We have pasted below the text of an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to the Middle East by Rami Khouri for Beirut’s The Daily Star.
The link to Khouri’s column is here.
Why Chuckles Greet the Hillary Show
by Rami G. Khouri
BEIRUT — American secretaries of state have been coming to the Middle East to create all sorts of complex alliances against Iran for most of my happy adult life, and every time this show passes through our region I learn again the meaning of the phrase “lack of credibility.” Hillary Clinton is the latest to undertake this mission, and like her predecessors her comments often are difficult to take seriously.
We are told that her trip to the region has two main aims: strengthen Arab resolve to join the United States and others in imposing harsh new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear development program, and harness Arab support for resumed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. These important issues also represent two critical diplomatic arenas where the United States has both taken the lead and also achieved zero results. Either the actors involved — Arabs, Israelis, Iranians — are all chronically or even chromosomally dysfunctional (for which there is some evidence) or the United States is a particularly inept party to assume leadership in these endeavors.
The weakness in both cases, I suspect, has to do with the United States trying to define diplomatic outcomes that suit its own strategic objectives and political biases (especially pro-Israeli domestic sentiments in the US). So Washington pushes, pulls, cajoles and threatens all the players with various diplomatic instruments, except the one that will work most efficiently in both the Iranian and Arab-Israeli cases: serious negotiations with the principal parties, based on applying the letter of the law, and responding equally to the bottom-line rights, concerns and demands of all sides.
Two Clinton statements during her Gulf trip this week are particularly revealing of why the United States continues to fail in its missions in our region. The first was her expression of concern that Iran is turning into a military dictatorship: “We see that the Government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship.”
Half a century of American foreign policy flatly contradicts this sentiment (which is why Mrs. Clinton heard soft chuckles and a few muffled guffaws as she spoke). The United States has adored military dictatorships in the Arab world, especially states dominated by the shadowy world of intelligence services. This has become even more obvious since Sept. 11, 2001, when the US has intensified cooperation with intelligence services in the fight against Al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East are military and police states where men with guns rule, and citizens are confined to shopping, buying cell phones, and watching soap operas on satellite television.
Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya, the entire Gulf region, and others are devoted first and foremost to maintaining domestic order and regime incumbency through efficient multiple security agencies, for which they earn the friendship and cooperation of the United States. When citizens in these and other countries agitate for more democratic and human rights, the US is peculiarly inactive and quiet.
If Iran is indeed becoming a military dictatorship, this probably qualifies it for American hugs and aid, rather than sanctions and threats.
Mrs. Clinton badly needs some more credible talking points than opposing military dictatorships. (Extra credit question for hard-core foreign policy analysts: Why is it that when Turkey slipped out of military rule into civilian democratic governance it became more critical of the United States and Israel?)
The second intriguing statement during her Gulf visit was about Iran’s neighbors having three options for dealing with the “threat” from Iran:
“They can just give in to the threat; or they can seek their own capabilities, including nuclear; or they ally themselves with a country like the United States that is willing to help defend them…I think the third is by far the preferable option.”
This sounds reasonable, but it is not an accurate description of the actual options the Arab Gulf states have. It is mostly a description of how American and Israeli strategic concerns and slightly hysterical biases are projected onto the Arab Gulf states’ worldviews. These Arab states in fact have a fourth option, which is to negotiate seriously a modus vivendi with Iran that removes the “threat” from their perceptions of Iran by affirming the core rights and strategic needs of both sides, thus removing mutual threat perceptions.
This is exactly the same option the United States used when it negotiated détente and the Helsinki accords with the Soviet Union for decades (and whose results ultimately caused the collapse of Communism). Why the United States does not use the same sensible approach to the perceived threat from Iran is hard to explain, other perhaps than two reasons: The United States would have to deal with Iran (and other defiant Middle Easterners) through negotiations rather than haughty neo-colonialism, and, Israel would have to submit to nuclear inspections and stop its aggressive behavior.
– Ben Katcher
ASDF Aziz del, that can be a good job what is wrong with that , is it all that bad to work for Jerusalem Post even Menashe and CNN’s Wolfy worked there for a while, is the pay good where you are. Sounds like you are getting bored with your job may be you should ask for a new assignment.
Kooshy: I get a feeling you don’t really like to read.
Haven’t you heard of Citizen journalists?
Haven’t you heard of calling your relatives and asking them in Iran??
Why do you sound so out of touch?? I thought you were worked for the IRI as a newsletter editor???
ASDF Aziz if the journalist are all in the jail who reported the 5000 buses that you say brought out the participants, couldn’t that person take a cell phone photo for you, Now there is an American proverb that says you can’t make chicken soup with chicken shit unless you run out of everything else
Kooshi jan: Chera khodet ro aziet mikoni…You know exactly what’s going on and I don’t need to tell you. What’s disturbing is the fact that you continue to support the oppressors of your own countrymen for some reason or another…
Kooshi, maybe if most of the journalists in jail,or freedom of movement, we would have had those pictures, eh?
Repression stepped up yet again as Iran becomes world’s biggest prison for journalists
http://www.rsf.org/Repression-stepped-up-yet-again-as.html
ASDF Aziz you us an answer and a photo you can’t assert labels and don’t explain, unless if you answered that you may get in trouble at work
Kooshi:
Feb 16Iran Nobel winner seeks Nokia Siemens sanctions
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-46184820100215
Kooshi: More signs that the regime enjoys “support”:
The lawyer for 21-year-old Amir Reza Arefi says his client has been sentenced to death for “mohareb” (war against God). Arefi was arrested in April 2009, before the June election.
http://www.rhairan.net/en/?p=701
ASDF just like the bus question don’t let me hang in there
ASDF is Zionist something bad to you? That you are attaching it to this distinguished group of scholars; please explain why if this folks are labeled as Zionist there must be something wrong with them
Persian Gulf: Agreed.
Kooshi:
Is she a zionist?
Nayereh Tohidi
1979 Revolution and the Green Movement
Professor in the Gender and Women’s Studies Department at California State University, Northridge:
Part I:
http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/feb/nayereh-tohidi
Kooshi: Is Dr. Mohammad Sahimi a zionist?
Were the Greens Defeated?
by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/02/-opinion-many-had.html
Mr.Khouri’s article has a very big technical mistake; if at all the article is about the Middle East, that makes the validity of his points, whatever they might be, questionable. This article seems not to be related to Iran, and her neighbors by no means. You are all mistaken. The only Gulf that Iran has a share on is the Persian Gulf. you might call me pathetic, but its the point exactly. Clinton traveled to the Persian Gulf countries. The author is wrong with that magnitude and you are talking about some details. I haven’t been in the region since January 2010 and I haven’t looked at the new map of the world. Is there any new gulf, such as the one Mr.Khouri is refereeing to, in the Mideast or somewhere around?
btw, this is a better name; Ghorob was just for that day ;)
ASDF you talk like Paneer ;)
What kind of leftist would support a theocracy? The answer is: Those who do are not really leftists – they are idiots with very little insight – hardly ever evolve – and stick to their initial battle against Capitalism – while most of them chose capitalistic countries to reside in.
True leftists will live according to their own beliefs. I really respect that. Fake leftists live in the West; use all the capitalist goodies; and only oppose it with words not deed.In fact some of them run pretty successful businesses!
Kooshi: Is Hamid Dabashi a zionist too??
Iran’s pro-government rallies fool nobodyBy Hamid Dabashi,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/07/Dabashi.iran.staged.protests/
Kooshi: More reasons for your to be proud of:
Karroubi’s Son Threatened with Rape Inside Amir-ol-Momenin Mosque
Karroubi’s third son, Ali who was arrested by Law Enforcement Forces on 11th February, was taken to Amir-ol-momenin Mosque, which was used as a temporary detention centre for protesters. There, as the detainees were identified, the lackeys of the Supreme Leader realised they had Karroubi’s son in their possession. After contacting their superiors they felt comfortable to deal with Ali as they pleased. As they beat Ali repeatedly in front of other detainees, they used the foulest language to insult his mother and father. Not only that but in what is supposed to be a house of God, inside the very mosque of Amir-ol-momenin, Ali Karroubi was threatened with rape. A hideous act so deplorable that it is punishable by death in Islam let alone if it is carried out inside a mosque. Yet they felt so proud of what they were doing that they were also filming the beating.
When the order to transfer Ali Karroubi to the Motahari barracks came, one of his torturers sighed and said, ‘If only they gave me another 24 hours, I would have sent your corpse to your family’
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2010/02/karroubis-son-threatened-with-rape.html
Mr. Kooshi, watch this and be proud::
The Savage Bullies in the Land of Art and Poetry
Watch this video to the end. See how the savage Special Units, totally remote from any humanity beat up a young protester. People are resigned to watch in horror until a few courageous women go to the help of the young man. Not that it makes any difference to these monsters. One of them fully geared in protective clothing and helmet and with a long truncheon does not even spare an old man. Utterly sickening bullies. When you see a regime supporter or a regime apologist, remember these images.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUjgm8ThLcQ&feature=player_embedded
Kosshi, how do you sleep at night??
Kooshi: You wish I was a zionist jew..You’re sadly mistaken and your accusations won’t make me. You need to do better than that. I guess it’s instructive of years of anti-Israeli indoctrination that you think anyone who does not support IRI, must be a zionist..pittiful
What will happen to IRI cronies when the regime is no more,eh?? Why do you live in the West Kooshi???
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/mitra-northcal/what-kind-leftist-would-support-iri
ASDF since you are back and now moved to this new post can you please ask Meir if he has any pictures of those 5000 buses you said it was parked outside of Azadi square , thanks
ASDF shalom, back to the post, how was dinner
Iran: A new warm-up?
Globally the left is engaged in a controversial debate about the mobilisations in Iran which took place before and after the elections. Only rarely are these mobilisations related to
http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/wildcat/85/w85_iran_en.htm
Wigwag: Exactly, Khouris oversimplication of shia and sunni problem does not even begin to describe the Iranian internal conundrum.
The problem is not just Shia or Sunni.
Iran has been a Shia nation only for the past 500 years. Overnight by a decree of Safavid King, Iranian had to convert to Shism. Prior to that Iran was a Sunni nation for 1000, and prior to that it was a Zoroastrian nation for 3000 odd years. Islam is not as organic phenomenon in Iran as some try to portray.
Shuster explains the fundamental historical struggle in the Iranian society better than anyone else. Those who tend to be autistic, of course, won’t be able to connect the dots of abstract concepts.
NPR SHUSTER: NPR: Shuster’s interview: (…)
“It is certainly true that Islam is a very important factor in the conflict in Iran.
There has been an Islamic republic that has governed Iran for 30 years. And it’s a complex matter, this Islamic republic, because it’s a compromise between those who waged the Islamic revolution 30 years ago in Iran and who wanted a purely Islamic government, and many who wanted a more secular government that was democratic in nature. And this was a hybrid in effect.
And it managed to keep the clerics signifi
cantly imbued with political power for quite sometime. But it also created a lot of dissatisfaction.
Don’t forget the opposition that has emerged this year, it’s not the first time that there’s been a reform movement that has challenged the more entrenched hard line elements in the government. Mohammed Khatami was a reformer who was elected president in 1997 and reelected president in 2001. For eight years, Iran had a president at least who was trying to bring about political reform and he’s part of this movement now.
So, this has been a theme, a nexus of tension within Iran’s government for 30 years. And it may simply be “that at this point, these two strains of political thought are irreconcilable, or Iranian’s are having much greater difficulty now reconciling the two.
if we try to gauge it simply by counting numbers, the numbers of, yesterday, of pro-government demonstrators and the numbers of protesters in the streets on Sunday and previously, I don’t think that that necessarily gives us a really good gauge or what’s going on in Iran.
But you have to figure that the pro-government demonstrators, the government helped them get there. They provided buses. They gave them – many government workers the day off. They gave students the day off.
And most importantly, the police allowed them to demonstrate, whereas on Sunday, the riot police and the street militia were out in force and they used violence to try to stop the demonstrations – the protest demonstrations, and they occurred nevertheless.
So I think that we probably need other tools to gauge what’s really going on in Iran. And it seems to me there is – this is a political conflict. There is deep dissatisfaction with the government of Iran. There was deep disbelief last June when it was announced that Muhammad Ahmadinejad had overwhelmingly won reelection. There was cognitive dissonance in the streets. People didn’t believe that. They believed that the primary challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, won. And I think that in the face of government violence, the amount of violence that the government has mounted against the protests, I think we can get some idea of how deeply felt the protests are.
And we can at least say it is highly unlikely that they – that the government can stop them. The government thought that it could stop them, and it hasn’t. And now they will continue, or there may be people on both sides that look for some kind of a political solution. But it is a political conflict and a political problem ..
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122107996
So Wigwag, why are you all livid about the “dictatorship” in Iran and not livid about all the dictatorships the US supports? Don’t you think that Hillary would be more likely to engender freedom, democracy and human rights by applying pressure and sanctions against its tyrannical friends in the region, not Iran?
Unless, of course, your agenda has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, human and women’s rights, which is what I have come to realize about you for quite some time now.
Well, this isn’t the first time the Secy. of State has embarassed herself (and America). She was given the post to keep her from challenging B.O. in 2012. Holbrooke would have been an better choice. Almost anybody would have been better.
Rami G. Khouri’s article is interesting and entertaining. He even gets a few things right like when he says this,
“Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East are military and police states where men with guns rule, and citizens are confined to shopping, buying cell phones, and watching soap operas on satellite television.”
Actually, if Khouri really wanted to be precise he would have said that Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East with the exception of Israel are military and police states. And as long as Khouri is pointing out that America’s Muslim Middle Eastern allies are all dictatorships, it seems only sporting that he should point out that America’s Middle East adversaries are all dictatorships too including Iran and Syria.
And while he’s at it, Khouri might have pointed out that virtually the entire Muslim world consists of military dictatorships; some friendly to the United States, some not (by the way, including Libya on the list of Middle Eastern nations friendly to the U.S. was a little bit much). There are 57 nations in the world with a majority Muslim population; far fewer than 10 of these have governments that would look like democracies to most of the people reading these words.
The bottom line is that to engage the Muslim world is to engage brutal and not so brutal dictatorships. For the most part, that’s all there is.
Khouri’s essay gets a little sillier when he excoriates the United States for,
“Trying to define diplomatic outcomes that suit its own strategic objectives and political biases…”
Excuse me, but isn’t that what nations do; pursue their strategic objectives and political biases? In fact, isn’t pursuing their own strategic objectives precisely what crack cocaine realists like Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett recommend that nations should do? I can see it now; Flynt and Hillary busily penning a letter to the editor of the Daily Star criticizing Khouri for his Wilsonian outlook.
By the way, I wonder if Mr. Khouri plans to inform us of which Middle Eastern nation refrains from pursuing its own interests. Or perhaps he thinks it’s only out of bounds if Israel or the United States do that but perfectly understandable if, say, the Palestinians attempt to pursue their own strategic objectives in the best way they know how.
On another note, in case Khouri hasn’t noticed, Mrs. Clinton isn’t the only Obama Administration official visiting the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, is in Israel and will soon be leaving for a tour of Arab Capitols and Vice President Biden will be making his own Middle Eastern tour next week. Meanwhile back at the O.K. Coral (that would be Washington, D.C.) former realists like General James Jones (Obama’s NSA) are making the rounds threatening Iran with “serious” (to use his word) sanctions. Just today, President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, pointedly said that nothing is off the table, including a U.S. military strike against Iran.
Khouri doesn’t get hysterically funny until he suggests that the fourth and best option is for Iran and her Sunni Arab adversaries to forge a rapprochement or at least a negotiated détente like the Americans and Soviets did during the Cold War. Perhaps Khouri will provide us with the precedents which suggests there’s any chance at all that his proposal might work. Would it be the Sunni and Shia communities in Lebanon who despise each other? Would it be the Sunni and Shia communities in Iraq who regularly launch terrorist attacks against each other? Would it be the minority Shia community in Saudi Arabia that regularly plants bombs designed to kill members of the Sunni community in Saudi Arabia who suppress thm so brutally? Maybe Mr. Khouri is talking about the Shia in Afghanistan who were treated so nicely by their Taliban neighbors until the United States was so rude as to intervene.
If Mr. Khouri’s solution to the mistrust between the Shia in Iran and the Sunni in the Arab world is a grand bargain a la the Leveretts, doesn’t he owe us even a few words on how he plans to solve the fifteen hundred year history of animosity between the Sunni and their co-religionists whom they view as apostates?
As for Mr. Khouri’s extra credit question, I’m sure that the “Race for Iran’s” resident Turkish expert (Ben Katcher) can inform him that Turkey was a democracy before the current Islamist Party won control. In fact, the secular parties in Turkey and the Islamist parties in Turkey have more in common than Mr. Khouri might like to believe.
They both deny Turkey’s involvement in the Armenian Genocide. They both mistreat the Orthodox Church. They both oppress and kill the Kurds (not to mention banning their political party). They both ban books they view as immoral and they both support outlawing “You Tube.”
In fact, the opposing political parties in Turkey remind me a lot of the two opposing political parties in the United States; they are far more similar than most people would care to believe.
Do I get the extra credit points, Ben?
As said in Persian “in Hannah digar rangy nadarad” for those of you who don’t speak Persian it means “your Henna no longer has any color “ for those unfamiliar with ME culture this is how the American rhetoric is viewed in the region’s streets.
Arabs have seen such American BS for so long that it’s amazing they even bother to comment on it any more.
If you see an article like this published in NYT or WP you can hope for negotiations with Iran