Does Power Moderate Radicals? Where's the Proof?

By Barry Rubin

An interesting and important question about the Middle East (and one can treat it on a global level, too) is whether being in power or running in an election inevitably moderates those who are radicals. It is automatically accepted by many people that this is so. Yet an examination of evidence makes such behavior more rare than common.

Let’s begin by pointing out that some of the problem is the unthinking transference of things that might be true in private and personal life into the political sphere. As individuals mature and have experience, they often become more moderate. There are many cases of individual politicians “selling out” and abandoning more militant ideas to become corrupt. Neither case necessarily applies to systems, movements, or ideologies.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,676 (among about 46,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

Even more questionable is the view that the difficulties of having to make decisions in government forces leaders to become more responsible. For example, they learn that money is not unlimited and therefore priorities must be set.  Supposedly, they say to themselves: Hey, collecting the garbage and fixing the potholes is what's important, forget about all this silly stuff about fundamentally transforming society, imposing the Sharia, destroying Israel, or chasing America out of the Middle East!

A problem with this argument is that it leaves out the political advantages for rulers of using demagoguery, incitement, and populism. To stay in power a politician—particularly in a non-democratic country—gains advantage from militancy, real or feigned.

Another simplistic argument is that anyone who runs in elections and wins is automatically moderate because they participated in a legalistic, democratic process. This argument is quite full of holes. One should not confuse tactical caution with moderation. For example, President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria knew after 1973 that a direct confrontation with Israel was a losing proposition so instead he backed terrorist groups and used Lebanon as a launching pad for the attacks. Being radical does not necessarily mean being suicidal.

 To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

"And What Do You Want to Say to the Iraqi People?" (& Everyone Else in the Middle East)

By Barry Rubin

In the new Middle East where people talk a lot behind the scenes using high-technology communications, we have far more frequent interactions with people who live in countries ostensibly at war with Israel. Such conversations are always interesting and useful for analysts.

Sometimes the exchanges are even happening in public. I’ve been interviewed a number of times, for example, by Iraqi journalists. But this time there was a different kind of question at the end of the interview.

That last query was the journalist’s asking me what message I had for Iraq’s people. For a moment, I was speechless. I’ve been waiting more than 30 years for that kind of opportunity.  What should I say that wasn’t just special pleading or an obvious exercise in hasbarah?

But let me start at the beginning. Not long ago I wrote that Iraq might be the best model realistically available right now for the Arabic-speaking world. Iraq dropped out of the seemingly endless and futile race by countries to conquer the region; moved away from radical and disastrous ideology; developed a measure of democracy, pluralism, and federalism; defeated an internal terrorist insurgency that was being helped by its neighbors; and seemed to be pursuing a pragmatic path.

Unfortunately, though, there has been steady deterioration. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is grabbing for supreme power; Vice-President Tariq al-HashimI has fled, pursued by al-Maliki’s charges of terrorism. President Jalal Talabani was thrust into the middle. What’s important to keep in mind is that the first man is a Shia Muslim, the second is a Sunni Muslim, and the third is a Kurd.

So while these are personal rivalries—not everyone lines up neatly along sectarian or ethnic lines--such disputes also represent communal rifts and could reignite a bloody civil war in Iraq. This is risky.

Then there’s the perennial question of how much influence does Iran have in Iraq? Less than one might expect on the national level, I’d say, but still some real behind-the-scenes power in southern Iraq and a relative ease of interfering in the country. Tehran has apparently instructed its Shia Iraqi assets to support the current government and not make trouble.

So the threat is not high at this point. Still, the Baghdad government is going to be careful to stay on good terms with Tehran. At the same time, though, Iraq's leaders have no desire to be Iran's clients, despite some of them having such close ties during the Saddam Hussein era. And so the whole sad tragedy may be starting again.

As Michael Corleoni said, “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”

What are the diseases of the Middle East that refuse to go away?

--The belief that one country—nowadays mainly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey—think they can dominate the whole region and a willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to do so.

--Instead of fixing problems, hate is focused on scapegoats.

--The assumption that one ideology—formerly Arab nationalism, now Islamism—can conquer everyone and everywhere.

--The conclusion that one can only be a leader by being a dictator.

--The rejection of pluralism, freedom, pragmatism, and the emphasis on political power maneuvers over socio-economic development.

Whatever its shortcomings, Europe overcame these maladies. Many in Asia are doing so, as are some leaders and countries elsewhere. In the Middle East, though, while there are hints of enlightenment, outside of Israel it cannot really be found enthroned elsewhere.

Turkey, which long seemed immunized to the Middle East malady, has leaped back into the swamp. Lebanon has long since already done so. Morocco and Jordan linger on the brink. The Iraqi Kurds are—temporarily?—on dry land.

And so that was the theme of my message to Iraqis:

 Does it make sense to plunge back into conflict at a moment when the region is descending toward an international struggle between Sunni and Shia blocs that will last decades? No country can suffer more from that battle than Iraq.

At a time when revolutionary Islamism is adding additional bloodshed and misery for millions, is this the direction Iraq wants to go in? After sacrificing so much of its wealth to no less than three avoidable wars—Iran Iraq (1980-1988), Kuwait (1990-1991), a war provoked by Saddam Hussein’s breaking sanctions (2003)—followed by a horrible civil war, isn’t that enough?

Are Iraq and the Middle East really doomed to plunge into another 60 years of horror? Who is going to try to remain outside this fray?

Unfortunately, the West is not going to save you from this and America, at least under its current leadership, won't help you. On the contrary, the Obama Administration is rewarding the radicals, pushing the Islamists, and neglecting its friends. People in the region are well aware of this reality; Western "experts" and governments are not.

Several people lately have asked me what I think of Israel’s future. My answer is that I’m extremely optimistic. But as for everything else for a thousand miles or so in every direction, things look grim. Please wake up and don’t do it all over again.  This is your chance to escape from the waterboarding of history, from the grim cycle of war, hatred, and death. Choose life, democracy, moderation, pragmatism, and prosperity.

But I know that plea probably won't work. I feel a grim sense that the watchword of the day is: Here we go again.


(Improved version of a Jerusalem Post column)

The Wild Card in Arab "Democratic" Politics: Extra-Parliamentary Violence

By Barry Rubin

Consider just a small part of what's gone on in Tunisia, a relatively moderate country where the radical Islamists "only" got 40 percent of the vote and were forced to lead the country from within a coalition with moderate, secular parties.

Hundreds of Salafis rioted in several cities and set fire to police stations as well as the offices of non-Islamist parties and secular-led trade unions. A truck carrying alcoholic drinks was set ablaze, too, as were shops selling electronic goods, providing access to "immoral" entertainment.  Salafis using clubs and stones attacked police who fired in the air to escape. Shooting at the demonstrators would recall memories of the old regime and lead to even worse rioting. An art gallery whose exhibition was labelled immoral was hit with firebombs, almost killing staff members.  Eighty-six rioters were arrested; at least one man died.

But this is only the start.

Do not take this kind of thing in isolation, for it is the harbinger of a new era. In Egypt, Tunisia, and other places where the hand of dictatorship is weakened or removed, political violence--and its more self-interested sibling, crime--is going to flourish.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,346 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

------------------------

On one hand, the Salafis, joined at times by Muslim Brothers, are going to burn and attack churches and strike at Christians; destroy old non-Muslim cemeteries; attack symbols of modern culture; close down aspects of secular education including university courses; harass and beat women wearing "non-Islamic" clothing; kill or injure secularists and stop them from meeting or speaking; go after Western tourists; and a whole long list of other such activities. One item on this list could well be attacks on American citizens or installations.

On the other hand, Muslim Brotherhood officials, the armed forces, and the police will only interfere if absolutely necessary to protect government property or to keep anarchy from going too far. In other words, they will not protect women seeking rights (as we saw when Salafists broke up a Cairo demonstration recently), Christians, and secularists. When Salafists strike out at Christians in Egypt, the authorities are more likely to arrest and punish the intended victims.

Why is this?...

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Bush and Obama Together At Last: In Misunderstanding the Middle East

By Barry Rubin


In one of his first statements since leaving office, former President George W. Bush remarked on Middle East developments in an article, “The Arab Spring and American Ideals,” in the Wall Street Journal, May 18. The former president reflects certain American misconceptions about the Middle East that are starting to blow up big-time in the region. 

Bush writes:  
 

"We do not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East or elsewhere. We only get to choose what side we are on."

While one should not overestimate U.S. influence, one should also not underestimate it. Consider:

--In the Gaza Strip, by supporting the inclusion of Hamas in elections for which it was not qualified to run (since it had not accepted the Oslo accords), Bush’s own administration ensured that there would be a radical Islamist revolution in the Gaza Strip. This weakened the already dim prospects for any Israel-Palestinian peace process, has already brought one war, and will certainly bring others.

--In Lebanon, by refusing to give strong support to the moderate forces, the last two presidents ensured that the “freedom revolution” in that country would end in an Iran-Syria-Hizballah takeover.

--In Egypt, by taking the side not only of a total overthrow of the regime and even openly and unilaterally supporting the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did help ensure that the fundamental transformation of Egypt began with the inevitable end of an anti-freedom Islamist regime.

--In Iran, by ignoring the upsurge of protest following the stolen election, the Obama Administration ensured that a “freedom revolution” didn’t get started there.

--In Syria, by refusing to help the rebels in any real way, the U.S. government ensured that the “freedom revolution” would be defeated. Equally bad, by giving disproportionate help to the Islamists, the administration made it far more likely that if the rebellion succeeded it wouldn’t be a “freedom revolution.”

--And finally, in Libya, the United States and its European allies determined pretty much everything, overthrowing Muammar Qadhafi and determining who would rule the country.

Thus, a simple claim by Bush, which is also about the closest he and his successor would agree on any issue, can easily be proved false. One hallmark of those favoring “neoconservative” positions is their lack of knowledge about the actual Middle East.



-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,285 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

But that’s not all. The most important point of all is this one: “We only get to choose what side we are on." The underlying assumption here is that there are two sides: evil dictatorship and noble democracy advocates.

In fact, there are three sides:

--Dictatorships of various levels of repressiveness, some of which are friendly and some that are sworn enemies of the United States.

--Moderate democracy advocates who want freedom in the Western sense of the word.

--Revolutionary Islamists who want a new, and anti-American, dictatorship run by themselves.

During the Cold War, American policymakers were very much aware of this three-part distinction (the third being Communists, in that case). They didn’t always choose correctly but they tried to evaluate each situation seriously. Sometimes they chose the dictators; sometimes they chose the democrats; and sometimes they even helped nudge the dictators (usually military juntas and especially in Latin America) into returning to the barracks and letting democracy resume.  

No such careful process goes on now. In fact, the Obama Administration has repeatedly done the opposite of what a proper policy would be.

Bush also reflects Obama in using the be-on-the-right-side-of-history argument, a fatal flaw in a president of the United States who should be making choices based on U.S. interests.

Here is Bush’s argument annotated by me:

"The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.”

Again, the question, sadly, is not necessarily dispensing with oppression altogether but which kind of oppression we’re talking about. They are either willing, or can be forced, into getting rid of the old Arab nationalist oppression and then substituting Islamist oppression for it. Bush argues as if they are going to jump out of the frying pan with no danger of ending up in the fire. 


He speaks critically about policymakers who "argue [that America] should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.”

Yet such a realist, U.S. interests-based policy has worked for decades. True, there are times when a revolutionary situation exists but these are relatively few and far between. For example, Egyptian dictatorships ruled from 1952 to 2010 without facing a single serious internal revolutionary threat. So how America handles those brief crisis periods help determine what happens for decades into the future.

By the way, Bush speaks of "supporting the flawed leaders," so does that imply the alternative leaders aren't flawed, perhaps even more flawed? Perhaps the "flawed leaders they know" do not number among their flaws a tendency to sponsor terrorism, commit aggression against their neighbors, and do everything they can to hurt the United States.

The czar, the Weimar republic, the Batista dictatorship in Cuba, the regime of Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia, and the shah, for example, were all deeply flawed. Now what about the regimes that replaced them?

It would be better to make a distinction in setting policy: overthrow anti-American dictatorships (Iran, Syria, Gaza Strip) and support indispensable pro-American ones that are less oppressive than their counterparts (formerly Egypt, formerly Lebanon, and still Jordan and Saudi Arabia). Remember that a high percentage of those in the Middle East who don't like U.S. policy also hate the United States (and are not assuaged by America helping them gain power) and want Islamist dictatorship, or at least will vote for it for various reasons.

“But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic….”

Why? Suddenly revolution is inevitable in every Arab country and nothing is going to stop it? Ridiculous.

Consider the following:

--In Algeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain, opposition movements were suppressed with relative ease. The same would have happened in Libya if not for NATO taking over the war and running it.

--In Egypt and Tunisia revolutions didn’t take place not because the people united can never be defeated but because the armies sided with the opposition. Once you have the entire armed forces on your side revolution becomes a lot more likely. 

“The years of transition that follow can be difficult. People forget that this was true in Central Europe, where democratic institutions and attitudes did not spring up overnight."

Well, actually in Central Europe “democratic institutions and attitudes” did “spring up overnight.” Why? It was because these concepts were deeply imbedded in the culture and revived quickly when given the opportunity to do so. It's the difference between a rich humus soil in which seeds like dormant awaiting the first rain and a sandy soil  that has only ever known drought  The people in Central Europe were not about to vote for fascist-style movements as alternatives to the old dictatorships. And this situation has nothing to do with Middle Eastern realities.

Finally, what is quite amazing is how little backing the United States has given to moderate democratic oppositions to Islamist forces. That certainly has not happened in Lebanon, Turkey, or Iran, while in Egypt and Syria, U.S. policy has been friendlier to Islamists than to moderates.   


And that's the saddest irony. When the Obama Administration, to quote Bush's phrase, gets "to choose what side we are on," it picks the wrong one. It argues, again, to quote Bush, that Ameica  "should be content with supporting...flawed leaders...in the name of stability.” But these new Islamist dictators would deliver internal stability only at the price of freedom and will dismantle regional stability altogether. The alternative that provides some hope of stopping the Islamists, as both Iraq and Egypt show, is politicians who seem at best more like the old-style flawed leaders with whom America allied in past decades.    

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Here's What Middle Eastern Moderates Actually Think and Say

By Barry Rubin

Over and over again I hear them: Egyptians who have lost hope that their country can be saved from Islamist dictatorship (this is what the people want, one says); the Lebanese who can no longer stand up to the threats of the Hizballah-dominated government; Turks disgusted as the Western media ignore the arrests and persecutions of respected people who have devoted their lives to the country or contemporary dissidents; and so on.

In a recent letter to me, a Middle Eastern democracy advocate who fled revolutionary Islamism to the West--there will be thousands more in the years to come--reflected on his experiences in light of my articles. These are the people the West is betraying, to its own detriment.  The so-called liberals (leftists pretending to be liberal) who apologize for, lie about, and even help anti-Western Islamist dictatorships should take note of such individuals who are the hope of their homelands but have themselves lost hope:

"At the very beginning of the Iranian revolution (before the revolution was highjacked by the Islamists), many youth including myself considered ourselves as leftists. To us, people on the left were progressive, social justice oriented and were struggling to establish freedom and equality.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,182. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-------------------------

"But once the Islamists took power and consolidated their dictatorship, these young moderates were "killed, [went into] hiding or forced to leave Iran.

"When I came to the West, I connected myself to the leftist movement right away, but distanced myself more and more from them when I realized that I could not convince them of the dangers involved with the Islamist ideology. They did not believe my own personal stories of horrific life in Iran under a reactionary-repressive Islamic regime. I still challenge them whenever I can regarding the crimes committed by Hamas and other Islamists in the Middle East or elsewhere. However, unfortunately, we have no voice among the so-called progressive leftists.

"I am disgusted by seeing how narrow minded they are and how ignorant they are toward crimes done by Hamas and the Islamic regime in Iran. These so-called leftists are nothing by a bunch of hypocrites who have nothing to offer to the oppressed people of the Middle East. Now, I consider myself as a liberal, a true liberal who cannot ignore nor forget the oppressive life in Iran and who stands for freedom, and social justice."

And the smug, ignorant, over-paid academics, journalists, government officials, and various self-declared "experts" are willing to throw these people under the Islamist bus, to ignore their pleas and warnings.

Many years ago, for my book, Istanbul Intrigues, I interviewed courageous people who had fought against Nazism in the underground of various countries, especially Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The Czech intelligence officers recounted how they had tried to warn the West, and Stalin, too, about Hitler's aggressive plans, all to no avail. They cried as their country was overrun and fled from one place to another, keeping just ahead of the advancing German armies. This is what I think of now.

This short article is originally posted here.

I’m glad to add you to my Facebook and be added to yours. I hope you consider subscribing to my blog at http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/ and you might also be interested in a free subscription to our MERIA Journal and to look at the books we’ve published at http://www.gloria-center.org/ and my new book, Israel: An Introduction, can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Introduction-Barry-Rubin/dp/0300162308

The Iraqi Model: As Good As It Gets

By Barry Rubin

Iraq is in a mess. Violence continues. Factionalism leads to endless bickering. Corruption is at high levels. Christians live in fear or flee altogether. Islamism is constantly creeping forward. Yet I would suggest that with all these shortcomings the “Iraqi model” is the best that can be expected for the Middle East.

What’s the worst-case scenario? Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan, or the permanent civil war situation in Syria, Yemen, and probably Libya.

It isn’t that democracy is theoretically impossible or incompatible in principle with Islam or Arab society. The problem is that it just isn’t going to happen at this particular point in history. What you or I or small groups of moderate democratic Arabs, or naïve Western journalists want isn’t relevant here.


-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,991. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

The reporters can pal around with Muslim Brotherhood members every day of the week and talk about how moderate they are but that won’t make them moderate.  Tens of thousands of well-financed, fanatical, hard-working, and tactically creative cadre are laboring long hours throughout the region to bring revolutionary Islamist dictators to power in each country.

They are opposed by dozens of moderates who are concentrated in the capital cities, have hardly any money, usually don’t know how to relate to the masses, have no strategic sense, are more badly divided than the Islamists and confuse writing an op-ed piece or holding a demonstration with organizing a mass movement to seize state power.

Wishful thinking has no place in political analysis or statecraft or journalism. The fact that the moderates are so much “like us” is not an advantage for them—except in getting favorable media coverage--but a fatal disadvantage in their own societies.

Personally, I would prefer that the moderates win, but then I grew up watching the Washington Senators baseball team finish in last place in the American League every year.

The model usually put forward, including by the Obama Administration, is the Turkish regime. It is rare in history for a democratic state to promote a foreign government that is so antithetical to its own interests in almost every way. There are some positions in common but far more that are different. Two put it as briefly as possible, there are two problems.

The first problem is that the Turkish regime is boosting radical Islamist movements and governments that are America’s biggest enemy. These include Iran, the Gaza Strip (Hamas), and the current government in Lebanon (Hizballah). The Turkish regime has tried to back the Muslim Brotherhood but has been rebuffed, since the Brotherhood has no interest in following non-Arab leadership. And in Syria, the Turkish regime has been backing the Islamists in the opposition, intending to produce an anti-American regime in Damascus.

The Turkish regime also loathes Israel and supports radical Islamist forces against it. Only regarding Iraq do U.S. and Turkish interests basically coincide.

The second problem is that the Turkish regime has systematically reduced democracy at home. Hundreds of moderates have been arrested on ridiculous charges. The armed forces, formerly the guardian of secularism and the basic democratic system, have been broken. The media is intimidated. Radical Islamists have been infiltrated into all parts of the government. This well-coordinated creeping tendency toward dictatorship has barely been reported in the West.

What is the Turkish model in terms of the Arabic-speaking world? It is a formula for radical Islamist groups to seize state power and fundamentally transform their societies while appearing to be moderate. It is a step by step process, the equivalent of the Russian revolutionary movement graduating from anarchism to Bolshevism precisely a century earlier.

The most surprising thing is not that the West has been taken in by this trick but that it has happened so thoroughly.

At a time when even Lebanon is governed by a combination of Islamists and radical clients of Tehran and Damascus, Tunisia has a mostly Islamist government, and when the secular Turkish republic is being transformed by Islamists there is not much of an alternative.

In Morocco and Jordan, as usual, the kings have brilliantly maneuvered to provide the appearance of democratic pluralism and even Islamist participation while they continue to hold the real power.  In Algeria, as usual, the army is running things. In Saudi Arabia and the small sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman), as usual, traditionalist regimes rule but they are now now intimidated by radical Islamist threats as they were once so cowed by radical Arab nationalist threats.

And at a moment when President Barack Obama has transformed America from being leader of the Free World to reflecting the effete, unrealistic elite from the Brie World, there’s not much hope from that quarter.

So that brings us to Iraq. As I’ve outlined above, the situation there is far from ideal. Yet there are some significant advantages. Internally, there are elections that mean something, a real element of pluralism, space for freedom of speech, and some working decentralization.

Of the greatest importance is the fact that Islamist elements have been defeated (in the Sunni case) or held at bay (in the Shia case). Things can certainly get worse but some stability seems to have been achieved at this time.

Another key factor is that Iraq is acting more “normally” as a state by minding its own business. It is not subverting neighbors or trying to take over the Middle East. Iraq also has decent relations with the West.  This is a country that is trying to deal with its own problems. And if there is factionalism and corruption, at least it appears to be clear that no force can monopolize power and establish a repressive dictatorship.

Call it chaotic pluralism as an alternative to Islamist dictatorship. And, yes, that appears to be the best that can be expected in those countries not still dominated by traditionalist monarchies.  It is certainly preferable to the “Turkish model.” Yet I don’t expect many people in the West to appreciate that point.

Is my assessment too pessimistic? Well, you are free to be optimistic. You can imagine an Israel-Palestinian peace based on a comprehensive treaty ending the conflict and establishing a two-state solution. You can fantasize about moderate Muslim Brotherhood leaders pragmatically getting down to solving Egypt's problems by creating jobs, building housing, and establishing new industries. You can pretend that various forces will be grateful to America and President Obama for demolishing several dictatorships.

But none of this is going to happen. It is vital to understand why and to comprehend what must be done in the face of this situation.

By pretending to soar to the heights of democracy, the Islamists are on the road to autocracy, and an anti-Western, regionally destabilizing autocracy at that.  By being so gullible, the West is assisting a repressive anti-Western force to dominate the region and to set it back 60 years (to the origin of radical Arab nationalist hegemony) if not 600 years.

A different version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. Please read and link to the above version.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The New Middle East: Arab versus non-Arab Muslims; Sunni versus Shia

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-middle-east-arab-versus-non-arab.html

The New Middle East: Arab versus non-Arab Muslims; Sunni versus Shia

By Barry Rubin

 

The new Middle East strategic battle is heating up and this is only the start. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with two more serious lines of battle: Arabs versus Persians and Sunni versus Shia Muslims.

 

The Arab-Israeli or Israel-Palestinian dispute is increasingly unimportant, despite the hatred of increasingly powerful Islamist forces for Israel. The real struggle is over who will control each Muslim majority country and who is going to lead the Middle East. Both issues have almost nothing to do with Israel. At the same time, Israel has virtually no role to play in these struggles, except to ensure that Hamas doesn’t take over the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority.

 

The Sunni Arab position was stated very clearly by Amr Moussa, a veteran Arab nationalist and candidate for Egypt’s presidency: "[The] Arab Middle East will not be run by Iran or Turkey." Note that he didn’t even mention Israel, in sharp contrast to how the issue would have been defined in previous decades:  as a Zionist threat to rule the entire region.

-----------------------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

----------------------------------

 

Iran is Persian-ruled (though only about half the population is ethnic Persian) and Shia Muslim. Turkey is ruled by ethnic Turks even though it is predominantly Sunni Muslim.

 

What we are seeing again, for the first time in three decades—since President Anwar al-Sadat put the priority on a domestic focus, peace with Israel, and alliance with the United States--is an Egyptian bid to lead the Arabic-speaking world and even the whole region. On this point, Egyptian leftists, nationalists, and Islamists are united.  And in the first round, the battle over control of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, Egypt won and Iran lost.

 

Note that this has nothing to do with the current military rulers of Egypt who will be out of power before the end of June. This is a long-term struggle led by the civilian, primarily Islamist, politicians. And it is a program over which the Islamists can unite the country behind them in a wave of patriotic, Arab, and Sunni zeal. Building on this agenda, often used demagogically, also requires Cairo to distance itself from the United States.

 

Here’s another point to keep in mind. The head of the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee is now Essam al-Arian, one of the most outspokenly radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He’s outspokenly in favor of destroying Israel and U.S. interests in the region. This is one more of an endless amount of evidence about the Brotherhood’s extremism and the coming

collision with Washington.

 

At the same time, al-Arian is strongly anti-Iran, predicting the overthrow of the Tehran regime in an internal revolution. When a Muslim Brotherhood says such a thing that isn’t an example of political analysis but of advocacy.  In another example of Brotherhood, and Egyptian, hostility to the Iran-led bloc, Egypt has pulled Hamas into its orbit. The Brotherhood supports its Syrian brothers in their revolution against the pro-Iran regime in Damascus. It also backs the Bahrain government against Shia oppositionists there and is hostile to Hizballah in Lebanon.

And so despite the fact that Iran has now offered Egypt financial aid, which that country needs, the Egyptians are ignoring the proposal. They do not want to be beholden to Tehran any more than they would be to the United States.

It has not yet been widely recognized that the last year has been a disaster for Iran’s strategy of gaining regional leadership. Outside of Syria, Bahrain, and Iraq—where Tehran is backing forces which aren’t doing so well at present—only in Lebanon does Iran still have real influence. Its potential appeal is now limited to the Shia Muslims, who are minorities everywhere except in Bahrain and Iraq.

Two years ago, an Iranian nuclear bomb would have sparked a wave of pro-Iran reaction throughout the Middle East, now it will have little effect on (Sunni, Arab) public opinion. Similarly, two years ago threats to wipe Israel off the map made Iran more popular while hostility toward Israel did the same for Turkey. Now such ranting does nothing to promote Iran's or Turkey's regional influence.

For Turkey, too, the “Arab Spring” ended that Islamist regime’s regional ambitions. Nobody needs the Turks as regional leaders. Indeed, efforts to claim such a role have created intense resentment in both Egypt and Iran.

In contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood has expanded its influence to a remarkable extent. Aside from probably ruling Egypt, the Brotherhood can now claim the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, and Libya as being within its sphere of influence. And it is also the patron of the Brotherhood branches in Syria and Jordan.

Another result of this process is the orphaning of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has no foreign patron whatsoever. Iran, Egypt, and Syria back Hamas.  The PA’s patron should be wealthy Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Yet it has never won back their support after the rupture caused when PA leader Yasir Arafat backed Iraq’s takeover of Kuwait in 1990-1991.

A weakened PA has no maneuvering room except to protect its militant credentials by refusing to negotiate or compromise with Israel while talking in a radical manner. The Israel-Palestinian peace process has in fact been dead since 2000 but only now is most of the world acknowledging the obituary.    

This is the new Middle East, quite different from the region as understood for the last sixty years. The battle for predominance among the three strong Arab nationalist regimes—Egypt, Iraq, and Syria—has now given way between Sunni and Shia blocs. Increasingly, Arab assessments of threats from Egypt in the west to the Persian Gulf on the eastern end barely mention Israel at all.    

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

A different version of this article has been published in the Jerusalem Post. This is my preferred version, I own the rights, and I ask you to read this version and link to it.

Middle East Myths Metastasize, Iran War Hysteria Rages Onward

Apology: On the February 27 subscription feed I had the wrong link to the full article, "Combating Media Manipulation: Just Say `No.'” I have fixed it on the article's site. And here once again is the correct link for that article. Sorry!

By Barry Rubin

Much written and said about the Middle East has always been fantasy. But nowadays the proportion of fantasy to reality is higher than ever. And number one on that list is the war hysteria with Iran.

Israel may have to attack Iran some day. But not this week, month, or even year. That's true for very good reasons.

Iran doesn’t have deliverable nuclear weapons. It is not about to have deliverable nuclear weapons. Israel is not about to attack Iran. The United States is certainly not about to attack Iran. The whole idea that the leaders of Iran are crazed suicide-oriented people who expect the twelfth imam to arrive next Thursday is simply not true. 

------------------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

-----------------------------------

Yes, the Iranian regime is radical and yes it throws threats in all directions and yes, too, it is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Yet after 32 years in power the Islamist regime in Tehran has yet to do something really adventurous abroad.  This regime wants to stay in power and it has shown restraint. And when it committed terrorist attacks against Americans in Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia it did so with the correct calculation that it could get away without paying any price.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t run Iran and many of his statements are intended for domestic consumption to boost his claim to leadership. I don’t want to say that Iran’s leaders are calm pragmatists but they are power-hungry people intent on the survival of themselves and their regime. Iran’s government is bad enough but the caricatures we are seeing go far beyond the reality.  

Does this mean that we know that Iran will never ever use nuclear weapons? Of course not. But this merely tells us that there is not a 100 percent or anywhere near it certainty that they will do so.  To start a war with Iran by attacking its nuclear facilities means that a full and open war exists that will be far more likely to escalate to a nuclear level in the future.  In other words, an attack makes a future Iranian use of nuclear weapons far more likely than it is already.

Iran’s main goal, like that of Pakistan, is to make itself immune to any reprisals for terrorism and subversion by having nuclear weapon. In part, the rationale for the nuclear program is outdated, though that certainly won’t stop Tehran from pursuing it. The project was launched to make Iran into the leader of the Middle East and even of the whole Muslim world.

Yet the rise of Sunni Arab Islamists, notably the Muslim Brotherhood, has sharply reduced Iran’s potential sphere of influence.  Tehran’s broader ambitions have been shrunk to include only Lebanon, Syria (where its ally is facing major problems), southwest Afghanistan, and Iraq (where its clients are proportionately small in size). Throw in some ambitions toward Bahrain and the ability to scare the Persian Gulf Arabs and that’s about it. Turkey has its own ambitions; the newly empowered Sunni Arab Islamists hate Iran and don’t think they need Tehran at all.

That doesn’t mean Iran might not some day attack Israel if and when it has nuclear weapons. Obviously a mixture of containment, defensive measures, and the ability plus willingness to stage a preemptive attack if necessary is vital for Israel which isn’t going to depend on Iran’s good will or assume that Tehran will never attack.

At the same time, though, the chances of avoiding a nuclear war are quite positive.  What is Iran going to do, put two to six missiles on launching pads to shoot at Israel without being detected beforehand and having no second wave that can be used once devastating Israeli attacks start? Is Iran going to attack Israel purely out of spite, from blind fanaticism, knowing not only that Iran will be devastated but that Israel has a high likelihood of preempting and destroying them on the launching pad or shooting them down?

To start a war with Iran now doesn’t make any sense. It will not stop that country from getting nuclear weapons and it would make a nuclear war in the coming years more rather than less likely. Israel has no international support. Russia is practically threatening a war against Israel if it does launch such an operation.

The logistics of an attack are difficult, though not impossible. A lot can go wrong. You don’t want to try such an operation unless you really have to do so. The bottom line is that an Israeli attack on Iran at present is simply not necessary. A lot of the Israeli rhetoric is clearly intended to press the West toward greater activism and tougher sanctions.

Indeed, all of the reasons why Israel is not about to attack Iran are just plain ignored in the media. Defense Minister Ehud Barak explains that no decision is made and that Israeli policy is only to attack if Iran is about to get deliverable nuclear weapons. He suggests that this won’t happen in the next year. The biggest Israeli critic of launching an attack states that Israel decided not to do so and his worst complaint against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he wants to keep discussing the possibility, not that he has decided on an attack.

President Barack Obama—a man who would never attack Iran or support an Israeli action—has publicly state that Israel isn’t about to do so. The president of the United States, whatever his other faults, would not say such a thing unless he has been clearly promised by Netanyahu that it isn’t going to happen.  If Israel were to break that promise the entire bilateral relationship would blow up in a way that would make recent tiffs seem like a picnic.

In short, the whole idea is nonsense. Numerous reasons can be given to explain why it is not on the agenda for this year. But the media and various analysts—many of them self-proclaimed experts—simply ignore all the evidence. Some want to get Israel into a war with Iran to please their own ideological agenda; others want to claim Israel is going to attack in order to prove their thesis that Israel is the evil cause of all regional—or even world--problems.

This hysteria really should stop.  Israel isn’t going to get into a long, bloody, and avoidable  war because bloggers and op-ed writers are screaming for it.

Briefly here are some other myths that deserve to be abandoned as soon as possible.

--There is an Israel-Palestinian peace process. That’s probably dead for decades because the Palestinian side doesn’t want a compromise deal.  Obama’s mistakes, the Palestinian Authority-Hamas coalition, the Islamist “spring,” and the UN unilateral independence bid all makes it even more obviously deceased.

--The Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Wake up and smell the jihad.

--The Syrian regime is about to fall. The opposition knows that without international intervention—which isn’t going to happen—they can’t win.

--Turkey is the very model of a moderate Islamic democracy. Actually, it’s a repressive Islamist dictatorship in training. Look at the massive arrests, the trumped-up treason charges, the trampling on free speech, and the assault on the country’ armed forces.

Unless there is some real understanding of what’s going on in the Middle East any hope for useful analysis, much less predicting the most likely future scenarios or charting a successful Western policy, is out of reach.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. He is also editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PJMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>



A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and ask you to read this version and link to this site.