History forgotten, Saudi Arabia trumps Pakistan and Iran

President Trump uses American jobs as the reason he’s setting aside the CIA’s report that—as has been inescapably obvious for weeks—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their Istanbul Consulate. How about the thousands of American jobs already being lost as a result of the President’s new trade war with China—the one he said would be “easy”?

Another reason the President gives is Saudi Arabia’s support for his take-no-prisoners policies against Iran, despite the Islamic Republic’s continued compliance with the multilateral nuclear agreement. Coddling a brutal autocrat—the Shah—was how we lost Iran 40 years ago in the first place. What happens when the Saudi regime is overthrown because we encouraged their excesses? And who will take over then? Meanwhile, the homegrown Saudi animosity against Iran requires no incentivizing from Washington.

In almost the same breath, on Twitter, the President also slammed Pakistan for allowing Osama bin Laden to hide from justice. And what does Pakistan do for us anyway... Well, aside from the fact that our assistance helps stabilize a regime that owns nuclear weapons, and that—with a few well-placed Trump tweets—Pakistan could be far more anti-American than it is—let's stop and really think for a moment about OBL.

Let’s consider not where Osama was hiding, but where he got his start and his cash and nearly all the recruits for his 9/11 attack on our homeland. That’s right—Saudi Arabia!

So, if enabling Osama is the litmus test for cutting off relations, then why is Donald Trump doubling down on the Saudis?

Are we willing to see Bahrain step up?

It certainly has been painful and confusing to watch Bahrain again deal unevenly with internal political tensions under the spotlight of powerful and polarizing neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Now, it seems, Western opinion-shapers aren't much interested beyond the spectacle of clashes between demonstrators and government forces, and the mistreatment of opposition figures.

For all the media and political attention of two years ago, and even the most recent violence coming on the second anniversary, there has been scant coverage of the National Dialogue now underway. Of course, it would have been easier to advance this grievance-airing and consensus-building BEFORE the anniversary of the tragic crackdown, but there's still little excuse for ignoring it. 

It's always possible that wise diplomats and responsible journalists want to give space for the dialogue to proceed without the distraction of global visibility. But just weeks ago, Bahrain's Crown Prince raised the curtain for the National Dialogue before an audience of regional and international leaders, reporters, policy mavens, and even yours truly. This is no secret conversation, and reform-minded Bahrainis like Prince Salman seem to think publicity will help incentivize all Bahrainis -- including the ruling classes -- to give a chance to reconciliation and even to limited democracy. 

I assessed Washington's cautious role for Josh Rogin during last December's Manama Dialogue, "Since the last time we had this summit two years ago, Bahrain has been going through a difficult period. Bahrain has been assailed on Capitol Hill and elsewhere and perhaps rightly. But what has the U.S. government done to help Bahrain get through it? We've left it to other countries, we've left it to international organizations and NGOs. Maybe that's worked, but we can't take credit for that."

Why not help the Dialogue conveners help Bahrain, or at least put them on the spot? Perhaps the international community is wary of rewarding Bahrain with positive press before it's been redeemed by those inside and outside who oppose its ruling family. While our new Secretary of State is in the Gulf next week, he might take the opportunity to bolster those striving for a solution, even at the expense of angering fundamentalists in the region and absolutists back at home.

Arab Spring overplayed & underestimated

This week, as I made my way to the region, I've been following the dramatic downturn of democratic governance in Egypt. A few initial thoughts before I hear more informed  perspectives:

PEOPLE POWER

While President Morsi's Mubarak-esque combination of autocratic proclivities and astounding detachment from reality are deeply alarming, the Egyptian people are again rising up in protest. So, the biggest beneficiary and hallmark of the "Arab Spring" is proving to be More Of the Same, but the democratic spirit of the movement -- the citizens themselves -- is unabated. They still expect functional, legitimate democracy, whether from Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood or someone else. And anyway, few reputable analysts were banking on Morsi's prospects as a democratic visionary. But elections do have consequences, especially when they're held too early.

THERE IS ANOTHER

We need to excise Morsi as the face of the Arab Spring, lest his blowout come to symbolize the whole Arab Spring. If Egypt's experiment fails, this by itself does not prove the Arab Spring was a ruse or a mirage -- as some of my fellow American observers have been blogging in recent days. Owing to its size, intellectual history and strategic importance, Egypt easily took first place as the symbol of the Arab Spring. Egypt may still prove to be the big test of this sweeping movement, yet other countries are also processing their own versions. 

Tunisia, where the democratic tide started last year, is showing the kind of measured progress that Western news anchors take for granted, and thus makes for few headlines. Despite continued uncertainty, including the recent Benghazi attack that killed four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador, Libyans remain optimistic and supportive of their new democratic-trending government. 

In Bahrain, last year's protests and the ensuing crackdown were largely limited in time and scope. The grievances remain and will need to be addressed one way or another, but this is not the garden-variety Arab Spring, especially since Bahrain is sandwiched between Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two of the least democratic regimes in the region. 

Syria's Assad regime is holding fast, for now, amid popular unrest and armed rebellion. Much will depend on Bashar Assad's individual mindset: He could hold out until the end, leave town just after his kids open their Christmas presents, or start using chemical weapons against his own citizens. That third option could provide a casus belli for U.S.-NATO intervention, which will horribly escalate the violence but may also end the dictatorship and keep Iran out of the post-Assad politics.

THE KINGMAKERS

The role of non-Arab states within the Middle East will also help determine the direction of political change in the region. Iran's support for Assad and its opportunistic use of Morsi's election in Egypt have been a negative influence on the Arab Spring, and should inspire greater resolve by reformers rather than a Western retreat. Turkey, once the moderate Muslim referee, needs to regain its composure and recapture its influence with Egypt and Syria in particular. Its recent military counter-attacks on Syria, its second fiddle at Morsi's Gaza cease-fire negotiations and the angry posturing against Israel are keeping the Islamist government from realizing its potential as mediator and guarantor among its neighbors.

The Arab Spring is definitely incomplete, even dangerous in spots. But this is the Middle East, after all. And the story remains unfinished and -- in too many cases -- untold. Instead of dismissing the significance or permanence of the democratic moment, Westerners should be joining with Arabs and others to see where and why the Arab Spring is faltering, and what we can do together to facilitate real, measurable and even lasting results.

The Arab counter-revolution... finally

For better or worse, the other shoe has finally dropped in the Arab world. It only took a half-century.

So far, the regimes that have fallen at the hands of the new Mideast phenomenon known as "Arab Spring" all originated as part of decolonization that began in the late-1940s and continued through the 1960s. The despots being overthrown this season have largely profited from a legacy of defiance against the West, and new claimants to that title have challenged their rule. So far, no Arab monarchy has fallen or faced a serious existential challenge from the current movement for change.

Why Iran hopes Egypt's waves hit Bahrain ASAP

[Update: Since posting the entry below, I learned that one death resulted from today's confrontations. The loss of life is tragic and my thoughts are with the people of Bahrain, but my analysis has not changed.]


Every country has restive populations with legitimate grievances, and that includes the United States. Bahrain is no exception, either. But today's demonstrations by members of the Shia majority are extremely convenient for those clinging to the status quo in Iran, barely half a tankful of gas across the Gulf from Manama.

The Bahrain police put down the protests, at the same time Iranian police were putting down a massive opposition rally in Tehran with even more violent means. Iran's subversive strategy across the Gulf -- and in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza -- raises significantly greater concern in Arab political circles than anything Ahmadinejad's regime could be developing in its declared and undeclared nuclear facilities.

The irony of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government -- lacking international legitimacy since his farcical 2009 "re-election" -- extolling the Egyptian revolution while denying the right of its own opposition to rally in solidarity with the people of Egypt is sadly unremarkable. Suppressing democracy rallies at home may be necessary for his regime, but it's not the best messaging. Enter the latest Shia protests in Bahrain, and just in time.

A view from the Gulf

At the Arabs’ Table: A View from the Gulf

(A variation of this has been published in JTA and The Jerusalem Post.)

There is a conversation going on among Arab policymakers, and it’s neither all about Israel nor just Iran’s nuclear program. 

This Arab conversation is diverse and complex, counter-intuitive, on their turf, but always a two-way dialogue. One doorway into this conversation was this month's Manama Dialogue, sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and hosted warmly by the Kingdom of Bahrain. A Jewish organization with background in the Gulf and ties to the leadership in Jerusalem and Washington can contribute to this dialogue as well as draw from it.

Manama attracts key ministers from the Gulf, as well as Europe, Asia, and North America – all with a strategic interest in addressing regional security here. The unofficial nature of IISS uniquely allows for equal participation and interaction by government and military officials, policy experts, and non-governmental delegates. Where else would the Iranian Foreign Minister sit at the same table and listen to remarks by the U.S. Secretary of State.

At Friday’s opening dinner, the atmospherics were palpable. Since the center VIP table was positioned perpendicular to the dais, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was able to avoid looking at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while during and after her speech. Quite the cool customer, he sat through her remarks and the question-and-answer without ever turning his head or displaying any expression. Most important, though, is that he did sit in that ballroom, barely 50 feet from the lectern, and four seats down from the Secretary during dinner. And he had his aides taking strenuous notes.

Wikileaks, #cablegate, and a new dictatorship of information

What to make of the latest document dump via Wikileaks? The information is very interesting, partly because of which diplomat or world leader is saying what. 

Perhaps this level of detail isn’t necessary to drawing intelligent conclusions about international developments and policies. Most likely, the fact of who said what about whom will undermine some relationships going forward. Clearly, few if any crimes of note have been revealed thus far in the release of U.S. diplomatic cables. 

For some of us who fancy ourselves to be in the know, some of these revelations reduce the advantage of our “inside information”. I have heard from Arab officials of their sympathy for a U.S. or Israeli air strike on Iran, for example, but now that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is quoted to that effect in an official U.S. document, any account I can give seems both obvious and minor by comparison.

For those diplomats still serving in the posts from which they faithfully sent these leaked cables, their ability to continue performing their duties may face new barriers. How does one pass through a receiving line when everyone knows you reported to Washington on rumors about the hostess? 

The long-term danger is that cable traffic might get dumbed down to “just the facts”, eliminating the nuance that makes diplomatic decisions and the eventual history files so rich and sophisticated. With email, Twitter and blogs, however the sharing of information and opinions has already erased a certain level of privacy and thoughtfulness in ways that are probably irreversible. “Crowd-sourcing” may be great for many things, but it does not drive the powers of human imagination and creativity. 

Without denigrating or demonizing the Wikileaks team, who have definitely tapped into a fascinating set of documents, it is difficult to see justification for the wholesale dissemination of privileged communications. Will a military crisis or natural disaster be averted by this? Will democracy and freedom triumph over evil? Was this really done for the public good? 

In trying to stop a few would-be terrorists (which the evidence suggests it has failed to do), the Transportation Security Administration proposes to body-scan or feel-search every single airline passenger -- hoarding assets that could otherwise be devoted to actually catching terrorists. Is the Wikileaks "no more secrets" approach any less of a distraction from the real crimes of state taking place around the world, under our noses, while we immerse ourselves in mountains of cables?

Wikileaks is literally self-appointed and answerable to no one, so its leaders cannot claim to be acting in anyone’s interests but their own -- unless they purport to be virtual dictators. A dictatorship of information? And from the noise of thousands upon thousands of cables and revelations, will we be any wiser? Will our policymakers become any more sober, or less? Time to reach for my Bose noise-canceling head phones...

Saudi Interfaith Initiative at the UN - Who Better (originally published Nov. 14, 2008)

This week’s high-level meeting at the United Nations in New York, devoted to the interfaith dialogue initiated by Saudi King Abdullah, has attracted some skepticism as well as outright rebuke from human rights organizations. Am I the only one who gets bored by the obvious?


News Flash: Saudi Arabia persecutes minorities, subjugates women, and denies most forms of rudimentary democracy. And, like many fellow members of the Islamic Conference, the Kingdom has been pushing for international limits on the defamation of religion, which is code for limiting freedom of expression.


Deep breath, count to ten.


In its six decades, the United Nations has never hosted a gathering where serious leaders with any real power or influence addressed issues of religion and mutual respect head-on. The UN, based in the “separation of Church and State” capital New York and dominated by secular diplomats trained in the post-Enlightenment academies of Western Europe, has been almost pathologically uncomfortable with the physical presence of religion.