Over the past 14 months of uprisings in the Arab world, Iran has steadily lost influence throughout the Middle East. Recognizing this is crucial for understanding the way in which Palestine, Syria and other key strategic battlegrounds now play into Iranian calculations, and how new opportunities have emerged for both Arabs and the West.
Iranian leaders seem to have expected that the uprisings would advance their strategic interests: that the "Arab Spring" would turn into an "Islamic Awakening" (their preferred term for the uprisings from the outset). Instead, Iran has been confronted with the reality that post-dictatorship governments in countries like Egypt are unlikely to be more responsive to Iranian concerns. Arab-Persian cultural and national rivalries, Sunni-Shiite sectarian suspicions, ideological differences and, probably most importantly, persistent national interests mean that new governments in the Arab world, even those with significant Islamist influence, would probably not be more inclined towards Iran's interests.
Iran has proven to be the big loser in the Arab Spring, having plummeted from the position of self-proclaimed champion and leader of "resistance" to Israel and the West to being broadly perceived as a sectarian and partisan player. Its "pan-Islamic" cover is finally blown. Instructively, Turkey -- a Sunni power that boasts a purportedly "moderate" and constitutionalist Islamist government as opposed to Iran's Shiite and self-proclaimed "revolutionary" Islamist government -- stands to become the primary regional beneficiary, depending on the outcome of the Syrian uprising.
The uprisings have redefined the regional order in largely sectarian terms, essentially pitting Sunni Arab governments, Islamist organizations and popular opinion against Shiite and other religious minority forces. Because Iran has lost so much influence, it has had to abandon its campaign of "soft power" -- attempting to win over Arab hearts and minds -- and has been forced to resort to "hard power." This has meant retrenching its alliances with openly sectarian forces and fringe groups. It has recently been attempting to win, or buy back, the loyalty of Gaza-based leadership in Hamas and develop much more extensive relations with Islamic Jihad. The recent flare up of violence between Gaza militants and Israel was an ample demonstration of this "hard power" approach by Tehran. Backing the dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad at all costs in the bloody and protracted conflict in Syria has already cost Iran and its sectarian Arab allies such as Hezbollah and some Iraqi groups, significant and potentially irreparable losses across the Middle East.
The Syrian regime has provided Iran strategically vital access to the Mediterranean Sea and the Levant. It constitutes Iran's primary conduit to its Arab allies and clients including Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and those parts of Hamas that remain aligned with it. It has played a crucial role in laundering and providing cover for Iranian financial and materiel support to these clients. Tehran has already paid a huge political price for its support of the Syrian regime and its loss would be devastating.
The unleashing of Islamic Jihad in Gaza in its recent confrontation with Israel also demonstrates the centrality of undisguised "hard power" to the Iranian strategic calculation. Facing a potential Israeli and/or American attacks on its nuclear facilities, Iran's deterrence is enhanced by demonstrating its ability to act through proxies and, if attacked, to potentially expand the theater of operations. There are forces in the US and Israel openly pushing for war with Iran and they are quite happy to quote freely from Iran's own bellicose and defiant rhetoric. The issue of war with Iran is at the top of the American foreign policy agenda. Its advocates and opponents are locked in a debate whose outcome is still undetermined.
The Arab uprisings began as pro-democracy rebellions demanding good governance, transparency and dignity. However, the social forces that dominated these protests lacked the ability to take advantage of the newly opened political spaces they created. Islamist parties have been the immediate beneficiaries given that they were prepared, organized, and had an established brand on which to campaign. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the final outcome of these very complex and ongoing transformations would simply devolve to the long-term benefit of Islamists and no one else. Their early successes are merely a snapshot in a developing process.
A multifaceted social and political transformation has been unleashed but its outcome is yet to be decided. This means that there is a strategic opportunity to help shape that outcome. Iran and its allies are already heavily involved in trying to influence it. The West needs to decide what it wants to happen in the Middle East and how it is going to promote it, in short to form and implement its own strategy.
The Arab people deserve the opportunity to join the rest of the humanity in the pursuit of freedom from want and oppression, and to live in a political order based on the consent of the governed. Post-dictatorship Arab societies must be based on a healthy balance between the right of the majority to form governments while protecting the inalienable rights of individuals, women and minorities. These uprisings provide opportunities to promote an Arab political culture based on the rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen and ensuring a healthy relationship with the broader society and state in which they can participate fully and freely. The West, and the world in general, have a strong stake in ensuring that this happens in order to expand the circle of regional and global stability.
Palestine is a key battleground in this struggle. Constructive forces are trying to develop positive changes on the ground, in spite of the deep freeze in negotiations with Israel, and other political difficulties. These efforts are particularly structured around the institution-building program developed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. But at present they are not receiving the requisite international support. A committed and substantive effort is required to provide the advocates for good governance, pluralism and free enterprise the tools and resources they need to promote these ideals. Victory in this ultimate symbolic conflict, Palestine, will yield political dividends across the region.
Islamists have a real constituency and have a right to vie for power through periodic elections and other legitimate, peaceful means. They should be engaged in a contest for public support by other Arabs offering different solutions and competing ideas. Groups that espouse the ecumenical, socially-conscious and universal ideals that informed the uprisings characterized as the "Arab Spring" must be encouraged and organized to engage in this competition.
The Iranian regime stands for the antithesis of such values, and has ruthlessly crushed its own "Green Movement" protests. Seizing the strategic opportunity to limit the influence and hegemony of theocratic movements and religious dictatorships in the Arab world is vitally important for building a better Arab future and securing Western interests. This is a crucial time to stand on principle and defend universal values.
Ziad J. Asali, MD, is President of the American Task Force on Palestine.
Joel Rubin: Friends of Israel, Iran Negotiations Will Require Patience
Stephen Zunes: Military Intervention in Syria Is a Bad Idea
Anne-Marie Slaughter served as director of Policy Planning at the State Department under Obama/Clinton until last year. Now she's at Princeton.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/former-state-dept-official-says-obama-calls-for-human-rights-and-democracy-are-undercut-by-position-on-palestinians.html
History has consistently shown that Western interests and the interests of the Middle East do not coincide, for the most part. Western interests include ensuring that pliant autocratic rulers stay in power in order to:1) Keep oil prices at reasonable levels for Western consumption; and, 2) Ensure the military hegemony of Israel over the region is only disturbed by empty rhetoric from sock puppets.
No sir, Western and Middle Eastern interests cannot be served at the same time. History has shown that the interests of one come at the expense of the other. Thank you for the laugh; now please go back to daydreaming.
Sincerely,
Humbye.
Some universal values America espouses.
Not going to happen.
(If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, I think some of these people would be genuinely baffled at why the planet didn't suddenly turn into some idyllic utopia.)
The relevant question is how you could have a problem grasping that?
There isn't rosin enough in the world to prep that bow
If you don't think Israel is an Apartheid state then I refer you to the words of your past prime ministers Olmert and Barak - cited below:
(Just a moment: here's your Cliff Notes in case you con't want to waste all that time actually reading the book: 'Israel is an Apartheid state')
here's Israeli PM Olmert 6 years ago: (TOO LATE NOW!)
"…when the 2 state solution collapses (as it now has in 2011), we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished"
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak:
Barak delivered an unusually blunt warning .. (Israeli faces)...no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime. "Make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid"
Please explain why being subject to Israeli Apartheid could possibly be deterimental to the Palestinian way of life, economy, etc...
=
*Ilan Shturman's office is calling - they want their deposit back
America is now over 200 years old, how many countries in Europe are that old? Did we do it all right at first, no, it wasn't until the 1960's did we final start to put some strenght into our civil rights!
It has invaded more than 20 countries in the last 50 years.
The US government is part of the “New World Order” which aims to “dominate the world in every aspect of life politically, economically and militarily”.
The US munitions industry is one of the “most lucrative” export industries in the world whose ideology is to keep existing wars going or to create a conflict in order to expand its arms exports.
“... When it is not making war, America is very happy to sell the weapons of war to regimes around the world including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and most of the Persian Gulf countries where democracy is indeed in short supply,” the United States has the largest military in the world “whose weaponry is so large it outnumbers in every way imaginable the might and strength of the next 27 countries put together”.
Our allies in the Middle East have included:
The Shah of Iran.
Saddam Hussein.
Hosni Mubarak.
Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Sheikh Hamad Al Khalifa of Bahrain.
Despots and tyrants, every one of them. So much for our track record of supporting "universal values" in the Arab world....
This is a big deception.
When a country like Iran works out a form of democracy incorporating theology in its constitution, the West says Iran’s theocracy is wrong and unacceptable.
Who should decide the definition of democracy?
It may be true that there are very many monarchies and dictators in the Middle East but that is nothing to do with Islam.
It was historically Islam that introduced democracy to the world even 1400 years ago when the entire Europe remained barbaric and uncivilized.
After the death of Muhammad, his successor was chosen by democratic means.
As Y2K says, America's number one enemy is democracy in the world. The American politicians give a lot of lip service to democracy but covertly and overtly support the most fundamentalist, oppressive and un-Islamic rulers and kings in the Middle-East, (This was so even during the rule of Mussolini in Italy) because only then the modern day oil piracy can be effectively done.
For 30 years, one of the best friends of the USA had been the most horrible and oppressive ruler Husni Mubaruk of Egypt.
So was Saddam Hussein when he was fighting a proxy war with Iran at the biddings of the US.
Does this strike you as an "acceptable democracy"?
Wishful thinking at best. Islamic parties have won 75% of Egypt's parliament.
Soon Iran will be the least of Israel's headaches.
We stay in our lands, you stay in yours.
How about when we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran? What values were we supporting then? How about what we did in Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1960's? Or Iraq in the 1960's? How about the right wing death squads we funded, trained, and armed in Central America? How about the School of the Americas? What about Pinochet's Chile and Operation Condor? What about East Timor? What about Guatemala, and Honduras, and Nicaragua? What about the Shah of Iran? What about Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Yemen?
"We already do"..... poppycock.....
So the real criteria is not democracy but is the ruling clique’s readiness to be submissive to American political, economic and military arm twisting as the world has witnessed in Philippines, Mexico, Columbia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan and the list is long.