Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The uprising in Iran will live


East Meredith, New York

The struggle will continue in Iran. This great country is on a political fault line, and its people know it.

The wise words of Khaled Mohammad Khaled, an Islamist scholar, are relevant to the current Iranian crisis: “Mixing religion in the affairs of the state detracts from religion and from the state”.

Liberation comes in stages. Iran needs ample time to radically change its political system. The Iranian uprising is strong enough today, but the current regime is bent on breaking the bones of those who challenge its legitimacy.

Despite the strong desire for change, Iranian society is still split between the populist and the modernist.

The populist, who President Ahmadinejad represents, is poorly educated, extra-nationalistic and anti-Western. The populist is still hypnotized by the Khomeini power that emerged through the revolt against the regime of the pro-Western Shah.

The modernist Iranian is open- minded, globally oriented and gender sensitive. The modernist is politically awakened but not yet organized and sufficiently inclusive. The uprising should find attractive ways to draw in the rural and low income groups to the national struggle for modern state building.

Women power in this modernist group is growing rapidly, and with gender empowerment there is great potential for a sweeping socio-political movement.

Public protest requires sustained organization. There seems to be no strategic vision, no party, no identifiable social movement and no structure behind the activism in the street. It is heartening to observe that women of Iran are in the process of figuring out the relevance of political power in building democracy and in reclaiming Islam as a faith rather than a political ideology.

The revolt lacks a forceful leader. To be fair, the former Prime Minister, Mir Hussein Mousavi has an impressive record. But his critics describe Mousavi as a born-again bureaucrat, who conveniently ran on a “change” message at a time when people are yearning for relief from a dysfunctional political system. Mousavi has not yet identified a vision, a forceful message for the uprising beyond “moderation” and smart economic investment.

Leadership vacuum may allow covert foreign meddling to penetrate the current Iranian uprising. The 1979 revolution was diverted from a struggle against the neo-colonial rule of the Shah. The revolution went through rapid metamorphoses to unfortunately become a struggle against modernity, with a religious cover. Religious leaders took over the revolution from the intellectuals.

There is a lesson to be learned. To preserve the Persian authenticity of the struggle, the leaders of this uprising should keep a distance from Western “democracy experts”, for many reasons, not the least of which the presence of a dismal record of foreign intervention in Iran.

For the next round of revolt, women and working class leadership will hopefully take center stage. It is only a matter of a few years before the sweeping round of revolt will come.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Is the Iran revolt stoppable?



June 22, 200

aldikkani

9

East Meredith, New York,

Today, the people of Iran are on the street not just to protest the results of the elections. The revolt aims to free society from the corrosive authority of clerics in politics.

As public pressure on the regime is mounting the government’s defense of its legitimacy is turning brutal: 17 demonstrators killed so far.

It is still too early to predict if the massive protest in the streets will succeed in bringing about a new government. Regardless of the immediate outcome, public trust in the current political system has largely disappeared.

Globalization of politics is crucial. International support for the plight of the people of Iran is growing exponentially through the media.

Those who see this revolt unstoppable find a radically new set of circumstances for political change: awakening of Iranian society- particularly women, conflict within leadership of clerics and ease of spread of information through modern technology.

But those who see this revolt reversible do not believe that Iran is ready for change, given the heavy weight of tradition, the near even split between the populist and the modernist and the formidable record of the Middle East state to suppress dissent.

Dissenting Iranians deserve moral support from the West but they are hesitant to ask for such support for good reasons. External support of internal resistance may backfire.

If there is regime change in Iran, future relations with its adversaries may change significantly. The Arab-Israeli peace process is particularly sensitive to Israel’s future relation with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah would soften if Iran’s future regime were to be flexible diplomatically.

Despite their social distance from the West, Iranians would like to be viewed differently by the outside world. They have survived intact a long war that was inflicted on them by Iraq, with Western support.

Iran is searching for ways to build a modern state, but not dreaming of a Western model of statehood. It is important not to judge the Iranian struggle for freedom by Western criteria. Iran is a Middle Eastern country with great appreciation for religion. This street revolt in Iran is not a swing from the sacred to the secular. Islam, as a faith, as a set of principles to relate to God, like Christianity or Judaism, can be harnessed to work for democracy instead of working against it.

In 1979, the people of Iran revolted against their government to be free from excessive international influence, the Shah’s symbiotic dependence on the West. Today, Iranians are on the street in massive numbers demonstrating peacefully against their government; they are continuing the process of state building.

What is happening in Iran has wide international implications. Iran is a pioneer in political change. By contrast, the Arab world is too timid in political reform.

Arabs are afraid to substitute entrenched despotic regimes for unpredictable political systems.

What is happening in Iran these days may have dramatic implications for the future of governance of Iran, itself, and for the debate on political Islam, in the 57 Muslim-majority countries.

Even if this revolt fails to reach its full objectives the next one is coming sooner than expected.

Is Iran leading the way for political reform in the region?



June 19, 2009

East Meredith, New York,

Today, the people of Iran are on the street not just to protest the results of the elections. The revolt is deeper and wider in scope; it is aimed at freeing their society from the authority of clerics in politics.

A note of clarification is due. This phase of the Iranian revolution is not aimed at separating religion from politics, but at separating the institutions of religion from the institutions of politics. Separating the two systems is not a threat to either system but an act of maintanance and prevention of mutual meddling.

The process of challenging the political system has made a promising start in a few days. It is still too early to predict if the massive protest in the streets will succeed in bringing about a new government. What is clear now is that public trust in the current political system has largely disappeared. System change is coming sooner than had been expected only a few weeks ago.

The Iranian people deserve moral support from the Western world but they are hesitant to ask for such support for good reasons. The growing political and military strength of Iran over the past three decades has made it a country of controversy, both in its regional milieu and in the West.

In the West, Iran is viewed through a security lens. Iran’s relations with revolutionary groups in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, as well as its risky nuclear program, have positioned the Persian state as a strong adversary to Israel and a perceived threat to strategic Western interests.

If there is regime change in Iran, future relations with its adversaries may change significantly. The Arab-Israeli peace process is particularly sensitive to Israel’s future relation with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah would soften if Iran’s future regime were to be flexible diplomatically.

Despite their social distance from the West, Iranians would like to be viewed differently by the outside world. The people of Iran are proud and bent on self-determination. They have swiftly eliminated colonialism. They have survived intact a long war that was inflicted on them by Iraq, with Western support.

Iran is searching for ways to build a modern state, but not dreaming of a Western model of statehood. It is important not to judge the Iranian struggle for freedom by Western criteria. Iran is a Middle Eastern country with great appreciation for religion. This street revolt in Iran is not a swing from the sacred to the secular. Islam, as a faith, as a set of principles to relate to God, like Christianity or Judaism, can be harnessed to work for democracy instead of working against it.

In 1979, the people of Iran revolted against their government to be free from excessive international influence, the Shah’s symbiotic dependence on the West. Today, Iranians are on the street in massive numbers demonstrating peacefully against their government; they are continuing the process of state building.

What is happening in Iran has wide international implications. Iran is a pioneer in political change. By contrast, the Arab world is too timid in political reform.

To what extent is Iran opening the way to political awakening for other countries in the Middle East? Is there a simple explanation for Arab political passivity in contrast to Persian activism? Is it because the opposition in Iran is the solution – the modern state defender, whereas in the Arab world, the opposition is the problem – a state within the state? The opposition in Iran has reached the point where it can be more creatively constructive while in the Arab world the opposition is more inclined to simply want to destroy the old regime.

Are Arabs afraid to substitute entrenched despotic regimes for unpredictable political systems?

There may be other explanations for Iran’s propensity in risk-taking in political change. As a nation, Iran is strong; it is ancient and relatively homogeneous. Society can afford to experiment with state building without the threat of breaking up into ethnic or sectarian factions.

What is happening in Iran these days may have dramatic implications for the future of governance of Iran, itself, and for the debate on political Islam, in the 57 Muslim-majority countries.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Obama ties Palestinian cause with Israel’s security and Arab reform

June 4, 2009

Pam Beach Gardens, Florida

On June 4, in Cairo, President Obama started a promissing dialogue with the Muslim world:

“So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.”

President Obama reached his Middle East audience with subtle messages. To the Israelis, Obama hinted that if they wanted lasting security they must give Palestinians a state of their own. To the Palestinians, he cautioned that only with peaceful resistance could they achieve liberation. To the Arabs states, he communicated that their primary problem is not Palestine; it is deficits in reforms.

Obama reached his audience with cultural sensitivity. He did not offer new formulas. Instead, he laid out principles. As a guest to the Arab world, he stayed within the zone of comfort of the host.

First on his mind, was the principle of appreciation of Islam. Second, was the urgency of the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Third, he believes, Arabs should reform politically, if peace between Israel and Palestinians is to last.

The president explained that Americans need to recognize that Islam is a great civilization, that Muslims in the past transmitted art and science to the West and that Muslims respect peace based on justice.

The president explained that the war in Afghanistan was just: to combat violence and extreme ideology. He assumed that Muslims should be on America’s side in fighting the enemies of freedom and peace worldwide.

Mindful of the political implications of a full apology, Obama hinted that the Iraq war could have been avoided: “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” While he defended the dethroning of Saddam Hussein, he implied that America could have avoided the war through diplomacy. The president reminded his audience that he is closing Guantanamo Bay, banning torture and withdrawing all US troops from Iraq by 2012.

On Iran, the president was brief and reconciliatory. While he cautioned against the building of nuclear weapons, he encouraged Tehran to develop atomic energy in compliance with international standards. When he spoke about religious tolerance, he was wise to mention that he considers the Sunni-Shiite rift a problem. Obama indirectly acknowledged that some states (i.e. Israel ) already have developed atomic weapons. It is this undeclared fact that made Obama’s comments on Iran’s defense ambitions vulnerable.

Having set the stage for reconciliation, Obama came to the Arab Israeli conflict with clarity and directness. He first explained that US relations with Israel are close and founded on firm grounds: history, suffering and reciprocity. “This bond is unbreakable”, Obama stated.

Then the president compassionately acknowledged the pain of Palestinian displacement. Next came a surprise: Obama is the first president to compare the struggle of the Palestinians with the struggle of Black Americans. He mentioned the lessons learned in South Africa. He reached out to Hamas by recognizing its appeal to Palestinians. He rightly cautioned against the use of violence in the struggle: “Violence is a dead end”.

The president reiterated his firm opposition to the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and promised to push the peace process for a two-state solution. The following promise received much applause: And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires.”

Having given a boost to the Palestinian cause, Obama turned to the Arab states and asked for reform: democracy in governance, the rights of women, religious freedom and economic development. In this part of the speech Obama was very measured. His critics will point out that he was soft in addressing the oppression practiced by Arab regimes. His defense would arugue that he is a guest of the Arab world. His mission is to improve relations, not to cross the privilege of hospitality. The Israelis would have liked Obama to connect Arab reform with Israel’s security more forcefully. That would have been difficult in Cairo.

Obama’s visit to Cairo was historic. It lived up to expectations. It opened dialogue, started pressure on Israel and set the stage for possible new partnerships with the Muslim world.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Obama in Cairo

Palm Beach Gardens

In his much anticipated speech on June 4 in Cairo, what can President Obama say that is new, realistic and appropriate to this historic occasion? The speech of the US president will be watched, graded, dissected and interpreted by hundreds of millions of people, particularly by Muslims and Jews.

Neither side of the Arab-Israeli conflict is totally enamored with President Obama. While moderate Arabs hope that this new president must have something good in him because he is so different from G.W. Bush. Hard-line Arabs are not moved by an American president whom they see compromised by a political system which appears “wedded to Israel”.

Doubt about Obama in Israel is mounting also. While centrist Israelis give the benefit of the doubt to Obama, they are still worried that America may abandon the Zionist state as Washington tries to win the support of 1.3 billion Muslims in its conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Speech writers must be thinking hard in drafting messages for the President that would revive the faltering Arab-Israeli peace process, appeal to both Arabs and Jews, and restore trust between America and the Muslim world.

As a guest of the region, President Obama must focus on Arab issues. He goes first to Saudi Arabia and then to Jordan on June 3rd. The next day he is Cairo. His Cairo speech must be mindful of Israeli opinion.

In addressing Arab concerns, he must acknowledge the depth of Palestinian suffering and the significance of Palestinian unity. In addressing Israeli concerns, he must stress security issues and continued American support.

In expressing compassion for Palestinians there is no need to worry about provoking Israelis. Israelis are quiet aware of the serious pain of displacement they have caused Palestinians. This is why you find the most powerful writers about Palestinian suffering in the Jewish community.

For Obama, the second important message is about Palestinian unity. Obama will find it difficult to deal with the issue of Palestinian unity since the US policy is unwittingly reinforcing their disunity by punishing one faction (Hamas) and rewarding another (Fateh). It is important for Obama to realize that Hamas has not lost the respect of the Arab street, and that its opponent, Fateh, is not very popular in the Arab and Muslim world. This is where Obama can score a strong point by reaching out to Hamas without blessing its controversial tactics.

If Obama could empathize with the struggle for Palestinian independence he will reach minds and hearts. But he could forcefully comment that the struggle for liberation must unify Palestinians, not separate them. For only a united Palestine can forge a just peace with Israel.

It is customary, for Americans who address the Middle East, whether they target Arabs or Israelis, to assure Israel that Washington remains its closest ally. In Cairo, the US President can explain that enhanced relations with Israel’s current adversaries would ultimately serve Israel’s security. For it is only through integration of Israel in its region will this unique state find permanent security.

In his Cairo speech, Obama needs not play down the special alliance which the US has had with Israel over half a century. It is important for Obama to explain that the special partnership that Israel has with America is a political phenomenon, rather than a religious alliance against Islam. The president can easily explain that the bond with Israel is based on shared values, ways of living and economic enterprise. As such, the close US relations with Israel are not threatened by parallel partnerships with the Arab and Muslim world. It is here where President Obama can appeal to religious leaders- both in the Arab world and in the West- to challenge them to contribute to inter-religious harmony. Obama is in a unique position to stress this point since his diverse and unusual background makes him the most credible source of inspiration for cross-cultural dialogue.

The US president goes to Cairo setting up high expectations in the moderate circles of the Arab world. What he can do is limited, given his congested domestic agenda, a skeptical Islamic world, a divided Palestinian leadership, a hard-line Israeli government, and a US Congress that is not sensitive to Palestinian demands.

The best message Obama can leave behind is his acknowledgment of the limitations he has in dealing with the problems he is addressing. If President Obama can show the same tolerance for Hamas that he shows for Iran, he would score a strategic point. If he sends a firm message to Netanyahu’s government without alienating the centrist Israelis and the American Jewish community, he would score another point.

Hopefully, his speech will contribute to the unity of Palestinians and positively impact the opinion of the mainline Jewish community. Both are critical for the achievement of peace in the Middle East and for reconciliation with Islam.