The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Just Words: Obama's Effect on the Middle East

    By Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 12:09pm | Politics, World Affairs

    Last week, in response to Deadman's salute to Obama's Cairo speech, I wrote:

    What the Republican critics, lost in the textual details of moral equivalency and perceived capitulation, have missed is that this speech was an exercise of power. George Bush, for all his "shock and awe" and bellicose threats and Al Hurra broadcasts, was unable to achieve what Obama has done with minimal cost and no loss of life: George Bush could not make people listen.

    Now getting people to listen to an American president speak is great, but what's the geopolitical payoff? Yesterday's election in Lebanon may offer an answer. The pro-American coalition that currently controls the Lebanese government performed surprisingly well and succeeded in fending off a challenge from the Hezbollah-led coalition that had been expected to win a majority. The NYT reports that some regional analysts credit Obama's foreign policy and his Cairo speech in particular for affecting the outcome:

    “Lebanon is a telling case,” said Osama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies here. “It is no longer relevant for the extremists to use the anti-American card. It does look like the U.S. is moving on to something new.”

    “I think the speech of Obama in Cairo more likely played a role in neutralizing anti-Americanism,” said Khalil al-Dakhil, a sociologist from Saudi Arabia. “It was a positive message. It was a conciliatory message.”

    Another factor that may have contributed to Obama's carrot was a stick wielded by Joe Biden:

    When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. visited Lebanon in late May, and appeared to threaten withdrawal of financial aid if the opposition won, that was widely derided as a kiss of death. But now, some political analysts believe the vice president may have helped by crystallizing for voters their choice: alliance with the United States, France and the regional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; or with Iran and Syria and their allies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

    The fear was that Lebanon might have become isolated like the Gaza Strip.

    “Evidently the majority of the Lebanese have resolved their minds; they don’t want confrontation, they want peace,” said Hilal Khashan, a political science professor at American University of Beirut.

    Of course, it's impossible to measure the effect of Obama's foreign policy on Lebanese elections, and local factors likely had a much larger effect in the election results, particularly the popularity of General Michel Aoun, a Christian leader allied with Hezbollah. But the fact that analysts credit American foreign policy with helping our allies to win elections in the Middle East rather than hurting them, underscores how the Obama Administration has already been able to exert more productive influence in the Middle East than George Bush's freedom bombs.

    The next big election in the Middle East will take place in Iran this Friday, where the popular moderate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is challenging hardline conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If Mousavi wins, you can bet that the analysts will offer more accolades to the soft influence of President Obama.

    Topics: 
    Politics
    World Affairs

    Comments

    Update: A reader has informed me that Obama's Cairo speech was not televised in Iran. While Obama's foreign policy is greater than the speech alone, that does mean that his message has not been heard as widely in Iran.

    Related: Here is a Huffington Post article discussing how the speech undercut Islamic extremists. It cites one militant website which, noting Obama's quotations from the Quran, called him the "wise enemy."


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 2:00pm

    Even if the speech wasn't carried live in Iran, I'm sure the vast majority of voters got the gist of it. And the wind already seemed to be blowing favorably for Ahmadinejad's moderate opponent, who even has support within the Revolutionary Guard because of his leadership during the Iran-Iraq war. One can only hope. Good sign: his middle name is also Hussein. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/200236)

    Obama's speech seemed to impress even some hard-line anti-Americans. Iraqi hothead Muqtada al-Sadr called it "soft-spoken and eloquent" before going on to reject it as yet another U.S. trick. A leading Egyptian Islamist even urged Osama bin Laden to offer Americans a truce -- supposedly to call Obama's bluff, but I can't help thinking a lot of these guys are worried that the president's call for a new relationship may be sincere.

    The most frequent criticism throughout the Muslim world was that actions must change, not just words. I couldn't help but notice, for example, that the same week that the White House extended a specific invitation for Iranian diplomats to attend the Cairo speech, a Sunni terrorist group called Jundallah killed two dozen people at a Shiite mosque in Iranian Balochistan. Jundallah (which shares the same essential philosophy as al-Qa'ida) reputedly gets its funding from U.S. intelligence. Who knows, maybe the Western operations to destabilize Iran are being wound down, and this was just a last-gasp effort by local proxies.

    I'm anxious to see some serious polling about Muslim attitudes toward the United States in the wake of the speech. I'd expect a sharp positive uptick. The only problem is that, having set out such an ambitious agenda (even though in very general terms), Obama has set himself up for a major backlash if his words prove empty. I'm sure he intends to deliver -- but can he?


    by acanuck on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 4:31pm

    One thing about Lebanon: that electoral system is so complex and rigidly structured, there was only so much movement possible in terms of majority-minority. So it's a bit hard to tell how much impact the speech had. It can't have hurt the pro-U.S. side.

    Hezbollah itself didn't lose any support. What happened was that General Aoun, its Christian ally, failed to make the breakthrough he had hoped for among that community. Both sides poured a ton of money into campaigning. Dual Lebanese-Canadian citizens were reportedly offered return plane tickets plus $500 walking-around money to travel back and vote.

    For all the expense and effort, Lebanon's govt. won't change much. Hezbollah will still insist on (and get) representation in any coalition cabinet.


    by acanuck on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 4:43pm

    Christian voters definitely made the difference. Sunnis and shiites are locked up in their coalitions, but Christians have representatives in both coalitions, so they're the swing voters. The theory is that Obama's overtures made the governing coalition's pro-American stance more palatable to them, and Biden's punitive threats made Hezbollah less palatable to them. That said, it now occurs to me that Obama's speech was directed at Muslims, not Christians.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 5:27pm

    I wonder what "actions" the Middle East is waiting for other than withdrawal from Iraq. Iran would obviously like to have its foreign assets unfrozen and the sanctions removed, but I'm not sure that these are high priorities for Arabs. Does leaning on Israel constitute an action?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 5:31pm

    Leaning on Israel counts, but not if it just restores the pre-Bibi status quo. Remember that previous govts. were (in theory at least) committed to settlement freezes and two states. If it's two steps forward, two steps back, we're just dancing in place.

    A lot is made (especially by the Israelis) of Arab-Iranian animosity and Arab leaders' fear of an Iranian bomb, which supposedly they will only admit to privately. I don't buy it. Arab leaders do indeed worry about a new war ripping apart the Mideast, which could topple their already unpopular reigns.

    But they don't fear Iranian aggression per se. They fear Iranian influence among their own people but they aren't so stupid that they think bombing Iran is the way to limit that. Most realize that creating peace, stability and prosperity is the only real counterweight to Iran, which is what Obama thinks too. The key is a U.S.-Iran treaty: mutual recognition and trade ties, non-aggression pledges, and Iran signs the additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing even more rigorous nuclear inspections. Iran will still wield influence, but it will have less incentive to be confrontational toward the U.S. or its allies.

    So yeah, real movement on Israel-Palestine is priority No. 1. And tamping down the risk of war is No. 2. Third would be some kind of Mideast Marshall Plan, centered around but not limited to the very costly resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees. Fourth (and this may be hardest) some kind of accommodation in Afghanistan-Pakistan, since a permanent military resolution isn't in the cards.

    It will take at least two terms. But as a down payment, the United States needs to stop such covert activities as funding assassination squads and separatist groups. Those don't win you many friends, and they make the fine words sound hollow.


    by acanuck on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 6:24pm

    Israel-Palestine: Sadly, while the U.S. can pressure Israel back to the negotiating table with Abbas, I don't think that Israel and Hamas are ready to talk yet, and without Hamas, I think negotiation is useless. I doubt that the U.S. can even get Israel to stop building settlements. Bibi can't go very far without the government collapsing, and despite Israel's heavy dependence on the U.S., resisting American demands is historically popular among the electorate. Moreover, Obama can bully Israel, but politically, he can't do anything that would seriously hurt Israel.

    Iran: There are two obstacles to U.S.-Iran rapproachment: Hezbollah/Hamas funding and the bomb. I expect that the first can be solved not the second. Iran seems to be deadset on it, and the U.S. will never ease sanctions while Iran pursues it. Iran would gain so much influence from developing the bomb, that I can't imagine what the U.S. could possibly offer them to make them stop.

    Marshall Plan: Israel-Palestinian peace is a prerequisite.

    Afghanistan: I actually think that a military resolution here is more achievable than the others. But that's not the kind of action that Arabs are looking for.

    Assassination & separatist groups: You're speculating. If the US is funding assassination squads, they must not be very good. I don't know of any U.S. opponents who have been assassinated lately. And what separatist groups? The only ones that I can imagine the U.S. supporting are in Iran. If so, I doubt that the U.S. would stop unilaterally, which brings us back to the bomb point above.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 6:58pm

    OK, last objections first. Here's an article from The Nation last week detailing how U.S.-trained and funded death squads work in Iraq: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer 

    Here's one from Reuters on how U.S.-funded, Jordanian-trained units are attacking and killing Hamas members in the West Bank. They are nominally loyal to Mahmoud Abbas but U.S. Gen. Keith Dayton is calling the shots. This is taking place while the two sides supposedly negotiate "reconciliation" in Cairo. http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLV25201

    As for the U.S. funding groups that it itself agrees are terrorists (Jundallah, PJAK and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq), Seymour Hersh agrees with me: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92025860&m=92028303

    Anyway, my point was not that the United States supports bad guys, just that its foes are going to see a certain amount of hypocrisy in Obama's calls for them to unclench their fists.

    Still in reverse order, Afghanistan-Pakistan was way down my list -- and Obama's. You and I disagree on whether a military solution is possible, and I think Obama is still trying to figure out what is and isn't possible.

    Marshall Plan: Obama didn't really promise one; that was me. It will be necessary but, as you suggest, it's still years in the future.

    Iran: We disagree completely on what is most feasible. I think a deal on the nuclear issue is being discussed even as we debate. Iran is not dead-set on getting a bomb, just on exercising the right to uranium enrichment set out in the NPT. As Obama said in Cairo, Iran has a right to a peaceful nuclear program. More rigorous international inspections resolve the problem.

    Support for Hezbollah isn't a problem. It has its own power base in Lebanon; it doesn't need Iranian funding and indeed doesn't want to be seen as anyone's proxy. I doubt that it wants to take on Israel militarily again, so new Iranian-supplied missiles would be a wasteful luxury. Hezbollah is more concerned these days with what cabinet posts it gets.

    As for Hamas, I'm sure Iran does fund it, and they can't afford to be seen as backing off while Western policy is still to starve Gaza into submission. That's what has given Iran much street cred over U.S.-friendly govts. like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Which is why progress on I-P will defuse Iran's antagonism toward the U.S. Gaza needs an enormous amount of aid to rebuild, and a way must be found for Iran to be part of that legitimate reconstruction effort. But I can't see Iran tossing Hamas under the bus while there's no Israel-Palestine deal.

    Your first objection is the most problematic of all. How much influence does the U.S. president have over Israel? How much influence does Israel have over the U.S. Congress? Hamas keeps saying it's ready to talk, but not with preconditions -- which Obama repeated in his Cairo speech. A Likud cabinet minister today suggested Israel should go to the wall, refusing to buy U.S. military equipment to put pressure on U.S. lawmakers. Bibi reportedly gave his proposal a cool reception.

    Netanyahu is set to make a major policy speech by the end of the week -- clearly his response to Obama's. For domestic consumption, it can't be a complete capitulation. But for international consumption, it can't be complete defiance, either. It, like the Obama speech, will be closely parsed and reparsed. I don't envy the job that Bibi's speechwriters face over the next couple of days.

    In passing, Genghis, have you noticed how every time you and I start debating the Mideast, everyone else backs slowly out of the room, whispering to each other, "Whatever you do, don't mention the war?" What a bunch of chickens!

     

     


    by acanuck on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 11:58pm

    Too much here to discuss everything, but let's pick a couple:

    Iran

    Iran is not dead-set on getting a bomb, just on exercising the right to uranium enrichment set out in the NPT.

    Seriously? Why would uranium enrichment be so important to Iran that it would risk further sanctions for it? Why wouldn't they let in the U.N. inspectors and do everything by the book, cross their t's, dot their i's and build a jeezly nuclear plant.

    Put yourself in Khamenei's shoes. You could negotiate, drop the bomb project, get your assets back and the sanctions lifted. Or you could sit tight with the status quo (which ain't so bad), get the bomb, become the pride of the Islamic world, establish a hell of negotiating position, and make sure that the U.S. will not risk invading your country. Heck, if I were Khamenei, I'd go for the bomb too. The ROI is fantastic.

    C'man ac, for a self-proclaimed cynic, your position here strikes me as incredibly naive.

    Israel

    Israel will not buck the U.S. lightly, but have you ever talked to Israelis? They have a very trifle-you attitude towards the world, including the U.S. They won't press the relationship if they can avoid it, but the bottom line is that if an Israeli politician stands up the U.S., he'll be rewarded. If a U.S. politician pushes Israel in a serious way, i.e. tries to cut off military support, he'll be trifled. Bibi will give the finger to Obama before Obama gives the finger to Bibi, so in a game of chicken, Bibi wins.

    Death squads

    I'll read up and get back to you.

    Dagbloggers piss their virtual pants when we start arguing

    Exactly


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:13am

    I get your argument: Iran must be going for a bomb because, if I were Khamenei, I'd be going for a bomb. That's the logic Israel and some in the U.S. govt. use too. But the IAEA is doing all the inspections it's entitled to under the NPT, and keeps reporting no evidence of an Iranian bomb program. There are more intrusive inspections the agency would like to make, but for that I believe Iran has to voluntarily sign on to the "additional protocol." (They'd still have the right to enrich uranium.)

    That, I think, is what's being discussed in backroom negotiations: what does Iran get in exchange for tighter inspections? As you suggest, assets, dropping of sanctions, removal from the "Axis." But I think they want more: good relations with the U.S. They want to supplant -- or at least counterbalance -- Saudi Arabia's position as America's oil-rich strategic ally in the Mideast. Iran has a soaring population, young and well-educated, but an economy that is flat-lining. That, more than external threats, is the real danger to the continuation of the Islamic republic. It has the potential to be an economic powerhouse -- which is the real reason Israel, Egypt and the Saudis fear it. The "bomb" is a red herring.

    On Israeli attitudes, I think we agree. Obama has bitten off a lot, and the question is how much can he chew. There's a clear clash of wills, with neither giving the other much room for tactical retreat. But Israeli govts. do fall more rapidly than presidents do. If Bibi does give Obama the finger, he'll also be giving him more leeway to pursue what he sees as America's interests in the region. Bibi can dig in now, but he'll just be kicking his dilemma down the road a bit. Obama could be backed into a humiliating climbdown if Congress wimps out, but for once I don't see that as inevitable. I could be  wrong.


    by acanuck on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:53pm

    I obviously can't prove that Iran is developing a bomb, and I'm certainly not making an argument for military intervention, but I think it's highly improbable that they're only seeking energy. You didn't answer my question before: Why would uranium enrichment be so important to Iran that it would risk further sanctions for it? Nuclear power doesn't seem worth the cost.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 5:16pm

    Since we're being so honest here, Quinn is my doppelganger too. I use him to make me seem less of a terrorist-hugging America-basher.

    Iran wants respect, which is incompatible with giving in to what up to now has been all stick and no carrot: "Stop enriching or we'll bomb you." People forget that they actually did call a temporary halt while engaging in talks to resolve the issue. When those talks went nowhere, they resumed enrichment. At least 15 other countries are currently enriching uranium. Of Non-Proliferation Treaty members, only Iran has been threatened with sanctions. Meanwhile, three nuclear-armed powers that declined to even sign the NPT -- Israel, Pakistan and India -- are America's BFFs. Iran sees a major double standard and twisting of NPT rules. They're right.

    Sanctions haven't worked, and Russia and China will veto any further toughening of them. Even if the victor in Friday's presidential race is Mir Hosein Moussavi (blessed be his name), Iran is not going to toss enrichment in the dumpster. An overwhelming majority of even pro-Western Iranians insist it's their right. They'll stop well short of weapons capability, and agree to verification in exchange for normal relations, but they want to establish they have the know-how to move in that direction if things in their part of the globe really do go south.

    Iranians have a sort of love-hate thing with the U.S. Obama acknowledged in Cairo that his country had overthrown its first democratically elected leader; what he didn't mention was that it also greenlighted, armed and funded Saddam's decade-long war on Iran, which ended up killing about a million on either side, Convincing Iranians that he wants to be their friend will take more than a single speech. I hope and actually believe he's the one person who can do it.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 3:04am

    If Obama's acknowledgement in Cairo that Iran has a right to nuclear energy were not enough, here's John Kerry elaborating: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5c6395e-55e6-11de-ab7e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

    That's the deal that can and will be struck.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 4:56am

    Quinn is my doppelganger

    I knew it at all along.

    People forget that they actually did call a temporary halt while engaging in talks to resolve the issue. When those talks went nowhere, they resumed enrichment.

    Why did the talks go nowhere? Europe offered a compromise to allow Iran to have it's uranium enriched by Russia, but Iran rejected it. Sure, Iran may have the right under NPT to enrich its own uranium, but if all they want is respect and nuclear energy, why did they reject the offer out of hand? What is so damn important to Iran about doing their own enrichment.

    Diplomats have said that Iran's insistence on processing uranium is tantamount to an admission that it wants nuclear weapons, not just the peaceful energy program it maintains it is seeking, because processing in Russia would be much cheaper and less controversial. NYT

    Look I hope that you're right that Iran only seeks nuclear energy and a little respect. It seems like Obama is sure gonna try to make a deal that allows them enrichment but prohibits the bomb. If energy and respect are really what they want, now is their best opportunity, so we'll see how it goes. But I'm very, very skeptical, and your unfounded insistence that Iranians are willing to negotiate away the bomb does nothing to reassure me.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 9:39am

    I'm not just saying Iran is willing to negotiate away the bomb, I'm saying it's a done deal. John Kerry chairs the foreign relations committee, and he says Iran is going to continue to enrich; Obama says in Cairo Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. Do you think they'd be telegraphing the administration's bottom-line bargaining position if the agreement weren't already initialed? No, they're giving folks in the West a heads-up. I don't know who's doing it or how it's been kept secret, but talks are going on right now. And they've already moved on from the nuke issue to other aspects of a "grand bargain." They are just not going to announce it piecemeal. Either that, or I'm just totally wrong.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 2:32pm

    Intriguing point, but I think that are to more plausible interpretations:

    1) An opening offer - Obama hasn't really given anything to Iran. The U.S. has never denied the right to peaceful nuclear energy. It has just pressed its suspicions that Iran is building a bomb and demanded inspections.

    2) Calling a bluff - If Iran really does only want nuclear energy, then it should be willing to open it's peaceful nuclear operations to inspectors.

    That said, I certainly hope that you're right.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 2:56pm