Obama, Race, and Arab Opinion

Our colleague Brian Edwards has written an excellent piece for The Huffington Post considering Arab responses to Barack Obama's election:

Chicago -- The U.S. election is over, but Al-Qaida finally threw down the race card. The organization's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video last week comparing President-elect Barack Obama to an 'abd al-bait, or "house slave."

It's easy to dismiss such extreme rhetoric as ineffective, especially because we have been frequently told about the enthusiasm that Muslim populations, especially in the Arab world, have for Obama.

But this mischaracterizes the ways in which non-elite Arabs are talking about Obama since the election. Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's chief ideologue, tapped into the ambivalence many Arabs are expressing about the President-elect.

The massive circulation of American culture through the world--fueled by digital media--means Middle Easterners feel familiar with and sometimes ownership of American culture and ideas. But Arabs also are deeply affected by the 2000 U.S. electoral debacle and the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. From Fez to Cairo to Tehran (non-Arab, but similar in this respect), people are guarded and cynical about being hoodwinked yet again by our attractive ways of communicating a message, especially "democracy." They see Obama's rise as barely believable.

Fully cognizant of this, Al-Zawahiri reran a play from the Soviet playbook during the cold war. The Soviet leaders routinely referred to the oppression of African Americans to counter the attraction that American culture - particularly jazz - had among the Russians.

The al-Qaida video included film clips of Malcolm X distinguishing between "field Negroes" and "house Negroes," in which the latter - in this case Obama -- are said to be more dangerous to their brethren, because they were loyal to their white masters.

For al-Qaida, many young Arabs' love of hip hop, the American cultural form that attracts international audiences, is a force to be reckoned with. The Arab engagement with American hip hop is complex, and Arabic language hip hop has become popular both online and in public concerts.

Many Arabs identify with oppression by white America, while others see the outward expressions of luxury (the "bling" worn by many American rappers, for example) as a sign that all Americans occupy an economic status far from their own. Since the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, young Arabs have become much more skeptical of U.S. intentions, even as they consumed American culture more and more.

Last week when I was in Cairo, arriving just after the election, many who heard me speaking Arabic asked me where I am from. My answer was "medinat Obama," Obama's city. Many smiled in recognition. When I asked Cairenes - working class, middle class, students, writers and intellectuals -- what they thought of the U.S. President-elect, most replied with a telling word: "Menshouf." We shall see.

The feeling toward American culture and people are another matter. "Americans are good, it's the government's policies that are bad," says Mohammed, a young Arab in the old part of Cairo. When I ask him about Obama, he brightens. "Obama shows just how remarkable a democracy America is. We wish we could have something like it. We need it in Egypt," he says. "A black man, whose father was a Muslim, without power and money, could rise to the top. That shows how America really is."

But when I asked Mohammed whether he thought Obama would be good for the Arab world, there was that word again. "Menshouf," he said. "I think it doesn't really matter who is the president of the U.S. The policies are the same. It's a new person, but the same country. Bush, Obama, the same," he said. I heard it all over Cairo.

While Americans opposed to Bush administration Middle East policies over the past eight years could still put trust in the American political process, those who grew up in autocracies, monarchies and dictatorships have less reason to trust democracy, having never experienced it.

It is this distrust that al-Qaida is trying to capitalize on. Even if most Arabs disdain the terrorist organization, the injection of the race card is a savvy, if offensive, move.

In Mohammed's menshouf there is hope, of course. It means that this transition and the first 100 days in the Obama administration will be critical in the Arab world. Obama's ability to excite a generation of Americans and his new-media savvy put him in a perfect position to inspire young Arabs to expect something from America beyond business as usual. That would be a real break in the Middle East tradition that we could all support.

Iran: The Way Forward

Twenty specialists on Iran, including ambassadors, government officials, and scholars, have issued a statement calling on the new President to pursue "engagement" with Iran. It should be an important and influential document. Whether it is will be an important guide to how much "change" is delivered in US foreign policy under Barack Obama.

The text is reprinted from Informed Comment, the website of Juan Cole, one of the signatories. The website also publishes the statement's Annex of Eight Myths, such as "President Ahmadinejad calls the shots on nuclear and foreign policy" and "The political system of the Islamic Republic is frail and ripe for regime change".

Among the many challenges that will greet President-elect Obama when he takes office, there are few, if any, more urgent and complex than the question of Iran. There are also few issues more clouded by myths and misconceptions. In this Joint Experts' Statement on Iran, a group of top scholars, experts and diplomats - with years of experience studying and dealing with Iran - have come together to clear away some of the myths that have driven the failed policies of the past and to outline a factually-grounded, five-step strategy for dealing successfully with Iran in the future.

Joint Experts' Statement on Iran

Despite recent glimmers of diplomacy, the United States and Iran remain locked in a cycle of threats and defiance that destabilizes the Middle East and weakens U.S. national security.

Today, Iran and the United States are unable to coordinate campaigns against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, their common enemies. Iran is either withholding help or acting to thwart U.S. interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza. Within Iran, a looming sense of external threat has empowered hard-liners and given them both motive and pretext to curb civil liberties and further restrict democracy. On the nuclear front, Iran continues to enrich uranium in spite of binding U.N. resolutions, backed by economic sanctions, calling for it to suspend enrichment.

U.S. efforts to manage Iran through isolation, threats and sanctions have been tried intermittently for more than two decades. In that time they have not solved any major problem in U.S.-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse. Faced with the manifest failure of past efforts to isolate or economically coerce Iran, some now advocate escalation of sanctions or even military attack. But dispassionate analysis shows that an attack would almost certainly backfire, wasting lives, fomenting extremism and damaging the long-term security interests of both the U.S and Israel. And long experience has shown that prospects for successfully coercing Iran through achievable economic sanctions are remote at best.

Fortunately, we are not forced to choose between a coercive strategy that has clearly failed and a military option that has very little chance of success. There is another way, one far more likely to succeed: Open the door to direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations at the senior diplomatic level where personal contacts can be developed, intentions tested, and possibilities explored on both sides. Adopt policies to facilitate unofficial contacts between scholars, professionals, religious leaders, lawmakers and ordinary citizens. Paradoxical as it may seem amid all the heated media rhetoric, sustained engagement is far more likely to strengthen United States national security at this stage than either escalation to war or continued efforts to threaten, intimidate or coerce Iran.

Here are five key steps the United States should take to implement an effective diplomatic strategy with Iran:

1. Replace calls for regime change with a long-term strategy

Threats are not cowing Iran and the current regime in Tehran is not in imminent peril. But few leaders will negotiate in good faith with a government they think is trying to subvert them, and that perception may well be the single greatest barrier under U.S. control to meaningful dialogue with Iran. The United States needs to stop the provocations and take a long-term view with this regime, as it did with the Soviet Union and China. We might begin by facilitating broad-ranging people-to-people contacts, opening a U.S. interest section in Tehran, and promoting cultural exchanges.

2. Support human rights through effective, international means

While the United States is rightly concerned with Iran's worsening record of human rights violations, the best way to address that concern is through supporting recognized international efforts. Iranian human rights and democracy advocates confirm that American political interference masquerading as "democracy promotion" is harming, not helping, the cause of democracy in Iran.

3. Allow Iran a place at the table - alongside other key states - in shaping the future of Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.

This was the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group with regard to Iraq. It may be counter-intuitive in today's political climate - but it is sound policy. Iran has a long-term interest in the stability of its neighbors. Moreover, the United States and Iran support the same government in Iraq and face common enemies (the Taliban and al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan. Iran has shown it can be a valuable ally when included as a partner, and a troublesome thorn when not. Offering Iran a place at the table cannot assure cooperation, but it will greatly increase the likelihood of cooperation by giving Iran something it highly values that it can lose by non-cooperation. The United States might start by appointing a special envoy with broad authority to deal comprehensively and constructively with Iran (as opposed to trading accusations) and explore its willingness to work with the United States on issues of common concern.

4. Address the nuclear issue within the context of a broader U.S.-Iran opening

Nothing is gained by imposing peremptory preconditions on dialogue. The United States should take an active leadership role in ongoing multilateral talks to resolve the nuclear impasse in the context of wide-ranging dialogue with Iran. Negotiators should give the nuclear talks a reasonable deadline, and retain the threat of tougher sanctions if negotiations fail. They should also, however, offer the credible prospect of security assurances and specific, tangible benefits such as the easing of U.S. sanctions in response to positive policy shifts in Iran. Active U.S. involvement may not cure all, but it certainly will change the equation, particularly if it is part of a broader opening.

5. Re-energize the Arab-Israeli peace process and act as an honest broker in that process

Israel's security lies in making peace with its neighbors. Any U.S. moves towards mediating the Arab-Israeli crisis in a balanced way would ease tensions in the region, and would be positively received as a step forward for peace. As a practical matter, however, experience has shown that any long-term solution to Israel's problems with the Palestinians and Lebanon probably will require dealing, directly or indirectly, with Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran supports these organizations, and thus has influence with them. If properly managed, a U.S. rapprochement with Iran, even an opening of talks, could help in dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, benefiting Israel as well as its neighbors.

***

Long-standing diplomatic practice makes clear that talking directly to a foreign government in no way signals approval of the government, its policies or its actions. Indeed, there are numerous instances in our history when clear-eyed U.S. diplomacy with regimes we deemed objectionable - e.g., Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Libya and Iran itself (cooperating in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban after 9/11) - produced positive results in difficult situations.

After many years of mutual hostility, no one should expect that engaging Iran will be easy. It may prove impossible. But past policies have not worked, and what has been largely missing from U.S. policy for most of the past three decades is a sustained commitment to real diplomacy with Iran. The time has come to see what true diplomacy can accomplish.

Signed:

* Ambassador Thomas Pickering (Co-chair)
* Ambassador James F. Dobbins (Co-chair)
* Gary G. Sick (Co-chair)
* Ali Banuazizi
* Mehrzad Boroujerdi
* Juan R.I. Cole
* Rola el-Husseini
* Farideh Farhi
* Geoffrey E. Forden
* Hadi Ghaemi
* Philip Giraldi
* Farhad Kazemi
* Stephen Kinzer
* Ambassador William G. Miller
* Emile A. Nakhleh
* Augustus Richard Norton
* Trita Parsi
* Barnett R. Rubin
* John Tirman
* James Walsh

Panic! The Iran Bomb!

Geez, I go away for a few days and the world falls apart. First, Al-Qa'eda starts calling President-elect Obama a "house Negro".

That, however, is a close second in the Run-For-Your-Lives contest: Number One is the bomb that Iran is going to drop on us.

This lead paragraph from Thursday's New York Times:

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The reporters remind us, "Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons." "Experts" were trotted out to assure, "[The Iranians] are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option.” So....

For President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.

Well, I have to admit that this revelation upset me a bit. It's going to be hard to enjoy the Tivoli Gardens and the National Museum when I'm watching the sky for nuclear annihilation. Even more upsetting, however, is the realisation --- on closer reading of the story --- that this report is closer to panic than analysis.

Two paragraphs after proclaiming the imminence of the bomb, the article drops in:

Several experts said that [amount of low-enriched uranium] was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

Hmm....that might be significant, especially if the reader can make the effort to link it to the minor details --- five paragraphs later:

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon.

A reader from Birmingham adds:

It's tiresome to see this continual alarmist reporting on what really are routine, benign matters. And what's particular crazy is the claim that Iran almost has enough low-enriched uranium to produce one bomb. Such a bomb would have to be tested. Then there would be uranium for zero bombs.

I hope people don't take such reporting seriously.

Me, too. Otherwise, I might confuse the Christmas lights here for signs of our imminent doom.

Iranian Intrigue: Interpreting The Derakhshan Arrest

This analysis comes from an Enduring America reader and specialist observer of Iranian affairs:

According to Jahan News, which is close to Iran's Intelligence community, Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian-Canadian journalist who has been described as the father of Persian blogging has been arrested in Tehran.  Hossein returned to Iran about three weeks ago and in his most recent post on Twitter, published 27 days ago, he said he was "hanging out in Tehran, frustrated by slow Internet connection, but generally impressed," adding that he "LOVES living in Tehran again" (his emphasis).  Moreover, a quick look at his weblog reveals that he believed that if arrested it would be through violating "the rule of law" by going to Israel.  However he felt reassured that he would not go to jail for more than three months- since he was coming back to the arms of his forefathers for no other reason but to be at their service.

According to what the Jahan article says are "credible sources," Hossein has apparently admitted to spying for Israel, a charge that if pursued, is perhaps more serious than he expected.  Jahan news talks about Hossein's participation in a number of conferences in Israel. It says that Haaretz news paper described him as a friend of Israel.  It then quotes Jerusalem Post and Haaretz as saying that Hossein had described Israel as a model of democracy, and that the Israeli and Turkish system of governance, and participation of religion in government was a good model for Iran.

However, there has been surprise that, according to rumours, Hossein simply handed his laptop over to officials upon return to Iran.  Among the blogging community there has been questions raised whether he has actually even been arrested and his family has refused to comment on the whole affair. Moreover, a spokesman for the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, told NPR that he had no information about the incident. Hossein has posted nothing on his Farsi blog or Facebook site since October 30, i.e. 20 days' silence. Earlier in October he was posting every few days.

It is open knowledge that Hossein visited Israel on two separate occasions.  During his June 2006 visit he stated that he went to Israel as a personal attempt to start a dialogue between Iranian and Israeli people.  However after his second trip there, he suddenly changed his opinion and started becoming vehemently anti- Israeli in his blog. He also became a strong supporter of President Ahmadinejad and came out justifying the arrests of scholars Ramin Jahanbeglou, Hale Esfandiari and businessman Ali Shakeri and condemned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji. In a slightly ironic twist, he wrote a controversial article in which he asserted that Jahanbegloo's own "confession" was authentic - indeed even "the possibility of it being imposed on him by his interrogators" was, according to his logic, "ruled out".  He also accused Jahanbegloo of indirectly "helping the Bush administration in its plans for regime change in Iran through fomenting internal unrest and instability."

It is true Derakhashan began to make fairly regular vitriolic remarks on his blogs and alienating almost everyone who works on Iran, regardless of ideology.  Prior to his return to Iran, he also started attacking Ayatollah Rafsanjani in his blog. There have been suggestions that he fell foul of a power struggle within Iran.  However. it gets even more interesting when right-of-the centre conservative news websites like Parsineh also report that, according to the "rumours", Derakhashan was due to work for Press TV and collaborate with President Ahmahdenijad's government endorsed newspaper.

Some Iranian specialists speculate that Derakhshan's arrest will result in increased scrutiny of the many organizations he has had links with, including Radio Farda, Radio Zamaneh, Rooz Online and VOA.  One specialist stated the arrest would result in "a new genre of conspiracy and soft-regime change literature which will overwhelm the Iranian political milieu in the near future."  Another stated it would not be a surprise if he gave a long confession, with endless names informing the Iranian masses of years of brewing velvet revolution, anti-IRI activism, working as agents of World Zionism and other similar juicy stuff.  If Iran wants to stir up anti-Western hysteria (e.g. the PressTV item today) in order to sabotage any possible reconciliation with the US, this might be a way to do it.

Following this line, the IRNA has just posted the first of what is called in the Iranian political vocabulary "Tak-nevisi", which is a "single-liner serialised confessions".  The text refers to a man called Hossein D, which I can only presume is Hossein Derakhshan.  A very rough translation has some worrying quotes: "As of three years ago, many of my friends who were involved in the reformist press as writers and journalists were encouraged to leave the country, and write against the Velyate Faqih, the Hidden Imam, and lack of freedom in Iran, and were deceived by financial incentives...Now, they live under the worst financial conditions." According to Hossein D. many of these "misled people use tranquilising drugs, and some of them have attempted suicide once or twice... Westerners kept asking us to always write against a few things: Velayate Faqih, belief in the Hidden Imam, and fundamentalists. And if people do not write what the Westerners want, they try to blackmail them by threatening that if do you do not write what we want we will publish the evidence that we have against you. Some of my friends live in very bad financial and psychological conditions and may even wish their own death all the time."

Definitely a situation to be watched.

Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We're Watching

Top Story of the Day: Hillary or Nicolas?

Nope, it's not Senator Clinton, who may or may not be the next Secretary of State.

Nor is it the Global Financial Summit --- yet. Although President Bush welcomed the guests last night, the serious talkin' doesn't start until today. And even then, given the relatively low profile the US will have --- the Bush Administration is almost paralysed, and the Obama folks have chosen to stay in the background --- it will be up to the Europeans to make the running.

No, the surprise headline for this morning is the rocket that French President Nicolas Sarkozy sent to Washington. Or, rather, the US missiles that he is trying to hand back to President Bush.

In talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Sarkozy "joined Russia in condemning the Pentagon's plans to install missile defence bases in central Europe yesterday and backed President Dmitri Medvedev's previously ignored calls for a new pan-European security pact".

The New York Times spectacularly misses the significance, somehow deciding that it lies in "Russia Backs Off on Europe Missile Threat". Russia's feint at putting missiles on its western borders was a political manoeuvre, and to the extent that it has brought Sarkozy away from (or reinforced his existing opposition to) US missile defence, it's worked.

The French President's statement isn't a detachment of Europe from the US. His proposal is that the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, to which both Russia and the US belong, discuss the security pact next summer.

It is, however, a distancing of France from not only missile defence but the US-preferred attempt to expand NATO's reach. That is going to prompt an immediate tangle between France and governments such as Czechoslovakia, which are still clinging to the US missile defence plan, but I suspect Sarkozy is looking to Germany for backing. And I think --- with a smile --- that will put a marker down for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

All in all, the timing of Sarkozy's announcement should add a bit of political spice to the financial talks in the US today.

Under-noticed Story of the Day: Food rather than Rockets

The sad ritual is again being played out on the Israel-Gaza border. The Israelis have made tank raids across the border, and Palestianian groups have lobbed rockets into southern Israel. The Israelis send out their Government spokesmen and, as few US and British media outlets will speak to a Hamas representative, the narrative of Tel Aviv standing firm against Hamas-backed terror gets another paragraph.

The far-from-insignificant story behind the story is the effects of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. On Wednesday, Juan Cole highlighted a UN report that it is running out of food to distribute in the besieged area. The Washington Post in cautious terms --- "residents are warning of a humanitarian crisis because Israel has sealed the territory's borders" --- has now picked up on this, but it is The Independent of London that highlights the impact:

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

Speculation of the Day: Obama and Gitmo

William Glaberson in the New York Times pens the analysis that Barack Obama's "pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers". Significantly, however, this is no comment from the Obama camp.

Adam Cohen in the NewYork Times has a more substantial development. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in my opinion one of the most honourable men in Congress, is not going to let President Obama rest in indecision on issues such as Camp X-Ray, surveillance, and other civil rights issues:

Mr. Feingold has been compiling a list of areas for the next president to focus on, which he intends to present to Mr. Obama. It includes amending the Patriot Act, giving detainees greater legal protections and banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. He wants to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying. And he wants to roll back the Bush administration's dedication to classifying government documents.

Negotiation of the Week: Talks with the Taliban?

As violence escalates in Afghanistan, The Independent of London reported on Thursday: "The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, will today brief Gordon Brown on talks being held with the Taliban with the aim of ending the conflict in his country."

This is a continuing development. Karzai and the Pakistani Government are now pressing the option of discussions with the "moderate" Taliban. Western governments are not necessarily averse to the idea, with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying it should be considered. However, with the Bush Administration in a no-win position --- it gets no credit if talks eventually succeed under an Obama-led effort and it takes the rap if the discussions collapse before 20 January --- this story will be carried forward by folks outside the US.