[Please subscribe, for breaking news analysis]
By Barry Rubin
It may well be that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has given the signal for the new phase of U.S. policy toward Iran. On December 14, she said that the engagement policy with Tehran hadn’t worked and now it needs to press for additional sanctions.
Either this is her attempt to lobby for a tougher line against other administration officials or it's the long-awaited start of the sanctions made necessary by the looming of the administration’s own end-of-the-year deadline to get a deal with Iran or impose more sanctions.
Trying to negotiate, she said, has "produced very little" so "additional pressure is going to be called for."
Her phrasing was interesting, almost as if she was taking a poke at rivals in the administration who are reluctant to take action. "I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of a positive response from the Iranians," Clinton said, as if daring someone in the White House to disagree?
So what is the administration going to do? Try to get the UN and EU to support more sanctions. Here the administration likes to claim that its popularity and patient (arguably too patient) coalition-building will bring broad support.
Yet there’s another development that shows the opposite may be true. An important meeting to discuss sanctions, set for December 22, has been postponed at China’s request. As an AP account put it:
“Russia in recent days has moved away from suggesting it would support [sanctions]. And recent statements from Chinese officials indicate that Beijing has not changed its traditional opposition to new sanctions. While Russia and China signed on to three previous sets of UN sanctions against Iran, they also forced their Western Security Council partners to water them down substantially.”
Note that the administration keeps claiming that Moscow and Peking are on board. We are going to see something quite different when the negotiations get serious in January and February.
Buried in a paragraph of an obscure article is explosively important news. A survey of people in 18 Arabic-speaking countries commissioned by a Qatari group—and not fully released yet-- found that a majority see Iran as a bigger threat to their security than Israel and one-third believing Iran is as big a threat as Israel.
This is of historic importance and, of course, reflects reality. This doesn’t mean the Arab attitude toward Israel is going to change drastically, but it does indicate that the real main demand of Arabs toward the West is not making instant Israel-Palestinian peace but protecting them from Iran’s extremist Islamist regime. Western policymakers should take note.
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Obamas Watch But Don't See the Tragic Fate of Middle East Women: A Four-Picture Allegory
[Please subscribe for more original coverage of the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, and other important stories]
By Barry Rubin
Turkey used to be a secular state striving for modernization and a place in the Western world. That dream is turning into a nightmare. The AKP regime, despite its pretense of being a center-right, family values, good government party, is moving Turkey toward Islamism. Washington and the West in general doesn't seem to notice though horrified Turkish secularists and liberals are yelling for help.
Look at the photos below of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his wife arriving in Washington to meet the Obamas. It's not so much that his wife, Ermine, is wearing a hijab (in Turkey called a turban) but look at her slumped over and self-effacing like a slave. I'm of no importance, is what her posture seems to say. Compare her abject stance to the three others in the picture standing tall and proud. In the first photo her sleeves are so long to conceal her hands that she can't even control them. Her head is slumped in a pose conveying submissiveness and shame at being a woman. And then in the fourth photo, she slinks off, like a servant who has been dismissed.
The sequence seems to symbollize the fate stalking Turkish woman, subverting the equality envisioned under the Ataturk republic to a status of servility and second-class citizenship. This holds true in much of the Muslim-majority countries and it is getting worse--Egypt and Iraq come to mind--not better.
Yet the Obamas don't even notice what's going on before their eyes. To them, Turkey is the very model of a moderate Muslim democracy, a good model to be encouraged rather than a NATO ally slipping steadily into the Iranian-Syrian alliance.
Take a look at those photos below and shiver.
But for sheer insanity there's this New York Times article. It celebrates the growing Turkish-Syrian alignment, claiming that this means Syria is becoming more moderate! The author actually states:
"For some [in Syria], the new closeness with secular, moderate Turkey represents a move away from Syria’s controversial alliance with Iran. For others, it suggests an embrace of Turkey’s more open, cosmopolitan society. And for many — including Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad — it conjures different dreams of a revitalized regional economy, less vulnerable to Western sanctions or pressure."
Let me explain something. When a former ally joins your enemies you don't cheer about how your enemy is becoming your friend. Why should Turkey-Syria friendship mean Syria-Iran coolness, especially when Turkey and Iran are acting like great buddies? This article is just a pitiful parroting of Syrian disinformation. Shameful.
It isn't that Syria is aping a moderate pro-West Turkey but Turkey imitating an Islamist Iran. Want to see where Turkey is headed? Look at the photos below:
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Britain's Top Military Chaplain Says We Must Recognize the Good Things about the Afghan Taliban
Please subscribe
By Barry Rubin
We’re getting used to it by now, the bizarre inability to recognize evil, the cultural relativism that excuses real political and war crimes, and the lack of faith by Westerners in their own civilization and religion. Yet each strange juxtapositions never fail to shock those who still remember the way things are supposed to be, and must be if the forces of dictatorship and repression are going to be beaten.
Sound too strong? Consider this new development. The Anglican Church's chief chaplain with the British army is praising the Afghani Taliban. The UK foreign minister just wants to make a deal with some of these collaborators with al-Qaida who enabled the September 11 attack and are among the world's leading totalitarians.
The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, recently appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams-- who himself favors Muslims in the UK living under Islamic Sharia law--said that while some of the Taliban’s methods are unacceptable, it is unhelpful to paint them as too evil in what is really “a very complex situation.”
It isn’t helpful to demonize Venner by exaggerating what he meant. Venner is not being an apologist for everything the Taliban has done nor does he want them to take over Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his misunderstanding reflects the dangerous incomprehension all too common in the West. What he really wants to do is to win over elements in the Taliban by being nice to them, then getting them to participate in creating a stable, moderate Afghanistan. That's just about the same thing as British government policy and perhaps U.S. government policy.
But here’s where the problems begin. Of course, in the Taliban as in other radical movements—including fascism and Communism—there are people who get caught up for personal or local reasons who might well break away under such conditions.
Yet those conditions are not the movement's enemies being nice to it. There are two ways such a “break away” can happen. First, they can realize that the movement to which they have dedicated and even risked their lives is bad. Or they can conclude that it is being defeated and it's time to change sides. This principle applies as well to al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhoods, Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as many other such ideologies and movements.
The problem with the Venner approach is by spreading a veneer of respectability about vicious tyrannical terrorists, it flatters rather than exposes and breaks their ideology. At the same time, making generous offers of forgiveness and participation assures them that they aren’t going to be defeated. In other words, the venerable Venners of the world ensure that the Taliban's supporters will stick with the group or, even worse, help them get into power.
Regarding the flattery aspect, Venner quickly starts talking about the “good” side of the Taliban:
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the West could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really. The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
But a group like the Taliban isn’t just a mix of nice and nasty things but rather a holistic ideology about the will of the deity, the nature of life, and the proper direction for society. People like Venner—quite numerous among Western clergy, academics, journalists, and politicians—simply cannot understand such an approach because they no longer believe in a coherent doctrine of their own.
Moreover, "conviction" and "sense of loyalty" are not abstractions. In a bad cause, we call this fanaticism. But people like Venner--and they are legion in the West today--simply don't understand that people with strong (bad) convictions kill millions of people. There's nothing admirable in that. Nothing at all. (And I won't even bring up the Nazis here.)
Let's put it bluntly: They want to kill you. If possible they would destroy your liberties and way of life but more likely they will just settle for bloody oppression of their own people. They ran the most repressive regime of our time. Admiration is out of the question.
The UK government's line, which the U.S. government is hinting at accepting, is that the Taliban or at least what are called “moderate elements” in it must be brought into Afghanistan's government. Foreign Minister David Miliband wants to buy them off with the promise that they will sit in the Afghan parliament in future.
Let me explain it to you: Do you think of Taliban types went into the government they would be transformed into nice moderate guys who just want to have peace and get along with everyone?
Again, if someone were to defect and turn against the Taliban then of course they could change sides. But the idea of bringing radical Islamists into government and then expect stability or moderation is quite foolish as they will still be compelled to seize state power, transform their societies into something even worse, and make war on the West.
Colonel Richard Kemp, who served in Afghanistan and retains a sense of reality, explained things that should be too obvious to need explanation, regarding this naiveté:
“Their central creed and ethos is about violent oppression which comes from a politics of extreme religion that has very little to commend it in terms that we would recognize or appreciate. In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the bishop follows. They certainly wouldn’t show understanding of his faith.”
In fact, they’d call him a Crusader and cut off his head.
One might add to that massacres; amputations; terrorism; a genocidal hatred toward the West, Christians, and Jews; and the reduction of women to slavery.
People used to make fun of those fooled by Communism or the Nazis but in many circles such lessons have been forgotten. Ironically the apologists for the world’s most reactionary and tyrannical forces are usually found among people who consider themselves progressives. The same people are often notoriously less empathetic when it comes to the United States or Israel, in whom they often appear to see far less good than in Islamist extremists.
Yet the West’s problem today is not that it is too unsympathetic to its enemies and too assertive about its own beliefs. Quite the contrary.
Update: Bishop Venner later apologized for his comment, saying it was ''one small phrase in quite a long interview'' intended to suggest that not all members of the Taliban were ''equally evil." Actually, in some ways that's formulation is even worse since if they were less evil this presumably means they didn't actually go around killing and oppressing people. But for that to be true they'd have to be pretty low-level and inactive, meaning they wouldn't be very important. But Venner envisions these people participating in the Afghan government. So I suppose that would apply if they signed the membership list at the meeting, didn't actually do anything, but are somehow important enough to be leaders of Afghanistan.
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
We’re getting used to it by now, the bizarre inability to recognize evil, the cultural relativism that excuses real political and war crimes, and the lack of faith by Westerners in their own civilization and religion. Yet each strange juxtapositions never fail to shock those who still remember the way things are supposed to be, and must be if the forces of dictatorship and repression are going to be beaten.
Sound too strong? Consider this new development. The Anglican Church's chief chaplain with the British army is praising the Afghani Taliban. The UK foreign minister just wants to make a deal with some of these collaborators with al-Qaida who enabled the September 11 attack and are among the world's leading totalitarians.
The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, recently appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams-- who himself favors Muslims in the UK living under Islamic Sharia law--said that while some of the Taliban’s methods are unacceptable, it is unhelpful to paint them as too evil in what is really “a very complex situation.”
It isn’t helpful to demonize Venner by exaggerating what he meant. Venner is not being an apologist for everything the Taliban has done nor does he want them to take over Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his misunderstanding reflects the dangerous incomprehension all too common in the West. What he really wants to do is to win over elements in the Taliban by being nice to them, then getting them to participate in creating a stable, moderate Afghanistan. That's just about the same thing as British government policy and perhaps U.S. government policy.
But here’s where the problems begin. Of course, in the Taliban as in other radical movements—including fascism and Communism—there are people who get caught up for personal or local reasons who might well break away under such conditions.
Yet those conditions are not the movement's enemies being nice to it. There are two ways such a “break away” can happen. First, they can realize that the movement to which they have dedicated and even risked their lives is bad. Or they can conclude that it is being defeated and it's time to change sides. This principle applies as well to al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhoods, Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as many other such ideologies and movements.
The problem with the Venner approach is by spreading a veneer of respectability about vicious tyrannical terrorists, it flatters rather than exposes and breaks their ideology. At the same time, making generous offers of forgiveness and participation assures them that they aren’t going to be defeated. In other words, the venerable Venners of the world ensure that the Taliban's supporters will stick with the group or, even worse, help them get into power.
Regarding the flattery aspect, Venner quickly starts talking about the “good” side of the Taliban:
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the West could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really. The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
But a group like the Taliban isn’t just a mix of nice and nasty things but rather a holistic ideology about the will of the deity, the nature of life, and the proper direction for society. People like Venner—quite numerous among Western clergy, academics, journalists, and politicians—simply cannot understand such an approach because they no longer believe in a coherent doctrine of their own.
Moreover, "conviction" and "sense of loyalty" are not abstractions. In a bad cause, we call this fanaticism. But people like Venner--and they are legion in the West today--simply don't understand that people with strong (bad) convictions kill millions of people. There's nothing admirable in that. Nothing at all. (And I won't even bring up the Nazis here.)
Let's put it bluntly: They want to kill you. If possible they would destroy your liberties and way of life but more likely they will just settle for bloody oppression of their own people. They ran the most repressive regime of our time. Admiration is out of the question.
The UK government's line, which the U.S. government is hinting at accepting, is that the Taliban or at least what are called “moderate elements” in it must be brought into Afghanistan's government. Foreign Minister David Miliband wants to buy them off with the promise that they will sit in the Afghan parliament in future.
Let me explain it to you: Do you think of Taliban types went into the government they would be transformed into nice moderate guys who just want to have peace and get along with everyone?
Again, if someone were to defect and turn against the Taliban then of course they could change sides. But the idea of bringing radical Islamists into government and then expect stability or moderation is quite foolish as they will still be compelled to seize state power, transform their societies into something even worse, and make war on the West.
Colonel Richard Kemp, who served in Afghanistan and retains a sense of reality, explained things that should be too obvious to need explanation, regarding this naiveté:
“Their central creed and ethos is about violent oppression which comes from a politics of extreme religion that has very little to commend it in terms that we would recognize or appreciate. In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the bishop follows. They certainly wouldn’t show understanding of his faith.”
In fact, they’d call him a Crusader and cut off his head.
One might add to that massacres; amputations; terrorism; a genocidal hatred toward the West, Christians, and Jews; and the reduction of women to slavery.
People used to make fun of those fooled by Communism or the Nazis but in many circles such lessons have been forgotten. Ironically the apologists for the world’s most reactionary and tyrannical forces are usually found among people who consider themselves progressives. The same people are often notoriously less empathetic when it comes to the United States or Israel, in whom they often appear to see far less good than in Islamist extremists.
Yet the West’s problem today is not that it is too unsympathetic to its enemies and too assertive about its own beliefs. Quite the contrary.
Update: Bishop Venner later apologized for his comment, saying it was ''one small phrase in quite a long interview'' intended to suggest that not all members of the Taliban were ''equally evil." Actually, in some ways that's formulation is even worse since if they were less evil this presumably means they didn't actually go around killing and oppressing people. But for that to be true they'd have to be pretty low-level and inactive, meaning they wouldn't be very important. But Venner envisions these people participating in the Afghan government. So I suppose that would apply if they signed the membership list at the meeting, didn't actually do anything, but are somehow important enough to be leaders of Afghanistan.
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Clinton Speaks About Iran: Shows How Slowly U.S. Policy is Changing Gears from Engagement to Sanctions
By Barry Rubin
In a December 10 al-Jazira interview, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains U.S. policy toward Iran, showing the administration has still not really started turning from engaging Iran to slapping on high sanctions.
A lot of what she said revealed the administration’s almost pathological desire to avoid conflict:
“What we have tried to do is engage in diplomacy in a very vigorous way in order to reassure the international community, including all states, that Iran’s nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, we haven’t had the kind of response we were hoping for from the Iranians.”
This is a rather shocking formulation and though I know it isn’t as bad as it sounds, after all Clinton is the one choosing her words. She basically is saying: We want to show the world that Iran has a peaceful intent so Tehran should help us do so.
It is a bit late in the game to take Tehran’s claim that it is only seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy at face value. Of course, this isn’t what Clinton really thinks. She's just being too clever by half, hinting that if Iran wants to prove it isn’t seeking nuclear weapons it must agree to some kind of deal. She's giving Tehran a face-saving way out.
But really isn’t this coyness out of date? Al-Jazira’s audience, millions of Arabs, is likely to interpret this as meaning the United States isn’t insisting there’s a big threat or doesn’t have proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They are more likely to ask what’s all the fuss about, making it seem that Iran is being framed by extremist Muslim-haters and is actually not building weapons of mass destruction? This is a dangerous miscalculation.
But Clinton goes further to make Iran seem sort of innocent:
“President Obama made it absolutely clear [despite] lots of political opposition that if he reached out his hand and if Iran reciprocated, we could talk about anything and everything. Then came the [Iranian] election, then came the crackdown on peaceful dissent, then came demonstrations, and the turmoil inside Iran is continuing until today.”
The implication here is that if not for all this disruption, Iran might have agreed. Now obviously if the United States is in the mode of persuading the Iranian regime to make a deal it can put the emphasis on not offending Tehran. But it isn’t March or April any more but mid-December 2009. Isn’t it time to lay the basis for getting tough and applying sanctions? If Clinton hasn’t switched gears yet when will she do so?
When it comes to covering for the Iranian regime, Clinton goes even further. After explaining that the United States supports the proposal for Iran shipping out enriched uranium to be turned into something relatively harmless she adds:
“They had first agreed in principle, and then I think because of internal disputes, they backed off from that, raising a lot of questions about what their true intentions are.”
This makes it sound like they came really close but then got sidetracked by internal bickering. Perhaps, an observer might think, they'll change their mind after a few more internal debates. This also gives credence to Iran’s latest efforts to confuse the situation and stall for time by pretending they might agree to a deal.
It’s not that Clinton doesn’t point to some of the evidence to the contrary:
“Obviously, the secret facility at Qom was revealed. They now say they want 10 or 20 new nuclear power plants. It’s not confidence building, let us say. And I think the international community really still wants to engage with Iran, but people are going to now turn to other routes like more pressure, like sanctions to try to change their mind and their behavior.”
Here we get a bit more of a sense of the heat being turned up on Iran but it is pretty limited. True, at one point the line might change and everything will become talk of the decision to get tough and how sanctions are on the way. But shouldn’t the ground work be laid for that now? As always, the administration thinks it must be all-conciliatory rather than mix talk of engagement with some more credible threats and tougher language.
The problem here is not that Clinton doesn't understand the situation but that the tactics used in explaining U.S. policy are counterproductive, giving Iran too much slack and intensifying credulity toward the Tehran regime's stalling tricks.
Here’s another point made by Clinton, which sounds like the Obama Administration’s motto:
“We want to work with others. There’s not a problem in the world that the United States can solve alone, but I would quickly add there is not a problem in the world that can be solved without the United States. So we want to create coalitions. We want to find common ground with people. There are many things we could go off and do unilaterally, as the prior administration certainly demonstrated. That’s not our chosen path. We would prefer to take some more time, to be more patient, to bring people together to make the case.”
There’s a key element missing here: the concept of leadership. Here’s an example involving another Bush. Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. The Bush administration vacillated a bit but British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, bless her, helped get it on course. The U.S. government then proclaimed that it was going to get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq one way or another; organized a coalition by inviting others to join; directed and led it; and won the war.
That was not unilateralism but a coalition created by saying: Here's what we're doing, follow us! But it was a coalition created by leadership and direction, not waiting until everyone agrees. Many other examples can be offered. Clinton brags:
“For example, at the Board of Governors at the IAEA, the vote...condemning Iran, calling for Iran to act, was shocking to some people because it was so unified. It wasn’t just the United States. It was Russia, it was China and many other countries. That’s because we have spent time listening and working hard to create this common ground and these common interests, and we’ve done it out of a sense of mutual respect. We respect and admire so many other cultures and societies….But we do feel like at a certain point, the international community must speak with one voice, and we think that time has come with respect to Iran’s nuclear program.”
The last sentence might hint that the Administration’s policy is shifting. But this is a bit misleading perhaps. After all, if the international community speaks with one voice, doesn't that voice have to reflect a Russian or Chinese accent?
What happens if the United States has to change its voice to be one of the crowd in order to show respect for other cultures and societies? After all, if the community disagrees, the United States might have to do something—shudder!—unilateral. Thus, this approach doesn’t solve the problem but only begs the question.
If Russia and China don’t agree--and we're not talking here about respect or Russian culture. We're not taling about Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky, we're talking about Vladimir Putin and pure greed--does this hold the United States and everyone else hostage? Suppose Spain and Sweden keep the EU from taking a united stance to support strong sanctions, must the United States “respect and admire” that position and accept this watering down of any action?
To be fair, the EU did issue a statement saying that Iran should be punished for its actions on December 11. So the administration can claim its patience, listening, and dialoguing has succeeded. But the statement is vague and does not reflect whether many of these countries are really willing to support anything serious.
If the United States is not a leader, then it is a follower which means, in practice, accepting the lowest common denominator, what the most unwilling ally will agree to.
This interview will not build support for U.S. policy among al-Jazira’s audience which the Obama Administraiton's style, tries to pander to and flatter. This is a part of the world—like Russia and China, too, by the way—which still believes in realpolitik.
And what of the Gulf and other Arab leaders who are scared of Iran and waiting to see if the United States will protect them? This is simply not the way they talk. An Arab leader or intellectual is likely to interpret Clinton as being afraid of Iran and unwilling to take action.
One can understand that Clinton and colleagues don’t want to sound like a George Bush, but why do they always try to act like a weak reed?
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
In a December 10 al-Jazira interview, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains U.S. policy toward Iran, showing the administration has still not really started turning from engaging Iran to slapping on high sanctions.
A lot of what she said revealed the administration’s almost pathological desire to avoid conflict:
“What we have tried to do is engage in diplomacy in a very vigorous way in order to reassure the international community, including all states, that Iran’s nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, we haven’t had the kind of response we were hoping for from the Iranians.”
This is a rather shocking formulation and though I know it isn’t as bad as it sounds, after all Clinton is the one choosing her words. She basically is saying: We want to show the world that Iran has a peaceful intent so Tehran should help us do so.
It is a bit late in the game to take Tehran’s claim that it is only seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy at face value. Of course, this isn’t what Clinton really thinks. She's just being too clever by half, hinting that if Iran wants to prove it isn’t seeking nuclear weapons it must agree to some kind of deal. She's giving Tehran a face-saving way out.
But really isn’t this coyness out of date? Al-Jazira’s audience, millions of Arabs, is likely to interpret this as meaning the United States isn’t insisting there’s a big threat or doesn’t have proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They are more likely to ask what’s all the fuss about, making it seem that Iran is being framed by extremist Muslim-haters and is actually not building weapons of mass destruction? This is a dangerous miscalculation.
But Clinton goes further to make Iran seem sort of innocent:
“President Obama made it absolutely clear [despite] lots of political opposition that if he reached out his hand and if Iran reciprocated, we could talk about anything and everything. Then came the [Iranian] election, then came the crackdown on peaceful dissent, then came demonstrations, and the turmoil inside Iran is continuing until today.”
The implication here is that if not for all this disruption, Iran might have agreed. Now obviously if the United States is in the mode of persuading the Iranian regime to make a deal it can put the emphasis on not offending Tehran. But it isn’t March or April any more but mid-December 2009. Isn’t it time to lay the basis for getting tough and applying sanctions? If Clinton hasn’t switched gears yet when will she do so?
When it comes to covering for the Iranian regime, Clinton goes even further. After explaining that the United States supports the proposal for Iran shipping out enriched uranium to be turned into something relatively harmless she adds:
“They had first agreed in principle, and then I think because of internal disputes, they backed off from that, raising a lot of questions about what their true intentions are.”
This makes it sound like they came really close but then got sidetracked by internal bickering. Perhaps, an observer might think, they'll change their mind after a few more internal debates. This also gives credence to Iran’s latest efforts to confuse the situation and stall for time by pretending they might agree to a deal.
It’s not that Clinton doesn’t point to some of the evidence to the contrary:
“Obviously, the secret facility at Qom was revealed. They now say they want 10 or 20 new nuclear power plants. It’s not confidence building, let us say. And I think the international community really still wants to engage with Iran, but people are going to now turn to other routes like more pressure, like sanctions to try to change their mind and their behavior.”
Here we get a bit more of a sense of the heat being turned up on Iran but it is pretty limited. True, at one point the line might change and everything will become talk of the decision to get tough and how sanctions are on the way. But shouldn’t the ground work be laid for that now? As always, the administration thinks it must be all-conciliatory rather than mix talk of engagement with some more credible threats and tougher language.
The problem here is not that Clinton doesn't understand the situation but that the tactics used in explaining U.S. policy are counterproductive, giving Iran too much slack and intensifying credulity toward the Tehran regime's stalling tricks.
Here’s another point made by Clinton, which sounds like the Obama Administration’s motto:
“We want to work with others. There’s not a problem in the world that the United States can solve alone, but I would quickly add there is not a problem in the world that can be solved without the United States. So we want to create coalitions. We want to find common ground with people. There are many things we could go off and do unilaterally, as the prior administration certainly demonstrated. That’s not our chosen path. We would prefer to take some more time, to be more patient, to bring people together to make the case.”
There’s a key element missing here: the concept of leadership. Here’s an example involving another Bush. Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. The Bush administration vacillated a bit but British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, bless her, helped get it on course. The U.S. government then proclaimed that it was going to get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq one way or another; organized a coalition by inviting others to join; directed and led it; and won the war.
That was not unilateralism but a coalition created by saying: Here's what we're doing, follow us! But it was a coalition created by leadership and direction, not waiting until everyone agrees. Many other examples can be offered. Clinton brags:
“For example, at the Board of Governors at the IAEA, the vote...condemning Iran, calling for Iran to act, was shocking to some people because it was so unified. It wasn’t just the United States. It was Russia, it was China and many other countries. That’s because we have spent time listening and working hard to create this common ground and these common interests, and we’ve done it out of a sense of mutual respect. We respect and admire so many other cultures and societies….But we do feel like at a certain point, the international community must speak with one voice, and we think that time has come with respect to Iran’s nuclear program.”
The last sentence might hint that the Administration’s policy is shifting. But this is a bit misleading perhaps. After all, if the international community speaks with one voice, doesn't that voice have to reflect a Russian or Chinese accent?
What happens if the United States has to change its voice to be one of the crowd in order to show respect for other cultures and societies? After all, if the community disagrees, the United States might have to do something—shudder!—unilateral. Thus, this approach doesn’t solve the problem but only begs the question.
If Russia and China don’t agree--and we're not talking here about respect or Russian culture. We're not taling about Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky, we're talking about Vladimir Putin and pure greed--does this hold the United States and everyone else hostage? Suppose Spain and Sweden keep the EU from taking a united stance to support strong sanctions, must the United States “respect and admire” that position and accept this watering down of any action?
To be fair, the EU did issue a statement saying that Iran should be punished for its actions on December 11. So the administration can claim its patience, listening, and dialoguing has succeeded. But the statement is vague and does not reflect whether many of these countries are really willing to support anything serious.
If the United States is not a leader, then it is a follower which means, in practice, accepting the lowest common denominator, what the most unwilling ally will agree to.
This interview will not build support for U.S. policy among al-Jazira’s audience which the Obama Administraiton's style, tries to pander to and flatter. This is a part of the world—like Russia and China, too, by the way—which still believes in realpolitik.
And what of the Gulf and other Arab leaders who are scared of Iran and waiting to see if the United States will protect them? This is simply not the way they talk. An Arab leader or intellectual is likely to interpret Clinton as being afraid of Iran and unwilling to take action.
One can understand that Clinton and colleagues don’t want to sound like a George Bush, but why do they always try to act like a weak reed?
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Why is the West So Easily Fooled by Middle East Dictators? Case in Point: Syria's "Independent" Media is Owned by the Regime
Please subscribe for accurate reportage and stories you'll get nowhere else
By Barry Rubin
It's remarkable how easy it is for Middle Eastern dictatorships to fool the West. Iran has been stringing along Europe and the United States for seven years on the pretense that it is ready to make a deal on its nuclear weapons' drive. The Palestinians persuade the West that they really do want to make peace but just need a better offer. And so on.
Sometimes the foolishness is due to ideology or bias, but ignorance is often a major factor. The assumption that Middle East dictatorships or Islamist revolutionaries really want to be moderate, that they're just victims and everything is the West's fault, or that a solution of conflicts is just a concession away overwhelms anything like a sense of history, research, or comprehension of what's going on.
Here’s an example, only one among hundreds. What makes it so symbollic is because it would have been so easy to get this story right. Since Bashar al-Asad inherited the family dictatorship eight years ago, there have been an endless stream of stories on how he is a really nice guy and just wants to be friends. Stories about the regime's sponsorship of terrorism and extremism--visible in every speech Bashar and his colleagues make in Arabic and all that appears in the Syrian state-controlled media--don't get much coverage. Neither does the fate of democratic dissidents.
Syria, of course, is a brutally repressive dictatorship where non-violent dissenters are consistently arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. It also sponsors terrorism in all directions, against Americans and Iraqis in Iraq; against Lebanon where it murdered about a dozen people in recent years including former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri; against Israel by sponsoring Hamas and Hizballah; and periodically against Jordan.
But the comedy of errors regarding MIddle East drama never ends. Now a Guardian columnist praises the launch of a new English-language newspaper in Syria, Baladna English, as “the latest stage in the liberalization of Syria's media.”
In this case, it might be worth asking who owns this new, supposedly independent newspaper? Answer: The son of Bahjat Suleiman, formerly the head of [wait for it] Syrian intelligence, named in the international investigation as a prime suspect in the Hariri murder, and a close pesonal friend of the dictator. In fact, Bahjat was one of the main architects of Bashar al-Asad's consolidation of power.
And what was the previous stage in the “liberalization of Syria’s media”? The creation of the first “ïndependent” Syrian newspaper in Arabic, al-Watan. And who owns that one? Rami Makhluf, the regime's top money guy and brother of the powerful current head of Syrian intelligence, Hafiz! Oh yes, he’s also a cousin of President Bashar al-Asad.
Here’s the write-up on Rami from the U.S. Treasury Department:
“Rami Makhluf is a powerful Syrian businessman who amassed his commercial empire by exploiting his relationships with Syrian regime members. Makhluf has manipulated the Syrian judicial system and used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate his business rivals...[and is] one of the primary centers of corruption in Syria.”
This is the face of press freedom for Syria? No wonder many in the West can’t identify terrorists, sponsors of terrorism, tyrants, and dedicated enemies.
For even more on this story see From Beirut to Bayside.
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
It's remarkable how easy it is for Middle Eastern dictatorships to fool the West. Iran has been stringing along Europe and the United States for seven years on the pretense that it is ready to make a deal on its nuclear weapons' drive. The Palestinians persuade the West that they really do want to make peace but just need a better offer. And so on.
Sometimes the foolishness is due to ideology or bias, but ignorance is often a major factor. The assumption that Middle East dictatorships or Islamist revolutionaries really want to be moderate, that they're just victims and everything is the West's fault, or that a solution of conflicts is just a concession away overwhelms anything like a sense of history, research, or comprehension of what's going on.
Here’s an example, only one among hundreds. What makes it so symbollic is because it would have been so easy to get this story right. Since Bashar al-Asad inherited the family dictatorship eight years ago, there have been an endless stream of stories on how he is a really nice guy and just wants to be friends. Stories about the regime's sponsorship of terrorism and extremism--visible in every speech Bashar and his colleagues make in Arabic and all that appears in the Syrian state-controlled media--don't get much coverage. Neither does the fate of democratic dissidents.
Syria, of course, is a brutally repressive dictatorship where non-violent dissenters are consistently arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. It also sponsors terrorism in all directions, against Americans and Iraqis in Iraq; against Lebanon where it murdered about a dozen people in recent years including former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri; against Israel by sponsoring Hamas and Hizballah; and periodically against Jordan.
But the comedy of errors regarding MIddle East drama never ends. Now a Guardian columnist praises the launch of a new English-language newspaper in Syria, Baladna English, as “the latest stage in the liberalization of Syria's media.”
In this case, it might be worth asking who owns this new, supposedly independent newspaper? Answer: The son of Bahjat Suleiman, formerly the head of [wait for it] Syrian intelligence, named in the international investigation as a prime suspect in the Hariri murder, and a close pesonal friend of the dictator. In fact, Bahjat was one of the main architects of Bashar al-Asad's consolidation of power.
And what was the previous stage in the “liberalization of Syria’s media”? The creation of the first “ïndependent” Syrian newspaper in Arabic, al-Watan. And who owns that one? Rami Makhluf, the regime's top money guy and brother of the powerful current head of Syrian intelligence, Hafiz! Oh yes, he’s also a cousin of President Bashar al-Asad.
Here’s the write-up on Rami from the U.S. Treasury Department:
“Rami Makhluf is a powerful Syrian businessman who amassed his commercial empire by exploiting his relationships with Syrian regime members. Makhluf has manipulated the Syrian judicial system and used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate his business rivals...[and is] one of the primary centers of corruption in Syria.”
This is the face of press freedom for Syria? No wonder many in the West can’t identify terrorists, sponsors of terrorism, tyrants, and dedicated enemies.
For even more on this story see From Beirut to Bayside.
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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
