Iran: The People's (Facebook) Revolution

News Around the World by Enduring America on Facebook

On Wednesday, my colleague Chris Emery sent me the story that the Iranian Government had apparently blocked Facebook. That was curious because, two hours earlier, an Iranian friend had asked me via the site about my opinions on the Iranian Presidential election and the challenge of Mir Hossein Mousavi. Chris added that he, too, had been chatting with people in Tehran about the latest political developments.

So we did some cyber-checking --- Chris from Britain and I from a campsite in rural France --- and found out from our contacts that the site had been blocked on Saturday. That was not the big story, however. About 48 hours later, after much public protest, access to Facebook was restored, although no explanation for the original blocking was offered.

The immediate speculation was that the restriction was linked to the Presidential election. Months ago, when former President Mohammad Khatami was considering a 2009 bid, a group supporting him rapidly attracted thousands of members. Khatami's homepage now supports Mousavi, who in turn now has his own profile with more than 1300 fans. Mehdi Karroubi, another Presidential candidate, has a very active page with more than 2000 supporters.

(And, anticipating your question, there are several pages in the name of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, none appear to be an active "official" site, unless his primary language has suddenly become Spanish.)

Yet, while accepting that electoral politics was the proximate cause of the short-lived ban on Facebook, this misses the wider significance of the story.

For Facebook, as even the most cyber-phobic person knows, is much more than a political forum. Within minutes, you can be making up your ultimate band, discussing (and hopefully deriding) the latest Tom Hanks travesty, playing on-line Scrabble, or simply informing the world that you are angry/happy/depressed/excited/ready to hand over your children to the first person who will take them off your hands.In any country, let alone Iran, that opens up vistas of knowledge, discussion, and debate. For those immersed in politics, much of it may seem it far more trivial than a Presidential campaign, but these are the exchanges of everyday life.

Which is why, in my opinion, it would be a misreading to treat this Facebook movement as an uprising against the Islamic Revolution or even against the current Government (the real or imitation Mahmoud Ahmadinejads have several thousand supporters). Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by social media does not lock someone into a particular political, economic, or religious point of view.

Instead, the Facebook revolution is one of dialogue and engagement. It may face further bumps along the political road, but a return to a full block is unlikely. The illusion that Iran is cut off from "the West" --- just as the illusion that Iran is or should be just like "the West" --- is now well and truly shattered.

Damascus Matters: Syria, the US, and the New Middle East

Video: Palestine Latest - Settlements and Blockades but No Reconstruction
After The Obama-Abbas Meeting: A Palestinian Stuck between Washington and Tel Aviv
Video and Full Transcript of Obama-Abbas Meeting (28 May)

Much has changed in US foreign policy since the Bush Administration pulled its ambassador from Damascus in 2005 to protest Syria's suspected involvement in the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Since the advent of the Obama Administration, not only the hopes of change in US-Syrian relations but the quest to unblock the Palestinian-Israeli peace process has brought the prospect of dialogue.

The latest signal came on Thursday when two Democratic Congressmen, Senator Edward E. Kaufman of Delaware and Representative Tim Waltz of Minnesota visited Syrian President Assad. According to Syria's official Arab News Agency, talks focused on "the necessity to remove obstacles that hinder relations and to promote stability in the Middle East". Specifically, the exchange points to a visit to Damascus by President Obama's envoy George Mitchell in June.

The Kaufman-Waltz visit is the fourth by US officials or legislators since January. Three days after the hard-line statement of the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, “Peace will only be in exchange for peace.”, Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Republican Bob Inglis of South Carolina, met Assad.

Assad's comment after this meeting that he wanted to meet Obama personally was matched by the US Embassy's statement that the talks were constructive on Syrian-Lebanese relations, security on the Syria-Iraq border, and the situation in Gaza. On 5 May, two senior US officials, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, made their second journey to Damascus in two months and found some “common ground” with the Syrians.

The 2nd Feltman-Shapiro visit was particularly significant as it came on the
same day that Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met to re-confirm their ‘strategic alliance.’ Contrary to the claim of many that this was a declaration of Syria's "strategic needs" being met by Tehran; Assad's manoevure was more a temporary alignment with no advance on the "road map" of the Palestinian-Israeli and Syrian-Israeli peace processes. In the absence of tangible steps, Damascus is covering itself against any unilateral concessions.

Hence, the second visit of Feltman and Shapiro was needed to maintain close contact between Washington and Damascus until the peace process could be restarted. Other regional leaders have also contributed. On May 11, the Jordanian King Abdullah visited Damascus, as he and Assad affirmed the need for a comprehensive solution on the basis of Israeli and Palestinian states in a regional context. The newly-appointed Syrian ambassador to Ankara said on 12 May that Damascus was ready to resume Turkish-mediated indirect talks with Israel, despite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement that he would not cede the Golan Heights.

In contrast to the Bush Administration's attempt to get the "right" Middle East through exclusion of those whom it did not like or trust, the Obama Administration in four months has rebuilt relationships with key leaders. Still, the outcome of those initial breakthroughs awaits an even bigger signal: the US President's speech in Cairo next Thursday.

Video: Reaction to North Korea's Second Nuclear Test

On Tuesday, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its second underground nuclear test, producing an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.7. The first test in October 2006 was followed by protracted negotiations in which Pyongyang would disable its nuclear facilities in return for energy aid and removal of its name from a US list of states supporting terrorism. However, from February 2009, North Korea once again moved towards nuclear armament.

International reactions and background follow the video of President Obama’s statement:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

- President Obama: “Grave concern to all nations.”

- Gordon Brown: “Erroneous, misguided and a danger to the world.”

- European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana: “Provocation and we strongly condemn them.”

- NATO: "These irresponsible actions by Pyongyang pose a serious challenge to peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and are being universally condemned by the international community. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern."

- United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: “I am deeply worried by a report of nuclear test by Democratic Republic of Korea.”

- Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith: “Provocative.”

- The Kremlin: “Deep regret and the most serious concern.”

- Chinese Foreign Ministry: “Resolutely opposed.”

- Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso: “Unacceptable and a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

France called on the UN Security Council to impose further sanctions against North Korea and the South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak called an emergency meeting of cabinet members. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to convince the international public that he had nothing to do with North Korea’s nuclear test, declaring, “We oppose the production, the amassing and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

— 1994: Under agreement with US, North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for help building two safer power-producing nuclear reactors.

— Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires suspected missile over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, calling it a satellite.

— Sept. 13, 1999: North pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

— July 2001: U.S. State Department reports North Korea is developing long-range missile.

— December 2001: President George W Bush warns Iraq and North Korea will be "held accountable" if they develop weapons of mass destruction.

— Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea announces withdrawal from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

— August 2003: North Korea joins first round of six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing with China, U.S. Japan, Russia and South Korea.

— July 5, 2006: North Korea launches seven missiles into waters between the Korean peninsula and Japan, including a medium-range Taepodong-2.

— July 15, 2006: UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1695 demanding North Korea halt missile program.

— Oct. 9, 2006: North Korea conducts underground nuclear test blast after citing "extreme threat of a nuclear war" from U.S.

— Oct. 15, 2006: UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1718 condemning test, imposing sanctions and banning North Korea from all activities related to its nuclear weapons program.

— Feb. 13, 2007: North Korea agrees to disable its main nuclear facilities in return for energy aid and other benefits.

— July 14, 2007: North Korea shuts down main Yongbyon reactor, later starts disabling it.

— June 27, 2008: North Korea destroys cooling tower at Yongbyon.

— Sept. 19, 2008: North Korea says it is restoring nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.

— Oct. 11, 2008: U.S. removes North Korea from a list of states that sponsor terrorism.

— Feb. 15, 2009: North Korea claims it has the right to "space development."

— Feb. 23: South Korea says North Korea has a new type of ballistic missile capable of reaching northern Australia and Guam.

— April 5: North Korea launches long-range rocket from its base on the country's northeast coast.

— April 13: UN Security Council condemns launch.

— April 14: North Korea announces withdrawal from disarmament talks and says it will restore partly disabled nuclear facilities.

— April 25: North Korea announces start of reprocessing of spent fuel rods from its nuclear plant. A UN Security Council committee approves new sanctions on three major North Korean companies in response to the rocket launch.

— April 29: North Korea threatens to conduct nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests unless the UN Security Council apologizes for criticizing its long-range rocket launch.

— May 7-12: Special U.S. envoy on North Korea visits Asia, says Washington is ready for direct talks with Pyongyang.

— May 8: North Korea dismisses talks with U.S. as useless, citing Washington's "hostile policy".

— May 25: North Korea announces it successfully conducted a nuclear test.

It is obvious that North Korea did not keep an account of what the majority of ‘others’ said, but the following days will show us to what extent Obama Administration’s leadership and effectiveness in handling the situation can bring a solution which can allay and satisfy its partners. All eyes are now looking curiously for the next line in the timeline of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs…

Iran's Elections: Ahmadinejad Plays His Israel-US Cards

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been working flat-out to maximize his vote before the Iranian Presidential election on June 12. His ‘hard-line’ stand against the West was subtly elaborated when he referred to Israel with the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution: , when on Friday. Referring to Israel, he quoted Khomeini’s words: "They are like dogs. If you attack them, they retreat; if you retreat they attack."

Ahmadinejad’s verbal salvos against the West are part of an effort to criticise his opponents, linking them to the "concessionary" policies of the previous reformist government, led by Mohammad Khatami. According to Ahmadinejad, Khatami "could not show resistance against pressures", whereas the current government succeeded in "deflecting" pressures and “burying the sanctions in the cemetery of history".

However, if Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical attacks are primarily in a domestic arena, they are bolstered by external foes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser, Uzi Arad, said last Thursday: “Israel maintains its liberty to operate against Iran.” He added that on past occasions, Israel had not updated the US on military options.

Arad may have been shaky in his historical references, comparing Ahmadinejad to Egypt's President Nasser in 1956 and 1967, but this did not deter the United States from dropping its own hints. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, stated on Friday that President Obama had asked him to update the plans for the use of military force against Iran, prepared during former President George W. Bush’s terms in office.

It is irrelevant whether Gates and Obama are opposing the use of military force against Iran at this point; what matters is what Iranians perceive on the eve of the elections. Indeed, Amadinejad is countering on such perceptions in the next three weeks. That is what does matter in determining the ‘retreat-attack’ game…

Iran: Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Related Post: Monday’s Israel-US Showdown - Iran First or Palestine First?

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, freed on appeal after an 8-year sentence for espionage, is now far from Iran. Her drama will now disappear from public view.

The significance of the outcome, however, will be lasting.

There were some interesting revelations in the last stages of the case. In particular, Saberi's lawyer revealed that his client had translated a confidential Iranian document on the US position in Iraq. This, plus Saberi's visit to Israel, had aroused Iranian suspicions that the journalist was not operating without a licence but providing information to a foreign agency. Here was Saberi's representative, not Tehran, was offering evidence for the escalation of the charges from buying wine to carrying out espionage.

This did not rule out the political dimension of the case, in particular, the rush to try and sentence Saberi. However, it could explain why the US Government was careful not to press Tehran too hard. Indeed, it appeared that the attorney's statement was part of a deal with Tehran in which Saberi would be released but Iran's actions would be (at least partially) vindicated.

For the Iranian political system, after Saberi was sentenced, acted very pragmatically. President Ahmadinejad was quick to "request" the hearing of an appeal, which meant the court would hear an appeal. And, since defendants who are allowed to appeal are almost always successful in Iran, the message was clear: Saberi's sentence would be reduced, most likely to the point where she would be able to leave the country.

None of this should be read as benevolence. The calculation was clear: the Obama Administration has advanced towards engagement with Tehran, and Iran --- tentatively at first, but now steadily behind the scenes --- has responded. The Saberi case should not derail that process. That assessment was reinforced, I suspect, as it became clear that Saberi was naive rather than sinister in her activities.

Thus a court case becomes politically significant, especially becomes of its timing. Saberi was released a week before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington to insist that the US break off the engagement with Iran. The freeing of Roxana removes a card (albeit probably a 7 rather than an ace) from Netanyahu's hand.Of course, the rhetoric will continue about the maniacal leadership in Tehran, but the substance here is realpolitik rather than evil or ideology.

Sometimes, the celebration is not only of a humanitarian outcome but of the less-than-humanitarian manoeuvres that lie behind it --- and of the political and quite positive consequences that may follow.