Iran: Gender Issues and the Green Movement

A quick follow-up to the Washington hearing. I mis-handled a question from Maria Rohaly about gender issues yesterday. (She has rightly hauled me up on this.) I took her question as one specifically on the hijab --- primarily because that issue is so often used in Western press to represent women's concerns and because it had come up in conversations on my trips to Iran), thus missing the opportunity to say this:

Video: “Iran at a Crossroads” Conference (10 March)
The Latest from Iran (11 March): Marathon

The Green Movement is not a single movement for rights; optimally, it should be a political intersection for all of those movements. Earlier this week, coinciding with International Women's Day, women activists in Iran pointed to issues regarding the family, marriage, division of property, and economic rights. Just as the opposition faces the challenge of putting forth the concerns of the labour movement, so it must engage with these concerns.


No doubt there will be the question of the dynamic of this engagement and the current opposition calls for electoral reform and remedy of post-election abuses. In one case this weekend, Iranian female journalists declared that their first priority was the release of women detainees.

Those decisions, amongst others, are for the movement inside Iran. Yet Maria Rohaly was right to put forth the point that political tactics should not mean a deferral of these concerns.

Earlier in the morning, I asserted that the Green Movement is simply an umbrella term for a wide range of opposition groups and their aspirations and concerns. In the case of gender issues, as well as others, that umbrella should always protect those aspirations and concerns and never cover them up.

In this, as in so much about Iran, I am a student. I was fortunate to go to Tehran just as the first Woem's Studies programmes were being established, and I have been fortunate to learn from numerous colleagues and friends since then. There is a Scarf Movement, but there are also campaigns to convert the Islamic Republic's achievements on literacy and access of women to higher education into equality in the workplace as well as the home. There is serious discussion, as Maria Rohaly, about the acquisition of rights given a Constitution that many see as a constraint on, rather than a vehicle for, justice and fairness.

At the end of the day, I think I have to acknowledge that I have much more learning to do. I hope, however, that the recognition of the issue points --- as so much has in these last nine months --- to the ongoing development of the Green Movement.

The Latest from Iran (10 March): The View from Washington

2305 GMT: Back on the Road Again. Off for flight to UK and work in Liverpool so will be quiet for a while. Thanks to everyone for backing up EA on an eventful day.

2300 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Reports that student activist and weblog writer Fouad Shams has been released from prison after 96 days. Saeed Nourmohammadi, a member of the youth branch of the Islamic Iran Participation Front has been freed after 4 1/2 months in detention.

NEW Iran Interview: Habibollah Peyman “Change Through Social Awareness”
Iran Analysis: Corruption Within the Government?
The Latest from Iran (9 March): Political Acts

2255 GMT: Maintaining Control. Radio Zamaneh headlines, "Iran's Supreme Leader May Approve Changes to Electoral Policies", but the more you read, the more this is an assertion of Khamenei's authority rather than reform.

Meeting members of the Assembly of Experts, the Supreme Leader said that he will approve the changes in “general policies of the elections” under discussion in the Expediency Council, headed by Hashemi Rafsanjani.

However, Khamenei added that the opinion of the Expediency Council regarding election policies is “debatable”, and once he is informed of their decision, he will enforce what he deems necessary. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Council's moves for change.....


2240 GMT: Economy Watch. It's not the headlines over the sanctions that should be garnering attention; instead, keep an eye on the companies ceasing business with Iran.

Royal Dutch Shell has announced that it has stopped selling gasoline/petrol to Iran which, despite its oil reserves, is dependent on imports to meet domestic demand. Shell still receives revenues from an oilfield deal completed in 2005. (The New York Times also reports that Shell "has a natural gas development in the works" but --- and here is where a Washington conference comes in useful --- informed insiders say there is little likelihood of the project moving ahead in the foreseeable future.)

Ingersoll-Rand, a manufactuer of air compressors and cooling systems, has also said that it will no longer allow its foreign subsidiaries to sell parts or products to Iran.

2230 GMT: More In-Fighting. Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, in an editorial “Outrageous Overstatement”, has gone after Presidential Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai for his recent “base,” “hyperbolic”, and “pompous” remarks. Shariatmadari accused Rahim-Mashai of seeking to undermine the presidency, distort the principle of velayat-e-faqih (clerical authority), and cause rifts among the principlists.

2225 GMT: Watch This Closely. Earlier this week Mr Verde picked up on the challenge of the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, that he was going to root out corruption in the Government and punish those responsible, including a high-ranking official.

Well, Sadegh's got back-up from the Parliament that his brother Ali heads:

A majority of Iranian lawmakers have asked Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani to decisively deal with the case of a major ring of corrupt government employees.

Larijani announced on Sunday that the judicial system had arrested 11 members of a ring of corrupt employees who embezzled millions of dollars by forging government documents.

Ayatollah Larijani stated that 11 key members of the ring have been arrested and all of them have made confessions.

In a letter sent to the Judiciary chief on Wednesday, 216 MPs also thanked him for his efforts to ensure that the members of the gang were arrested.

But the MPs said that based on the available information, the embezzlement ring has been active in more than one state organization and therefore the rest of its members should be tracked down and arrested.

They said they have been informed that certain people with high-ranking positions played more active roles in the ring than those who have been arrested.

The lawmakers urged Larijani to deal with all the members of the ring, regardless of their positions.

"Certain people with high-ranking positions"? First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, by chance?

2200 GMT: Back from a most interesting day of Iran panels. Hoping to collect thoughts for an analysis, but I'm very tired. So, for now, thanks a million to everyone for all the great support.

1300 GMT: March on Washington. I'm off to Capitol Hill to see some folks about Iran. We'll be on the road for awhile, so keep us up-to-date with developments by posting in our Comments section.

1220 GMT: We have posted the thoughts of Dr Habibollah Peyman, the head of the banned Movement of Combatant Muslims, on the strategy of the Green Movement.

1115 GMT: Kiarostami Speaks Out. The prominent Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami has published an open letter in a Tehran newspaper calling for the release of Jafar Panahi and Mahmoud Rasoulof, fellow directors who were detained last week.

Kiarostami has also sent an English translation thorough a friend to The New York Times, which prints the text.

1105 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Persian2English summarises news of a series of releases on bail:

Emad Bahavar, member of reformist group Nehzat-e Azadi [Freedom Movement of Iran] , and Yashar Darolshafa, a student activist, were released last night.

Political activist Mehrdad Rahimi was released last night after posting a $70,000 bail. Rahimi, who was arrested over two months ago, was under pressure to submit to confessions on live television.

Political activist Hamideh Ghasemi, journalist Ahmad Jalali Farahani, and Saleh Noghrekar were also released after a month in prison.

Saleh Noghrekar is the nephew of opposition leader, Zahra Rahnavard. He was released on a $50,000 bail.

Mehdi Amizesh, children’s rights activist, was also released on bail after two months in prison.

1055 GMT: Mahmoud Knocks, K arzai Not at Home. Here is the not-so-dramatic of the saga of President Ahmadinejad saying he would go to Afghanistan on Monday (Sunday), Ahmadinejad not going to Afghanistan (Monday), Ahmadinejad saying "oh, I meant Wednesday" (Tuesday).

Well, the good news is that the President finally got to see Kabul's sights, and Hamid Karzai is one of them. Initial reports indicated that the Afghanistan President was not at home, but the two men finally showed up at a press conference.

With US Secretary of Defense Gates still in Afghanistan --- his visit with Karzai on Monday was the likely reason for the postponement of Ahmadinejad's trip --- the Iranian President took a swipe at Washington, "I believe that they themselves are playing a double game. They themselves created terrorists and now they're saying that they are fighting terrorists." Gates had put out the "double game" charge against Tehran earlier in the week.

1045 GMT: I Don't Even Like the Guy. If Jahan News was trying to undermine Mehdi Karroubi with the claim that he was very nice to Saeed Mortazavi, the Ahmadinejad aide who has been blamed for the post-election abuses at Kahrizak, the effort does not appear to have worked. Karroubi hasn't reacted, but Mortazavi is more than a bit upset. His office put out this statement:

Mr. Mortazavi attended a memorial service held for the mother of his colleague in Nour Mosque on Saturday....Mr. Mehdi Karroubi was present at the beginning of the ceremony and left approximately half an hour before Mr. Mortazavi arrived. Therefore, Mr. Karroubi and Mortazavi never encountered each other.

It is not clear what the intentions of this website was in reporting the warm exchange of pleasantries and kisses between these two individuals [Karroubi, Mortazavi]. The intention to disseminate such false news reports is also a matter to reflect upon.

The son of Mr. Karroubi was one of the suspects the former Tehran prosecutor [Mortazavi] dealt with and the Etemade Melli newspaper owned by Mr. Karroubi was banned by him therefore such fabricated stories aimed at influencing public opinion will have no success.

0450 GMT: We're off for some downtime before the Wednesday conference. Back in a few hours.

0435 GMT: The War on Football. Yesterday we noted that Iranian authorities had issued a warning, for an unspecified reason, to a football publication.

Well, here's an even more serious football story from Iran Human Rights Voice:

Football journalist Abdollah Sadoughi was arrested in the city of Tabriz, north-west Iran, on 18 January, after publishing a poster supporting the city’s Traktor Sazi football team. He is held without charge at Tabriz prison, and is on hunger strike in protest at what he considers to be his baseless detention....

Abdollah Sadoughi, aged 33, a member of Iran’s Azerbaijani minority, writes for the Iranian publications Goal, Corner and Khosh Khabar (Good News). He supports Tabriz’s Traktor Sazi football team. The authorities have accused him of acts “against national security” including supporting “Pan-Turkism” for publishing posters, one of which says, in the Azerbaijani Turkic language, “All of Azerbaijan feels pride with you”, alongside an image of the football team. Abdollah Sadoughi maintains he had permission from the relevant authorities to print posters [but] Azerbaijani Turkic is not recognized as an official language in Iran....

In late February, Abdollah Sadoughi began a hunger strike. According to media reports, soon after starting his hunger strike he was transferred to solitary confinement and held in filthy conditions, and then moved to a cell with criminal convicts. On 2 March 2010, having lost considerable weight and suffering from various medical problems, he was transferred to the clinic within Tabriz prison. Abdollah Sadoughi has been able to meet his lawyer and his family, most recently on 6 March, when he said he would continue his hunger strike until he is released or brought before a court.

0430 GMT: Does the Movement Live? Mohammad Sadeghi offers a spirited response to those who claimed 22 Bahman (11 February) marked the end of the Green Movement:

Any measure of the movement's success must focus on the incredible changes brought about in Iran thus far, rather than the outcome of specific tactics. Conversations on the proper role of government, which would have been unthinkable less than a year ago, are now commonplace throughout the country. The government is constantly on the defensive on issues ranging from sexual abuse in prisons to its failed economic policies. Although the regime maintains tight control over all levers of power in society -- police and security forces, the media, the oil industry, etc. -- its popular support has been steadily slipping since June's presidential election. These changes have taken place because of the millions of Iranians who see it as their duty to peacefully protest in the streets, document the regime's brutality, and spread this documentation around the world. In other words, the movement owes its greatest successes to the horizontal organization and innovative use of technology that [critics are] so quick to dismiss.

0315 GMT: Now in place in Washington for Wednesday's open hearing on Iran and US-Iran relations. Will get an insider's look later today but already one point of note has emerged: the Ali Larijani mission to Japan for a possible uranium enrichment deal should be taken seriously.

That impression is accompanied by signals from Iranian state media of confidence that the push for tougher international sanctions on Tehran will fail. Under the headline, "Anti-Iran plot failing, Israeli envoy laments", Press TV carries Agence France Presse's quotation from Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev: "The chances now seem grim regarding sanctions that will be crippling." Shalev said Russia and China "are still looking to the diplomatic track" and appear reluctant to back a new round of sanctions.

Back in Iran, the trial of 12 police officers charged with post-election abuses in Kahrizak Prison has begun.

Iran Interview: Habibollah Peyman "Change Through Social Awareness"

Speaking to Rooz Online, Dr. Habibollah Peyman, leader of the banned party Jonbesh Mosalmanan Mobarez (Movement of Combatant Muslims), considers the future of the Green Movement in light of the events of 22 Bahman (11 February):

Rooz: Mr. Peyman, observers continue to analyze the events of February 11th.  In your opinion, what was the impact of what took place that day on the green movement and the government?

The Latest from Iran (10 March): The View from Washington

Habibollah Peyman: On 11 February, after security and police forces filled the areas and rally location were filled with secure people, only two options remained: one was for some [Green Movement] forces to come forward and engage in clashes, which is essentially against its philosophy and strategy.  The second option was pretty much what actually took place. People who participated were not able to express their presence with green symbols.  Despite what is advertised however, February 11 was neither a defeat for the green movement nor a victory for the hardliners.


Rooz: So therefore nothing was accomplished?

Peyman: There were accomplishments! I actually wanted to say that events of February 11 had considerable accomplishments which must be examined as the green movement devises its future course. One important achievement was the understanding that a civil opposition movement should not remain limited to a few tactics. Many thought that the movement’s resilience and demands could be sustained through street protests alone. They have now realized that that tactic could be successfully blocked, and that they must find other tactics.  Secondly, the opposition movement’s growth had created the impression among many that it could accomplish its demands in the short term because the movement was backed by millions of people and it had opted to remain within the confines of the Constitution. Most people have now realized that the transition from a society grappling with various forms of dictatorship to a free, healthy and democratic body is a long-term and gradual transformation.

Rooz: How can this gradual transformation take place with tactics other than street protests?

Peyman: I have to clarify that what happened on 11 doesn’t negate street protests. This method should be used whenever permissible. But the Green Movement must undertake two fundamental tasks. One is to devise a strategy to reach out to social groups belonging to the lower social strata which are still disconnected from the movement, by addressing and promoting their social and economic concerns and demands. Members of this group which include laborers, teachers and farmers are the under-privileged and suffer the most from the government’s social and economic policies. The relationship between their problems and the government’s wrong economic policies must be brought to light for them.

Rooz: Let’s imagine that the Green Movement succeeds in this and takes this notion to these social strata too and even won their support, but how do you translate this discontent and protest into a movement?

Peyman:Our country is full of mediocre and poor foreign products. It has always been said that foreign sure is hoarded in the country, while the government has not done anything about it, and sugar produced by Khuzestan Sugar Company is wasted in silos. The Green Movement can invite the public not to buy or use sugar for a week, as a measure of solidarity to the workers of the sugar plant.

Our sugar producers are always loosing money while the market is full of imported sugar. The same is true for farmers that grow apples or oranges. The movement can call on the public not to buy foreign rice and not eat it. Such civil disobedience campaigns can be launched. This is what the green movement should do and through it the social groups and forces will strengthen their ties to it. Showing solidarity with deprived and hurting groups in society are not battles with the core of the regime, but civil battles with wrong policies of the government and at the same time exercises in civil disobedience and social solidarity.

Rooz: But importers too are part of the national economy and their loss will hurt the national economy as well.

Peyman: No. Importers are a very small minority of dealers who use government subsidies and because of the relations they have established go around paying their custom taxes and in fact inflict damage to all small domestic producers and sellers, and consequently to the whole national economy.

Rooz: You said there were two tasks. What is the other one?

Peyman: The other task, which is as important as the first, is to change the existing view of democratic change and transformation, and deemphasize the idea that democratization occurs only through regime change. A new type of hermeneutics must take shape which must take place in social awareness, among regular people and intellectuals. This type of thought is unfortunately alien in our society because of many years of suppression and despotism.

Rooz: But with the limitations that the green movement has, how does it plan to take these efforts to the people?

Peyman: By building social solidarity, the very thing that Mr. Mousavi has mentioned. What I can add is that this network should not be used just to organize street protests or the user of the Internet. Its most important role is to use it to engage in social debates on common social, cultural, etc issues based on democratic values and principles. This should be based on solidarity with the struggles and needs of people, both in the material and spiritual spheres. Through such debates and the establishment of such relations inside the groups, small groups with democratic, free and human relations will be established as models. This way, we shall prevent the repetition of failures of the constitutional movement, the nationalist movement and the 1979 revolution.

Rooz: But if the regime embarks on a widespread crackdown won’t that demoralize the public regarding its peaceful struggle, thus pushing some outside peaceful activism?

Peyman: If crackdowns were to demoralize the public, then nothing is going to take place. If this takes place, then only one way will be left, i.e. to meet violence with violence, and we know the results of such a course of action. So society must accept that this is a long-term battle. Europe too took hundreds of years to go through it and when it arrived at democratic life, the independent, reasonable and rationale man was born through the long process. The same must take place in our society, and this is the best opportunity for it. Forces of the green movement have this potential.

Rooz: In his talk this week, Mr. Mousavi again stressed the pursuit of demands within the confines of law and said that the demands can still be provided by the regime. Do you think the regime has this capacity?

Peyman: Yes, definitely. Any force that pursues its goals peacefully and gradually and is founded on social forces creates a negotiations bridge with those in power and authority. The communications between the two may be direct or indirect. IN all similar social movements, because of this type of relationship (peaceful and gradual), many inside the ruling establishment change their views and course of action in favor of people and even join the calls of the public. So the Green Movement too must keep the door of critical negotiations open. Furthermore, the ruling establishment attacks when it sees its existence or core in danger and is not willing to give any concessions. This is because of the fear that any concession may be interpreted as a weakness. But when the threats are not against its core or existence, it usually accepts to talk, remove some of the problems and even launch reforms.

Rooz: What examples do you have?

Peyman: The constitutional movement. When that movement took form and was organized, the king was prepared to talk and agreed to the Majlis. In those days too some of the ruling establishment changed positions and supported the calls for a national assembly, which all led to the decree agreeing to a constitutional monarchy. The same thing happened in the oil nationalization movement which resulted in the nationalization of oil and Mossadegh became the prime minister (in 1951). In Europe too, the same course was pursued.  As I said, long and gradual movements result in positive and solid results. It is only through this long process that ideas of freedom and democracy become institutionalized. What is important is a change in the type of relationships.

Rooz: How can the current regime come to this point?

Peyman: Protestors and dissidents can always find a common language to talk to the regime. National interest is an example. Both could believe and say that they are interested in preserving the national interest, the independence of the country, etc.

Once this common language is found, then issues can be discussed. Lets suppose we want to have a government that is strong and effective in the region, or internationally, talks could begin on this basis because both sides agree on it. Other common issues could be industrial development, economic growth, technical progress, etc.

Rooz: Are you concerned about a break in the organization of the movement among its leadership and damage to the movement?

Peyman: Yes, I am. There is now one trend that is moving towards a decentralized leadership that is spread out and diffused. But since our society has had a long history of centralized leadership, this new notion will need time to take form and be widely accepted and understood. This is why we are now in transition and have elements of both models. Every member of the movement must think for himself, while being a part of the movement and network. Still, I think today we still need a leader who has more experience and who is accepted by the public. This can exist in a relationship in which the leader consults and announces the results to the masses and civil activists. It is very important to have this now.


Rooz: Can you comment on the suggestions that the current leadership should move outside Iran or a new leadership should be formed there?

Peyman: I do not believe in either of these two. The leadership of any movement must remain within that society to have direct contact with realities in that society and its different strata. We are not following a secret society or movement like a guerrilla movement when leaders left the country because of threats and danger and led the movement from outside. This is a legal, massive and civil movement. Its leaders must definitely stay among the people. Those sincere individuals who have lived outside the country make suggestions which in most cases are not practical. Their ideas are not pursuable and have in fact created problems. This is what also happened on 11 February and some people made some recommendations which were absolutely wrong and had they been implemented, the movement would have suffered. So the leadership must be inside the country. Forces outside the country can and should provide ideas and participate in the exchange, but the final decisions must be taken inside the country by the current leadership and I do not believe there is any need leave the country. There is pressure, prison, arrest, release and those who are freed from prison return to activism. This is a civil movement, not a secret revolutionary one.

Israel-Palestine Proximity Talks: "Theatre of the Absurd"

Sharmine Narwani writes for The Huffington Post:

After a year of grandiose declarations on Mideast peace prospects and a gazillion trips to the region by US envoy George Mitchell, the Obama administration has come up with this?

"Proximity Talks." Look it up in the Dictionary of Realpolitik and you will find the following: "Negotiations going nowhere fast. Wear seatbelts lest the speed of self-destruction spins you off the earth's axis."

Israel-Palestine-Hamas Mystery: Questions & A Response
Israel-Palestine: “Proximity Talks” and US Vice President Biden

Palestinians and Israelis are not even going to be at the table together. Mitchell could not even make that happen. This isn't phase one of a longstanding conflict. These are adversaries who have sat across many tables and struck many agreements over the past 19 years.



And so this is where we are in the gruelingly endless Middle East peace process. About a dozen steps back from where we started.

False Starts

Here's the down-low. After an upbeat set of promises to bring old foes to the Mideast negotiating table, Obama realized that Israel would not move so much as an inch on freezing illegal settlement-building activity -- a fundamental necessity since there can be no land-for-peace agreement without land to cede.

The Obama presidency began just days after Israel's three-week military devastation of Gaza concluded, putting not even the most sycophantic of Palestinian leaders in a position to be generous without a significant Israeli goodwill gesture. Then Benjamin Netanyahu emerged victorious from Israeli national elections and the die was cast.

Netanyahu's Likud Party has never accepted a Two-State Solution, and Obama wasted much time wresting a luke-warm endorsement of this plan from the new Israeli prime minister. But while Netanyahu's "compromise" was lauded by US officials and media pundits, the fact is that Mideast observers knew there was nothing new in his for-the-cameras acceptance of a Palestinian state minus sovereignty.

On the other side of the fence, the increasingly unpopular Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) government -- as corrupt and ineffectual as our Arab allies come -- desperately needed an active peace process to give it a veneer of respectability. Fatah's credibility is in serious jeopardy -- it pushed for participation in peace talks with Israel almost two decades ago at the Madrid Peace Conference -- and has virtually nothing to show for it.

Well, except for the fact that Jewish settlers in the West Bank have quintupled in number and that Israel has managed to divide up the West Bank to its advantage, with Jewish-only roads and checkpoints cutting off Palestinian movement and freedoms further.

But PA leader Mahmoud Abbas was unable to participate in post-Gaza peace talks without a settlement halt -- he had drawn that line in the sand after Obama offered up a settlement freeze as part of his fantasy-based approach to peacemaking.

Eureka!

So, as Israel continued to announce new settlement projects and evict Palestinians in hotly-contested Jerusalem from their homes, Abbas and Obama looked desperately for a way to hang on to credibility and launch talks in some form.

And then the brilliant idea struck. Why, if we can't talk to Israel directly because of its flagrant violations of international principles and laws, let's just have the Americans do it for us. And this way, if anything goes wrong and our popularity suffers, we have plausible deniability and can blame it all on the US.

The Proximity Talks were thus born. Presumably that means "talks that are close, but not too close."

And the absurdity continues. US Vice President Joe Biden, during his visit to Israel on Monday said: "If the talks develop, we believe that we'll be able to bridge the gaps and that the conflict will be ended."

Really? Two decades of talks between Palestinians and Israelis when the players were far more motivated to deliver a solution -- and now -- Biden believes the conflict will be "ended."

One-Way Street To Irrelevance

Here's what I think is actually happening:

I think Obama is realigning his peacemaking priorities in the Middle East -- at least until he has the US economy, health care reform and Iraq under his belt -- a must if he wants to be re-elected in 2012. For both domestic and international public consumption, he cannot accept complete failure in such a visibly-touted part of his global agenda. There must be talks in some form, but they will be placed on a low burner, increasing the risk of more of the same endless "process without peace" that the US has sponsored since 1991.

Instead, Obama is placing his bets on Iran to bring him home a foreign policy "victory" -- contradicting his earlier claims that Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution should be tackled first, as this will diffuse Iran's grandstanding and reduce its regional influence.

The US's Mideast allies have to be dealt with in the meantime. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is getting testy watching Iran's ascendency in the Persian Gulf, and is champing at the bit to halt this trend. The Saudi King is the proud benefactor of the Arab Peace Plan and he would like to see it advanced. As would Egypt -- facing key elections in 2011 and suffering from regional criticism for its own blockade of Gaza. In return for Saudi and Egyptian cooperation on isolating Iran further - and financial/political help in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the US will push forward its half-baked peace process and try to keep the wheels grinding as long as humanly possible.

In the meantime, the entire US "Camp" is doing all it can to retain the status quo in the Mideast. It isn't just Iran that threatens. The rising popularity of a bloc of nations, leaders and groups that challenges US, Israeli, Saudi and Egyptian hegemony in the region just keeps growing. The Arab and Muslim Street is with the new bloc -- decades of corruption, occupation and stagnation have seen to that.

And here we are, just la-la-la plodding along, ignoring facts and realities in a quick-changing landscape. We are not the economic and military power of yesteryear -- protracted, unwinnable battles in tribal Afghanistan and splintered Iraq demonstrate that we can not even win an elementary victory in the Mideast.

We listen to political decision makers -- not area experts who can clue us in -- and advance forward as though nothing has changed, as though we are the only player that counts. We decide who plays with us -- not the democratically-elected Hezbollah and Hamas whose critical part in any feasible and long lasting Mideast solution we still refuse to acknowledge.

We vilify Iran and others who threaten our view of things, not realizing that this opposition emerges because of our blinkered behaviors and double standards in a region straining to discover its own identity and set wrongs right.

Double standards have destroyed any credibility we have in the region. We resist international demands that Israel and its 300 nuclear warheads join the IAEA, but censure the longstanding IAEA member, Iran, from pursuing a nuclear energy program. We back some of the most despicable dictatorships in the Arab world and then undermine the electoral victories of those we oppose. We send troops and funding to rein in Salafi jihadists throughout the region without a backward glance at the most intolerant nation of them all, our ally Saudi Arabia, the very source of radical militancy. And we don't even offer an apology for the wrongful deaths of hundreds of thousands of their civilians in our zealous attempts to avenge the deaths of 2,750 of ours.

And now we are hosting the Theater of the Absurd -- these so-called proximity talks -- where there are no actors, just us, sitting in a room alone, talking to ourselves. We have fooled them all! Or have we?

Israel-Palestine: "Proximity Talks" and US Vice President Biden

Here's the background: last Friday, US Mideast Special Envoy George Mitchell's deputy, David Hale, said Israeli-Palestinian understandings since the Annapolis talks would not be binding.

Following the approval of two conditions (the outlines of a border deal with Israel and a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze) by the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he hoped for direct negotiations in the near future, but reiterated that any permanent settlement would require recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a long-term guarantee of Israel's security.

Thus, the clear difference between two disputants' mentalities: on one hand, Ramallah is considering indirect talks as a basis to be consolidated in order to move to the next round of direct talks; on the other hand, West Jerusalem sees indirect talks as a way to block preconditions.

In the midst of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's permission for the construction of 112 housing units in the settlement of Beitar Ilit, despite the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden arrived Israel on Tuesday while Mitchell moved to Ramallah for further talks.

Biden, on early Tuesday, met President Shimon Peres. He said that the agreed resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks provided a "moment of real opportunity" for peace and added:

The interests of both the Palestinians and the Israeli people, if everyone would just step back and take a deep breath, are actually very much more in line than they are in opposition.

Then, Biden talked to PM Netanyahu. He said that "historic peace will require both sides to make historically bold commitments" and gave the golden statement:

There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security.

When it came to the Iranian issue, Biden said: "We're determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and we're working with many countries around the world to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist." President Peres harshly targeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He stated that Ahmadinejad must face "total" international isolation and added:

A person like Ahmadinejad, who calls openly to destroy the state of Israel, cannot be a full member of the United Nations.

A man who calls for acts of terror, and who hangs people in the street ... he should be placed in his proper definition. He cannot go around almost like a cultural hero.

Ahmadinejad has to be isolated and not be welcomed in the capitals of the world.