June 9, 2009--Words Worth A Thousand Pictures

"An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East."

So reported Michael Slackman in yesterday's New York Times. (Full article linked below.)

When was the last time any party we backed won anything in the Middle East? A few years ago when President Bush and Secretary of State Rice openly indicated support for the election of Fattah in Gaza, Hamas ran away with the election. Support from the U.S. at the time was seen as a guarantee that whomever we were opposing would win in a landslide. As Hamas did.

Thus it appeared to be quite a risk when President Obama dispatched Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton to Beirut to show support for the U.S.-oriented group of parties referred to as the March 14 Coalition. Pretty much all experts said that this would be the kiss of political death and assure that Hezbollah would come into power. But as it turns out, it appears that they have slipped further into minority status.

What changed in the region since the Hamas victory? One simple, possible answer is that Barack Obama is no George Bush.

Could it be a coincidence that Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world on the Friday before the Sunday election in Lebanon? I doubt it. As I doubt that the timing wasn't also meant to coincide with a potentially even more important election set for this coming Friday in Iran. If President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also defeated what will people say? Around the world, on the so-called Arab Street, and among right-wingers right here in America who have been asserting since last Friday that Obama went to the Middle East to "apologize" to the Arabs for our invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib. All signs of his "weakness."

Rush Limbaugh, Liz Cheney, and now Sarah Palin and their followers acknowledge that Obama writes and delivers good speeches. But, they say, these are just words. What counts are deeds. With that I agree.

And perhaps in Lebanon and later this week in Iran we may see evidence of the power of these "just words." Perhaps there will be more new facts on the ground.

How might this work? Obama’s speech in Cairo was carefully crafted to reach at least three audiences. Least important was the American public. For them, for us, he needed to avoid making actual apologies in order not to be accused of disparaging the United States while on “foreign soil.” A political felony. So he “acknowledged” various acts that were important for Islamic people to understand he knew were offensive to them as a way to establish his bona fides while not turning off all but the extreme right back at home. A delicate balancing act.

The second audience was Israeli leaders and the Israeli public. To have any chance at all for a peace agreement in the Holy Land he knew he had to press Prime Minister Netanyahu so that he would understand that the era of unwavering and uncritical support for Israel is over. Thus the emphasis on freezing all settlement activity in the West Bank. No more saying one thing in public while winking in private by a succession of American administrations at everything Israeli governments sanction in order to appease the interests of the right-wing religious parties which control the balance of political power in the Knesset. Hillary Clinton has been unleashed to be even more forceful in this regard, which is critical since she is known to be a better friend to Israel than Obama, who is still regarded there with suspicion. This is a risky strategy to use with a proud people who feel surrounded and threatened by enemies; but unless the Israelis are willing to put some concessions on the table there is no hope for a deal that will lead to peace and their security.

The most important of Obama’s three audiences was Iran. Without coming to some sort of diplomatic accommodation with them it is inevitable that at some point they will acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and it will be impossible to restrain the Israelis from attacking them preemptively. This would unleash a regional war and threaten worldwide economic collapse. So the stakes are very high. Obama, even during the campaign, indicated a willingness to negotiate directly with them. And he now sees an opportunity to help the Iranians change their government in a freely-contested election at the end of the week.

Last Wednesday the ruling mullahs allowed a live televised debate, with the gloves off, between President Ahmadinejad and his leading challenger, the moderate Mir Hussein Moussavi. Among other things, with the entire country watching, Moussavi accused his rival of ignoring domestic economic issues (the Iranian economy, in spite of their oil reserves, has been in a depression for many years) to foolishly concentrate on foreign policy—for unnecessary confrontations with the West and for wrongly denying the truth of the Holocaust.

Though on first thought this seemed remarkable—aren’t presidents there puppets of the behind-the-scenes ruling elite—why, on second thought, might the real rulers of Iran perhaps be seeking a change in public leadership? Maybe they are feeling pressure from their unemployed, substantially secular, restive youthful population. Well over half of Iranians are younger than 30. Perhaps to save their political skins they want to let some pressure out of the system—to let the people have a leader who will focus on their everyday needs rather than engaging in nuclear saber-rattling which is further isolating Iran and making it more difficult for them to maintain their own power. We will see this coming Friday.

But what we saw last Friday in Obama’s speech was a subtle approach to Iran. He did not beat the lectern when he spoke about them. Yes, he mentioned deep concern about nuclear proliferation in the region, but he did not single Iran out for special criticism. If anything, his tone toward them was one of openness and a continued willing to deal with them diplomatically. So much so that people on the right both here and in Israel criticized him for being harsher on our ally, Israel, than on our “enemy,” Iran.

I suspect that as with everything pertaining to Obama this was all carefully weighed and calculated. He is ultimately attempting to create political space for leaders in Lebanon and Syria and Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia to moderate their rhetoric and behavior. Leaders in all of those places feel unable, or unwilling, to get out in front of the perceived will of their people. All rule precariously. All feel threatened by the potential power of their frustrated populations. If Obama, who in that region has remarkable credibility for an American president, can show those young people who are yearning for a better life that there are alternatives to despair and militancy perhaps their governments can moderate their own behavior and take some chances with the fundamentalists in their midst who may then, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, slip into minority status.

As with pretty much everything, and especially in the Middle East where history is so aligned against accommodation, most everything is uncertain. And, yes, thus far we have heard mainly words. Deeds, again, need to follow. But there have been times in the past when seemingly just words have been powerful beyond what might be expected. This may turn out to be one of those historic occasions. Friday in Iran could be interesting.