Preemptive War in Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The latest disturbing news out of Iran is that the government now plans a conference on the Holocaust.   Having already judged the Nazi genocide a myth and called for Israel's destruction, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems bent on making a name for himself as this century's leading violent anti-Semitic megalomaniac, this time with nukes.

The Jerusalem Post has over the last few days published a succession of articles examining the potential for a preemptive Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, akin to the country's successful 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor, credited with setting back Baghdad's nuclear ambitions by years if not decades.   The Post reports that Israeli pilots have trained for such an attack, but pulling it off this time will be far tougher than 25 years ago because the Iranians have dispersed and defended their facilities.   Israel appears to be proceeding on the basis that for reasons including chiefly Iraq, it may not be able to count on the US to deal with Tehran on its behalf.

Putting aside whether Israel could successfully destroy Iran's nukes, this confrontation could shape up into the first major test of where the doctrine of preemption stands post-Iraq.   While the Israelis have never been able to afford the luxury of adhering rigidly to consensus international legal interpretations, after the Iraq War it would sure make things easier if Tel Aviv was on firm ground should the need to preempt arise.   

There were two primary criticisms of the Bush Administration's invocation of preemption in Iraq - failure to exhaust peaceful alternatives and failure to establish the imminence of the threat. 

Will Iraq Tie Our Hands on Iran? Posted by Suzanne Nossel

With all eyes on an Iraq and an executive branch both out of control, Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not so quietly emerged as about as frightening a rogue state as can be imagined.  Iran has long kept us up at night as a proliferator, a terrorist haven, a theocracy, and a regime hostile to the United States. 

Ahmadinejad has added to that dangerous brew a streak of what appears to be meglomaniacal paranoia coupled with unfettered nationalism and utter disregard for what the rest of the world thinks.  If this streak continues, Ahmadinejad may given North Korea ’s Kim Jong Il a run for his money for the world’s weirdest and most dangerous despot.   The evidence:

• Though in the midst of sensitive negotiations with the Europeans on the future of Iraq’s nuclear programs, Ahmadinejad this week announced plans to resume research on nuclear fuels starting tomorrow, a key step toward building nuclear potential and a flagrant violation of a 2004 accord with the EU.
• On Thursday, a high-ranking Iranian delegation stood up IAEA Chairman and Nobel Prize Winner Mohamed El Baradei, rebuffing the nuclear watchdog's effort to glean more information about Tehran's nuclear plans.
• Ahmadinejad has made a series of noxious anti-Semitic public statements, saying that Israel should be wiped from the map and that the Holocaust was myth.  Harsh reproach from the US, Europe, the Pope and Kofi Annan has only egged him on. 
• Back home, Ahmadinejad has rhapsodized about the imminent return of the twelfth imam, a messianic figure who will rise only once sufficient chaos is created in the world.

Bottom line:  Ahmadinejad appears to be off the rails and bent on expanding Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Meanwhile, the results of December’s Iraqi election could heighten his influence there as well.

Hang on Ariel Sharon, In Body Or At Least In Spirit Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Ariel Sharon is fighting for his life after suffering a massive stroke today.  Short of a miracle, it seems his prospects for taking Israel forward to a final settlement of its borders and and end to its epic battle with the Palestinians have dimmed.   

See here for a look at the potential that lay in Sharon's decision to break from Likud in late November and form a new party dedicated to achieving a final settlement.  It was the most heartening development in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and Sharon's falling could be the cruelest.   

Sharon, at 78, is a fighter bar none and should not be counted out until he takes his last breath.  If indeed he cannot recover, those who followed him into the Kadima party need to step up and show the mettle and grit that is emblematic of the Israeli character.  They cannot cede the ground to Likud and a return to the stagnant politics and grinding conflict of the past decade.   Sharon is completely unique, with shoes that are unfillable.  But his footsteps point forward and, as difficult as it will be, his colleagues and supporters need to continue to lead the way down that path.

Is Marwan Barghouti a Palestinian Ariel Sharon? Posted by Suzanne Nossel

While all eyes are on the December 15 Iraqi elections, January 25 will bring Palestinian parliamentary elections that could have just as much influence over the future of the Middle East.  With Ariel Sharon hard at work building a new party, and Shimon Peres looking likely to assume the role of vice premier with responsibility for negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel seems poised to move forward.

If Fatah sweeps to decisive victory, January's poll could mandate Mahmoud Abbas to press ahead on a deal.  Or it could strengthen the hand of Hamas, reigniting violence and eroding the tentative Israeli political will t0 make the Gaza Strip withdrawal a prelude to a final settlement on the West Bank.   In a hopeful sign, support for Hamas has slipped in the latest polls, with a large majority of Palestinians now saying they support negotiations with Israel.   

In an interesting wrinkle, in Fatah primaries held in Ramallah over the weekend, the overwhelming victor was Marwan Barghouti, a long-time leader who is currently serving five successive life sentences in an Israeli prison for his involvement in terrorist activities.

The results have fueled speculation that a (long-discussed) pardon for Barghouti may be in the works.   Barghouti, 46 years old, represents a new generation of Palestinian leadership who commands the loyalty of radical youths to a degree Abbas never has.   A former leader of the notorious al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Barghouti has "street cred" among Palestinians who believe they have no choice but to stand up to Israel through any means possible.

Though he's an avowed terrorist, there's more to Barghouti than his conviction for the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk in terror attacks.  He was a participant in and outspoken proponent of the original Oslo peace process in the early 1990s and has always favored a two-state solution.  As a member of the Palestinian legislative council after 1996 he led an aggressive campaign against Arafat's human rights abuses and corruption.  His commitment to clean government positions him to stand up to Hamas' most powerful line of attack against the sometimes feckless Fatah leadership. 

Barghouti has also spoken out against both suicide attacks and attacks against civilians within the green line.  This 2001 profile gives you a feel for the contradictions.

Both the Israeli and the Palestinian people have been pushed by their histories into positions of profound insecurity and deep suspicion of anything that endangers their security or their nationhood. 

Americans get the concept of "Nixon in China."   For both the Israelis and the Palestinians its become clear that at this point, with hopes dashed so often, only tested, trusted hard-liners will be given a mandate to compromise.   Given the drama and emotion that surrounds the conflict, charisma and a larger-than-life personality may be essential ingredients as well.  Shimon Peres' decision to join Sharon signals that even he finally accepts this.

Sharon Unchained and the Future of the Israel Palestinian Conflict Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Ariel Sharon's bold decision to jump the fence of Israeli politics and form a new party to compete with Labor and Likud might just end up determining the future of the Middle East.   The narrative arc itself is so compelling that one can't help but want to see it happen:  the old warrior and his arch-rival Shimon Peres, cast out by both the right and the left meet in the center and, at ages 77 and 83m, finally make peace with the Palestinians.

Will it happen, who knows?   But the mere prospect seems to have galvanized Israeli politics.

Haaretz said this: "Sharon initiated the foundation of the Likud in 1973, and is now going to be the one who brings about its dismantlement, just like he did with the settlements he fostered and later destroyed."

The Bush Administration should seize the moment and mount a sustained push to get Israel and the Palestinians to go beyond paying lip service to the road map, and work out timetables for its implementation.  Condi Rice took a step in that direction last week when she helped to broker a deal to transit people and goods in and out of Gaza. 

By staying focused and involved, the Administration can help ensure that Sharon is positioned to deliver on his own personal dream of being the one to finally settle Israel's borders. 

While the Administration was busy avoiding what it regarded as the baited trap of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it stepped into an even gnarlier snare in Iraq.  As Rice recognizes, a  big breakthrough in Israel would help redeem Bush's disastrous national security policy, forcing critics and historians to at least footnote the Iraq debacle with acknowledgment of a major foreign policy achievement.

Phew! Posted by Michael Signer

From Iraq's interior minister, CNN reports:

"Nobody was beheaded or killed," a defiant Bayan Jabr told a news conference Thursday, saying that only seven of 170 detainees showed marks of torture.

Now that's a relief!  The only thing is... maybe he didn't go far enough.  Actually, the President's new high-school speechwriters could have helped out.   Just imagine the story then:

"Nobody was disemboweled with a garden trowel," a defiant Bayan Jabr said.  "Nobody's thumbnails were removed.  Look, I've seen Hannibal.  Nobody was even forced to eat their own brains."

As we've learned from this President, it's all about setting expectations.  It all reminds me of that great quote from the Albert Brooks character in Broadcast News:

What do you think the Devil  is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen.

Pinch me -- but is it really true nobody's even been fired yet for the Iraq intelligence? 

And that Andy Card really said about the Iraq War (before staging the vote three weeks before the mid-term Congressional elections in 2002), "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August"?

And that the Vice-President is essentially endorsing torture today?

Yes, it is.

Low standards, indeed.

What Does the Democratic Party Believe In? Posted by Shadi Hamid

It's been a pleasure guest blogging for Democracy Arsenal. I hope I'€™ve provided some insight into the question of democracy promotion in the Arab world, and Egypt in particular. For this, my last post, I want to just throw out a few disjointed, but hopefully useful, thoughts about the future of the Democratic Party.

For a while now, I've been getting increasingly frustrated with our party's approach to foreign policy. Let me just backtrack a little bit. I remember, last year during the election campaign, when John Kerry cited "stability" as our most important objective in Iraq. There was something disturbing about the idea that our soldiers were dying by the hundreds for "stability." For some it seemed a perfectly logical statement - yet more evidence that Kerry would be the safe, sober choice relative to the recklessness of George Bush and his coterie of war-crazed advisors. For others like me, we wondered, perhaps with looks of incredulity on our faces, how and when sobriety had become the revered hallmark of the Democratic Party. (Of course, stability is of vital importance. But one would hope that stability is not, by itself, all we are striving for in Iraq).

This otherwise unremarkable statement from John Kerry was evidence of the poverty of new, or even interesting, ideas in our party. It's become a cliche by now, but we're lacking the "vision thing." For all its faults, at least the Bush administration acted (or pretended) like it operated out of conviction and not calculation. When you listened to Bush speak about a variety of foreign policy issues, you got a sense that he was presenting a vision, however frightening that vision sometimes was. Ideology mixed with foreign policy can be dangerous (i.e. the last 5 years) but, then again, I suspect that few Americans have an emotional affinity for the dank grayness of realpolitik.

There doesn'€™t seem to be even a trace of Woodrow Wilson in our Democratic leaders (Joe Biden is an exception that comes to mind). More often than not, we'€™ve avoided the issue of democracy promotion in the Middle East like it was some kind of partisan plague unleashed by Karl Rove. I dislike many things about Bush's foreign policy, but I -€“ and I say this with a more than a hint of reluctance -€“ really liked the language Bush used in his state of the union and inaugural addresses earlier this year. "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," or "the road of providence is uneven and unpredictable, yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom." It'€™s unfortunate that these words, so long overdue, came from a Republican president. This used to be our issue. A passion for promoting freedom, democracy and human rights used to be what animated us and what drove us. This was the essence of what it meant to be a liberal internationalist. But now it seems that the liberals have turned conservative and the conservatives turned liberal.

It seems to me that a keen awareness of the West's often destructive role in the region coupled with well-deserved anger over the last 5 years of President Bush's messianic militarism has pushed many democrats to disengage from the noble and worthwhile venture of democracy building. In the process, the Democratic Party -€“ which used to be most vigorous in its support of humanitarian intervention abroad -€“ has ceded this crucial issue to the neo-conservatives.

So a few questions to all of you Democracy Arsenal readers and I'd love to hear your feedback: What do we believe in ? What are the ideas that guide us ? Will we be able to provide a bold, comprehensive vision for US foreign policy ?  More importantly, what is our overarching theme, our  message, our meta-narrative ?

Yes, I am a Democrat, and a proud one at that, but I have no problem saying that I hope that America's great project this century will be the unapologetic, vigorous promotion of democracy in the Middle East (note: this does not mean using military force). This is not so much a policy choice as it is a moral commitment. Moreover, it'€™s an idea and it'€™s a vision and, yes, it'€™s also in our national interests. This was once also, long ago, our language -€“ the language of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. It is easy to forget it now, but the driving force of the Left has always been something much greater, and certainly more noble than "stability." Let us, then, work to reclaim that lost spirit.

Can Parliamentary Elections be Both Fun and Important ? (The Opposition Gears up For November 9th) Posted by Shadi Hamid

In previous posts, I’ve focused on the external dimension of this month’s parliamentary elections in Egypt, primarily the failure of US policymakers to exert substantial pressure on the Mubarak regime in recent months. Nevertheless, these elections will be conducted in a considerably more open and competitive atmosphere than in previous years. This is party due to an increasingly emboldened (although still fractious) opposition, which rightfully recognizes these elections as the most crucial political event in recent memory. Where the September Presidential elections were  largely a well-orchestrated charade with a predetermined outcome (the only excitement was whether Mubarak would win with 77.5% or 88.5% of the vote), the parliamentary elections, which begin on Wednesday, are sure to be full of surprises.

I tend to be very skeptical about the Egyptian opposition only because they never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They seem congenitally unable to form anything resembling a unified front. This is, to some extent, still true today although there are positive signs that the opposition might finally be burying the hatchet.

The Unified National Front for Change (UNFC) is an interesting amalgam of secular and Islamist parties. In theory, it includes nearly the whole opposition, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the Wafd (center-right), and Tagammu (left) parties. The idea behind the coalition was to present a unified electoral list instead of dividing up the votes between the parties. When the rather impressive coalition of 11 parties and groups was announced in October, it generated a lot of buzz in Cairo’s political circles. Some of the anticipation, however, died down when the Muslim Brotherhood, although still officially part of the UNFC, decided to run its own candidates under its own campaign and platform. Not to mention the fact that al-Ghad party was not even invited to participate in the coalition due to the longstanding feuds between its leader, Ayman Nour, and Wafd leader Noman Gomaa. So, the opposition remains fractious but less so than previous years, which I suppose is a sign of progress, at least by Egyptian standards.

The Brotherhood remains the group to watch. Seemingly more confident than ever, they are fielding 150 candidates, three times more than they did in 2000. They have certainly benefited from the relatively open atmosphere. Where before the 2000 elections, nearly 6000 Brothers were detained (and in 1995, many including leading moderate Esam el-Erian were tried in military courts), this time around, there have been no arrests. Its candidates campaign openly despite the fact that the group is still technically banned. Their ubiquitous slogan “Islam is the Solution” reportedly plastered all over Egypt, albeit with a nice subtitle – “Together for Reform” to emphasize their democratic proclivities (you’d think that with Bush’s unfortunate use of “democracy” and “war” in the same sentences would turn people off, but, no, everyone in Egypt today - Islamists, socialists, communists, dictators - wants to be a democrat). Interestingly, their slogan has been “branded.” Progress indeed.

 There are whole host of fun subplots in the election. Secularist opposition leader Ayman Nour, who was arrested last January and released thanks to pressure from Condi Rice, is the victim of an appropriately ironic government smear campaign. The ruling party has plastered posters all over his home district of Bab al Sha’riya, accusing him of being a “US agent.” This of course despite the fact that the Egyptian government receives $2 billion of aid each year from the US, and despite the fact that President-for-life Hosni Mubarak and President Bush are still apparently buddies. In another interesting development, there’s the one female candidate who is running on the Muslim Brotherhood ticket. She happens to be a professor. More importantly, she is running for political office (something which will presumably divert her attention from the “household”). Yet, she still tells the press, without the slightest hint of irony, that asking for sexual equality "goes against nature." "Would women be happy if men were to stay home to look after the children while they worked outside?" she asks rhetorically.

Then there, of course, are the usual rumors that 1 million dead people, despite being dead, will somehow find a way to vote for the ruling party.

Yep, it’s going to be fun.

The Meaning of "Power" Posted by Shadi Hamid

In response to some of the comments on my previous post, I want to make clear the distinction between "power" and "military force" (similar to the difference between "aggressively promoting democracy" and "aggressively promoting democracy with tanks"). Unfortunately, because of the Bush administration's numerous missteps, "power" and "force" have become conflated and are, more often then they should be, used interchangeably. I am not advocating using military force to fight tyranny in Egypt or anywhere else. Rather I am saying that we should use the full extent of our economic, political, and moral resources to pressure these regimes to democratize. The notion of liberal interventionism or "muscular Wilsonianism" (vis-a-vis the Arab world) that I am advocating consists of several things:

1. Passionately committing ourselves to democracy as the best available form of government and as something which all peoples, regardless of culture or religion, both deserve and aspire to.

2. Making the vigorous, unapologetic (but peaceful) promotion of democracy and human rights the centerpiece of our policy in the Middle East, not just in words but in deeds.

3. Actively supporting non-violent, pro-democracy opposition movements against authoritarian regimes.

4. Emphasizing soft power in our public diplomacy efforts (a la Clinton) and avoiding Bush-style belligerency. This means understanding that not only military force but the threat of military force must be used judiciously and with an eye to its inherent limitations as an instrument of societal transformation.

Declarations of a Liberal Interventionist ? Posted by Shadi Hamid

I was speaking at a conference this past April and had an interesting exchange with the predominantly left-of-center audience during the question and answer session. I said something along the lines of “the US has a moral obligation to fight tyranny and promote democracy throughout the Middle East.” God forbid. I heard grumbling in the crowd. Raised eyebrows. Frowns. Several people raised their hands, presumably to grill me about my just revealed neo-con affinities, or perhaps to attack me for my “muscular Wilsonianism.”

I continued, and presented them with a couple of choices. We can decide to be “sensitive” gradualists and let things evolve naturally. After all, it took the West centuries to make the transition to liberal, democratic life – so what’s the harm if we wait, say, 50 years to let the Egyptians build strong bottom-up democratic institutions, at their own pace ? (After all, if we move to quickly, it will empower Islamic fundamentalists, or so the argument goes.) – Or, option # 2, we can come to terms with the fact that we are the most powerful nation in the world and, more importantly, that we are a country founded upon a noble sense of mission. If we truly believe in democracy as the best available form of government, then it only makes sense that we marshal our country’s great influence, resources, and power in the service of the ideals to which we subscribe (note: "power" is the not the same thing as "military force").

Silence, on the other hand, is complicity. To wait and watch the Arab people suffer under the yoke of authoritarianism, and to do nothing, to say nothing, is an abdication of responsibility. If we give Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak $2 billion of economic and military aid each year, then we have a right to demand that our dollars not go toward legitimating an authoritarian regime which has denied the God-given rights and aspirations of a people for a quarter-century (Mubarak came to power the same year as Reagan). Not only is this about ideals, but it's also about  our national security. If people are not able to express their grievances and aspirations in legitimate, peaceful ways, then they will often resort to violence to accomplish their political objectives. That’s obviously not what we want. A 2003 study conducted by Princeton University Professor Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Maleckova, which analyzed a vast amount of data on terrorist attacks, came to the alarming conclusion that “the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists.”

In a perfect world, oppressed peoples would rise up on their own, demand their freedom, and force constructive change . However, in places like Egypt, where apathy reigns supreme, this is not going to happen anytime soon. The Egyptian opposition is notoriously fractious and has repeatedly failed to unite behind a common pro-democracy agenda. Coalitions rarely last more than a few months, if not a few weeks. The government, for its part, has mastered the art of divide and conquer and used the fears of Islamist ascendancy to convince secular liberals that secular authoritarianism is better than the alternative. The government has at its disposal an extensive security network which can crush at a moment’s notice any threatening display of anti-regime opposition.

For all these reasons, sustained external pressure is needed. This means telling President Mubarak that if the parliamentary elections this month are not sufficiently free and fair, we will begin to withhold economic aid. In other words, If you want our money than you have to agree to play by the rules of the democratic process. In the post 9-11 world, the Faustian bargain of silence in exchange for stability is no longer operable. That is the message which must be clearly relayed to those regimes which think that we will continue to turn a blind eye to their transgressions.