bystander.

- noga1

February 12, 2011 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am not surprised that there is so much rejoicing in Gaza, South Lebanon and Teheran." The Iranian hypocrisy is breath taking: "ISNA - Tehran Service: Foreign Policy TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iranian officials congratulated Egyptian nation on resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. "I congratulate great Egyptian nation and I share joy with them," said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi. "Millions of Iranians held demonstration on Friday to commemorate Islamic Revolution victory and express support for brave and justice-seeking move of Egyptians," he said. He added, "Egyptian army which has always had a brilliant record in battling Zionist regime's cruelty and assault should play a historic role in this sensitive time along with Egyptians to pave the way for realizations of all goals." Also Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili congratulated Egyptian nation on ouster of Hosni Mubarak. "Mubarak and his American and European sponsors heard voices of Egyptian nation late." He also added, "the US and Europe should be held accountable for 30-year support for a dictatorial rule."

- noga1

February 12, 2011 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If this honesty is a direct consequence of the revolution, then maybe, just maybe, a ray of light in the darkness of a region: "An Israeli conspiracy that never existed By ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM | ARAB NEWS Published: Feb 7, 2011 22:47 Updated: Feb 7, 2011 22:47 I have, since childhood, been hearing about an invisible thing called the Israeli conspiracy. " http://arabnews.com/opinion/article253715.ece?service=print

- noga1

February 12, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure it's Iranian hypocrisy so much as Iranian trepidation. Noga -- icarus didn't mean literally that you had spoken in favor of stupidity; he was trying to point up a confusion (that I shared, I think) in the enigmatic brevity of that previous post of yours.

- ironyroad

February 12, 2011 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Irony. "No matter what that man said or did, it would be stupid." Well, if that is what you meant by stupidity ... Me, I think there are degrees of wisdom and stupidity in any situations. I did not much like Obama's caution in response to the Iranian situation, but that is because even I momentarily got caught in the moment, looking, again, to an outside saviour ... for America, Obama's response to the Iranian situation was - and I say this with the benefit of hindsight, and with what we have seen happen in Iran - the appropriate response. In Egypt, the people and the army had to resolve an issue between them; they have done so, for now. (A deal that, because of the idiocy of Iran's generals in 79, did not materialise, and resulted in the destruction of the country.) As I noted, it is too early to be too ecstatic, but Egypt might - just might - escape Iran's fate. And on the scale of stupidity or wisdom, to the extent that US interests have not been harmed, Obama may be said to have acted wisely. So far.

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: thanks for the Arabnews link. This is fairly standard stuff in Persian/Iranian reformist - and even elements of conservative - media. I don't track Arab media, but I should have thought that there would be *some* reasonable Arab thinkers ... Either way, as a personal observation, I am not too familiar with Egyptian politics, but if I had to make a bet, I would say that Mubarak's regime was actively complicit in Israeli conspiracy theory propagation in Egypt. Look: 40% of Egypt lives on $2 a day, while Mubarak is said to have amassed a fortune in the billions. How could the Egyptian government account for the misery and the poverty, if it were not for an external agent/conspiracy? One advantage of any democratic institution and relatively free media is precisely the questions that arise: in Iran, when a plane crashed last month, the Transport Minister blamed the sanctions and Western conspiracies to hold Iran down; the conservative-run Majlis could not stomach the nonsense anymore and had him sacked. It is possible - and possibly even likely - that with Mubarak's departure and a semblance of control over their own destiny, the Egyptian people (read Elite) will concentrate on getting their house in order rather than blaming the sharks and the tides and the desert storms on Israeli perfidy.

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for Iranian hypocrisy ... Monday will tell what happens there. After the Muslim Brotherhood said that Egypt is not looking for an Islamic revolution, and after the leaders of the Green Movement announced unauthorised demonstrations in solidarity with the people of Egypt, Khamenei changed the text of his speeches to refer *not* to Egypt but to "certain countries in the region". Even conservative web-news outlets are cautioning that it is too early to expect a glorious Iranian-type outcome in Egypt, as "the Army remains in control."

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I honestly can't see what "mystery" there was to Obama and the Iranian protests. He was engaged at that moment, early summmer 2009, in a complicated diplomatic attempt to get the regime in Teheran to see the advantages of a new relationship with the U.S. and the West and to do a rethink in its nuclear plans. This was and is a high strategic problem set for the U.S. and our allies, with Israel in particular suggesting that a military intervention would be soon inevitable. The objective was both political and tactical -- to give the Iranians an opening to change their game, and to make it clear to everyone that American wasn't the recalcitrant party in this deal. Given that one of the key fears/paranoias of the Iranian regime is that the U.S. is working day and night to topple it, and that a removal of that fear would be a consequence of a new relationship with the U.S., the post-election protests dropped a major problem into Obama's lap. If he came out immediately and emphatically in favor of the protesters, and the regime then used that as a direct excuse to cut off all possible negotiation, he would have been accused of naivety and incompetence in a major f-p effort. In fact, the regime has essentially refused to open up and change the conversation (and making it easier for us to get a tighter sanctions menu) but that was not an ironclad certainty in June 2009 -- as the comic-opera fumblings of Achmedinejad in fall '09 showed, when he was wrongfooted on the nuclear reprocessing proposal by even harder hardliners.

- ironyroad

February 12, 2011 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Either way, as a personal observation, I am not too familiar with Egyptian politics, but if I had to make a bet, I would say that Mubarak's regime was actively complicit in Israeli conspiracy theory propagation in Egypt. Look: 40% of Egypt lives on $2 a day, while Mubarak is said to have amassed a fortune in the billions.” This makes a lot of sense. The revolt was as much against economic conditions as it was “for freedom.” Mubarak was the head of a corrupt government that didn’t deliver. Egypt has been importing most of its wheat from oversees. Had the regime not been so anti-semitic the regime might have asked for Israeli help in agriculture which is an area that the country is rich in know-how. Had it done so, it would still be in power.

- arnon

February 12, 2011 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.s. I was not suggesting, of course, that Iran is a democratic state with free media. I should have said, "even in Iran, despite its repressive environment, there is in some respects relative freedom on the part of some media outlets to criticise government policies. This is why, when a plane crashed ...". P.p.s. Agree with Irony - the one thing to bear in mind is that on the nuclear issue, even the opposition Royalists are in favour of developing nuclear arms (the program began under the Shah); strategically, therefore, it was and is more important for the international community to contain Iran's nuclear drive than to get it to have democratic institutions, which would not necessarily affect Iran's nuclear policy.

- icarusr

February 12, 2011 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rightists and others suffering from Peretzian dementia cannot possibly understand the point made by ironyroad above because they think that calling Iran names will get it to desist from developing nuclear weapons and, failing that, that we can, should, and would start a war to stop them. So certain are they of the efficacy of this approach, so oblivious to the risks entailed, that they will not so much as countenance Obama even attempting a combination of rapprochement and tougher sanctions. Nor are they able to recognize that we will not gain the cooperation we need from other states on sanctions unless we make it clear to them that we are not looking for war and are willing to take all reasonable steps, rhetorically and otherwise, to gain Iranian cooperation. Nope. Name-calling and war are pretty much the only two tricks the right-wing foreign policy pony knows.

- roidubouloi

February 12, 2011 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I line up with Roi, Irony and Icarusr on this issue and in fact was arguing the point last night with one of the demented. Not really on the other hand, I know someone who skates to work each morning along the Rideau. She's in town this weekend.

- basman

February 12, 2011 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: I'm still waiting for the call ;) ... I should be free(r) after the 17th.

- icarusr

February 13, 2011 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/western-folly-in-mideast-comes-home-to-roost-but-democracy-in-egypt-must-be-supported/ "Q) Why is mass anti-Semitism incompatible with genuine liberal democracy? A) Because anti-Semitism represents an emphatic rejection of the universalist principles which underpin liberal-democracy. This is why anti-Semitism can emerge as a mortal danger to non-Jews as well as Jews. The social, cultural and political forces unleashed by anti-Semitism are inherently antithetical to the classical liberal values of the Enlightenment. They are also antithetical to reason itself. All polities dominated by virulent anti-Semitism will therefore struggle to produce liberal-democratic outcomes. Some will produce extreme tyrannies. Christopher Hitchens was hinting at precisely these thoughts in the following remarks made in an article for Slate in February 2006: “…only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The memory of the Third Reich is very vivid in Europe precisely because a racist German regime also succeeded in slaughtering millions of non-Jews, including countless Germans, under the demented pretext of extirpating a non-existent Jewish conspiracy.” Q) So, given the presence of both mass anti-Semitism in Egypt and, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, a major political movement ready to hone down and exploit this anti-Semitism, is liberal-democracy impossible in Egypt? A) It depends on whether and to what extent anti-Semitism becomes a dominant theme in the political discourse in the manner that it has long been a dominant theme in the cultural and religious discourse. But given the near ubiquity of anti-Semitism in mainstream society, the great danger is that anti-Semitism will become an ideological mainstay of whatever new regime emerges. Here’s how it might unfold: The Muslim Brotherhood becomes part of a government dominated (initially) by Egyptian nationalists. Anti-Semitism emerges as the common denominator holding these two forces together. In political terms this leads to a much more hostile approach to Israel. During a flashpoint, like Operation Cast Lead for example, the Islamists demand direct support for Hamas. The nationalist constituency opposes such a move thus handing the initiative to the Brotherhood which discredits its opponents by portraying them as agents of the US-Zionist conspiracy. At this point we get an Islamist takeover. "

- noga1

February 13, 2011 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Forgive me irony but you are confusing cause and results. At the time of the early summer of 2009 the Iranian regime has already given it's answer to president's "complicated diplomatic attempts" by stealing an election and crushing the protest. If the president thought that lack of response to regime's violence against the protesters will move them to "see the advantages of a new relationship with the U.S. and the West" then I must say, he is more deluded and clueless than I thought.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 13, 2011 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover: note Irony's point about the survival of the regime. A'jad and the gang stole the election to ensure that the regime would survive; the regime - this regime at least - has been pursuing nuclear weapons since after the chemical attacks by Iraq, as a survival mechanism. To acknowledge this deep desire and try to work on it to achieve strategic objectives is neither deluded not clueless. More to the point, it is not at all clear that outright political support - words, words and mere words - on the part of the United States would have helped the situation on the ground in Iran. (Anecdotally, what my friends in Tehran and Shiraz tell me, and what almost all reformist commentators *in Iran* kept saying, was that the US should stay out of it. And the only Iranian opposition groups actively agitating for US involvement and then criticising Obama's response, were the Iranian versions of Chalabi: discredited right-wingers.) So you have a policy of trying to get the Iranian regime to make a political decision about a matter of strategic importance; it is certain that pronouncements by the US on the Green movement would have caused the Iranians to walk; it was unclear that any such pronouncements would benefit the movement; it was possible that a moderated and nuanced policy vis a vis Iran would keep Russia and China on board for tightening sanctions and increasing pressure. Any way, as far as US interests are concerned, it is not at all clear that they are in all respects inconsistent with a repressive regime in Iran: as Mubarak has shown, brutal repression at home and a relatively Western-friendly stance abroad are not mutually exclusive. This is a multilayered chessboard that required reflection and balance, not cookie-cutter ideological responses. What is deluded and clueless is to think that Obama's full support for the demonstrations (which fizzled out, for a number of complex reasons that had nothing to do with the US) would have 1) succeeded in ousting the regime; 2) protected American interests in the region; and 3) caused a 180-degree reversal on the nuclear decision.

- icarusr

February 13, 2011 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A quick note (as you might guess, the perspective is a bit different from the eastern end of the Mediterranean, at least for those of us who live here; but this will have to wait (if I get to write at all)). As those of you who know me from the spinal tap days, I am not one to rush out to Obama's defense. Yet I think it is absurd to assume that Obama should have seen the Egypt turmoil coming. Israel didn't; the Saudis didn't; the Jordanians didn't; and most notably the Egyptian secret services and domestic intelligence agencies (who have more ears on the ground in Egypt than anyone else) didn't. Indeed no one (with one exception) predicted this would transpire. So to blame Obama & the US intelligence agencies for not warning that Egypt was about to blow is ridiculously unfair (it's almost as unfair as one "progressive" pooh-bah claiming that someday, Israelis will blame Bibi for "losing" Egypt). There was one group that did warn of likely turmoil in Egypt that could bring down Hapless Hosni -- the "Egypt Working Group", a bipartisan group of think tankers & some NGO types which included among others Robert Kagan & Elliot Abrams, which worked out of the Brookings Institution. But no one else did. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

February 13, 2011 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bit of a cheerleader here but 02/13/2011 - 11:34am EDT | is an excellent post by someone who knows what he's talking about.

- basman

February 13, 2011 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy: Nobody on this post is blaming Obama for not foreseeing the upheaval in Egypt. icarus: Nobody denies "that deep desire". That "deep desire" has been with us since the Shah's regime. The current regime just continues Shahs policy. It's control and survival depends on police state tactics and crashing of any opposition not on nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons for Iran are means of establishing Iranian hegemony in the ME. Yes, it is not clear that "mere words" would help the situation. However, no words definitely did not help and created a feeling among the opposition groups that they are completely alone and left on the mercy of the regime. "And the only Iranian opposition groups actively agitating for US involvement and then criticising Obama's response, were the Iranian versions of Chalabi: discredited right-wingers.)" Hmm, Iranian Protesters: "Obama, Are You With Us Or Against Us?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-yLLZ3JGfM&feature=player_embedded Yes, they must be "discredited right-wingers"

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 13, 2011 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bit of a spoiler here but 02/13/2011 - 12:15pm EDT seems to be an excellent suck-up. Congratulations!

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 13, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover -- didn't Dr. MP blame Obama? hg

- ginzy

February 13, 2011 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks makover. Good to know I did something well.

- basman

February 13, 2011 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right Ginzy. My bad. I was referring to the posters.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 13, 2011 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A news item of interest.... worrisome interest: Ehud Ya'ari, the highly highly respected Arab affairs commentator on Israel's Channel 2 news (and who at one point was offered the ambassadorship to Egypt) reported tonite that long-standing Egyptian opposition figure Dr. Ayman Nour deemed the Israel-Egypt Camp David peace treaty to be "finished". At minimum, Nour said, Egypt should renegotiate the terms of the treaty. Nour made the comments during a radio interview. This is the same Nour that was by Mubarak for daring to run against him for the presidency. Nour was freed after a number of years in prison because of US pressure. What makes it particularly worrisome is that Nour is supposedly a secular, liberal, democrat. But I guess the many years of crude anti-semitism that pervaded the Egyptian media and culture. You can view Ya'ari's report here, at the beginning of the newscast after the commercials. hg

- ginzy

February 13, 2011 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover: I'm glad someone out there can draw broad conclusions on "Iranian opposition groups" on the basis of a 30-sec clip of a slogan on the streets on YT. Please read what I wrote - there are a number of qualifications embedded in my comment that are not easily dismissed on the basis of street-level sloganeering. As well, please note what the POSTER of the clip wrote explaining the clip. (This is a point that I would readily admit, and what is more, I myself posted on these pages at the time Obama made his guarded comments.)

this motto is not about obama or bush or ..... we are worried about collusions. we know greater powers has dealt with each other all the time.all we want is US government at least take us into its future considerations.
No credible opposition group was asking for Obama', or America's, active involvement in Iranian affairs. Everyone was, and still is, concerned that to advance America's national interest (and, indirectly, Israel's), Obama would settle with Iran: no nukes, in return for safeguarding the regime. But this is a different point from the one I was making. Your evident lack of contextual knowledge of Iran and Iranian politics, and your readiness to make assertions and draw conclusions on the basis of scant information, makes the rest of your arguments somewhat suspect. You may wish to take a page from Obama's book, and not talk until you know what you are talking about.

- icarusr

February 13, 2011 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ginzy: it is ever thus. The Foreign Office conducted a year-long review of what went wrong after the Iranian revolution - until late in 1978, the British Embassy was still confidently predicting that the Shah would remain in place - and the result, the "Brown Report", might as well have been written by Tuchman. Groupthink and confirmation bias, the usual culprits ... and, of course, the old, "Events, my dear boy, events."

- icarusr

February 13, 2011 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You obviously know nothing of my "contextual knowledge of Iran and Iranian politics". You are the one who is drawing conclusions on the basis of well selected anecdotal comments by your friends in "Shiraz and Tehran". Your statement that American pronouncements would make the Iranians walk is a proof of my point. It was surely unclear whether such pronouncements will benefit the Green Movement but it was definitely clear that no pronouncements at all will benefit the regime. We can be sure that lack of support and international outcry was at least one of the main reasons that the protests fizzled. I am also surprised by lack of consistency in your view. Realism in regard to the Iranian uprising and idealism in regard to the Egyptian movement. In regard to the Iranian question the higher strategic interests of US and world peace are paramount thus permitting sacrifice and abandonment of the leaders and demonstrators alike and in the Egyptian question it is all Democracy with capital D, discard Mubarak an old US ally like a used Kleenex. You seem to believe that the situation in Egypt does not threatens strategics interests of the United States and it's allies and the Iranian situation does. Well, I hope I am wrong but as Ginzy has pointed out in the previous post, "long-standing Egyptian opposition figure Dr. Ayman Nour deemed the Israel-Egypt Camp David peace treaty to be "finished". Maybe some "real-politic" was actually called for.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 13, 2011 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy "A news item of interest.... worrisome interest..." Not a surprise, here. I said above that the fall of Mubarak will open up an ideological battle in Egypt in which each side will try to prove its legitimacy internally by claiming anti-Israel credentials. It's now up to the US and the Western powers to put pressure on Dr. Nour and his ilk not to throw overboard the peace treaty with Israel. There is a lot at stake here, as Obama and Hillary Clinton are aware.

- arnon

February 13, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I want to underline that I'm not claiming that the Obama administration's response (which wasn't "no words," in case anyone genuinely believes that) was the only response possible, or that it was objectively the best response. We have no idea whether a McCain administration would have reacted in a similar fashion, or differently. What I am saying is that, given the complex of circumstances and the hierarchy of strategic goals that the U.S. was pursuing, it was a reasonable and justifiable response. Can it be criticized? Of course, and I admit to having wanted instinctively a more ringing endorsement of the protests -- but instinct isn't everything. What is unconvincing, however, is to criticize Obama from a point of view that claims a foreknowledge it would have been impossible to possess. And again I draw attention to the A'jad fumble in fall '09 as evidence that not everything was fixed and rigid several months after the protests.

- ironyroad

February 13, 2011 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's all history, ironyroad, as you know. Some actions change the course of human events so thoroughly that makes whatever came before it almost irrelevant. This is what history is. Makes no sense to go over and second guess what everyone said since historical events seldom if ever repeat themselves. The fall of Mubarak is to a lesser degree such an event. It’s more important to figure out where to go from here than to retrospect on what might have been.

- arnon

February 13, 2011 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One can only marvel at Israelis who are convinced that the things that the president of the United States says will have a profound effect on political movements and governments in Moslem nations although the things the president of the United States says seemingly have no effect on any political movement in or the government of Israel. Why do they suppose that Moslems are so much more amenable to the words of the US president than Israelis who are actually dependent on the good graces of the United States? Strange.

- roidubouloi

February 13, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We can be sure that lack of support and international outcry was at least one of the main reasons that the protests fizzled." I am not at all certain that "lack of international outcry", which is hardly only Obama's fault, was one of the "main" reasons for the failure of the protests. There are a lot of complex reasons, not the least of which is the history of reformism and the background of the leadership of the Green movement. "You are the one who is drawing conclusions on the basis of well selected anecdotal comments by your friends in "Shiraz and Tehran". Your statement that American pronouncements would make the Iranians walk is a proof of my point." Well, I have no idea what is proof of which point. I freely admitted that my knowledge of Iran is anecdotal; in fact, no one - absolutely no one - has anything other than anecdotal knowledge of Iran and Iranian politics, because all polling and statistics is suspect. As for whether American pronouncements in support of the Green movement would have made the Iranians walk out of all negotiations ... well, I mean, if you have any doubts about that, there is nothing really to discuss. I should imagine it to be a fairly obvious point that when you are negotiating with a repressive dictatorial regime that is quite skittish about the negotiations, to defend protesters trying to upend that repressive regime is not going to be conducive to prolonged negotiations. Just saying.

- icarusr

February 13, 2011 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reasons why Egypt in 2011 was different, in terms of the U.S. relationship to the other country, from Iran in 2009 are so obvious that it beggars credulity that anyone would suggest those situations were similar.

- ironyroad

February 14, 2011 at 1:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as is happening in Tunisia, in Egypt, "it's the economy" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/africa/14tunisia.html?hp "...A month after Tunisians toppled their authoritarian president, sending shock waves across the Arab world, many are discovering that may have been the easy part. With restrictions on the media lifted and freedom of speech flourishing, the cork has popped on years of bottled-up demands over salaries, working conditions and other grievances. ..." as is happening in Tunisia, in Egypt, "it's the economy" Manna from heaven may be delayed by a few plagues. Obama is not to blame unless he can deliver massive amounts of free wheat, but most likely will favor massive exports of well-priced wheat to China, currently suffering worst drought in decades. "Chinese weather on Tahrir Square" By Spengler Feb 10, 2011 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB10Ak02.html "The late novelist James Clavell had a tiresome habit of driving the plots of his potboilers into cul-de-sacs, whence he would extricate them with a natural disaster. Egypt had its Clavell moment on February 8 when the Food and Agricultural Organization warned that drought in China might require the world's largest wheat producer to import vast amounts of the grain, forcing the market price to levels never seen before. While protesters continued to fill Cairo's Tahrir Square, and Washington swung between urgent calls for President Hosni Mubarak's departure and admonitions not to rush things, and Egypt's elite wondered whether to take their money and run, the weather in China pre-empted all these petty calculations. Not until June will we know the extent of the damage to China's winter wheat crop, virtually all its production. Extremely low rainfall this winter parched more than 5 million hectares of 14 million hectares planted, and the next few weeks' weather will determine if the world faces a real shortage of the staff of life. ..." [good thing Gaza can export food to Egypt these days!] and, for some interesting polls: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/13/lawrence-solomon-cairos-protesters-dont-speak-for-egypt/

- K2K

February 14, 2011 at 6:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe those situations were not similar, as in being carbon copy of each other, but there are similarities between the two situations. What "beggars credulity" is that Iran's vilest of hostile despots were given a (de-facto) pass while Egypt's authoritarian and friendly despot, was thrown under the bus. The Iranian people, whose grievances are much more urgent and existential, were ignored while the Egyptian people, whose virtue is in their implacable hatred of Israel and Jews, were embraced and coddled. Of course Egypt's potential for reform was low hanging fruit, as Mubarak, expectedly, put up a very feeble fight to retain his power. It would have taken real courage and moral clarity to support the Iranian people in their dire need.

- noga1

February 14, 2011 at 8:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It would have taken real courage and moral clarity to support the Iranian people in their dire need." This is simply overwrought silliness. It certainly would have required no courage on the part of Obama to have made different rhetorical gestures, and it is beyond ridiculous to suppose that Obama and the entire rest of the American government did not wish the Green Revolution to succeed. The decisions as to what to say or not to say were plainly made, for better or worse, on purely tactical grounds. There is no responsible argument that things would have turned out better had he said something different at the time. One can speculate, but there is no reason to believe that different words would have produced any better outcome under the circumstances with regard to either the Green Revolution or the posture of Iran and the rest of the world as regards its nuclear program. Unfortunately, Bush has made threats of regime change a problem even when we don't have the means, as we do not in Iran. There are those who want to assail Obama and they are none too careful about the instruments that they choose with which to do it. Anything will do, no matter how absurd or irrational.

- roidubouloi

February 14, 2011 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Among the differences between Egypt and Iran is that the Egypt is a US client where the military benefits from US aid and wants it to continue. Iran is not a US client. Duhhhhhh!

- roidubouloi

February 14, 2011 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...it is beyond ridiculous to suppose that Obama and the entire rest of the American government did not wish the Green Revolution to succeed. " I don't think anything I said in my post could be construed as a supposition that "Obama and the entire rest of the American government did not wish the Green Revolution to succeed." What I did imply, in case it was not clear, that Obama chose the path of least resistance, which does not really bespeak great vision or courage or leadership. In the melodramatic words of Lt. Col. Frank Slade (to roi: the colonel is just a fictional character from a movie): "I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew, but I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard." It was easier, much easier, to voice support for the Egyptian people so Obama did it.

- noga1

February 14, 2011 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I don't think easiness or difficulty was the issue, as much simplicity or complexity. States' relations to one another is not determined on the basis or right or wrong paths, but options that are more or less desirable, tactically and strategically, in accordance with the circumstances. Bush and Reagan had moral clarity and something of a courage (and, by the way, it takes no courage, whatever, to declaim support, in front of the Rose Garden, for people who are being run over and thrown off pedestrian bidges), but the overt expression of that clarity of purpose veered more often than not into buckaroo posturing and adventurism, and in the case of Reagan, outright treason out of the White House. There is no evidence - none whatever - that Obama suffers from moral inclarity - in fact, the constant criticism of him is that he is a narcissist who presumably thinks he is always right; what is at issue is his political and public positioning as of head of state, in relation to a vastly complex relationship with a rogue regime whose population is unevenly divided, but still divided, as to its relationship with the rest of the world and with its own government. Where a President minds the doilies in the china shop, the criticism should not be why he doesn't kick out of principle and courage.

- icarusr

February 14, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to disagree with that characterization, Noga. It was not easier for Obama to support the Egpytian people -- and, incidentally, hasn't there been criticism of him for not coming out earlier against Mubarak? -- because there were and are very different things at stake in Egpyt in 2011 than in Iran in 2009. In one way, it would have been easier to support the Green Movement -- a simple presidential endorsement that would have pleased both liberals and conservatives here. Except it wouldn't have, and he would have been criticized once again for naive missteps in complicated foreign policy issues if the immediate response from Teheran was to nix all actual and potential negotiations. The problem for Obama in Egypt was the nature of the strategic relationship. It raised exactly the difficulty that was absent in the case of Iran: do you sacrifice stability for democratic uncertainty if that stability has been valuable over such a long time? It's no accident that the "throwing Mubarak under a bus" meme has been so common on Fox News even though other conservatives see these events as Bush's plans finally coming to fruition. But if Obama had followed what conservatives wanted, he would have (a) supported the protestors more enthusiastically and (b) simultaneously told Mubarak to stand firm and fight the tide of chaos. The issue for Obama with regard to Iran was very different -- the absence of a strategic relationship, if you like. That was a moment when one of the most ominous strategic problems for the U.S. was potentially open to a new conversation -- no matter how much one might have wished the mullahs in Teheran away, they were there and they, not the Greens, controlled the military nuclear program. Even more complicating is the fact that the nuclear program does have supporters beyond the regime, and could become a sensitive nationalist issue even if the current leadership were to lose power. Incidentally, I saw a very good talk on C-SPAN by an Iranian-American academic who has written a book on the Shah. His argument was that the Bush administration blew it when they didn't offer negotiations on the nuclear issue at the moment in 2003 between the fall of Saddam and the opening of the insurgency -- during that short window of time, Iran was feeling very nervous about the U.S.

- ironyroad

February 14, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It makes little sense to compare the role the US played or didn't play in the Iranian protests. For one thing the US has a lot more influence in Egypt because of the money and weapons we give them. Also while the Iranian opposition lost the first round of protests, it didn't lose the battle of legitimacy yet and there are recurrent demonstration against the regime in Iran. "Iran protests see reinvigorated activists take to the streets in thousands Riot police and basiji militia use teargas on protesters, with reports that one demonstrator was killed in clashes." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/14/iran-protests-reinvigorated-activists The Iranian opposition has a tougher road ahead since the Islamic government will not hesitate to use criminal methods to squash them.

- arnon

February 14, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm fully aware of Obama's difficulties vis a vis Egypt, ironyroad. As I suggested earlier on, that he couldn't please anyone no matter what he said. But my intuitive feeling about his misstep with Iran remains. I actually believe that Iranians are much more serious about democracy than the Egyptians. Nuclear weapons are a lot less scary when it is a democracy that possesses them.

- noga1

February 14, 2011 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I actually believe that Iranians are much more serious about democracy than the Egyptians." Definitely true, but Iranians will have a harder road instituting democracy. Containment of the regime is our best option for the moment.

- arnon

February 14, 2011 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In Egypt, More Questions Than Answers By George Friedman "The new government has promised to honor all foreign commitments, which obviously include the most controversial one in Egypt, the treaty with Israel. During the celebrations the evening of Feb. 11 and morning of Feb. 12, the two chants were about democracy and Palestine. While the regime committed itself to maintaining the treaty with Israel, the crowds in the square seemed to have other thoughts, not yet clearly defined. But then, it is not clear that the demonstrators in the square represent the wishes of 80 million Egyptians. For all the chatter about the Egyptian people demanding democracy, the fact is that hardly anyone participated in the demonstrations, relative to the number of Egyptians there are, and no one really knows how the Egyptian people would vote on this issue." http://www.realclearworld.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/02/14/in_egypt_more_questions_than_answers_99399.html

- arnon

February 14, 2011 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article, although it seems oddly out of date, makes some valid points at the beginning, especially about the administration's feckless response to what is going on. I have to say, however, that virtually every TV shot or news photo of the Mideast uprisings that I have seen has included anti-American signs or slogans, which must be due, at least in part, to our unbending support of everything Israel does, whether right or wrong. And of course it turns out at the end of the article that it is primarily another attempt to minimize the Israeli settle- ments which are eating up the possibility of a two-state solution and violating international law. There will be no peace in the Mideast until the Palestinian question is settled, and it will never be settled until the settlements not only stop but are removed. We should not have vetoed the UN resolution condemning the settlements, and then turned around and condemned them anyway, because such devious conduct only further convinces the Arab world that we can never be an honest broker. We should not have vetoed the resolution and we should not continue rewarding Israel financially for its lawless and selfish behavior. I for one am through supporting a nation that wants to destroy itself and take the rest of us down with it.

- mlottman

February 21, 2011 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close