(Forget) Iran's Elections: Bomb Tehran

No, it's not an exaggeration. At least not for John Bolton, former Assistant Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations (not to mention Winner of the Enduring America Global Irrelevancy Award). Not for The Wall Street Journal, which happily lets him call for war on its pages:

Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime.

(Footnote: The Journal, which cannot be accused of subtlety, also runs an opinion piece by the even more short-on-information, long-on-polemic Con Coughlin, "Iran's Potemkin Election".)

Lebanon and Iran Elections: It's All About (The) US

Related Post: Lebanon’s Elections - From Global “Showdown” to Local Reality

This piece started as an update on our main analysis of the results of Lebanon's elections, but with the US and British media's misreading, simplifications, and exaggerations spreading like kudzu, a separate entry is needed.

For Michael Slackman of The New York Times, it's not just a question of Washington shaping the Lebanese outcome: "Political analysts...attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world." You can slap the Obama model on top of any election to get the right result: "Lebanon’s election could be a harbinger of Friday’s presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi."

Simon Tisdall, normally a shrewd observer of international affairs, trots out the same simplicities in The Guardian of London: "It's possible that watching Iranians will be encouraged in their turn to go out and vote for reformist, west-friendly candidates in Friday's presidential election. Lebanon may be just the beginning of the 'Obama effect'."

Juan Cole has posted a more thoughtful assessment, even as he opens with the reductionist and sensationalist declaration, "President Obama's hopes for progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process would have been sunk if Hezbollah had won the Lebanese elections." And Howard Schneider of The Washington Post, although premature in his anointing of Saad Hariri as Lebanon's next and primary leader (setting aside not only President Suleiman but also presuming that Hariri will be chosen as PM), sets out "the choice...between a showdown with his supporters, a showdown with Hezbollah or -- the more likely outcome -- a continued stalemate over the very issues voters hoped they were addressing in Sunday's balloting".

But if there is to be a simplification, in light of the internal political issues that follow the election, I would like it to come from Robert Fisk in The Independent of London:

What stands out internationally is that the Lebanese still believe in parliamentary democracy and President Obama, so soon after his Cairo lecture, will recognise that this tiny country still believes in free speech and free elections. Another victory for Lebanon, in other words, beneath the swords of its neighbours.

How Not to Cover Iran's Election: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Becomes Sid Vicious

UPDATE: Another, far more useful perspective on the Ahmadinejad rally is offered by Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation: "There's no question that Iran is at a crucial turning point."

With Iran's Presidential election three days later, we're planning a major preview, drawing on first-hand reports and correspondence to assess what might happen in the contest between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) and his three challengers: former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, former Islamic Revolution Guards Corps commander Mohsen Rezaei, and former Speaker of the Parliament Mehdi Karroubi.

However, with Western media waking up to the excitement of the campaign (and thus snapping out of the assumption that Ahmadinejad's re-election was a foregone conclusion), we had to feature this jaw-droppingly awful "atmosphere" piece by Colin Freeman, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph of London who attended an Ahmadinejad rally.

There is no analysis of worth here --- Freeman doesn't even mention any of the other candidates --- merely a series of cultural "translations" to make these wacky Iranians and their wackier President accessible to British and "Western" readers:

"The jostling crowds of a rock gig moshpit, and the carefully choreographed build-up of a World Wrestling Federation grudge match....Rather like promoters for the Rolling Stones or the late James Brown, the president's aides like to keep his fans waiting....One speaker yelled with razzmatazz worthy of TV darts presenter Sid Waddell"

My personal favourite? "Rather like the punk rock group the Sex Pistols, or the singer Pete Doherty, it is not unusual, apparently, for the president to plan a gig but then fail to show."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Sid Vicious. I'm not sure it does much for political analysis, but it's an image that burns on the mind.

Obama's Cairo Speech: A View from Tehran

Iran Review has posted this reaction to last Thursday's speech by President Obama in Cairo from Dr. Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh of the Tehran International Studies and Research Institute. The analysis expands on Golshanpazhooh's "window of hope" article that we posted last month: "The Obama speech is an undeniable turning point. But the most important part of the story is to put these words into action.

Obama's Address: A Point of View

As US President Barack Obama was preparing to deliver his address to the Muslim world in Cairo this week, the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei was almost simultaneously addressing a ceremony on the occasion of the late Imam Khomeini’s demise anniversary in Tehran.

"I say firmly that introducing change and transforming a new image would not be realized through speech and slogans. It rather requires action and making up for the numerous violations of rights of the Iranian nation and the regional nations,” said Ayatollah Khamenei in his address.

Referring to the not-too-distant experience of the people of the region, the Supreme Leader added: “The former US administration has drawn an ugly, violent and hated image from the US government because of its violent acts, military interventions, discriminations and forceful interventions and the Muslim nations hate the United States from the bottom of their hearts."

The same outlook was adopted by many regional media and studies centers in recent days with a different literature. It somehow showed the deeply rooted enthusiasm and expectation of the Muslim people of the region about change in the US policies. It also revealed how high the wall of mistrust between them and the US statesmen was.

Nonetheless, it cannot be claimed that Obama’s Cairo address was only a nice speech devoid of substance and goodwill. After I read the full text of his speech I had a feeling that these remarks could be motivational to every Muslim not because the address praised Islam but because it showed that after long years the US government has at least tried to remove its glasses of pessimism and unilateralism and look at the Muslim community and the Islamic faith “as they are”.

I personally enjoyed the text and applauded Obama for his points of view and manners when he says: “…America does not presume to know what is best for everyone…”; or when he takes a position against opposition of the Western societies with the kind of clothes a Muslim woman should wear: “We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”; or when he tries to recognize the right of my homeland to use peaceful nuclear energy: “And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…”; or when he says: “In our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”; or when he admits: “And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.”; or when he cites words from the three Divine books (Quran, Talmud and Bible) and nicely repeats the message of peace.

In the meantime, there are also points in Obama’s address which are ambiguous and open to question by Muslims, particularly the people of the Middle East. The people of the Middle East hardly believe Obama’s words about their claim of goodwill in Iraq. No one can forget the history of 100 years of Western colonialism and oil plundering in the region as well as their support for monarchial, despotic and undemocratic rules by just hearing a few nice words.

In the opinion of Iranians, the successful US coup d’etat of 1953 in Iran cannot be compared to the hostage taking of the US diplomats in the early revolution, as implicitly stated by Obama. The latter was in fact the natural outcome of 26 years of tolerating a regime which came to power with the US backing while the former was a spontaneous event inspired by revolutionary sentiments.

Obama’s words regarding US financial and logistical support for Pakistan and Afghanistan were nice. But the people of the region cannot but ponder why the US has voiced support for despotic and unelected governments in Pakistan whenever its interests required and potentially produced hatred among those who have grounds for extremism? They also wonder why poppy cultivation and opium export have increased several folds and security has not improved that much in Afghanistan following the US occupation?

The second part of Obama’s remarks is devoted to the question of peace between Palestinians and Israel. As President Obama has admitted himself settlement of this problem will not be an easy task. However, it seems that the biggest hurdle in the way of accepting Washington’s goodwill and resolve in this respect is the presumption that is seen throughout his remarks in this section: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. But according to the literature of the region, we must go back a little bit to see whether it was basically the rights of the Israelis to settle in the lands we now call “occupied” and build more settlements there every day and make life difficult for the main Palestinian owners? If Obama in part of his statement explicitly says that the agony of the Palestinians cannot be ignored and admits that “they endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation”, would it be possible to overlook the term “occupation” in finding a solution for peace and simply bypass it?

Everyone knows it is very difficult to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but now that there is a will in the US administration to understand the positions of the two sides, it would be better to lay its foundations properly. I wish Obama could help Muslims what to do when some fail to recognize the power of a group coming to power in a democratic election? Have we really understood why Hamas was forced after victory in the January 2006 parliamentary elections in Palestine to shift its policy to that of a liberation struggle?

In the third part of his address, President Obama talked about the right of countries to access nuclear technology and about their responsibilities. Obama has tried in a fair way to understand “those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not…” And for the same reason he “strongly reaffirms America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

Will the people of the region witness a day not too far when Israel’s nuclear sites and armaments go under IAEA supervision and when Israel joined the NPT under US pressure? Wouldn’t it be more rational then to exert pressures on other countries to come clean in their nuclear programs?

In any event, the Obama speech is an undeniable turning point. But the most important part of the story is to put these words into action. If Obama fails to put these words into action he would be unable to create a change in the outlook and more importantly the “mentality” and “perception” of the people of the region towards the US. If this happens it would be a big disaster; a tragedy equal to disappointment and repeating the past feeling and bitter thought in the mind of most of the people of the region that “it is the same America and there is no difference between Bush and Obama; that their policy is the same policy of hegemony and unilateralism with the only difference that the new one has a more attractive look.”

UPDATED Cases of (Non)-Engagement: From Iran and Saberi to North Korea and Ling-Lee

UPDATE: Pointed illustrations already of the limited options, if any, that the US Government has. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's warning that the US could return North Korea to its list of states sponsoring terrorism, made only hours before the sentencing of Ling and Lee, is already looking irrelevant. Leaks to the New York Times that the US may "interdict, possibly with China’s help, North Korean sea and air shipments suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear technology" have been overtaken.


An opinion piece by The Christian Science Monitor by Allan Richarz sadly highlights the difficult situation. Richarz blusters with artificial linkages between the Saberi and Ling-Lee cases ("little more than manufactured crises designed to wrest concessions"), irrelevancies (his warning, "if the US reciprocates Tehran's gesture by releasing the three Iranian detainees held in Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before another hapless Westerner is put on trial" is a fantasy --- Iran never made
that connection in the Saberi case), and table-thumping ("the US and the West must adopt a hard line"). All of this is to cover the harsh lack of specific measures behind Richarz's general invocation, "The West must swiftly and effectively level retaliatory political and economic sanctions on the offending state."

The news that the Central Court of North Korea has jailed American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for 12 years for illegal crossing of the Korean border prompts a "compare and contrast" with the case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist freed but then released earlier this year by Tehran.

The Saberi case, while tense, was ultimately easier to resolve because there were channels of communication between the US and Iran. The general Obama approach of "engagement" both bolstered and gave further impetus to the campaign first to mitigate Saberi's sentence and then to allow her to leave Iran. Had Tehran persisted with its detention, the wider possibility of a US-Iranian rapprochement might have collapsed.

Unfortunately, that foundation of engagement is not present in the Ling-Lee case. North Korea has already raised the ante of confrontation with its recent nuclear and missile tests. The jailing of the journalists now raises the price for discussion: which incentives have to be tabled to get both the release of the two women and Pyongyang's agreement to re-open talks on its nuclear future?

Of course, the case can be read as a red line drawn away from the nuclear dimension. Investigating the plight of North Koreans defecting or attempting to leave the country will not be tolerated; Pyongyang's internal affairs and treatment of its population is not subject to external scrutiny.

The point is that --- whatever North Korea's motives --- the possibilities for a humanitarian resolution are far more limited, if they exist at all, than they were in the case of Iran. That in turn is a far-from-incidental commentary on the reality as well as the rhetoric of Obama's unclenched fist.

Updates on the case can be followed via the Liberate Laura website.