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:
WikiLeaks on Bahrain
Because three quarters of Bahrain's population is Shia (the majority sect in Iran) the country's minority-led Sunni government sometimes play the sectarian card to justify the imbalances in power -- and to keep the US and Saudi Arabia engaged in supporting Bahraini interests.
This August 2008 Cable shows that we know better:
"Bahraini government officials sometimes privately tell U.S. official visitors that some Shi'a oppositionists are backed by Iran. Each time this claim is raised, we ask the GOB to share its evidence. To date, we have seen no convincing evidence of Iranian weapons or government money here since at least the mid-1990s... In post's assessment, if the GOB had convincing evidence of more recent Iranian subversion, it would quickly share it with us."
Something to note: during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, many analysts erred in assuming that Shia Iraqis (majority of Iraq's population), who were sometimes brutally repressed by Saddam Hussein, would switch their allegiances to their fellow Shia in Iran -- and that the underrepresented Sunni populations of Iran, many of whom speak Arabic too, would likewise join forces with Baghdad. Neither happened. And it is unlikely to happen in Bahrain, where the majority of Shia neither speak the Persian language (Farsi), nor aspire to assimilate into a "Greater Iran."
Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Fransisco, points out:
"When disenfranchised Shia populations in the Middle East have organized for their rights, the regimes often label them as Iranian agents. In some cases, Iranian intelligence has supported these movements, although the vast majority are popular indigenous struggles with legitimate grievances. The Iranian connection, however false or exaggerated, introduces the fear of an Iranian plot to assert their influence and establish an Iranian-style theocracy. Thus, the specter of Iran is raised to bolster the argument that it is in the U.S. interest to support repressive regimes to suppress such movements."
WikiLeaks on Yemen:
And the same is true of Yemen, whose US-allied dictatorship has long accused Iran of fomenting chaos by arming and abetting opposition groups. This Cable from September 2009 is aptly titled, "Iran in Yemen - Tehran's Shadow Looms Large, But Footprint is Small:"
"Despite Yemen's seemingly heartfelt concerns that Iran is backing the Houthi rebels and the ROYG's desire to convince its powerful friends (the U.S. and Saudi Arabia) of Iran's nefarious intentions in Yemen, it has to date been unable to produce any concrete evidence of what it says is wide-scale meddling. It is post's firm belief that if Yemen had any concrete evidence that the Houthis had connections to either Hizballah or Iran, it would have produced it immediately; the lack of such evidence likely indicates that the ROYG lacks any real proof of such links."
It is worth taking a closer look at some of the Yemeni government's efforts to convince the clearly skeptical US diplomats of Iran's interference in domestic affairs -- if only to gape at the opportunism that exists in politics at that level:
"Although the ROYG maintains that Iran is providing material and financial support to the Houthi rebels in Sa'ada, little evidence has surfaced to date that supports this claim. President Saleh told General Petraeus in a July 26 meeting that the National Security Bureau (NSB) had a DVD showing Houthi rebels training with Hizballah uniforms and tactics. (Note: In a follow-up conversation, NSB Deputy Director Ammar Saleh claimed no knowledge of the DVD. End Note.) In an August 17 meeting, Saleh told Senator McCain that Iran was working against Yemeni stability because it believed that a weakened Yemen would hurt the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, both traditional enemies of Iran. In the same meeting, NSB Director Ali Mohammed al-Ansi claimed that the ROYG had arrested two separate "networks" of Iranians in Yemen on charges of espionage in connection with the Houthis and that one of the accused admitted to providing $100,000 every month to the Houthis on behalf of the Iranian government. Ansi told Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan on September 6 that the ROYG was unable to share the evidence from this case because it was still in the courts. (Comment: Since the outbreak of hostilities in 2004, the ROYG has used many different arguments, including the Houthis' alleged ties to Iran and Hezballah, to attempt to convince the USG to declare the Houthis a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). In 2008, the ROYG gave post a dossier of information purporting to show ties between the Houthis and Iran. Post passed on the file to the inter-agency community in Washington. Analysts agreed that the information did not prove Iranian involvement in Sa'ada. End Note.)"
(The use of Hezbollah as another "bogeyman" has been frequently used by various pro-US autocratic regimes in the Mideast as well as by Iranian protestors in the aftermath of the 2009 elections.)
The False Iran Narrative Has Some Specific Goals
Dusting off the Iranian bogeyman periodically has some clear benefits for policy justification - but also to raise some hard, cold cash.
Clinton's remarks were meant to dissuade the Senate from taking an axe to the State Department and USAID's 2012 budget -- a pet project for outspoken Republicans keen to cut foreign assistance across the board.
Both Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have made Iran-focused stops in the Persian Gulf in the past year -- prompting those Arab states to bolster their missile defenses and invest in military hardware to the tune of a whopping $123 billion over the next four years. Leading the pack is Saudi Arabia, with projected arms purchases of $67 billion, followed by the UAE at $35-40 billion, Oman at $12 billion and Kuwait at $7 billion.
But today, with populations in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia demanding regime change and/or fundamental shifts in governance, the US's well laid plans are threatening to unravel. And so out comes the Iran bogeyman yet again -- but this time to convince us all that democracy can and should wait.
When I first read the Wall Street Journal piece on Washington's new Mideast strategy, I winced at the lack of inventiveness in both the phrase "Regime Alteration" (though nothing beats the sophomoric and monumentally disrespectful "Shock and Awe," in my books) and the idea that we can somehow subvert these popular movements for change.
Now, instead, I think our policy makers have taken a dangerous step forward toward engaging the United States directly -- in name, and in action -- in these Mideast tsunamis. Arab populations have specifically asked us not to intervene. In doing so, the Arab anger against their corrupt dictators will morph into the Arab rage against Americans.
The biggest puzzle for me is why Washington thinks that representative government and free speech will somehow endanger the free flow of oil and undermine security in the region? Elected government seems like a solid foundation for long-term stability in what has traditionally been a volatile region.
Washington's motivations are likely to be unpleasant -- and undoubtedly follow the line of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's recent confession that the British chose "interests over values" in dealing with the Middle East.
More likely the truth is that popular, elected governments in the region will never allow us the liberties we have enjoyed for decades -- rendition centers in several capitals, parking our weapons systems, carriers, landing strips on their prime real estate, flying through their airspace on bombing missions to Muslim countries, following our lead on peace talks, sanctions, UN votes and the myriad other value-adds that dictatorships can deliver to Papa Sam.
The upside of nonintervention in these Arab revolutions is that we will finally be forced to "walk the walk" we "talk" so well. We will have to learn to respect the sovereignty of others and know our limits. That is one reason why the prospect of regime change in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen sounds better by the second -- it will put a seal on a new Mideast order and force us into some fundamental policy reevaluations.
Become a Facebook Fan of Sharmine Narwani
Follow Sharmine Narwani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/snarwani
Purity is romantic. But pragmatism is usually the course which produces improvement.
We (the U.S.) encourage and support the Iranian people in their efforts to obtain democracy for their governing structure. Just as we do in Libya and Egypt. We're not sure who the opposition will vote into office and if that leader will work with U.S. interests in a path to progressive diplomacy. Its a risk that we willing support since we were founded on the same ideology.
Freedom of the people to make choices to be represented and to get a fair shake through secular representation.
Despite what shadowy controversies you compile, God knows we've earned them it doesn't necessarily mean we're afraid of out right democracy for Middle Eastern countries dominated by Muslims.
What we do know is this :
Fundamentalist Muslim doctrine, Wahabism and Jihadist theology devotees do not fit safely within a western capitalistic environment. There is conflict in basic ideology and actions. It is not in U.S. interest for a country regardless of its origin to build government infrastructures with those pillars.
We either meddle or we take.
You want us out of the middle east ? Move Israel to Hawaii and lobby for biofuel financing and support Campaign Finance Reform.
See the problem ?
If by "we" you mean the US as a country or people, but, our government (US gov) has a different interest.
1953 - democratically elected Mossadegh brought down by US/UK intelligence agencies
1953-1979 - tyrannical/despotic Shah of Iran, puppet of the US
1979 - installation of Ayatollah by Western countries, who after Khomeini flipped
1980-1988 West-backed Iraqi war of aggression against Iran
Ok, maybe your point is that was the past and now we are actually interested in democracy?
2011 - Bahrain, home of the 5th fleet, we support the despotic monarchs.
2011 - Saudi, we are delivery $60 billion dollars to a country who does not let women drive and is oppressing a huge Shia minority.
And, at the top of the list, Israel whose tyrannical government has been denying basic human rights to Palestinians for 64 years.
We recently blocked a veto that would have declared settlements illegal, a step towards justice for Palestine, what happened?
So, I don't agree, US government is not interested in democracy overseas.
We are not even interested in basic human rights for Palestinians.
While the Shah was in office he was able to boost US trade and introduce western ideologies and commerce to the Iranian people who to this day use the educational structures he created and supported. You need to see a larger picture.
Your so hell bent on condemning U.S. foreign policy you've lost alot of perspective.
Make no mistake, a western style democracy in Iran would be worth fighting to achieve.
Saudi is different, it's a unique situation that will take more than a single blurb on this post to clarify for you so I'll skip it. It's rather deep and involved and though I respect your effort I'm not convinced you've done the necessary homework to understand it all.
When has Iran ever threatened to "annihilate Israel?" Are you referring to the debunked propaganda?
"THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). "
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/10828
"The group’s latest salvo is an hour-long documentary called “Iranium”, which more or less gives airtime to a gaggle of neoconservatives and their allies on the Israeli right to advocate for a hawkish posture against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
While warning of an ideologically-driven, religiously-inspired Iran, however, the filmmaker behind the movie himself comes from among the religious extremes of another Middle Eastern state.
The writer and director of “Iranium”, Alex Traiman, hails from the Israeli West Bank settlement of Beit El, one of the ideological religious Jewish outposts in occupied Palestinian territory bedeviling U.S.-Israel relations."
http://www.lobelog.com/the-ideological-west-bank-setter-behind-iranium/
Iranian government is a problem for the U.S. and U.S. interests.
So, your assertation, that Iran wants to "destroy the epicenter of Judaism and Christianity, is simply an assertation with no fact in history or current reality.
"Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles.[17] Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association".[53] The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country;[53] however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.[54]
Chief Rabbi Yousef Hamadani Cohen is the present spiritual leader for the Jewish community of Iran.[55] In August 2000, Chief Rabbi Cohen met with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami for the first time.[56] In 2003, Chief Rabbi Cohen and Morris Motamed met with President Katami at Yusef Abad Synagogue which was the first time a President of Iran had visited a synagogue since the Islamic Revolution.[57] Haroun Yashayaei is the chairman of the Jewish Committee of Tehran and leader of Iran's Jewish Community."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
Compelling argument you make here.
The U.S. seems aöways tp back the Samozas, Pinochets, Marcos, Mubaraks and many more autocratic and dictatorial rulers instead of helping to defend demcoracy and freedom.
It was the U.S, egged on by the Brits, who deposed the decomratically elected iranian government and put the Shah back in power.
No wonder so many people on this planet don't like the U.S.
I find it incredible that Clinton, blessed by Obama, would even consider this kind of politics.
I am ashamed.
We are always just in a war or a war is just over. It looks to me like we are out looking for some place to start the next war. And we so proudly go around saying what a Christian nation we are. I fail to see Christ in any of this. What happened to turn the other cheek? Love your neighbor as yourself? ect.ect.
Well, not with nukes. Iran usually test fires a couple of medium range ballistic missiles, and laugh and says, "Israel is tiny, we don't need nukes when we have lots of missiles." The middle east has been cursed with being stuck between the curse of having oil and Israel, and has been exploited for generations. Arab streets don't hate Iran. their leaders are scared that Iran might make trouble for them, and democracy in the middle east would be good for Iran, in whatever form they'd emerge. No democratic Arab government would side with US and Israel against Iran, and that's what Iran is counting on.
In the capital, as well as the Capitol, ignorance masquerades as brilliance, incompetence as effectiveness and corruption as solicitude for the national interest.
It is in this nation's eminent interests to engage diplomatically and commercially with the IRI, and to seek Iranian cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus facilitating US withdrawal from these two entirely unecessary deadly quagmires, as well as to assist with their reconstruction. If the balance of power shifts in the Middle East because of that, well, that is just too bad. The US must learn to study the lessons of history, not continue to repeat them.
Iran, like it or not, has an increasingly powerful role to play in the Middle East, and as long as the US continues to place the interests of its rogue client state over and above that of every other in the region, as well as its own, then nothing fruitful will be the result.
Now is the time to realize that a just and lasting peace may be obtained in Palestine only when the Israelis and Palestinians, under entirely un-biased arbitration, negotiate as equals and Israel agrees to withdraw to the pre-June '67 borders as a sine qua non of negotiations.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html
"India, Brazil and South Africa have put a spoke in the American wheel... A highly significant part of the statement was its recognition right at the outset that the Palestinian problem lay at the very core of the great Middle Eastern alienation and the "recent developments in the Region may offer a chance for a comprehensive peace ... This process should include the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... that will lead to a two-state solution, with the creation of a sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestinian State, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, with secure, pre-1967 borders, and with East Jerusalem as its capital."
That said the disenfranchised and disaffected population of Iran has legitimate democratic and civil concerns that need to be urgently addressed as well.
Unfortunately for the Iranians their unelected rulers, and their useful idiots aboard, will use the Shia minorities in Arab states as yet another distraction and excuse to justify their illegitimate government.
You might care to note that Iran has not initiated conflict with its neighbors in over 30 years. To me that suggests that all this fearmongering is exactly what it sounds like, and that nobody is using Shia minorities "as a distraction" except for the truly illegitimate governments we support in the region.
But - hey - don't listen to me. The evidence in my article comes from confidential State Department Cables that repeatedly confirm Iran's non-interference in neighboring countries.
And don't call me an idiot again. If you don't like my point of view, there are plenty of other opinions you can find here on the HuffPost. By all means, go find them.
You might care to note that Iran has not initiated conflict with its neighbors in over 30 years. To me that suggests that all this fearmonger ing is exactly what it sounds like, and that nobody is using Shia minorities "as a distractio n" except for the truly illegitima te government s we support in the region.
But - hey - don't listen to me. The evidence in my article comes from confidenti al State Department Cables that repeatedly confirm Iran's non-interf erence in neighborin g countries.
And don't call me an idiot again. If you don't like my point of view, there are plenty of other opinions you can find here on the HuffPost. By all means, go find them.
And are you serious?