What Carl Sagan Would Say About Bahrain

For the past two weeks, I was in Bahrain conducting interviews for my thesis. With my research partner Reza Akbari, I hope to be soon writing and publishing several articles on what we've learned. I chose to study Bahrain because I believe it is not very well understood here in Washington, DC. There are three reasons for that.

One, most Americans (myself definitely included) did not pay attention to Bahrain until the uprising last year. As a result, we only hear about what Bahrain is now without understanding what Bahrain was before. That lack of historical context not only makes understanding what's happening in Bahrain now difficult, but it also makes predicting what might happen next impossible.

Two, some Bahraini voices have a much stronger presence in DC than others. Obviously the government, with its embassy and PR firms, can broadcast its perspective effectively. At the same time, Bahraini and international human rights groups have also done an excellent job in pushing their own narrative. And, to a lesser extent, the main opposition party Wefaq has also found a platform to push its views internationally. Yet there are many (exactly how many who knows?) Bahrainis who neither support the government nor the traditional opposition. Some have created new, predominantly Sunni groups as a kind of anti-opposition. Others feel completely unrepresented by any group. These voices go largely unheard outside of Bahrain.

The Humanity of Culture

Last night, the Iranian film “A Separation” directed by Asghar Farhadi won the Oscar for best foreign film. This is a fantastic and much-needed victory for the Iranian people. They have had so little to celebrate in recent years, it’s nice that – for at least one night – they have a reason to raise their heads high. Just watch how this one Iranian family reacted to last night's news:

Think Before you Tweet

For class, I'm reading Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, which examines how the irrational construction of social perception undermines democratic governance. The entire book is very thought provoking, but I'd like to focus on one line in particular for this post: 

For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities, and that in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond [...] Let him cast a stone who never passed on as the real inside truth what he had heard someone say who knew no more than he did.

I would say Lippmann wrote this with Twitter in mind but, considering Public Opinion was published in 1922, that would've required a time machine or a favor from Nostradamus. If Lippmann expressed such pessimism for traditional media, I can't imagine the levels of despondency he'd reach contemplating social media.

Take just two recent online myths that would've had Lippmann popping Prozac. After the Bin Laden raid, countless Internet users posted the Martin Luther King Junior quote: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." Then, a blogger's assertion that the quote is fake began to proliferate just as rapidly. Except, as it turns out, the quote is not entirely made up. We went from posting, retracting, to amending a viral meme in a matter of 48 hours.

But not all internet myths are so harmless the misattribution of quotes to national heroes. A few weeks ago, the picture below began to make the rounds. It purportedly shows an Israeli Subaru ad in which a car runs over some Palestinian kids with the caption "We'll see who can stand against you." As Iran's Press TV explains with thinly-veiled satisfication, the ad "has drawn considerable outrage for its implied promotion of running over Palestinian kids."

Except the ad's fake. A company spokesperson said, "we strongly condemn these elements that are trying to harm the good name of the company.”  And the Palestinian Authority, which condemned the ad, admitted "it is not clear whether this is a genuine advertisement or whether someone is making use of the Subaru logo." The picture, however, is not fake. It shows a well-known incident last year in which an Israeli ran over Arab children in East Jerusalem.

Both of these online myths exemplify, in Lippmann's words, "our normal human habit of trying to squeeze into our stereotypes all that can be squeezed, and of casting into outer darkness that which does not fit." We believed the MLK quote because our mythologized MLK would have said something just like that. Anti-Zionists believed the Subaru ad because their demonized Israeli would have boasted about running over children just like the ad.

To overcome the shortfalls of public opinion, Lippmann urged a greater role for experts in informing the press and policy in democratic systems. The problem of social media is that every tweet or post is an implicit contention that people can rely on our expertise or ability to identify expertise. We users therefore need to take the responsibility to act as if we were experts. We must check our sources before we share them. More importantly, when we do make mistakes, it's not enough to just delete them. We have to share our mea culpas in the same way we share everything else. And most importantly, we must think before we tweet.

Taking such personal responsibility will go a long way in resisting the internet's inherent susceptibility to myth and echo chambers. It'll also let poor Lippmann rest a little easier.

A Pro-Lebanese Strategy

Today, I went to an event at USIP on Lebanon and the Arab Spring featuring Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA). I was generally impressed with Rep. Boustany, not because I agreed with everything he said, but because he approached the issues from a critical and sober perspective. Unfortunately that's all too rare when it comes to the Hill and the Middle East.

During the Q&A, I asked the Congressman: "It seems we do not have a policy on Lebanon, but rather a set of policies on Lebanese actors and institutions. We have a policy on March 14 and March 8, on the STL and on the LAF. But what is our policy on Lebanon? Does it matter we don't have one?"

Rep. Boustany responded first by clarifying that the US doesn't have policies for countries, but rather strategies. He then admitted that the US has not sufficiently developed a clear, unified strategy for Lebanon. While his speech emphasized the need to continue military assistance, broaden educational exchanges, and support parliamentary processes, among other measures, he did not explicitly delineate the strategy that these policies serve. So I'll instead say what I think.

As Rep. Boustany asserted, our primary interest in Lebanon is stability. As a weak state overwhelmed by foreign influences, Lebanon is both susceptible to externally-driven conflict as well as a catalyst to regional instability. We therefore simply cannot afford a flare up of either internal sectarian tensions or an external conflict with Israel - especially at this time of fragile democratic revolutions and a stalled peace process in the region.

It's at this point that many point the finger at Hezbollah and its alliance with Iran and Syria. To be sure, they have all had - some more consistently than others - a negative and disruptive effect on Lebanese and regional politics. But it is a mistake to therefore conclude a pro-stability strategy is an anti-Hezbollah strategy.

That's exactly what we have done in recent years. We've viewed Lebanese politics as a zero-sum game in which we must counteract Hezbollah's influence at every turn. We support its political rivals. We arm the Lebanese military. We push for the Special Tribunal on Lebanon. None of these policies is troubling in of itself. But our intentions to use these policies primarily as an anti-Hezbollah cudgel only escalates the political tensions within Lebanon and the region as a whole. We are sometimes acting - an external actor as we are - in ways that are just as intrusive as Syria and Iran.

In that sense, we are acting at cross purposes. We push against Hezbollah because they are a destabilizing force. But then we contribute to the very dynamic of foreign intervention that makes Lebanon unstable.

Instead, we must reformulate our approach to Lebanon from an anti-Hezbollah to a pro-Lebanese strategy. Many of our policies would remain exactly the same. We would still train the Lebanese military, promote civil society, support governmental institutions like the parliament, and provide economic and development assistance. But we would do so with the ultimate purpose of reinforcing the sovereignty, legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lebanese government.

A pro-Lebanese strategy would also recognize that Hezbollah represents a legitimate segment of the Lebanese population. They may have external patrons, but they are not an external actor. We can help shape the political, economic and social environment that determines Hezbollah's popularity, but no one can ever fully excise Hezbollah from Lebanon's future. Accepting this fact and acting accordingly will require political courage not only here in DC, but also in Tel Aviv and Beirut.

What will help make that pill easier to swallow is the realization that a pro-Lebanese strategy will cause considerable consternation in Damascus and Tehran. In recent years, Hezbollah has had greater difficulty balancing its dual identities as a regional resistance militia and a national socio-political movement. A pro-Lebanese strategy would exacerbate this tension within Hezbollah and help shift the balance towards the national. It may even help lead to a situation where Hezbollah's leadership will be given a stark choice by the Lebanese people: abandon your regional patrons or we will abandon you.

Moreover, unlike Iran and Syria, we can take comfort that our fundamental ideology as a nation does not ring hollow. Iran and Syria have little to offer Lebanon besides repression and economic stagnation. That's why they have no choice but to derive the majority of their influence by pitting one Lebanese faction against the others. But we can offer Lebanon a far more appealing example - one in which democracy and prosperity unite the country and ensure its stability. By adopting a pro-Lebanese strategy, we double down on our belief that our fundamental values are indeed universal - a bet I'm willing to take.

UPDATE: I recently wrote a paper on what a pro-Lebanese framework would look like for resolving the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It also lays out the argument in much greater detail and, more importantly, addresses the counterarguments. I'll be looking for a way to upload and link the paper shortly.

UPDATE 2: You can read the paper here (PDF).

Terror Attacks, Israeli Reprisals, and Arab Democracy

We've seen a disturbing escalation of violence in Palestine and Israel over the past few days. Rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shelling from Israel. Indiscriminate bombs from, so far, an unknown source.

If this trend continues, what will be its effect on the pro-democracy movements across the region?

We should first consider the motives behind the attacks. Arab dictators have long used attacks on Israel to distract from domestic problems. Currently, neither Hamas nor Fatah enjoy significant popular support. Just last week, Human Rights Watch criticized Hamas for violently suppressing peaceful protests in Gaza. Is it a coincidence that, just as people began to liken Hamas to Mubarak, rockets began to fly? Doubtful.

Until we have evidence about who bombed the Jerusalem bus stop today (there was also a pipe bomb two weeks ago), we shouldn't jump to conclusions over who is to blame. It may well be a Palestinian faction. Less likely but still possible, it could be a disillusioned lone actor. Perhaps more intriguing, some have suggested it very well could be a foreign government, such as Syria which has suddenly seen an uptick in unrest.

Regardless of who is responsible, it is far from clear that the violence will achieve its objective of displacing domestic discontent upon foreign enemies. For one, such old tricks have lost their effectiveness over time (fool me once...). But more importantly, for the first time Arabs believe they may finally have a real opportunity to effect change in their countries. Absorbed in their own righteous struggles, they will not be easily distracted. Just as Iranians have chanted "Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran," so are Arabs giving their lives - quite literally - for the sake of their own countries.

Thus while an Israeli-Palestinian flare-up may dampen Arab democratic movements, it will be far from a fatal blow. That, of course, does not mean that Arabs no longer care about the plight of the Palestinians. Quite the opposite, as many directly link the overthrow of their dictators to the eventual liberation of Palestine. But at least for now, focus has been turned inward.


While the violence will not end Arab demands for democracy, it will likely color how Arabs interpret American and European military intervention in Libya. Already, the Arab world - with the obvious exception of Libyans - has split on whether to support the mission in Libya. See, for example, how the outgoing Arab League head Amr Moussa has played rhetorical twister over the past week. That uneasiness will turn to outright indignation if violence escalates in Israel and Palestine. Many Arabs will simply not distinguish Israel F-16s flying over Gaza from American F-16s flying over Libya.

We have three purposes in Libya: protect civilians, preserve democracy's momentum in the region, and garner good will for joining the right side of history. If violence escalates in Israel and Palestine, the humanitarian component will remain, as well democracy's momentum for reasons described above. However, any good will we may have earned will be lost. Such perceptions of the U.S. will become increasingly important as Arab countries democratize.

Stopping the violence now is therefore essential. Because we have no influence over Palestinian violent extremists, we will have to primarily focus our efforts to ensure Israeli restraint. This will not be easy. Already, Israel has entered a bunker mentality, especially after the overthrow of Mubarak and the empowerment of Hezbollah. It is no coincidence they will likely ask for $20 billion more in U.S. foreign assistance. Moreover, as President Obama just affirmed, Israel clearly retains the right of self-defense. But sometimes the best defense is heroic restraint. And we will have to win that argument with the Israelis.

UPDATE: Hussein Ibish writes about the same topic here at Foreign Policy. He correctly points out that while increased Israeli-Palestinian violence "won't stop the reform movement dead in its tracks," it will alter the tone of these movements by adding fuel to an anti-Western Islamist narrative.

What Can We Learn from Iran?

There is no doubt that America faces a health care crisis. According to The Times, "the Mississippi Delta has some of the worst health statistics in the country, including infant mortality rates for non-whites at Third World levels." In fact, Mississippi has the country's highest rates of child obesity, hypertension, and teenage pregnancy, with over 20% of the population uninsured. And yet, the state spends the third most per capita on health expenditures in the country.

Clearly, Mississippi needs help - and they can't wait for Washington to stop bickering with itself and finally pass health care reform. So, they have turned elsewhere...to Iran.

As the article explains, after the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government launched a program that set up "health houses" to serve local communities. Ordinary citizens known as behvarz received health training and would travel around offering advice and basic medical services. The program was wildly successful, reducing child mortality rates by 69% and maternal mortality rates dropped from 300 per 100,000 births to 30. Currently, there are 17,000 health houses throughout Iran, serving 90% of Iran's rural population of 23 million people.

A group representing a rural hospital in Mississippi learned of Iran's success story, formed a partnership with Shiraz University, and sent a delegation to Iran to learn more about the program. In turn, Iranian experts visited Mississippi to help advise the opening of the state's first health house, due to open next month. Better yet, the first American behvarz health assistants will be trained in Iran next spring.

Beyond the obvious fact that we shouldn't have to look to Iran to resolve our health crisis, it is comforting that we can. But it wasn’t easy. As the article explains, the Mississippi group had to request special permission from the Treasury Department to avoid sanctions restrictions, as well as skirt potential political sensitivities. Oddly, even the Mississippi governor hasn't been informed of the program!

Obviously, some people would feel uncomfortable dealing with Iran, our political adversary that sponsors terrorism and likely seeks to develop nuclear weapons. But too often we confuse the government of Iran with its people. As the Green Movement has clearly shown, the actions and rhetoric of a dictatorial government reveals nothing about its people.

That is why labels like the "Axis of Evil" confuse more than they clarify. Though Ahmadinejad and Khamenei may be the true Great Satans, the Iranian people are anything but demons. In fact, they simply seek the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that Americans cherish. Just as they take comfort in our moral support for their struggle for freedom, we should take comfort in their ability and willingness to help improve American lives.

More generally, America's obsession with our own exceptionalism might prove a philosophical roadblock to accepting Iranian assistance . We have always believed our country should be a city upon a hill, an exemplar for all other countries to follow. We have also held the inverse to be true as well: America should not be a follower. Such logic is the source for much of the neoconservative critique of President Obama's foreign policy that complains Obama treats America as a partner, and not a hegemon, in the international system.

But such arguments misinterpret why America is an exceptional country. It is not because we are objectively better than the rest of the world. Plenty of indices of wealth, happiness, healthiness, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press prove otherwise. Rather, we are exceptional as the first nation in history to be defined by what we believe in, not who we are or where we are from.

As our Constitution states, we established our government “in order to form a more perfect union.” The implication is our union is not yet perfect, our city upon the hill is not yet finished. For over two centuries, we have tirelessly built upon our city to form a more perfect union, using our ideals as a blueprint and our progress as our brick and mortar.

That is why we are an exceptional nation. That is why the world looks up to us. That is why we should not be scared to confront our shortcomings. And that is why we should not only accept, but actively seek help from others - even from Iran.

As we consider imposing enhanced sanctions on the Iranian regime, we should not only seek to minimize the harm inflicted upon the Iranian people. We must also consider the opportunity cost in lost cultural, educational, and technical exchanges that would benefit Iranians and Americans alike.

Egyptian Democracy When Pigs Fly

Last week, I went to an event hosted by the Wilson Center that featured Egyptian journalist Heba el-Koudsy discussing American democracy promotion in Egypt. You can see a summary of the event here. Or, for the more visually-inclined, the video is available online here.


During her lecture, el-Koudsy differentiated between external American and internal Egyptian pressure for reform. She argued it has always been the internal push for reform that has prodded President Mubarak into (insufficient) action. As such, the U.S. should focus on ways to support the internal drive for democratization by, for example, bolstering civil society.


At minute 53, I asked her how the potential candidacy Mohamed ElBaradei may provide a new source of internal leverage for reform on the Mubarak regime.

To give a quick background, Egypt will be holding its second-ever multi-party competitive elections for president in 2011. All experts agree that the presidency will remain in Mubarak's hands through manipulation and coercion. The only question is whether it'll be Hosni or his son Gamal who will be the Mubarak in charge.

Enter Elbaradei. Currently, he enjoys broad popularity in Egypt for his service as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. As such, the Wafd party - one of the oldest parties in Egypt and considered an opposition party - asked the historically apolitical ElBaradei to run as their candidate for president.


After mulling it over, ElBaradei announced he would only run in the very unlikely scenario that elections were "free and fair." Shortly after that announcement, he upped the ante again, declaring he would only run as an independent candidate. To translate for you, he basically said he'd run for president when pigs fly.

The Egyptian constitution, while technically allowing independent candidates to run for president, sets an overwhelming number of restrictions and qualifications on an independent candidacy. To give a domestic example, imagine if a candidate declared he/she would only run for president if the electoral college were abolished, and even then, as neither a Democrat or Republican. That's what ElBaradei is doing.

In short, it won't ever happen under the current constitution. And more importantly, everyone - including ElBaradei and Mubarak - know it will never happen. And yet, according to El-Koudsy, something is happening.

Egyptians are no longer only talking about Mubarak versus Mubarak. ElBaradei's announcement has stimulated Egypt's political conscious, sparking new debate and revealing new possibilities. But most importantly, Mubarak's farcical and cynical use of democratic institutions to mask his dictatorship have been laid bare. And that's exactly what ElBaradei sought to achieve by effectively refusing to participate in sham elections.

During his tenure as IAEA chief, he scoured the deserts of Iraq in search for the mythical weapons of mass destruction and negotiated endlessly with the intransigent Iranian regime. Now as an Egyptian politician, he seems to be prepared to put those experiences to good use: to continue chasing fantasy while tirelessly confronting an uncompromising regime.

And if he and other Egyptians persist, maybe one day that fantasy will be fantasy no more.

How Incursions Become Invasions

Yesterday, 11 Iranian soldiers crossed the Iraqi border and raised the Iranian flag over a disputed oil well.

The Iraqi government, after first denying the incident, promised that it will seek a diplomatic solution to the problem. The Iranians have rejected Iraq's demands for it to withdraw, denying any problem at all because the oil well "belongs to Iran." The U.S. military called the incursion a "sovereignty issue" and noted that such incidents are frequent along the Iraq-Iran border.

Well, seeing how no one else seems all that worried, I'll cautiously sound the alarm for them. This is a small, non-violent incident. But it's a small, non-violent incident that can easily become a not-so-small, violent one.

First of all, Iraq and Iran have never gotten over the Iran-Iraq War that killed over a million people in eight years of brutal fighting and civilian bombing. Admittedly, since the fall of Saddam and the empowerment of the Shia, the Iraq government has become much more friendly with Iran. However, Iraq is also experiencing a resurgence of nationalism. An Iranian incursion into their land, given all their strained history and all the other problems Iraqis currently face from external meddling, won't be received well by most Iraqis.

According to Shiite politician Ayad Jamal Aldin, "The world need [sic] to know that unless strong action is taken against Tehran, Iraq will simply become another Iranian colony which will threaten stability throughout the middle east." Clearly, Iraqis have not endured nearly 7 years of violence to give up their sovereignty to the Iranians.

Second, the Iranian regime is looking for a distraction - any distraction - from its internal upheaval. Tehran is especially nervous now that the holy months of Muharram and Safar have begun. As Mehdi Khalaji explains, the opposition will be able to use the annual religious ceremonies to protest the regime, but the government will be given the impossible dilemma of either cracking down on religious displays or allowing two months of unrestrained protest.

As such, the government is looking for any national cause that could tie to the Iranian people together - whether that be confrontation with the U.S., Israel, or Iraq is immaterial, so long as there's confrontation. Keep in mind here that Ayatollah Khomeini solidified his power during the Iran-Iraq War, using it as an excuse to imprison and assassinate thousands of his political enemies.

Third and most importantly, it only takes one itchy trigger-finger, one accidental misfire, one irresponsible private, to transform an "incursion" into an "invasion." Remember that the American Revolution did not begin with a decision to go to war, but by an unknown militiaman who fired the "shot heard 'round the world" in the impromptu Battles of Lexington and Concord.

So while this small incident will likely blow over, I'll be crossing my fingers until it does.

Should We Forget the Iranians?

For the second time this year, the Iranian people have spoken through the ballot box. And once again, their voice was not heard.

As Michelle Moghtader over at niacINsight explains, Time Magazine has given the shaft to the Iranian people. According to Moghtader, more than 536,000 people voted that the Iranian protesters should be named Person of the Year, outnumbering the second and third runners up combined. Yet not only did Time overlook the Iranian protesters for Person of the Year, they didn't even include them on the shortlist of runners up.

Admittedly, Time never promised to adhere to the online poll and one could certainly argue that the eventual winner, Ben Bernanke, deserves the title. Nonetheless, to not even include the Iranian protesters on the shortlist seems, in the words of Moghtader, nothing short of "disheartening."

She continues:

Perhaps Time didn’t realize the impact that this award could have had for the Iranian people [...]Honoring them would have shown Iran that the world is still watching; as a result, putting pressure on the government to reform its behavior. The Iranian people want to be part of the international community, but how can they, especially if we fail to recognize them?

While I'm not certain it's the role of Time to make political points, they certainly missed an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of all Iranian people. I can't imagine what it's like to face down baton-wielding basij in the street, but I can imagine what it's like to know that you're not alone in this struggle for freedom, to know that the world is with you against tyranny.

Person of the Year or not, Iranians must know America is with them. All Americans have watched the Iranian people in their struggle for the very rights we have struggled for throughout our history: to live our lives, to enjoy our liberties, and to pursue our happiness.

Yet at the same time, I am concerned that we Americans might act brashly in a clumsy attempt to show our solidarity. Or even worse, some policymakers might seek to use the righteous cause of the Iranian people for unrighteous ends.

Already, the House has overwhelmingly passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act that Iran experts know won't work and the Green Movement has rejected as harmful to the Iranian people. Meanwhile, some are calling "the case for using force in Iran [...] a slam dunk." It's hard to imagine how the Iranian opposition could benefit from not being able to heat their homes, let alone when bombs are falling on their heads.

Of course, there are more nuanced and thoughtful policy ideas out there, but it's not clear that reason will win the day. Given the choice between doing something harmful and doing nothing at all, we must choose the latter. Ultimately, if America cannot express our solidarity wisely, then perhaps it would be better if, like Time Magazine, we forget all about the Iranian protesters.

For those interested, I lay out three principles for how we should proceed with Iran in a previous post here.

Reading Iran Between the Lines

Today, Secretary Clinton delivered a fabulous speech at Georgetown University about the need to promote human rights and democracy.

Among other good parts: "this isn’t just about what we do; it’s about who we are. And we cannot be the people we are - people who believe in human rights - if we opt out of this fight. Believing in human rights means committing ourselves to action.”

That's exactly why I want to work in government and make foreign policy.

On another note, she referenced human rights in Iran more than any other country - five times by my count. Given that the Obama administration has been carefully toeing the line between rhetorically supporting the Iranian opposition and engaging the regime in Tehran (and rightly so), I'm sensing a shift of emphasis.

And the timing is important here. As Trita Parsi and Dokhi Fassihian argue:

Time is of the essence. Iran's human rights abuses must be addressed now and not just when our focus turns to punitive measures. Otherwise, the administration will unintentionally signal that the rights of the Iranian people are used solely as a pressure tactic against Iran when it fails to compromise on other issues.

Considering Secretary Gates predicted "significant additional sanctions" on Friday and Congress seems prepared to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) this week, it seems the punitive measures are well on their way.

Unfortunately, IRPSA will do little to change Iran's behavior and do plenty to hurt Iran's people.

Secretary Clinton is right that our belief in human rights compels us to action. But someone better remind Congress she means action in the name of human rights, not for the sake of venting frustration.

PS Sorry for the radio silence. Posts should be more regular again.

Failed Iran Op Ed

I recently wrote this op-ed and submitted it to the Baltimore Sun. It was rejected. So, now it's posted here instead. For those who are interested, the historical background comes from this fascinating article by Muhammad Sahimi at Tehran Bureau

Americans have learned many things about Iran these past few months. We’ve learned of the brutality of the baton-wielding Basij and the courage of the Iranian citizens who bear the brunt of their blows. We’ve learned of the cruelty of Evin Prison’s interrogators and the perseverance of the victims who endure their torture. We’ve learned of the ruthlessness of the hollow regime in Tehran and the strength of the opposition who demand their fundamental rights.

We have also learned about the utter complexity of Iranian politics. Take, for example, Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha, who Muhammad Sahimi at the Tehran Bureau calls “the power behind the scene” of the opposition movement.

The regime clearly wants to silence Khoeiniha. Yet given his impeccable revolutionary credentials, the regime cannot do so without revealing how ideologically hollow they have become. Khoeiniha served as one of Ayatollah Khomeini's most trusted advisers. Furthermore, it was Khoeiniha who gave approval to the students of the Office for Consolidation of Unity (OCU) to storm the American embassy on November 4, 1979. To this day, Khoeiniha proudly keeps a filing cabinet in his office that reads "Property of the General Services Administration" of the United States.

Most interestingly, two students on the OCU board opposed the decision to take over the American embassy. Instead, they argued that the students should target the Soviet Embassy (at this time, Communists were still influential throughout Iran). In an ironic twist of history, one of those dissenters was none other than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This history lesson should give pause to any American foreign policymaker. Iranian politics are incredibly complex, constantly evolving and frustratingly opaque. Even if we do have experts who understand its subtleties, and that's a big if, any nuanced analysis is likely lost as information is passed up the chain of command.

At a recent event on Capitol Hill, Brookings Institution expert Kenneth Pollack warned the audience that we must not try to meddle in internal Iranian affairs, especially given the difficulty in understanding all of its nuances. We simply don't understand how to intervene successfully. When we have tried in the past, such as supporting the Shah's coup in 1953, we only have laid the foundation for anti-Americanism, extremism and regime paranoia.

But at the same time, we cannot ignore the struggle for Iranian democracy as we negotiate over Iran’s nuclear program. No matter the checkered past of the opposition leaders, the Green Movement presents the best opportunity for a prosperous and stable Iran in the long-term, an Iran that will no longer poses a strategic threat to the United States and its allies.

Moving forward, U.S. policymakers should therefore follow three guidelines:

1. Listen to the Iranian people. None of the information above is news to the Iranian people. They know the history of their leaders and what implications those histories may entail. Where we are ignorant, they are knowledgeable. Where we are cumbersome, they are agile. Quite simply, they know what works and what doesn't. Admittedly, it will be sometimes difficult to determine what the Iranians want - they will often disagree and debate amongst themselves. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn't listen and learn as best we can.

2. Do no harm. Ultimately, this struggle belongs to the Iranians. They must answer the tough questions and take the bold actions. They have done so already and will continue to do so, as shown most recently by the protests on November 4th. We can help when it is clear our assistance is both needed and wanted. We must not rush policy for the appearance of solidarity, but rather we must carefully consider how our actions will impact the interests of the Iranian people. When the result is in doubt, doing less is better than doing harm.

3. Bolster institutions and processes, not personalities. It is exceedingly difficult to determine who in Iran deserves American support. It would be hard to explain why opposition leaders like Ayatollah Khoeiniha deserve our assistance, given his pedigree. Nor is his case special. Many of the opposition leaders, including Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, held high level government positions as the regime executed thousands of political prisoners in the 1980s. But even if we did find leaders deserving of support, it is unclear how the U.S. can substantively help them without risking their reputations as independent politicians free of foreign influence.

Instead, the U.S. should look to support efforts to strengthen the institutions and processes that uphold all healthy democracies - a free press, a thriving civil society, an independent judiciary, electoral safeguards and the rule of law. By bolstering Iranian democracy without elevating specific personalities, the U.S. can avoid most charges of meddling while exposing those who would deny the Iranian people their inalienable right of self-determination.

No Longer the Greatest Great Satan

Is America no longer the greatest Great Satan? While Iran’s Supreme Leader still froths at the mouth, the Iranian people has had enough with his hate speeches. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is now spewing their spiteful rhetoric at someone else besides America for once. This week, the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula declared Shi’ite Iran a greater threat than either the Jews or Christians. But most intriguingly, Al Qaeda has also set its sight on a new, rising threat: China.

This past year, the Chinese government has cracked down on their Uighur population, a Muslim minority group several million strong. This brutal treatment of Muslims provoked a surge of angry reactions throughout the Muslim world. The plight of the Uighurs cuts particularly deep for historical and ideological reasons.

Historically, China hosts a long and storied Muslim tradition, beginning when the Caliph Uthman sent an emissary to the Chinese Emperor in 650 AD, only 18 years after the Prophet Mohammed's death. In fact,while touring Xi’an, I spoke Arabic with several Chinese Muslims in a famous mosque built in the early 8th century. Eventually, Muslims ascended to high positions of power, such as the renown Muslim explorer Zheng He. Thus for Chinese Muslims to be persecuted in the 21st century is especially bitter.

Ideologically, Chinese Communism (or Red Capitalism if you prefer) is nothing short of morally bankrupt in the Muslim point of view. The Chinese ideological system is founded entirely upon material wealth and the physical world. Islam, on the other hand, shirks physical goods in favor of the spiritual hereafter. After all, what is this life worth when the Garden is promised in the next? Worse yet, not only do the Chinese worship the false idol of money, they are irrevocably atheistic. While Islam sets aside a special place for the monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Christianity, Eastern faiths are utter anathema.

In comparison, the United States boasts five million Muslims citizens who share equal rights, expounds Islamic-friendly principles like freedom, equality and justice to temper the excesses of capitalism, and remains a deeply religious, monotheistic country. For every complaint Al Qaeda harbors against America – our abuse of Muslims, our worship of money and our general godlessness – China commits the same sins to an even greater extreme. Thus it is no surprise that Al Qaeda leaders have declared jihad against Beijing.

The ultra-nationalistic Chinese were likely taken aback by this declaration of universal holy war. The government in Beijing believes, as they only source of legitimate authority within China, that they have the political prerogative to treat their citizens as they please. Any international forces, whether it be Al Qaeda or the UN, have no business intruding upon Chinese sovereignty. But no matter how hard China strains to maintain their sovereignty, they will eventually have to accept that in a globalizing world, there is no longer such a thing as a purely internal matter.

This new fact of life will grow increasingly important as China seeks a greater economic role in the Middle East. According to Ambassador Chas Freeman, by 2020 China will conduct $350-500 billion in trade annually with the region (the U.S. currently does $70 billion). With an increased economic role, politics will inexorably follow.

I would recommend that all Chinese leaders (and you too) should read Michael Oren’s Power, Faith and Fantasy on the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East. As a new player in the Middle East, the United States originally enjoyed both popularity and trust. But as we grew increasingly entangled economically and politically, we inevitably lost our luster. China should take heed. Al Qaeda already has.

Sanctioning Shalom

According to Deena Jawhar in the Middle East International, Bahrain's elected lower house of parliament has unanimously passed a bill sanctioning all contact with Israelis. If also passed by the upper house, a simple Shalom could result in fines up to $25,000 or five years of imprisonment.

Jawhar explains that while Bahrain's government (read: King Hamad) does not officially recognize Israel, it has taken several measures in recent years such as

the closure of an Israel boycott office in 2005; a proposal by the foreign minister last year to establish a regional forum including Israel; a call for dialogue with Israelis made by Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin-Hamad in a Washington Post article published in July; and King Hamad's regular meetings with pro-Israel groups during trips abroad.

As such, the King views the bill as an affront to his prerogative to formulate foreign policy. In fact, the crown prince has argued that normalisation with Israel could bring economic benefits to the country - an argument to which the lower house of parliament and its constituents obviously don't give much credence. However, the upper house may have little choice but to follow the government's line, given that they are appointed by the King himself. Therefore, it is unlikely the bill will ever become a law.

This episode serves as a reminder about how deeply and pervasively hatred towards Israel flows through the Arab world. I can understand why Arabs feel so strongly about the plight of the Palestinian people. I can even comprehend why, at the cost of their own economic welfare, the Bahraini parliament is willing to shoot symbolic salvos at Tel Aviv. But what I don't understand - and what I don't think they have considered - is how their anger also hurts the very people they ostensibly seek to help.

An Israel that feels under siege will not and cannot make peace. Nor is there any shortage of reasons for Israel to feel in danger. If not Hamas, then Hezbollah. If not Hezbollah, then Iran. Then let's not forget Syria. Oh, and al Qaeda-inspired Sunni splinter groups. So does Israel need to feel threatened by Bahrain's lower house of parliament? No, but it's just simply one more excuse to retreat into a psychological bunker.

For there to be a political peace, there must first be a minimum level of mutual trust and mutual confidence. And there can be neither trust nor confidence without contact between the Arabs and Israelis. That is why it is so essential, as President Obama has urged, for both sides to offer gradual confidence-building measures to undergird any political negotiations.

But episodes like these make me wonder whether the anger is simply too great right now to move forward. While President Obama was correct to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority from the get-go, it might now be better for everyone to take a breather and try again after tempers have cooled.

Rivals, Not Enemies

Per Laura Rozen at Politico, Ambassador John Limbert has been named the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran at the State Department. Thirty years ago, Limbert was taken hostage during the Tehran embassy takeover and held for fourteen months, much of it in solitary confinement. After his release, he continued to serve in the Foreign Service for 33 years and was awarded the Distinguished Service Award.

Given the next year will have serious implications for not only US-Iranian relations but the Middle East as a whole, it is obvious why State would want to bring Limbert back on board. As Rozen explains, "Limbert is one of the few U.S. diplomats to have actually served in Tehran and who speaks the language fluently."

And speak the langauge fluently he does. Not only is he a scholar of medieval Persian poetry, he employs pun and wordplay with ease. Take, for instance, this video of Limbert and Khamenei during the hostage crisis at the niacINsight blog. Limbert quips about the Iranian concept of "taarof" or hospitality, telling Khamenei: "Iranians are too hospitable to guests in their country, when we insist that we must be going, you tell us 'no, no, you must stay.'"

In another example, I recently attended a conference on Capitol Hill hosted by the National Iranian American Council in which Limbert participated. During his remarks, he made a pun in Farsi, sparking laughter amongst the Iranians in the room. The rest of us, wondering what just happened, chuckled quietly to not feel left out.

But his language skills, while impressive, are not as important as the analysis he'll bring to his office. At the NIAC conference, he emphasized three critical points. First, the U.S. must not narrowly focus on the nuclear issue, but instead must broaden the negotiations to focus on the issues Iranians care about as well. If we only demand our objectives and not listen to theirs, we will not succeed in achieving anything.

Second, he emphasized the importance of patience. During the hostage negotiations, the basic deal to release him and the other hostages was hammered out four months before the final release. But it is difficult to turn agreed principles into action. If the U.S. had imposed artificial deadlines on the Iranians, the negotiations would have failed and he may never have been freed.

Third, by seeking to engage the regime, President Obama has presented Khamenei with a real dilemma. For the past 30 years, American has been the Great Satan. But now that Obama has recast the US-Iran relationship as a rivalry and not a Manichean struggle between enemies, Khamenei is forced to rationalize his continued demonization of the U.S. Eventually, such efforts will discredit the regime.

The question is why did the State Department choose him? Is it only because he speaks the language and has experience? Or is it because of the policies he proffers? Obviously both are important, but it is unclear how well his voice will be heard over the din of the policy debate. But at the very least, I'm glad he'll be in the middle of the fray.

Feeling Useless on Iran

Today, like I do every day, I sat in front of a computer screen for eight hours, talking, debating, and learning about democracy in the Middle East. But today, Iranians actually fought and bled for their democracy.

I can't help but feel a little sheepish - and useless - in comparison. In fact, I shouldn't make a comparison at all.

Thirty years ago, Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran, igniting the hostage crisis and rupturing American-Iranian relations ever since. Every year Iranians have celebrated today as a great triumph against the Great Satan...until now. Today, the Iranian opposition usurped the anniversary to protest against the corrupt and brutal regime in Tehran. Tens of thousands of brave Iranians took to the streets, risking tear gas, batons, arrest, torture, rape and death.

Tehran Bureau has posted a collection of protest videos from today, but I'll pick out two for you which are particularly compelling.

In the first, a group of protesters chant anti-regime slogans until the government forces charge into the crowd (around the second minute).






The second video shows what happens to unlucky protesters who get separated from the group. In the words of Andrew Sullivan, "you see everything you need about what tyranny is" in this clip. If you're curious why most of the people don't help her, it's because all the people on the motorbikes are actually Basij militia, a thug gang employed by the regime.







May God help the Iranian people secure their rights and grant us the wisdom to not get in the way.

Daily Show in Iran

Voice for America interviews The Daily Show's Jason Jones and Tim Greenberg about their trip to Iran during this summer's elections (h/t niacINsight).







In the video, Jason describes visiting a park in Iran as the "most bucolic, beautiful scene you've ever seen." Watching the Iranians enjoy themselves with their families, he realized "they're just really about something that we're about...having a safe, happy, prosperous life."

I had a similar experience walking through a park in Hama, Syria. After prayers on Friday, everyone congregates in a park on top of a hill overlooking the city. It's a time for swings, barbecues, friends and family. I lingered until sunset, absorbing the scene around me. Lesson learned: people are people, no matter where they happen to push their children on the swing.

Here are two of my pictures from Syria. The first is in Hama, the second in Aleppo:

If you're interested, the Daily Show made four video segments in total their series called "Behind the Veil." While funny, they touch on some truly serious issues and confront stereotypes head on. In my favorite clip, which I remember watching during a recent trip to Israel, Jason interviews Iranians about American politics and, with much less success, Americans about Iran.

The Second Shoe Intifada

One more day in Middle Eastern politics, one more shoe throwing incident. According to Tehran Bureau, a pro-Ahmadinejad politician, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, incurred the shoe-hurling wrath of a Tehran University audience after claiming 10 Basiji militia died during the post-election demonstrations. The former minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance was forced to make a quick exit as the crowd shouted pro-opposition chants.

Somehow I doubt President Bush and Saffar-Harandi will be exchanging shoe-dodging tips anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the original shoe thrower, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, has made it into the news once more. After spending nine months in jail, al-Zeidi was released from Iraqi prison for good behavior in September. In an op-ed that week, he explained that he threw his shoe at the "criminal" President Bush "out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation." He also claimed he was tortured in prison by Iraqi officials, saying he was beaten with cables and whips.

While he asserts he is no hero and was just acting out of love of country, that didn't stop reporters in Geneva from giving him a hero's welcome during a press conference on Monday. Al-Zeidi has claimed repeatedly the U.S. is responsible for 1 million Iraqi deaths. But his numbers, like his throwing aim, are considerably off. According to Iraq Body Count, there have been approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians deaths in violent incidents since the beginning of the war in 2003.


While in Lebanon, I spotted this backpack for sale depicting a "heroic" al-Zeidi throwing his shoe at a cowering President Bush. I ended up spending my money on earrings for my sister instead.

Israelis Boycott Turkish Coffee

Arabic news network Al Arabiya reports many Israeli restaurants have decided to boycott Turkish coffee. In addition, Israeli's national airline, El Al, will stop subsidizing vacations for their workers to popular Turkish destinations.

These developments are the latest indicators of the deteriorating relations between traditional allies Israel and Turkey. According to Michael Reynolds at the MESH blog, "The Turkey-Israeli strategic partnership is no longer in crisis, but has essentially ended."

In recent weeks, Turkey expressed its anger over the Gaza War by barring Israel from participating in a joint military exercise. Later, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman chastised Turkey for a new television drama that shows Israel soldiers murdering Palestinian children. Last week, Syria and Turkey signed several treaties that indicate a growing strategic partnership between the two countries - a trend none too comforting to Israelis. Finally this weekend, Prime Minister Netanyahu has questioned whether Turkey can act as an "honest broker" in mediating talks between Syria and Israel.

So what's the deal? At a recent event I attended at the United States Institute of Peace, Brookings expert Ömer Taşpınar cited two causes. One, the voice of the Turkish people has been amplified over the years, making the government more responsive to populist sentiment. The Turkish people, never fully convinced about their government's alliance with Israel, have voiced their anger forcefully over innocents killed during Israeli military operations. During a conversation this summer with a Turkish friend, I said in passing "Now that the Gaza War is over..." She immediately interjected angrily, "The war's not over! Palestinians are still suffering every day!"

Second, perhaps as a backlash over stalled E.U. ascension talks, the Turkey has witnessed a growing surge of nationalistic fervor. Turkey now seeks to become a regional power, solving the region's issues and developing ties with all of its neighbors. Towards this end, Turkey has sought to improve relations with its longtime rival Armenia. In addition, Turkish President Abdullah Gul boasted today that Turkey is among the "rare" countries that maintain good relations with both Israel and the Arab states.

That statement implies to me that, while relations are suffering right now, in the long run cooler heads will prevail in both Turkey and Israel. The countries share several essential strategic interests that require cooperation, especially in countering Iran's vision of establishing its own regional hegemony. The United States won't let them forget what's at stake. In fact, it appears President Obama may have already raised the issue of Israel to President Gul in a telephone call this weekend.

But for the near future, expect some grumpy, caffeine-starved Israelis in Tel Aviv's cafes.

The Meaning of Music

In America, we don't read too deeply into our music. If it's catchy, it's good enough. Just look at the lyrics to the summer hit "I Gotta Feeling" (I happen to like this song) by Black Eyed Peas:

Fill up my cup. Mazel Tov!
Look at her dancing. Just take it off.
Let's paint the town. We'll shut it down.
Let's burn the roof. Then we'll do it again.

But in the kaleidoscopic political/cultural/religious/ethnic landscape of the Middle East, everything has a deeper meaning. Here are three music videos from across the region that convey a message that trascends their notes and lyrics.

Tehran Bureau highlights an Iranian rapper named Hich Kas (translation: "Nobody"). His first music video "Bunch of Soldiers" encourages unison in the face of oppression. Interestingly, it was made in 2008 before this summer's tumultuous events.




The LA Times blog Babylon and Beyond features a Kurdish singer from Iraq named Dashni Murad. Like many female singers in the Middle East, she's caught between trying to emulate the style of Western music while maintaining a connection with her traditional culture. Not surprisingly, she has simultaneously accumulated a fair amount of ogling fans and vehement, conservative detractors.




Third but not least, I've added a video by the Israeli group Flashblack. During my trip to Israel, I visited an educational kibbutz called Eshbal that takes in some of the country's most troubled kids and gives them a sense of direction and hope. Most amazingly, Esbhal was founded by a group of young Israelis, fresh out of their military service, who had the "chutzpah" to make a difference. In this case, a group of their students have formed a rap group to express themselves in a positive way. Here is a video of one of their performances.



I'm not saying there isn't meaningful music in the West. There is. But given the number of conflicts, divisions, inequalities and tensions that exist in the Middle East, it only makes sense that musicians reflect these issues in their music. Moreover, even the most trivial song in the Middle East can carry serious cultural, religious and even political implications, salient to anyone who cares to listen.

Ledeen, Khamenei and Twitter Hysteria

The rumors about Khamenei's death continue to swirl (see previous post here). The Guardian sums it up pretty well:

Of course there is an easy way for the clerical regime in Tehran to put a stop to the current hysteria. But the ayatollah has yet to appear to declare that the reports of his death are exaggerated. Until he does, the chances are the rumours will spread.

In addition, the article takes a few shots at Michael Ledeen, the primary source for the rumors, saying he has a "track record in spreading misinformation" and has falsely reported Khamenei's death before. The Guardian also cites a Vanity Fair article that linked Ledeen to the yellowcake uranium intelligence fiasco.

The Guardian somewhat misleads on the latter point. While Vanity Fair provides plenty of circumstantial evidence, it also admits "there are no fingerprints connecting Ledeen to the Niger documents. Even his fiercest adversaries will concede this." And Ledeen does have many adversaries (for example, see here or here).

Furthermore, Ledeen himself admits he has misreported Khamenei's death before. He did so in the original post and reiterates that fact in a new post. In Ledeen's words, "I have never claimed to know anything about Khamenei's death, and I still don't know anything."

Of course, such details get lost in a 140 character Twitter message. Before you know it, conjecture is truth and rumor is news.

Maybe Ledeen should've known that before blogging. But then again, everyone spreading the rumor should've known that too before drinking the Kool-Aid.