Until I Figure Out whether the Iranian President is Crazy... Posted by Shadi Hamid

I'm still trying to figure out whether Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational. In the meantime, here is my latest article on the "origins" of the nuclear confrontation with Iran, beginning with the 1953 coup (can you say "blowback" ?).

Torture and Silence: This Year's Arab Spring? Posted by Shadi Hamid

You perhaps doubted claims of Arab autocracy’s renewed vigor? Well then, there is this from The Arabist:

“You bitches. You sons of bitches. This is how it is going to be from now on if you do not behave and know your limits. If you do not behave you’ll have the bottom of my old shoes all over you." These and more were the exact words of Sami Sedhom, Assistant to the Egyptian Minister of Interior, Habib el Adly.

There is torture, Abu-Ghraib style. There is also torture, Egyptian style. Anyone with politically active friends in Egypt has heard the horror stories. More:

Friends of two of the detainees received phone calls from their mobile phones describing how they were being tortured. “We are screwing them right now” were the exact words, raising fears that our colleagues may be subject to the well known brutality of Egyptian police.

Let me just note, once again, that Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt is one of America’s closest allies in the region. More importantly, it receives more than 2 billion dollars of US economic and military aid (in other words, our tax dollars). I spoke over the weekend with a State Department official, who will remain unnamed, about the deteriorating situation in Egypt. He assured me that they have made clear to Cairo their concern over such human rights abuses. But he wondered aloud why some people exaggerate the US government’s ability to pressure other governments to do what we want them to do. So, let me get this straight - you can invade a country, occupy it for a couple years, and spend endless billions in the process, but you can’t get your good old boy Mubarak to respect even the most minimum and basic of human rights standards?

On the Brink with Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

After last Friday’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Tehran has successfully enriched uranium and defied the UN Security Council’s Friday deadline to halt the process, we find ourselves in a frightening stand-off with an uncontrollable Islamic demagogue bent getting nukes.  I am not an expert on the region, but here’s my take on some things the U.S. ought and ought not do:

1. Do everything possible to position this as a showdown between the Iranand the UN, not Iranand the US– Fortunately, as I’ve described before, Iranians are playing into our hands on this with its flagrant defiance of the Security Council.  China and Russia are unreliable partners when it comes to forceful action but, if positioned right, they will back the proposition that no government can get away with ignoring the Security Council.

2. Align the world’s neutral nations behind a tough UN stance – Behind the scenes, the US and Europe should be working the 30-50 key capitals around the world – Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Poland, etc. – on the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, and that the time to stop it is now.  While many of these countries have economic and other ties to Iran, they will all recognize that Ahmadinejad is dangerous and is flouting the Council.  Having the support of these neutrals will back up claim #1 above and make it more likely that Moscow and Beijing ultimately come around.

3. Stay close to Europe– This is obvious, but this Administration can't be relied on to choose rhetoric that ensures that no daylight opens up between Washington and Brussels.  Condi Rice’s reference to “like-minded” nations potentially acting outside the UNSC rubric prompted Javier Solana to retort that no European country would take part in such a coalition of the willing.  While Solana is wrong to offer Admadinejad the succor of believing that as long as China and Russia hold out he’s safe, the US should have known better than to beg the question right now.  For time being, the language needed to keep the EU on board starts with the letters U and N.  Other options must remain open, but well in the background in the short term.

4. Hold firm on the idea that Iran cannot dictate to the UN – Ahmadinejad’s latest gambit was to allow robust international inspections, but only if their case is referred back from the Security Council to the IAEA.  It did so because only the UNSC has the power to act – through sanctions or force – in response to evidence of misbehavior.  The Administration rightly rejected this.  Iran cannot dictate to the international community how and where it addresses threats to peace and security. 

The Real Muslim Problem: A "Poverty of Dignity" Posted by Shadi Hamid

This plaintive, almost despairing piece by author Murad Kalam must be read by all those who care about the woeful state of not just the Arab world but of “Islam” itself. It reminds me of my own experiences living in Egypt and Jordan, where I would so quickly become disillusioned by the casual, rank hypocrisy, the jaded fatalism, the fevered willingness to blame internal problems on external, often nefarious, forces.

To see the Arab and Muslim world, is to see, in the most stark of fashion, how a great civilization – one that once led the word in science, medicine, and philosophy – could centuries later have fallen into an ever descending spiral. This is one of the great tragedies of our time. In looking for explanations, it is only too easy to fall back on the facile tropes of cultural determinism and Islamic essentialism. One wishes it could be so simple, that complex realities could be reduced into something more palpable.

Yes, lack of democracy, as I’ve often argued, has a lot to do with it. When people don’t have peaceful, legitimate means to express their grievances, they often express themselves in violent, dangerous ways. But it is not that simple, otherwise how would one account for British-born terrorists who grew up in a democracy but still blew themselves up, killing their fellow citizens ? We need to look at what Thomas Friedman calls the “poverty of dignity” to get the bigger picture.

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.

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.

Do Beliefs Matter? (Not as much as you think) Posted by Shadi Hamid

“We are not going to cut off the hands of thieves, even though they deserve it. We are not going to force any woman to cover her hair; women are doing this by their own choice.” So says Abdul-Aziz Duwaik, the Palestinian Speaker of Parliament for the Hamas-led government. 

This statement is particularly interesting as it brings into focus the contested relationship between belief and action, ideology and practice, between what is and what ought to be in the muddy and sometimes malevolent realm of politics. Islamists believe from a Quranic or Islamic standpoint that alcohol should be banned, women should wear the hijab (headscarf), and that “every inch” of Palestine should be "liberated." However, beliefs such as these, after being subject to the push and pull of the political process, will manifest themselves in policy outcomes which may not reflect the original belief. Hamas believes that the hands of thieves should be cut off, but they aren’t going to cut them off. This simple fact has implications for how we understand the political maneuvering of ideologically driven groups and individuals. 

Much, of course, has been said about the Hamas founding charter which promises the destruction of Israel. Why this pronouncement should necessarily be relevant to the question of how Hamas will govern remains unclear. While Hamas may believe in the destruction of Israel as a matter of religious principle, it does not necessarily follow that their actions or political behavior will reflect this belief. A wide array of domestic and international factors contrain and limit the available policy options of ideological actors. 

When Islamists act politically, it’s not as if they pick up a Quran or some treatise of an obscure 10^th century Islamic scholar and ask themselves, “well, what does 'Islam,' God, or prophet Muhammad have to say about this particular issue ?” Political actors act politically (and rationally – unless, that is, you happen to be the President of Iran).

Iran is Not Cuba and Bush is not Kennedy Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So now David Ignatius has jumped on Graham Allison's "Iran is the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion" bandwagon.

I think this is a non-useful and maybe even dangerous comparison for several substantive and political reasons:

1) the core problem, Iran's move toward nuclear weapons, is progressing in such slow motion, if you believe experts outside the Administration, that we have years, not weeks or months, to work with.  This only becomes an immediate threat when we start rattling nuclear sabers -- but saying "Cuban missile crisis" reinforces the idea that the problem requires immediate and comprehensive fixing.  Instead it requires immediate management with an eye toward a long-term solution.  That's different.

2) Ratcheting up the fear level serves the interests of those who are talking nuclear or conventional strikes.  It makes it -- as Allison knows better than almost anyone from his study of the Cuban missile crisis -- harder to back down.

3)  Which brings us to the crucial point:  Bush is no Kennedy.  Rumsfeld is no McNamara.  We don't have even the level of understanding of the Iranian regime that we had of the Soviets (McNamara's account of the Cuban crisis highlights the role of the US Ambassador to the USSR, Tommy Thompson, who had actually lived with Khrushchev briefly.)

4)  An additional point:  I am reminded that, while for people over a certain age the phrase "Cuban missile crisis" evokes sheer terror, for young people it evokes nothing -- except "crisis."  And again, this is a very serious problem that doesn't have to be a Cuban-scale immediate crisis -- unless we choose to make it one.

Happy spring renewal holiday of your choice -- or just enjpy the nice weather.

The Bush Doctrine in Iran: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Posted by Bill Perkins

It certainly felt like I was watching a Stanley Kubrick film when I learned that the Bush administration has plans to use "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.  And I might have darkly laughed as I did when I saw Dr. Strangelove, if I did not see in my head the faces of brave men and women I know and knew, and so many I didn't, who have selflessly sacrificed their well-being or even life itself in defense of our nation's policies.  To even keep the nuclear option on the table is an outrage against everything our nation purports to stand for.

The plans were brought to light by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in this extraordinary just-published New Yorker article (and this morning on CNN).  I highly recommend reading the full article, in which he details the alarming behind-the-scenes push within the U.S. administration to destroy Iran's nuclear program, with the ultimate goal of regime change.  Hersh states in the article that

"One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."

Iran as the Un-Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Iran may be handing the Bush Administration the opportunity to prove to the world that its capable of behaving more multilaterally, more diplomatically, more legitimately and with more foresight than it did in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Specifically, Tehran is making noises and taking actions that play right into the hands of an American and European effort to rally the world against the threat of a nuclear Iran.  Iran is demanding that the UN Security Council stop investigating its nuclear program.  It has said it will not abide by the Security Council's directive that it cease uranium enrichment.  It is bragging about new, deadly high-speed sea missiles and other breakthrough new weapons. 

In short, Iran is writing the script for a Western drive to rally the world behind the need to contain a menacing country that seems willing to flout the international system for its own greater glory.  Yes, Iran has economic and military ties that will cause some to hesitate to lock arms against it.  But, as Condi Rice has pointed out, many questioned whether the Russians and Chinese would ever allow Iranian proliferation to be brought before the UNSC.  If we and the Europeans tee this up methodically, we can build a broad coalition. 

But, as Kevin Drum notes, the Administration is starting to make the exact wrong noises, talking openly of strikes on Iran and letting it leak that at least some in the Pentagon have made up their minds already in favor of an attack.  Its playing up links between Tehran and 9/11 and exaggerating Iran's role in the Iraqi insurgency.

"Same song, new verse," Kevin writes.  He leaves out "second time, a whole lot worse."   It goes without saying that Iran cannot be another Iraq.  To avoid that, the Administration needs to do a few things: