Pentagon Game to Divide Iranians and Arabs Wednesday, Oct 26 2011 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Iran and Middle East and US Foreign Policy and US Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:18 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

Analysts and pundits have spent the past two weeks puzzling over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington – in part because of a complete lack of either motive or benefit for the Islamic Republic. Iran, reputed to place much stock in cost-benefit analyses in its geopolitical calculations, clearly fails to gain materially or politically from any part of the allegations thus far. So what gives?

Instead of scrutinizing the “whys” of Iran’s involvement, it may be more illuminating to examine Washington’s motivation in advancing this bit of political theater. The criminal charges were followed by high-profile statements and sanctioned leaks from the White House, the US Departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, the FBI and CIA, all well orchestrated for maximum impact. The U.S. government then sought to persuade the global community via the UN Security Council and “phone calls to many capitals” of the gravity of the charges.

Such fanfare went beyond the service of prosecuting a single crime. More likely, the charges being leveled at Iran came in the service of “public diplomacy” – an attempt to establish a broad narrative that serves a policy decision.

While pushing the narrative of an Iranian “bogeyman” is not unusual in US policy circles, what may be new is the urgent emphasis on this storyline in the aftermath of Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East.

Bring in the “Red Team”

In March, as the Arab Revolts swept through the Middle East and North Africa, the US military’s combatant command center (CENTCOM) for military operations in twenty countries – including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan – held a “Red Team” exercise to examine a narrative that perpetually pits Arabs and Iranians against each other.

CENTCOM’s Red Team was formed in 2006 to “think outside the box, offer contrarian thinking…sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials, a spokesman explained to me last year.

According to a source involved in the March drill, these are some of the specific premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s “Arabs versus Iran” exercise: (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians”)

  • Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide.  History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
  • Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East.  In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.” (more…)

 

The Iran-Saudi Assassination “Hoax?” Wednesday, Oct 12 2011 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Hezbollah and Iran and Media and Middle East and US Foreign Policy and US Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 1:13 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

I have been staring incredulously at my TV screen these past few hours as the story of Iran’s alleged assassination attempt of a Saudi diplomat in Washington unfolds in dramatic increments.

Reporters keep repeating the theme “like out of a Hollywood script” as they eke out increasingly unlikely details about this “terror” plot.

My immediate thoughts? Ah. So this is how Washington intends to overrule objections to its $120 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab dictatorships of the Persian Gulf.

Forget Hollywood. If I channeled the worst of Washington’s Mideast policymakers, past and present – say, a John Bolton and a Dennis Ross – I could have written this story myself. A modern-day Wag the Dog if you will – the 1997 Dustin Hoffman/Robert De Niro black comedy in which a Hollywood producer helps Washington fabricate a war-on-celluloid in order to divert attention from a presidential sex scandal.

It so happens that I am in the midst of writing a revealing piece about a US military effort to test narratives about what unites and divides Arabs and Iranians. (Watch my blog for this in the next few days)

The most interesting aspect of this military-sponsored exercise is the timing – it took place less than three months after the onset of the Arab revolts that swept the Mideast.

Very quickly after the uprisings began, it became obvious that Iran stood to gain a geopolitical advantage if pro-US despots fell and Arab populations turned against the status quo which has long favored Washington goals: Israeli regional hegemony, unfettered access to cheap oil, the marginalization of political Islam…and now, the sale of hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to the US’s remaining autocratic allies.

It also very quickly became apparent that selling the $120 billion worth of armaments – half of which are intended for the Saudis (Saudi Arabia: $67 billion, UAE: $35-40 billion, Oman: $12 billion, Kuwait: $7 billion) – to repressive regimes was going to be extremely difficult in the face of our public stances on democracy and human rights.

Weapons sales would be particularly hard to defend in the case of Saudi Arabia, by far the most repressive regime in the wider Middle East and North Africa, and ironically, America’s closest Arab ally. (more…)

 

Feeding The Beast: When Journalists Fuel Harmful Narratives Monday, Sep 12 2011 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Iran and Israel and Media and Middle East and Turkey and US Foreign Policy and US Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:57 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

Typing away the truth?

I recently spoke with a friend who has been in and around Washington’s Mideast foreign policy establishment for three decades. “I have never seen policymakers so confused,” this political insider told me in regard to US plans in the region.

The old paradigms of supporting Israel unconditionally, marginalizing political Islam and propping up dictators we whitewash as “moderates” do not hold when the region is experiencing such fundamental shifts. Especially when our policies were such dismal failures before the Arab Awakening even hit our television screens.

So it is disheartening to see so many analysts, reporters and commentators still transfixed with old narratives – none of which serve to encourage the innovative policy reassessments needed to deal with this spanking new world.

Two recent examples:

Plumbing New Depths in Support of Israel
“In 2003, France and Germany’s decision not to allow coalition troops to use their territory in the effort to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq not only was a blow to their alliance with the US, but set in motion circumstances that ultimately helped create the insurgency.”

For the record, I don’t blame France and Germany for jumpstarting a legitimate insurgency against occupying US forces. But Jonathan S. Tobin, writing in Commentary last week, did just that. Except, instead of invoking France and Germany – also close US allies who refused to participate in our misguided Iraqi adventure – Tobin was writing about “Turkey.”

Sounds just as stupid with “Turkey” in there, now doesn’t it?

The backdrop to Tobin’s bizarre conclusion is the recent emergence of a more assertive Turkey on the global stage, which – like other emerging powers – gently nudged aside the United States from its post-Cold War role as the sole arbiter of All Things. While Washington remained cautiously watchful of Turkey’s new direction, all attempts at diplomatic neutrality came to a screeching halt when Ankara dared to criticize Israel for its brutal assault on the Gaza Strip in 2009 and for its 2010 killing of nine activists on the Turkish-origin Mavi Marmara flotilla ship headed for Gaza.

As the war of words escalated between the two countries, our no-space-between-us-and-Israel clause in The Contract kicked in and we got nasty. Washington pundits began to question Turkey’s strategic importance to the US and started dropping the dreaded “Islamist” moniker in all references to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP-led government. Punishing Turkey took many forms – including approving in committee a contentious congressional resolution declaring the 1915 Armenian massacre a “genocide” and boycotting the 2010 Anatolian Eagle military exercises with the longtime NATO ally.

Turkey gained a brief reprieve when the Arab Awakening swept through the Middle East and Ankara became an important Muslim ally in ushering through support for NATO air cover of Libya and challenging the Syrian government’s treatment of protestors. Turkey threw its NATO allies a further bone by agreeing to host a US-allocated early warning radar on its soil as part of a plan to deter ballistic missile threats.

But new hostilities between Turkey and an ever-intractable Israel threaten to once again light a fire under the Jewish state’s supporters in the United States. Ignoring Ankara’s vast strategic value to Washington, commentators like Tobin are grasping at straws to once more strike some blows against Israel’s latest nemesis.

A NATO member since 1952; the world’s 16th largest economy; second largest standing armed force in NATO with over one million soldiers; a founding member of the United Nations, OECD and the G-20 major economies…

Just imagine – Turkey being blamed for Iraq’s insurgency. Wow…just wow.

Sadly, this is the kind of extrapolation in political reasoning that has made this truly a mad, mad, mad world. Welcome to punditry in Washington, DC. (more…)

 

“Irhal Amreeka” Monday, Aug 29 2011 

Arab Awakening and Foreign Affairs and Israel and Middle East and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 3:52 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

Note: The Arabic “Irhal,” which means “Leave” or “Go away,” is the most powerful slogan of the Arab Awakening that has emerged through much of the Middle East and North Africa since January 2011. It has been chanted against dictators in street protests in every Arab nation facing popular discontent.

The Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday demanded the immediate departure of Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa amidst growing international criticism of mass human rights violations in Bahrain.

Iran announced it is taking the lead in pushing through a binding resolution by the 118-member state Non Allied Movement (NAM) to sanction the import of oil products and pearls from the Bahraini island state and has leveraged its web of global relationships to sanction members of the Khalifa family and their closest financial and political allies in order to squeeze the nation’s economy and hasten the demise of the ruling clan.

For his part, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed a joint initiative by the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard (IRRG) and the country’s armed forces to position Shahab and Fajr missiles in Iraq and Syria, and to train opposition forces in all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to mount defensive and offensive strategies to undermine the Bahraini regime.

Sounds familiar? Hint: Yee-haw.

Irhal Amreeka
As popular, street-based movements to force domestic reforms sweep through the Arab world, the only fixed criteria in this widespread social “experiment” is the dogged interventions of the United States and its allies.

From Tunisia to Bahrain to Syria to Yemen to Egypt to Libya, US footprints mar the otherwise indigenous Arab political sandstorms hurling through the region.

Noble initiatives to hasten much-needed political reform and economic stimulus would be welcomed with open arms by most Arabs. But the United States has shown little interest in these developmental essentials, instead focusing entirely on a strategic holy trinity:

1) Unfettered access to cheap oil
2) Advancing Israeli hegemony over its Arab neighbors
3) Regime-change in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Why is this ham-fisted shortlist the only driver of our Mideast foreign policy? The core of our problem is that the halls of policymaking in Washington are filled with ideologues, not area specialists. Our decision makers therefore follow political agendas — usually attached with an umbilical cord to pro-Israel interest groups – and not nuanced diplomatic imperatives that could foster positive relations based on universal values and respect for national sovereignty. (more…)

 

Rats, Roaches and Shiites Friday, Apr 22 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy and Hezbollah and Human Rights and Middle East and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:19 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

A Shiite martyr being washed for burial

I’m not arguing that Shiites have a lot in common with rodents and insects. But you wouldn’t know it by watching Bahrainis and Saudis snuff them out with barely a peep from Western and majority-Sunni Arab nations, both.

Shia-majority Iran, Iraq and the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah have been the most vocal in condemning the outrageous killings, arrests and beatings of Shiites in the Persian Gulf — but they have had to do so with a muffled voice. Each objection from Iran or Hezbollah unleashes a barrage of opportunistic rants by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the U.S. about “Iranian interference” and expansionism.

Which means as long as we can successfully infer a nefarious connection between these groups, one can simply yell “Iran” or “Hezbollah” and kill, torture and imprison Shiites with impunity — in much the same way that we yelled “al Qaeda” and buried hundreds of Sunni Muslims in Guantanamo for years. No matter that we have never ever proven a connection of significance between these coreligionists.

It’s the equivalent of saying all Irish Catholics have a connection to the Irish Republican Army. Or that all Jews take marching orders from Israel.

The Sectarian Bogeyman
To be fair, this isn’t really a sectarian battle — although some would like to spin it that way. This is about autocratic regimes stifling protest, and it just so happens that the largest disenfranchised populations in these places are Shiites.

At the very heart of the matter lies the growing battle for influence in the greater Middle East. These domestic Arab uprisings — while highly desired by their national populations — on a geopolitical level threaten to fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region toward the “Resistance Bloc” — state and non-state actors that reject U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the Mideast.

Shiite-majority Iran is a major influencer in this bloc, which is why it has been so important for Washington and Riyadh to keep the pressure on the Islamic Republic and deprive it of any opportunity to gain further footholds or popular support from non-Shia populations in the region.

When mass protests kicked off in Bahrain on February 14, the peaceful demonstrations in Pearl Square were decidedly non-sectarian. Sunni and Shia came together to demand reform across the board. Yes, the majority of protesters were Shia, but that number falls along demographic lines in a country of around 70% Shiites who have been marginalized politically, economically and socially.

When a brutal, regime-led clampdown ensued with killings and beatings, the mood changed and protesters called for the downfall of the Al Khalifa ruling family. Suddenly “Iran” was being invoked as an instigator for regime change and Saudi troops were “invited in” to quell the protests.

The past month has seen a violent clampdown of a different kind. Bahraini troops — many imported from other Sunni countries — and Saudi forces troll largely-impoverished Shia neighborhoods and villages, arresting activists and violently suppressing any signs of protest — or even normal Shia religious activity.

Hundreds of activists have “disappeared” in the small Persian Gulf nation of 600,000 citizens – one in every 1,000 Bahraini, by one count — and masked men storm into private homes regularly in the middle of the night to detain Shia human rights workers, bloggers and opposition members. (more…)

 

Three Mideast Stink Bombs Friday, Apr 8 2011 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 8:28 am

By Sharmine Narwani

Popular revolts may be spinning through the Arab world with a fervor and determination not seen in decades, but efforts to sidetrack the reform momentum are also gaining strength.

Three issues have plagued the region for decades and threaten to derail progress at every turn. I call them the Mideast’s “Stink Bombs” – hyper-divisive issues that inflame passions and serve a politicized minority only: 1) Religious vs. Secular; 2) Sunni vs. Shia; 3) Arabs vs. Iranians.

While protestors have been cautious in avoiding confrontations on these issues (who said the Arab Street is not smart?), political figures inside and outside the Mideast, and extremists on all sides, have sought at regular intervals to undermine national and regional unity with these polarizing issues.

The Stink Bombs have subverted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al Nahda in Tunisia, the Ikhwan in Jordan, and stirred sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni in Bahrain and Yemen – two countries that also depend on the Iran card to justify all their unlawful actions against civilians. The Stink Bombs have worked to prevent common cause on the Palestinian issue, and to undermine regional resistance to US, Israeli and western hegemonic designs, by keeping populations divided and in conflict.

Confidence in government authorities is at such a low ebb among Arab populations, that in some cases, these threats are being ignored or challenged head on. But that will not always be the case, and protestors and reformists alike will need to be vigilant in guarding against attempts to hijack progress with these long-held dogmas.

Let’s look at the Stink Bombs in more detail:

Stink Bomb #1: Religious versus Secular
This one has been played out skillfully through narratives that have long sought to associate Islam with extremism and terrorism. Washington’s close friends in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco, Algeria and other places have exploited the “Islamist” narrative to put a lid on moderate Muslim groups within their countries and gain unfettered US political and financial support for their elite.

For decades, grassroots Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have been either banned outright or subjected to intimidation, detentions and political machinations that have deprived them of fair participation in governing bodies. After September 11, Washington’s narratives on Islamists held them all to be one and the same – on virtual par with America’s greatest enemy, Al Qaeda – and any effort to differentiate between groups was largely ignored in the political mainstream.

Any non-ideological US area specialist could have pointed to half a dozen groups on the US list of terrorist organizations that should not have been featured in that unfortunate blacklist, but they would have been fighting a tidal wave during the height of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, the 2006 Lebanon war, and the orchestrated removal of Hamas after its election victory.

When the Bush administration failed to achieve even its most elementary war goals, then UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband took a half-hearted shot at pointing out the obvious:

Miliband wrote in the Guardian in January 2010 that efforts to “lump” extremists together had been counterproductive, playing “into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common.”

But instead, the West stood aside during recent elections in Egypt and Jordan when the ruling secular establishments absolutely undermined the participation of their respective Islamist political candidates and parties.

Copts forming protective circle around praying Muslims

During the wave of protests in Tahrir Square in January and February, the world witnessed the schism between populations and their rulers on this hot-button issue. After attacks on politically-secular Coptic Christians who make up ten percent of the nation’s populace, Egyptians demonstrated their skepticism about the source of this sectarian strife in a startling display of unity. That Friday, Copts linked arms to form a protective circle around praying Muslims. On Sunday, Muslims returned the favor for Christians.

To be sure, secularists and religious minorities don’t face an easy time in the Middle East, particularly with the boom in Salafist extremism and growing conservatism experienced, in particular, after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the three Stink Bombs, this is the one that has some legs in a troubled Middle East where foreign intervention and autocratic rule has ensured stagnation on the political and social fronts. But this does not negate the very real threat that religious and secular groups – both ideologues in their own way – can be exploited to divide and manage populations.

Stink Bomb #2: Sunni versus Shia
With roots in an age-old rivalry between those who believed the Prophet Muhammad’s successors should be selected from among his faithful companions (Sunni) and those who believed that Muslims should be led by members of the Prophet’s family (Shia), this issue is essentially a political one – the Sunni and Shia share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith, after all. (more…)

 

Hillary Dusts off Iranian Bogeyman…Again Wednesday, Mar 9 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy and Iran and Middle East and US Foreign Policy and US Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 2:30 pm

By Sharmine Narwani

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to have a tough time grasping what kids on the streets of Cairo and Manama understand with ease. Politicians – elected and otherwise – have no place to hide. Their every turn of phrase, their every move, is digested in real-time across the planet. And there is no such thing as an unsophisticated populace any longer.

When Clinton dusted off the Iran Bogeyman and paraded him around the Senate Appropriations Committee hearings last Wednesday, the transparency of her actions was almost embarrassing – especially in light of a new Mideast strategy unveiled by the Wall Street Journal a few days later: “Regime Alteration,” as opposed to Regime Change.

The plan? To “help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait.”

After some heavy duty lobbying by Arab autocrats and Israel, US policymakers are trying a different tack: “Starting with Bahrain, the administration has moved a few notches toward emphasizing stability over majority rule,” said a U.S. official. “Everybody realized that Bahrain was just too important to fail.”

That means Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria too. It is worth noting that had this policy been enacted prior to January 25, 2011 we would now be tuning in to Hosni Mubarak’s 16th I-am-not-resigning speech.

But how to silence the angry populations of key allies in the Persian Gulf, namely Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Rallying for more representation in government, a fair distribution of national wealth, freedom to congregate and speak freely – these are all legitimate concerns that we surely defend as a matter of principle?

Drag out the “Evil Iran” card, apparently.

Conceding that “Iran has no relations with the opposition, and in some cases are in an adversary relationship with Sunni Muslim Brotherhood groups,” Secretary Clinton told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday that the Islamic Republic is nonetheless “doing everything they can to influence the outcomes in these places.”

And this is the convoluted reasoning we are to follow:

“We know that, through their proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon, they are using Hezbollah – which is a political party with an armed wing – to communicate with counterparts in Egypt, in Hamas, who then, in turn, communicate with counterparts in Egypt. We know that they are reaching out to the opposition in Bahrain. We know that they – the Iranians are very much involved in the opposition movements in Yemen. So, either directly or through proxies, they are constantly trying to influence events. They have a very active diplomatic foreign policy outreach.”

Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Clinton’s statements were made on the same day that the The USS Ponce and USS Kearsarge warships entered the Mediterranean Sea on their way to Libya, laden with military equipment and hundreds of marines.

All this within a year of the news that the US would deploy Patriot Missiles in five of the six Arab nations of the Persian Gulf “to counter Iran (and) assuage Israel,” a country that threatens to bomb the Islamic Republic at regular intervals.

Given our provocations in Iran’s neighborhood, it is extraordinary that we charge Tehran with trying to influence regional events. But despite Clinton’s allegations of Iranian intervention in the affairs of neighboring states, the WikiLeaks Cables tell an entirely different story: (more…)

 

Washington’s Valentine’s Day Faux Pas in the Middle East Wednesday, Feb 16 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Iran and Middle East and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 11:52 am

Valentine’s Day, and not a whole lot of love in the Middle East, as clashes between government forces and protestors broke out in Bahrain, Iran and Yemen.

Washington, as usual, did nothing right.

After hemming and hawing through the widespread Egyptian uprising against staunch US-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak, the Obama administration leaped at the opportunity to support the Iranian demonstrators…and completely ignore those in Yemen and Bahrain.

Over the weekend, the US State Department set up a brand new Twitter account in the Persian language called @USAdarFarsi (which translates into “USA in Farsi”) and proactively busted out these gems in anticipation of Iran protests on Monday:

RT @USAdarFarsi: US calls on #Iran to allow people to enjoy same universal rights to peacefully assemble, demonstrate as in Cairo.#25Bahman

RT @USAdarFarsi #Iran has shown that the activities it praised Egyptians for it sees as illegal, illegitimate for its own people.#25Bahman

RT @USAdarFarsi US State Dept recognizes historic role of social media among Iranians We want to join in your conversations #Iran#25Bahman

RT @USAdarFarsi in English: Egyptians=Tahrir … Iranians=Azadi … freedom of peaceful assembly for all. #25Bahman #25Jan #Egypt #Iran

RT @USAdarFarsi in English: Iranians in Sadiqieh square should have same right to protest as Egyptians in Tahrir square. #25Bahman #Jan25

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spent the weekend spinning her perspectives on Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and the US-funded Al Hurra, calling for political change in Iran, and openly supporting the aspirations of protestors there. Not a word on protests in US-backed Bahrain or Yemen however.

It is clear that Washington is irritated by Iranian government claims to have inspired the uprisings embroiling the Arab world right now, especially as these are taking place in countries the US once relied on to support its pro-Israel, anti-Iran regional policy positions.

But to actually come out in firm support of protestors in Iran, while remaining quiet about those taking place against their proxy Arab governments is also extremely hypocritical. It seems we never learn.

Western Media Toes the US Line
Worse yet were the media takes on events in Iran on Monday. With all the tweets and videos pouring in, there is still barely any verifiable information available – not that this has stopped both print and television media from jumping into the fray.

My favorite piece of disinformation is this MSNBC news segment where an Iran-based correspondent’s audio feed is juxtaposed with video footage of absolutely massive crowds streaming through central Tehran squares and monuments. My eyes popped until I saw the discreet “Friday” date on the video — the footage is from pro-government celebrations just three days earlier on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution:

Another bit of disinformation — now quoted widely in the western media — came early on Monday with claims that one protester had already been killed by government forces. A closer look traces this tidbit to the semi-official Fars news agency which attributes the violence to protesters: “One person was shot dead and several were wounded by seditionists (opposition supporters) who staged a rally in Tehran.” (more…)

 

Getting in Line for a Revolution Thursday, Feb 3 2011 

Egypt and Foreign Affairs and Israel and Middle East and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 12:19 pm

What is interesting about the tsunami of change sweeping through the Middle East this past month is that the “dumb, undeserving-of-democracy” Arab masses have turned out to be magnificently saavy, efficient , focused and determined in flipping over longstanding dictatorships.

And it turns out they are polite too. Arab populations from North Africa, the Levant and the Persian Gulf have now, quite organically it seems, devised a wait-your-turn system for overthrowing the Middle East’s iron-fisted leaders.

Opposition groups and ordinary citizens have come to the streets in Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain and Algeria recently to air their grievances and demand change. But they are not going full throttle quite yet. First, they are waiting for the brothers and sisters in Egypt to finish.

As Egyptians did when Tunisians were focused on overthrowing the 23-year-old dictatorship of now deposed president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Which leader is next is anyone’s guess. But I bet that every subsequent uprising will be leaner and smarter than the last. The Arab masses are learning quickly:

When the Egyptian security forces sent thugs onto the streets to foment chaos and turn folks against the protestors, Egyptian bloggers and commentators hit the media and social networks to warn about these tactics – quickly pointing out that Ben Ali’s presidential guard had attempted the same a few weeks ago.

When the inevitable US and Israeli warnings came about Islamic fundamentalists hijacking the protests, the moderate Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) released statements to the contrary and aligned themselves behind Mohammad El Baradei, a secular, Nobel Peace Prize-winning, potential presidential candidate.

When warnings came that Egypt’s Coptic Christians – ten percent of the nation’s population – would be targeted by the “mobs,” not only did that not happen, but Copts formed human chains to protect their fellow Muslims from government forces during prayer time.

It was literally just one week ago when American and mainstream Arab commentators were saying that what happened in Tunisia could not possibly happen in Egypt. That even if Egyptians hit the streets, it would take much, much longer to impact the entrenched government of Hosni Mubarak, if at all. (more…)

 

The New Middle East Narrative — Is Washington in or Out? Tuesday, Jan 4 2011 

Foreign Affairs and Iran and Israel and Middle East and peace process and Turkey and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 10:21 pm

Picking up a copy of the English-language Daily Star in Beirut this summer, I was struck by the lead story. A photo of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, flanked by his Arab counterparts, accompanied this huge headline: “Arab Nations Applaud Turkey’s Erdogan for Tough Stand on Israel.”

What a truly pitiful sight it was.

What is it about the psyche of Arab leaders and nationals that prevents them from making the same “stand,” I wondered?

In part, just as an observer, it is clear to me that there is still a strong stench of “defeatism” that lingers heavily in the air around much of the Arab Mideast — a negativity that has been canonized in works of literature and has become deeply embedded in Arab public discourse, including commentary, mass media — and even academic conferences, where more critical thinking should prevail.

Knowing that the Arabs are busy creating their own cages, the increasingly right-wing and militant Israeli political body seems to eke out its latest appalling policies a little at a time to train us collectively to accept a new bar for bad behavior. Arabs protest in one loud shout, then defeatedly scurry back to an ever-shrinking existence.

Iran and Turkey Know No Bounds

Non-Arab Turkey and Iran

This condition does not afflict the Iranians or the Turks. Innovative and proud in the face of western attempts to isolate it, and US/Israeli attempts to define it, Iran has managed to forge its own path based on perceived national interests, and churns out world-class achievements in many fields:

A 2010 Canadian report on “geo-political shift in knowledge creation” claims scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the world average, faster than any other country (Turkey ranks high in the data, too). Progress in science, medicine and technology outpaces most developing nations — whether in AIDS research, nanotechnology, biotechnology, genetics, nuclear technology or aerospace. Iran’s remarkable film industry generates award-winning art films the world around — in Venice, Cannes and Toronto. The Islamic Republic of Iran has crafted such a creative healthcare system to deal with critical problems like infant and maternal mortality that the state of Mississippi has requested special permission from the US Department of State to bring in Iranian experts to teach them how to do the same. When sanctions are slapped on Tehran, Iranian entrepreneurs manufacture the banned goods themselves. When the Afghani and Pakistani drug trade seems to overwhelm Iran’s borders, the Islamist government shrugs off religious myopia and sets up needle exchange programs, free methadone prescriptions, and the distribution of condoms to promote safe sex. Proactive, self-preserving behaviors serving a self-defined national interest — not something you see often in the Arab world.

Turkey defies all stereotypes as a Muslim-majority country on the edge of the Middle East. A staunchly secular nation as defined by its constitution, it has nevertheless demonstrated genuine democracy by allowing the participation of a progressive, Islamist-leaning political party. It is ironic that this party has been the one to make the groundbreaking, democratizing improvements in its political structures to facilitate its bid to join the EU, an effort backed by Washington. Turkey is as much at ease with the US, Russia and China as it is with Iran, Brazil and India, and has redefined the possibilities of global diplomacy as it inserts itself proactively into power-brokering conflicts the world around. A major tourist destination and now a real economic hub in the various regions it borders, Turkey too has carved its own destiny, independent of others, yet in tight cooperation with all.

So what happened to the Arabs? Is it the use of the collective term “Arab” that waters down this ethnic group’s possibilities? Surely if they were only defined as Algerians, Lebanese, Tunisians, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, it would be easier to break out of a pack malaise? Or do they have to get even smaller — Bedouins, Hashemites, Christians, Druze, Alawites, etc.?

Assassinated Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir once wrote that Arabs are “haunted by a sense of powerlessness”:

Powerless to be what you think you should be. Powerless to act to affirm your existence in the face of the Other who denies your right to exist, despises you and has once again reasserted his domination over you. Powerless to suppress the feeling that you are no more than a lowly pawn on the global chessboard even as the game is being played in your backyard.

And this is the crux of the matter. The Arab has been defined by the Other. So successfully in fact, that most Arabs speak amongst themselves using a narrative that has been constructed by others, external to the region.

To be sure, there is a local defeatist industry that has sprung up organically from lost wars, corrupt systems and bad leadership, but it is perpetuated by the impotence that comes from this Other narrative.

What do I mean? Let’s focus on the discourse surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a prime example:

Language to Tame and Control
The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this longstanding and contentious dispute. They have set stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. And anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.

Participation in the debate is limited only to those who prescribe to the tenets of the discourse — in this case, it is the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, and a smattering of other “defeatist” Arab leaders who are happy to serve our interests over theirs.

These tenets include the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge, acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state’s claim to Palestine is based, and acceptance of the inclusions and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.

Words are the Building Blocks of Psychology
The language parameters that come into play to shape the discourse are largely based on these three tenets, although undoubtedly there are others. Words like dove, hawk, militant, extremist, moderates, terrorists, Islamo-fascists, rejectionists, existential threat, holocaust-denier, mad mullah determine the participation of solution partners — and are capable of instantly excluding others.

Then there is the language that preserves “Israel’s Right To Exist” unquestioningly: anything that invokes the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and the myths about historic Jewish rights to the land described as Eretz Yisrael. This language seeks not only to ensure that a Jewish connection to Palestine remains unquestioned, but importantly, seeks to punish and marginalize those who tackle the legitimacy of this modern colonial-settler experiment.

And finally, there is the language that suggests Israel’s “value” to the world: Americans often cite “common” or “shared” values, or “Judeo-Christian” values, the “only democracy in the Middle East,” a bulwark against Islamism (which increasingly addresses all Muslims), tyranny, autocratic rulers and native savagery — for which many other terms and nefarious concepts are invoked, i.e., suicide-bombers, Palestinian lack of value for life, willingness to sacrifice their children, human rights violations rampant in the Arab and Islamic worlds, etc.

Further to these three main areas where parameters have been effectively set, there are concepts and language that have been institutionalized through international agreements and conditions determined by the “powers that be.” Whether it is refusing to deal with parties who do not accept Israel, Quartet principles, renunciation of violence — or — the stream of US-brokered agreements starting from Madrid to Oslo, Annapolis and so forth — these concepts create further hurdles that seem impossible to counter, so often are they repeated in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and elsewhere.

In effect, the US, Israel and a small, largely powerless coterie of others have created insurmountable parameters in dealing with the Palestinian-Israel issue within the international arena. Yes, that means no peace ever, just a pressure-free Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This is the only “game” in town.

But that is only so long as this narrative is allowed to continue. (more…)

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 809 other followers