Iran Awakening

When I was in Iran two years ago I was entranced by

Shiraz in May

The parks of Isfahan

And the snow covered peaks of the Alborz Mountains north of Tehran.

These are sights that Neda Agha-Soltan will never see again.

Gunned down in the prime of life, the 26 year old woman has become the symbol of the pro-democracy uprising in Iran. Her picture will haunt me for a long time.

As I traveled through Iran, I was told that “This regime has totalitarian tendencies” and “It needs to change, but we will do it. We don’t need your help”. The young, post revolution, generation is proud of Iran's long history of human rights, dating to Hammurabi, and democracy, dating to the early 20th century. They are resentful of the US over-throw of their Mossedegh led democratic government and support of the autocratic Shah. They are determined to make change happen. Convinced that they had changed the government and that the change has been stolen from them, they have risen up to demand the change.

The movement has been driven by the women, who have issues beyond the headscarf; issues of inheritance, divorce, testimony in courts and child custody that are real world issues. The women of Iran are strong and determined. As my guide said “These young girls are the regime’s worst nightmare.” The political leaders are running to get in front of a popular movement of the young and not so young urban elite and middle class.

All of this is exposing the fault lines in the ruling class. Some support the opposition and some support the conservative rural population and urban poor. Who will “win” is unclear. It will probably end with a compromise, unsatisfactory to everybody. What is clear is that Iran will be changed forever. The bond of trust between the people and their government has been broken. No longer will they do something just because the government says so. It won’t happen quickly. As Iran scholar Gary Sick said “This is not a sprint. It is a marathon.”

It is, however, an issue for the Iranians themselves to decide. President Obama is absolutely right to keep a low profile. Remember “We will do it. We don’t need your help.” The best thing that America can do is to keep this proud people, determined to make change, in our prayers.

If you want daily blow by blow of what is happening, including the “tweets” translated from Farsi, here is a good place. I don’t know when they sleep.

The Lebanese elections are not over

When I was in Lebanon last fall and met with numerous Lebanese political leaders and American diplomats, the consensus was that the Hezbollah led March 8 coalition would win a narrow victory in the parliamentary elections and would be asked to form the next government. US officials were doing everything possible to prevent this outcome; funneling copious amounts of aid through the ruling western oriented March 14 coalition. They were joined in this endeavor by Egypt and Saudi Arabia on behalf of March 14 and by Iran and Syria on behalf of the March 8 coalition.

So much money has been expended by all sides in vote buying, vote renting, air tickets so ex-pats could vote, etc. that the Lebanese economy has continued to move along at a 7% growth rate despite the global recession. After several months of campaigning and mudslinging, the Lebanese people finally got to choose and returned control to the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former prime minister Rifik Harari. The Obama administration must have breathed a sigh of relief.

Western media have portrayed the result as a defeat for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. In reality it was a defeat for Hezbollah’s ally, Christian leader Michel Aoun and his PFM party. Hezbollah only fielded 11 candidates and was counting on Amal, a Shiia party, and PFM to give them a working majority. Although the March 8 coalition received 100,000 more popular votes than March 14, the arcane Lebanese system which allocates 50% of the seats to the Christians even though they are only 1/3 of the population resulted in March 14 winning a majority.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah accepted the results “in a sporting spirit” and called for cooperation among the parties. This will be tested over the next few weeks as March 14 attempts to form a government. Much depends on whether Hariri or current Prime Minister Faoud Siniora heads the government. When the current unity government was negotiated in Qatar last fall, Hezbollah was given 1/3 of the cabinet seats which gives them veto power on major decisions. Despite the fact that nothing much has changed, Siniora, under US pressure, has said the March 14 “won” the election and should govern by itself. This is a non-starter for Hezbollah, who believes in consensus government and could precipitate a governmental crisis. (Hezbollah’s Foreign Minister discusses this here.)


Saad Hariri, on the other hand, has a good relationship with Nasrallah and there could be enough trust to allow Hezbollah to forgo its blocking third. The risks to the Lebanese political system are not over.

Obama in Cairo

On Thursday President Barack Obama gave his much anticipated, much ballyhooed, speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. Prior to the speech the administration attempted to lower expectations by saying that the speech would not propose dramatic policy changes, but rather would address broad principles that could serve as guideposts for policy going forward.
The rhetoric of common roots and common aspirations was, in general, well received in the Arab world and the Muslim world in general. This is a welcome change from the language of “Islami-fascism”, “axis of evil” and “with us or against us” that was the hallmark of the previous American administration.
Even the Israeli government was subdued in their reaction saying publicly “there was nothing new in the speech”. They recognized that there was no upside to publicly confronting an American president who is enormously popular around the world.
In the US, however, conservative Republicans did not feel similarly constrained. Fox News anchorwoman Gretchen Carlson, in discussing Obama’s statement that “the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government”, was astonished that “He apologized for the US role in Iran!” She must feel that it is OK for the US to overthrow democratically elected governments. The Republican Jewish Coalition reacted by saying “President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech. American policy should not be balanced…”
In the last two days there has been much parsing of every word by pundits of all stripes. It reminds me of my Bible study class where we can spend an hour discussing one short verse.
Nevertheless, since there appear to be some subtle changes in the language being used that may portend policy changes to come, I will take this opportunity to do the same. Rather than saying “Iran must abandon its nuclear program” he said “Iran should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power”. This leaves the door open for an agreement that would allow Iran to retain its enrichment program while agreeing to constraints that would insure that the program is used only for peaceful purposes. This is a change that some of us have recommended for some time.
With respect to relationship to Hamas, he acknowledged that “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians.” He slightly rephrased the standard “conditions” on Hamas from Hamas must "renounce violence, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and abide by previous agreements" to Hamas must "put an end to violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and recognize past agreements". This gives Hamas room to enter into a ceasefire in return for a place at the table, recognize Israel without having to recognize a state with no declared borders and recognize the existence of previous agreements without having to agree to abide by them.
All this gives me some optimism that real policy changes may follow which may actually lead somewhere.