The Betrayal of Ayman Nour Posted by Shadi Hamid

The language was eloquent, colored with the requisite hues of Wilsonian radicalism: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Today, 14 months later, Ayman Nour, a courageous liberal, dissident, and leader of the al-Ghad Party, is suffering – some say dying – in prison. The Egyptian regime is destroying him, his family, and the movement he helped give birth to last year. This, we should note, is the same Egyptian regime which receives $2 billion in economic and military aid from the US each year. Where is the Bush administration’s outrage now ? Where has its celebrated love of freedom gone ? There is, instead, silence. 

Last week, an email from Gameela Ismail, Nour’s wife, was forwarded to me, alerting supporters to the unfolding events. The following is from an article in the opposition weekly al-Dustour, which describes Nour’s treatment and his deteriorating health:

“[Nour] suffered from a kidney attack and had to inject himself despite not being qualified or trained. He was obliged to use medicine and medical equipment that his family buys. Such practices resulted in sores and wounds in his arms and the veins of his hands, and left black spots all over his body. Moreover, the diabetes symptoms worsened resulting in swollen feet and face, in addition to general exhaustion believed by those close to him to be an attempt on part of the regime to kill him indirectly, unlike the case with others who were killed directly.”

It has been four months since Nour was sentenced to 5 years in prison on blatantly bogus charges. The White House released a statement on December 24th saying it was  “deeply troubled” by Nour’s incarceration. During a roundtable with Arab journalists just before her February Middle East tour, Rice insisted that this was not the time to “turn our backs” on Arab democracy. As part of her trip, Rice spent a day in Cairo meeting with President Mubarak and other Egyptian officials. Mubarak later remarked with characteristic smugness that Rice "was convinced by the way Egypt is pursuing political reform and implementing democracy...she didn’t bring up difficult issues or ask to change anything or to intervene in political reform as some people claim.” Not only that, "she was very polite."

The cause of Arab democracy has been betrayed by those who profess to be its greatest defenders. This is nothing new – democracy in the Middle East has rather consistently been sacrificed by US policymakers at the altar of purportedly greater interests and concerns. We could have expected as much from the Scrowcroftian automatons who profess, at no end, their undying love for “stability.” This administration said it was different and, for a short while, actually acted like it. The democracy backlash continues.

How do you say Karl Rove in Persian? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

"Simulated irrationality" is an unspoken policy of Iran's leadership-- according to a young  Iranian-American academic who I had the chance to hear at a roundtable this week.  Hmmmmm... Maybe the leaders in Tehran and Washington are playing the same "Careful, cuz I'm nuts" game with each other.  We declare "all options" on the table, we're all sticks with no carrots (threats but not negotiations).  We conduct questionable mega-bomb tests in Nevada (creepily called "Divine Strake"). Congress prepares to dole out money for regime change.  As for the other side, Iran's leadership is impossible to decipher (who's in charge of the nukes?) Their wack-a-doo president rants constantly about Israel, denies the holocaust and ups the ante in the nuclear roulette.  Call me cynical, but politics, like love and war has no rules nor geography. Seems President Ahmadinejad has taken a page out of the Rove handbook: Ignore mainstream folks and stoke the fundamentalist base. The armageddon lobby has gone global. 

Here are some other tidbits I heard this week at various discussions.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel hysterics are a terrible embarassment for the rest of Iran's leadership. In fact, others in leadership have been forbidden to ever spew in similar fashion. He continues doing this for his political base for whom Islam's relationship to Israel is critical.  The rural poor are Ahmadinejad's base. Wealth distribution is their issue--and he turns on the fundi rhetoric to distract them from this cruel problem. Values-voters anyone?

"The establishment"  in Iran want Ahmadinejad to fail. If he fails on his own, he will be marginalized. If he can blame the USA, he'll stick around, buoyed by nationalism.  He's already in constant campaign mode, holding huge rallies. We need to stop writing the plot and characters for our enemy.

In May, 2003, the Bush Administration allegedly received a missive containing extensive concessions from Iran--including nuclear issues.  They didn't respond. Keep in mind, this was right as the USA rolled victoriously into Iraq--when the Neo-Con hubris was at its most extreme. The theory is that because of the Iraq experience, the Bush administration figured that no discussion was necessary and that they could trounce the Iranians later without compromise.  Most shocking missed opportunity: one Iranian concession was an offer to disarm Hezbollah.  Given the pulseless response, the Iranians concluded that working with Washington was impossible.

Keeping Up on Iraq and Catching up on Iran: Get Your Scorecards Posted by Heather Hurlburt

If you, like me, are a bit at sea trying to keep up with the government-forming (or malforming) machinations in Baghdad, here are two thought-provoking resources.  I don't know that I agree (or that I know enough to agree) but I feel my ignorance better-informed:

Eric Martin (via Kevin Drum) speculates, and adduces quite a bit of commentary, that the US actually hopes to stymie the formation of a government and re-introduce some of our favorite sons, like Iyaad Allawi and Adnan Pachachi.  Sounds like an interesting, centrist idea, if only it weren't so... anti-democratic.

Juan Cole sticks to reporting the latest maneuvers, which is in itself helpful -- and doesn't disprove the speculation above.

Speaking of speculation, I've finally read all of the Sy Hersh Iran war plans article and am struck by two things.  Hersh quotes a "Pentagon adviser" on the nuclear bunker-buster debate:

The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

Doesn't that make one wonder/hope about the timing of the retired generals' rebellion this past weekend?  Might it serve as a useful reminder/stiffener to the senior brass Hersh says are now opposed to the nuclear option?  Or will the orchestrated parade of Friends of Don have the opposite effect?

And one other thing.  Hersh quotes "a government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon" on intelligence operations inside Iran preparing the case for bombing.  This individual (might it be Shakespeare management guru and Friend of Cheney Ken Adelman?) quotes from Othello:   "Give me the ocular proof."

C'mon, I took my last English lit class two decades ago and I still remember that Othello is deceived, that the aforementioned "proof" is false and maliciously planted, and that innocent people make fools of themselves and die as a result.  You guys can't pull off an invasion and you can't even interpret what you read.  I'm with Tom Friedman:  turn in your foreign policy license, now, kids, and ride in the backseat.

Using Long Knives on Rice? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

She's had a long honeymoon.  She has websites begging her to run for President.  She has Democrats praying for her health and the New York Times fawning over her chamber playing.  And let's not forget the NFL.

But the hard right has had about enough of Secretary Rice and her diplomacy.

What's my evidence?  Last week, Robert Novak of Valerie Plame fame published a column entitled "Who Runs Our State Department?"

Nominally, the piece is an attack on Under Secretary Nicholas Burns for displaying insufficient hostility to the new UN Human Rights Council.  But it's really much more.  Novak notes that Nick, a well-regarded career foreign service officer, also had senior posts under President Clinton (when both Derek and I worked with him) and says that, if John Kerry were President, "Burns would have the job he has now and would be promoting the same policies."

OK, you think, just typical right-wing disdain for the folks who actually make government run.  But then comes this (emphasis mine):

News accounts did not even mention Burns. He flies below the radar in controlling State Department policy on many issues beyond human rights. Inside the Bush administration, Burns is seen as guiding the nation's course on Iran and Korea. His influence on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is so surprising that critics use the word Svengali.

On its face, this is just silly -- especially the same week that the American Prospect publishes Bob Dreyfuss' dissection of Dick Cheney's national security staff.  Either Dick Cheney controls everything or some career diplomat controls everything... what would you believe?  And does anybody seriously think that Secretary Rice, after four years running the Bush NSC, requires a Svengali?

No.  But somebody -- the same somebodies who talk to Bob Novak about subjects like Valerie Plame, or their unindicted co-conspirator friends -- thinks that things are looking too moderate at the State Department.  So this looks like a first effort at swiping at Rice second-hand -- particularly alarming if seen in the context of the debate over Iran.   

10 Lessons from the Corporate World For Donald Rumsfeld's Fight to Keep His Job Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Since I spend my days in the corporate world, given the outcry over Donald Rumsfeld’s leadership at the Pentagon the analyses of commentators like David Brooks who tie the SecDef’s failings to the style he developed in business, I thought it might be fun to try to distill 10 lessons from the corporate world that apply to Iraq:

1. If a Seemingly Wise and Sound Venture is Failing, Question the Management – This is the basic principal behind calls for Rumsfeld’s ouster:  if, as Bush insists, the Iraq invasion was correctly conceived and still stands a chance to succeed, there’s got to be some explanation for why the detritus of failure piles up day after day.  Had new management in the form of John Kerry come in in January 2005 there would still have been a chance to turn things around.  It may well be too late now, but the retired Generals and the public are right to demand that Bush try, and the way to start is with new management.

2. Don’t Confuse Marketing with Sales – The Administration has put heavy efforts into trying to market the Iraq War through speeches, outreach, and artfully worded statistics.  But sagging poll numbers show that no one’s buying.  To get the public to buy into this war would have required addressing their fundamental qualms – the shaky rationale, poor planning, and absent international support.  The biggest marketing blitz in Hollywood can’t sell tickets to movies people don’t want to see.

3. After About 9 Months, Lack of Trained Personnel is No Longer an Excuse – When the occupation of Iraq began in 2003 there might have been some grounds for excusing the unavailability of American troops trained in peacebuilding (after all, Bush had decried nation-building during the 2000 campaign).  But three years later soldiers are still finding themselves in roles and jobs for which they had not training.  The Pentagon ran out of excuses a while back.

4. Staff Must be Obligated to Dissent – Well-run companies spend a lot of time trying to tease out alternative thinking from their executive and line ranks, knowing that functional experts see things top management cannot.  At the McKinsey consulting firm, consultants have a “obligation to dissent,” meaning that they are urged to speak their minds if they think a project is off course.  This is easier to administer in paper than in practice, where loyalties and career fears constrain openness.  But well-managed companies find ways of overcoming these barriers.  From all reports, the Rumsfeld Pentagon does the opposite.

5. Ventures that Start Very Badly Are Typically Impossible to Turn Around – This is true in the corporate world (think the AOL-Time Warner acquisition or Bertelsmann's acquisition of Napster, to name a couple of fairly recent and sexy examples), and – it would be my guess – equally so for the military.  There are a variety of reasons why:  leaders wind up spending more time trying to defend failed policies than looking ahead; they lose confidence; they cannot attract the support of others; competitors are emboldened by the perceived failure; shareholder pressure increases which can curb resources, etc.  Many of these are at work in Iraq too.