The Latest from Iran: Marches, Deaths, and Politics (16 June)

NEW The Latest from Iran (17 June): Uncovering the News on Attacks, Protests, and the Supreme Leader

Iran: Four Scenarios for the Vote Recount
Iran: Video and Transcript of President Obama’s Remarks (15 June)
Related Post: The Latest from Iran: Demonstrations and An Appeal to the Guardian Council (15 June)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED




2220 GMT: Politically, the evening highlight appears to be the Supreme Leader's meeting with representatives of the four Presidential campaigns, calling for them to join together for "national unity". The move seems to be more of an attempt to buy some more political time while the Guardian Council tries to sort out its options --- all candidates will have been told of the necessity to keep demonstrations non-violent and non-threatening to the regime.

Elsewhere, chatter about gatherings has died down (it is, after all, 3 a.m. in Iran), so the hope is that there will be none of the violence that was feared earlier today.

Thanks to all for working with us today. We'll see you about 0530 GMT --- until then, our thoughts are with friends and colleagues in Iran.

2115 GMT: Breaking News On, citing the Wall Street Journal, says gunmen have seriously injured at least one person after opening fire on Mousavi supporters in Tehran. We're unable to find the specific information on the WSJ's site at this time. [Posted by Mike]

2100 GMT: Barack Obama has told CNBC that the outcome of events in Iran will make little difference to US policy towards Iran, and that Iranian hostility towards the US would remain:

"I think it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised," he said. "I think it's important to understand that either way we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the US. We have long term interests in not having them with nuclear power and funding terrorism."

[Posted by Mike]

1845 GMT: I am on a break for a couple of hours. Please keep items coming in for our late evening update --- we are following stories of a possible large march tomorrow and a statement by Ayatollah Montazeri.

1825 GMT: Reuters, citing British newspaper correspondent, says loud cries of "Allah-o-Akbar" from Tehran rooftops.

Reports that former President Rafsanjani and his daughter were amongst demonstrators marching from Vanak Square today.

1755 GMT: Twitter sources say Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi was at the rally in front of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting complex and spoke to the demonstrators.

1750 GMT: Has the BBC, normally cautious about showing any political opinion in a conflict, tilted toward the Iranian oppositions? The Beeb's homepage has turned from its usual Red to Green.

1630 GMT: Press TV still focuses on pro-Ahmadinejad rally but adds, "Pro-Mousavi rallies surround the venue" (possibly a coded reference to demonstrating outside the main Iranian broadcasting complex), and says Mousavi is among the crowd.

1535 GMT: Twitter references to "tens of thousands" of opposition demonstrators in front of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting complex are complemented by witness reports to BBC of "a mass rally in northern Tehran".

1530 GMT: Press TV English's "News in Brief" highlights pro-Ahmadinejad rally noting, "This square was supposed to be the venue of a rally for Mousavi supporters but Ahmadinejad supporters decided to show up in the same location earlier."

1520 GMT: The pro-Ahmadinejad rally has proceeded peacefully while, after the cancellation of the main opposition rally earlier today, smaller demonstrations have been occurring across Tehran. There are stories of more attacks by security forces and paramilitary Basiji at universities, including Shiraz and Mashaad. The BBC has reported the story, which circulated yesterday, that 120 faculty resigned at Tehran University.

A note on the media coverage: it became painfully apparent this afternoon that Al Jazeera's correspondent was reported from the confines of his (badly set up for sound) office. When the programme's host mentioned this, the correspondent replied that he was free to move around Tehran but, in a convoluted explanation, added that he was restricting himself "for his own safety". I suspect Government monitors were either nearby or watching intently from a Ministry. Other international media have also been effectively blinded by teh restrictions on movement.

1255 GMT: I am off to appear on Al Jazeera English's "Inside Story" considering the politics and protests in Iran. The programme will air at 1730 GMT. Full updates will resume in about two hours.

1240 GMT: Almost three hours after it began, the pro-Ahmadinejad rally is finally receiving coverage, albeit from Press TV English. Camera shots show that Vali-e Asr Square is filled with demonstrators waving Iranian flags, while correspondent Homa Lezgee is estimating there are "thousands" in the square and giving a basic summary of their arguments that Ahmadinejad won a clear majority in an election in which almost 40 million votes were cast. Lezgee is vague on who might speak to the rally, although she says it is likely to last "several hours".

Lezgee says Mousavi supporters were in Vali-e Asr Square but have moved to Vanak Square and she has had no reports of clashes.

1205 GMT: BBC correspondent John Lyon in Tehran says that, after a loosening of restrictions on international media yesterday, reporters are now confined to their offices unless they have official permission for movement. He speculates that this indicates a power struggle within the Iranian system and, from his office, says that this situation "must remind Iranians of 1979".

1115 GMT: News services are reporting that the Mousavi campaign has called off this afternoon's rally because of fear of violence.

An extraordinary interview on Al Jazeera: Professor Sadegh Zibakalam, head of Iranian Studies at Tehran University, is saying the Guardian Council's decision to review the vote is "too little, too late" to satisfy public opinion: "Nothing short of declaring the election null and void will stop the protest of the people." Even more surprisingly, Zibakalam criticised the Supreme Leader's failure to heed the pre-election warnings, in a letter from former President Rafsanjani, of Government manipulation of the vote.

1105 GMT: We've just posted an outstanding analysis by Chris Emery of the possible outcomes of the Guardian Council's recount of Friday's vote.

1035 GMT: Echoing yesterday's developments, there is confusion as to whether the Mousavi campaign is withdrawing its support for a rally. Today's tension is heightened by the overlap of the 5 p.m. rally with the earlier pro-Ahmadinejad demonstration.

1030 GMT: The Guardian Council has rejected the appeal of the Mousavi campaign for a new election: ""Based on the law, the demand of those candidates for the cancellation of the vote, this cannot be considered."

0945 GMT: The Guardian of London has posted a handy spreadsheet of the "official" vote on Friday, broken down province-by-province.

0900 GMT: According to Saeed Ahmed, the Mousavi campaign has rejected the recount proposal and insisted on a new election. It believe a "recount will provide more opportunity for fraud".

0825 GMT: CNN's Saeed Ahmed reports that the Guardian Council told the Islamic Republic News Agency that it met with the three opposition candidates, "asked them to specify what areas they want recount, and agreed to do so". That would indicate a wide-range rather than narrow reconsideration of the vote.

In turn, this opens up the possibility that the Guardian Council may overturn Friday's result. That, however, raises the further question: would it go as far as to order a re-run election or even declare Mousavi the victor?

A possible way out would be for the Guardian Council to declare Ahmadinejad's "revised" figures at below 50 percent (vs. the 63-64 percent he supposedly received). That would lead to a second-round contest between the President and Mousavi. Such a "solution" would still be politically tricky: a scapegoat (for example, the pro-Ahmadinejad Minister of Interior) would have to be found for last Friday's unfortunate events. It would mean, however, that the Council would not have to make the choice between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

It is notable that all of this is occurring while Ahmadinejad is in Moscow. Yesterday, the rumour was that he had cancelled the trip. Now the rumour is that he was encouraged to leave Iran as these political manoeuvres took place.

0813 GMT: Press TV English confirms news that Guardian Council "ready to recount disputed ballot boxes".

0810 GMT: According to CNN's International Desk, Press TV in Iran is reporting that the Guardian Council will recount votes from some of the provinces in Friday's election.

0740 GMT: Concerns about possible confrontations have been raised by the announcement that there will be a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Vali-e Asr Square at 3 p.m. local time today. Demonstrators protesting the election gather in the same location two hours later.

Press TV, reporting on both planned rallies, is emphasising Mir Hossein Mousavi's call on his supporters "to keep calm...to act peacefully and to avoid falling into the trap of street violence". Mousavi's headquarters says he is not attending the 5 p.m. rally.

0645 GMT: The office of leading politician Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an ally of Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, says that he has been arrested.

Morning Update 0530 GMT: State-run Press TV is reporting that seven people were killed in the "illegal rally" at Azadi Square in Tehran yesterday. There was no direct reference to the probable source of the gunfire, members of the paramilitary Basiji militia.

Instead, Press TV's initial reference, "As protesters were beginning to disperse at sundown unidentified gunmen fired shots into the crowd," has been replaced by this morning's assertion of an "attack on a military post" by demonstrators "reportedly trying to loot weapons and vandalise public and Government property". At the same time, Press TV continues to emphasize that this "was a peaceful rally up until [that] moment."

The media line, while less enthusiastic than the coverage of yesterday afternoon's rally (see 15 June updates), indicates that the Iranian Government, including the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is trying to maintain some room for compromise with opposition.

That impression is supported by events on the political front. the optimism of yesterday afternoon has been replaced by a downbeat caution amongst opposition leaders. Mir Hossein Mousavi, writing his followers last night about his appeal to the Guardian Council over vote fraud, said, ""I don't have any hope in them."

However, in a sign that compromise might be sought, the Guardian Council are now calling the electoral outcome “provisional” and are meeting with all three opposition candidates today. The meetings occur as President Ahmadinejad is out of the country, having left for a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Russia last night. Ahmadinejad, in a statement to the press as he departed, made no reference to yesterday's marches.

Other international media such as CNN, restricted in their movements, are following Press TV on the report of casualties.

In Washington, President Obama was asked about Iran during his press conference with Italian President Silvio Berlusconi. He replied,"[I am] deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on television....I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected."

At the same time, Obama emphasized that his Administration would not intervene to influence the internal developments: ""We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran."

(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's Elections: From Global "Showdown" to Local Reality

Related Post: Lebanon and Iran Elections - It’s All About (The) US



UPDATE --- IT'S ABOUT (THE) US: For Michael Slackman of The New York Times, it's not 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.")

My immediate reaction to the results of Lebanon's elections, in which a "March 14" coalition of largely Sunni Muslim and Christian groups including Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, maintained a Parliamentary majority (71 of 128 seats) over a "March 8" coalition of largely Shia Muslim and Christian groups including Hezbollah?

Surprise.

Not surprise at the result, even though many observers expected the Hezbollah coalition, which also included the Shia party Amal and the Christian party led by former President Michel Aoun, to take a narrow majority of seats. The balance of the result came in a handful of seat in largely Christian areas, and those groups in March 14 were able to mobilise their supporters more effectively than their counterparts in March 8.

The surprise instead came as I read, in American and British media, the sometimes vapid, often reductionist, possibly counter-productive framing of the outcome: "Pro-Western bloc defeats Hezbollah in crucial poll", "a Western-backed coalition...thwart[ed] a bid by the Islamist Hezbollah party to increase its influence". "a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East". Even one of the best "Western" analyses of the result, Robert Fisk's assessment in The Independent, was converted through an editor's headline to "Lebanese voters prevent Hizbollah takeover".

Anyone reading these headlines could be forgiven for concluding that the March 8 group consisted solely of "Islamist" Hezbollah, even though it fielded only 11 candidates (all of whom won) put forth by the coalition. Conversely, the March 14 bloc needed no further identification beyond "US-backed". The New York Times account did not even bother, apart from one phrase buried deep in the article, to explain what "March 14" was. It was enough to depict in the opening paragraphs "a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria" and "Hezbollah itself — a Shiite political, social and military organization that is officially regarded by the United States and Israel as a terrorist group".

The post-election reality is likely to be far more mundane though important, not for US and British interpretations of "Hezbollah v. US (and Israel), but for the Lebanese people. Since the assassination of Rafik Hariri in June 2005 and Syria's withdrawal from the country, Lebanon --- with a fascinating but often frustrating political system trying to hold together Sunnis, Shi'a, and Christians --- has struggled to maintain a working national government. After months of effective suspension, a "National Unity" Cabinet with former General Suleiman as President was finally agreed in 2008. Members of the March 8 bloc held 1/3 of the Cabinet seats and a veto on proposed legislation.

The nominal March 14 majority does not resolve that situation. As Robert Fisk observes, "The electoral system – a crazed mixture of sectarianism, proportional representation and 'list' fixing – means that no one ever really "wins" elections in Lebanon, and yesterday was no different." So today Lebanon returns to the issue of whether that system will be maintained. While not making an explicit commitment, Saad Hariri said all parties must "give a hand to each other and have the will to go back to work". Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah, conceding defeat, offered conciliation: "We accept the official results in a sporting spirit. I would like to congratulate all those who won, those in the majority and those in the opposition."

The first post-election issue is likely to be whether the March 8 groups will retain their Cabinet veto. Withdrawing it risks a breakdown of "unity" and a return to the pre-2008 suspension of Government; maintaining it limits the scope for legislation and precludes the demand, put forth by Israel and the United States, for the disarming of Hezbollah's militias. And even before that, there is the question of who becomes Prime Minister: according to Al Jazeera, US officials prefer current PM Fouad Siniora to Hariri.

No doubt the veneer of Lebanon's result as a critical step in the Middle East peace process will continue for a few days, as. The Wall Street Journal declared, "The push back of Hezbollah is seen as providing President Barack Obama more diplomatic space to pursue his high-profile Arab-Israeli peace initiative." The reality, however, is that this image of Lebanon --- and beyond that, the Hezbollah v. US-Israel-peace-loving countries narrative --- is more pretext than substance, especially with the post-2005 Syrian pullback. I suspect that the issues that preoccupy most Lebanese are internal rather than external, and the space to deal with those political and economic matters would be welcomed.

So the danger is not that a Lebanon led by Hezbollah, and behind Hezbollah its "masters" in Iran, will emerge to challenge Israel and the US. Instead, the political knife cuts the other way: external rhetoric of the Hezbollah danger, a rhetoric which can always be escalated not to advance the regional peace process but to block it, would simply add to the internal tensions as Lebanon tries to find a stable political leadership in a time of great economic and social change.

So, as the Middle Eastern road show returns to more established venues --- George Mitchell in Israel and possibly Syria this week, a Hamas delegation including Khaled Meshaal going to Cairo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising a major foreign policy speech --- here's a proposed follow-up for the headline writers on Lebanon.

Leave It Be.

Obama in Cairo: A "Challenging, Thoughtful Speech"

Related Post: President Obama’s Speech in Cairo - The “Right Path” Runs Through Israeli Settlements

I'm going to take another 24 hours to sift through the reactions to President Obama's speech in Cairo, but the general perception is that it has been well-received in the US. There were expected levels of idiocy (Joe Pagliarulo on The Glenn Beck Program that Obama should have done what Ronald Reagan would have, telling moderate Muslims to love America or "live in your cave") and political confrontation (Liz Cheney, who is clearly making her move from State Department bureaucrat and Vice President's daughter to rising Republican star, scoffing at Obama's "hand-holding" in a world of "terrorism,...the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East"); however, even former Bush Administration officials like Peter Feaver declared, "For the most part, I think [Obama] did what he had to do," and The Wall Street Journal gave support, albeit through the fatuous and misleading claim, "Barack Hussein Bush".

There was sustained criticism of Obama's presentation from Noam Chomsky, who saw no substance apart from Israel-Palestine, where Obama was continuing "the path of unilateral US rejectionism". Yet other analysts who have been hostile to the President's interventions in Afghanistan and Pakistan were positive about this engagement with the Middle East; Robert Dreyfuss wrote, "Obama hit a home run."

In addition to the shrewd observations of Canuckistan and Chris E on my original analysis, I was particularly struck by the evaluation of Marc Lynch, which had high praise for Obama's "thoughtful, nuanced and challenging reflection on America's relations with the Muslims around the world". At the same time, I think there is a convergence of possible weakness both in this evaluation and the speech of the President. Lynch's question on Israel and Palestine, "How will the U.S. and the international community support...non-violent action and redeem...moral authority?", could be applied to Obama's vagueness on plans beyond an initial challenge to the Israeli expansion of settlements.

My First Take on The Speech

MARC LYNCH

President Obama's speech today in Cairo met the bar he set for himself.  In an address modeled after the Philadelphia speech on race, he forewent soaring oratory in favor of a thoughtful, nuanced and challenging reflection on America's relations with the Muslims around the world (not "the Muslim world", which for some reason became a major issue in American punditry over the last few days).  As he frankly recognized, no one speech can overcome the many problems he addressed.  But this speech is an essential starting point in a genuine conversation, a respectful dialogue on core issues. After the initial rush of instant commentaries and attempts to inflame controversy pass, it should become the foundation for a serious, ongoing conversation which could, as the President put it, "remake this world."

Before I get into the substance of the speech, a few preliminary notes.

First, Obama made an admirable effort to speak a few words in Arabic, even if he mangled the pronunciations (hajib instead of hijab, al-Azhar). As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, a little effort learning local languages signals respect and goes a long way.  He also effectively interspersed quotes from the Quran, without it being too obtrusive -- I would have liked to have seen some bits from the great Islamic philosophers, but oh well.

Second, the rollout of the speech already stands as one of the most successful public diplomacy and strategic communications campaigns I can ever remember -- and hopefully a harbinger of what is to come.  This wasn't a one-off Presidential speech.  The succession of statements (al-Arabiya interview, Turkish Parliament, message to the Iranians) and the engagement on the Israeli-Palestinian policy front set the stage.  Then the White House unleashed the full spectrum of new media engagement for this speech -- SMS and Twitter updates, online video, and online chatroom environment, and more.  This will likely be followed up upon to put substance on the notion of this as a "conversation" rather than an "address" -- which along with concrete policy progress will be the key to its long-term impact, if any.

Third, I am going to refrain from commenting on the Arab response for now.  That will take a few days, at least, to unfold.  The usual suspects will appear on the media, and some will have valuable things to say, but I want to wait to see the talk shows on the major TV stations, op-eds, forums, blogs, and more.  A cautionary note, though --- English-language Egyptian blogs are likely to be a particularly poor initial "focus group" for  judging the response.  But listening to the response and engaging in the debate which emerges will be key, for American officials and for the American public.  Because Obama's address sought to reframe the conversation, we won't know whether it succeeds until we see how the subsequent political debate unfolds.

OK, now to the speech itself.   This was a challenging, thoughtful speech which will be picked at and discussed for a long time.  It wasn't as revolutionary as some might have hoped, but that's not surprising -- the ground is so well-trodden that it would have been astonishing to see something genuinely new.  Instead, it struck me as a thoughtful reflection and invitation to conversation, with some important nuance which might easily be missed.  It was neither "just like Bush" nor a total departure from past American rhetoric.    I will only focus here on some of the most interesting and important aspects from my perspective -- and I have intentionally not read any other commentary or talked to anyone about it, in order to keep my own impressions fresh for now.

Violent Extremism. Obama's lengthy early discussion of violent extremism was politically necessary, if a bit excessive -- the most Bush-like part of the speech in some ways, but not others.   He made clear the reality of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and invoked 9/11 to provide context for American efforts in Afghanistan. But crucially, without drawing attention to it, he pointedly did not refer to a "Global War on Terror."   He took care, as in his Turkey address, to correctly placed the challenge on the marginal fringe of Islam: "The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace."

This deflates rather than exaggerates the threat, while still taking it seriously -- his lengthy discussion of violent extremists should reassure skeptics who feared he would ignore it, but hopefully without dominating and driving out the other messages.  Throughout the speech he took care to present a vision for a convergence between the values, interests and aspirations of those vast majorities.   Such a convergence must not be held hostage to those few violent extremists, he made clear, while also forcefully repeating that those extremists will be combatted.  He did well to insist that the U.S. was changing course on deviations from its ideals -- torture, Guantanamo -- without belaboring the point. All of this was fine, similar to the Turkey speech, and was what needed to be said.

It worries me, though, to hear him say that the U.S. must remain in Afghanistan and Pakistan until "we [can] be confident that there [are] not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can."  By that standard, U.S. troops probably can never leave... but that's a topic for another day. But he did very well to point out firmly that the U.S. had no aspirations for bases in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and that "America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis."

Israelis and Palestinians. I'm still struggling to grapple with this truly astonishing portion of his speech.  I don't think I have ever heard any American politician, much less President, so eloquently, empathetically, and directly equate the suffering and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians. This is the one part which I have to quote:

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: 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.

This is quite possibly the most powerful statement of America's stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the urgent need for justice on both sides that I have ever heard.  He posed sharp challenges to Israelis and Palestinians alike, directly addressing the realities of Palestinian life under occupation and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza while also empathizing with Israeli fears.  He positioned the U.S. as the even-handed broker it needs to be:  "America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs." Left unsaid, but clearly in the background, was the fact that he has been matching those words with deeds by forcefully taking on the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

He also offered a powerful analogy to the American civil rights campaign and other global experiences to argue that "that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."  I really like this analogy, which he extended well beyond America's shores. Some Palestinians will likely complain, though, that their own attempts at non-violent activism too often get crushed beneath Israeli bulldozers.  How will the U.S. and the international community support such non-violent action and redeem such moral authority?

Iran and "Resistance". The section on Iran was artful, though not as exceptional as some other parts of the speech.  He did well to offer to move beyond the past and to offer a way forward, but with few new details about that course. The key may be not in the comments on nuclear weapons or even on the offer of dialogue, but in this line:   "The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build."  This seems to be a nod to the reframing which I have been urging for months now:  challenging the "Resistance" narrative which has increasingly dominated regional discourse.  This reading is reinforced by an essential absence:  the whole notion of a new cold war of "moderate states" confronting "radical states" -- the regional alliance against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah advocated by the Bush administration, the Israeli government, and certain Arab leaders such as Hosni Mubarak -- was totally absent from the speech. While Obama did not confront the Resistance narrative directly, his entire speech sought to challenge it in practice -- offering partnership, declining to endorse the old lines of division or attempt to rally those forces in a new conflict, and challenging all sides to articulate what they are for rather than what they are against.

Democracy. Many people have worried that Obama would not address issues of human rights and democracy in the speech.  He certainly did not offer a Bush/Rice style grand call for democratic transformation of the region -- but, it again has to be noted, those grand calls for democratic transformation accomplished virtually nothing and had been abandoned within a year.  It's not like Bush left a legacy of active democratization which Obama is supposedly abandoning.  Rather than repeat the old buzzwords to please those invested in the democracy promotion industry, Obama did something more important by addressing head on some of the most vexing issues which have plagued American thinking about democracy in the region. This, to my eye, was the key statement:

America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

As I noted yesterday, that suggests clearly that the U.S. will accept the democratic participation of peaceful Islamist movements as long as they abstain from violence --and respect their electoral victories provided that they commit to the democratic process.  He made a passionate defense of that latter point, that victors must demonstrate tolerance and respect for minorities and that elections alone are not enough.  But he clearly did not prejudge participants in the electoral game -- the old canard about Islamists wanting "one man, one vote, one time" thankfully, and significantly, did not appear.

Liberalism and Faith. Finally, Obama offered a genuinely challenging reformulation of how to think about religion in public life: "We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."  There's a lot packed into that simple statement, which I think gets to the heart of the hypocrisies and bad faith of much of the Western public discourse about Islam (particularly, but by no means exclusively, on the right).  He defended the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab if they so choose, while passionately defending their right to education and to full participation in public life.  And this links back to his lengthy, forthright discussion with which he began his speech: "Islam is a part of America."  Too often, an idealized, supposedly secular America is juxtaposed against religious Islamic countries -- but the America where I live is one filled with religious people of all faiths who bring that faith into the public realm on a daily basis for better or for worse.   Recognizing that reality, and how the U.S. has and has not successfully managed the tensions between liberalism and religion, strikes me as potentially productive.