Bush Likes Democracy but Doesn't Like Ibrahim al-Jaafari Posted by Shadi Hamid

I guess Bush didn’t get the memo that trying to oust or destabilize democratically-elected leaders and/or governments is probably not the best idea for a country which claims to be the world’s purveyor of democratic ideals. Doesn't exactly do wonders for our credibility. There seems to be a very troubling trend developing here which is part of the overall democracy promotion backlash which both Derek and I have discussed in previous posts.

First, it started with Hamas, which won a commanding majority in January’s surprisingly clean and violence-free elections, forcing the Bush administration engage in dubious verbal acrobatics. It certainly makes sense to not give financial assistance to a government led by a party which refuses to renounce terrorism. Many have made the point that just as Palestinians have the right to elect Hamas, we have the right to not give a Hamas-led government money. That is one thing. It is quite another matter, however, to actively work toward the destabilization of an elected government, which is apparently what the Bush administration was seriously considering as early as two weeks after the election. The logic went that "destabilization" efforts would make governing impossible for Hamas. This would force Mahmoud Abbas to call new elections, which Fatah would presumably win. Status quo ante restored, Scrowcroft style. (See this excellent post by Andrew Sullivan).

Well, fast forward two months and apparently, we now want to get rid of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, an Islamist who also happens to be democratically elected.

Israeli Elections: The more things change... Posted by Gayle Meyers

Israel's polls closed 90 minutes ago, and exit polls show that Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima ("Forward") party won the largest number of seats in the Knesset (parliament), and will most likely be given a chance to form a governing coalition.  Along with the two parties to its immediate left, Labor and Meretz, Kadima would control approximately 55 seats in the 120-seat parliament.  Adding the votes of the far-left Arab-Israeli parties, Kadima will have enough votes to carry out Olmert's plan for unilateral withdrawal from territories of the West Bank. 

However, while he has a parliamentary majority, Olmert can scarcely claim an overwhelming mandate for his controversial plan. The right side of the political spectrum captured approximately 50 seats.  Former ruling party Likud dropped precipitously, to approximately 11 seats, but Yisrael Beiteinu ("Israel is our Home"), which advocates redrawing Israel's borders so that Arab cities would no longer be part of the country, was the rising star of the election, jumping from 4 seats in the last parliament to an expected 12 to 14 this time around. The real wild card is the Pensioners' Party, which ran on the single issue of benefits for senior citizens but has no foreign policy.  The 6 to 8 seats it is predicted to win could make a difference in Kadima's freedom of decision. 

The elections leave Israeli-Palestinian relations approximately where they were before the polls opened.  Israeli voters neither gave a ringing endorsement to unilateral withdrawal nor rejected it decisively.  After working and living in Jerusalem for nearly two years, I found myself wishing for a deus ex machina of a result, something that would change the dynamics of the Middle East enough to suggest a resolution to the conflict.  These two years have been filled with events that felt like political earthquakes: The death of Yasser Arafat, the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the stroke that incapacitated Ariel Sharon, and the election of Hamas to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.  After each event, the dust has settled, and we find ourselves facing the same issues of land, identity, security and independence, which must be solved to the satisfaction of both Palestinians and Israelis.

The Democracy Promotion Backlash (and the The Need for a "Third Way") Posted by Shadi Hamid

Suffice it to say that I knew the backlash had begun, and it was to rage with increasing ferocity. I look back now and wonder if I had seen it coming. Perhaps it was inevitable, for there was too much at stake. When ambition exceeds ability, the results can be disorienting, if not outright destructive. This, I worry, is what happened to our post-9/11 efforts, however halting, to promote democracy in the Arab world. The tipping point was Hamas’s shocking victory in the Palestinian elections. But the doubts regarding the wisdom of an assertive pro-democracy posture had surfaced long before in the wake of a series of substantial Islamist electoral gains in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.

The animating force (at least in theory) of the Bush administration’s Mid-east policy is (or was) the radical notion that democracy, by allowing people to express their grievances through a meaningful political process, will defeat the frustration and impotence which give rise to political violence and terrorism. Its admittedly stubborn belief in the transformative power of democracy was, as far as I could tell, the only redeeming characteristic of an administration plagued by incompetence and shortsightedness in nearly every other aspect of domestic and foreign policy.

Unfortunately, because of its destructive policies elsewhere, this novel (and useful) understanding of the relationship between terror and democracy was sullied (in the eyes of many liberals) through guilt by association. More problematic was the inability of the Bush administration to live up to its lofty rhetoric. The gap between what we said and what we did grew only more striking with time. Indeed, President Bush has become the anti-Midas of our time. A good message has been tainted, in some circles irrevocably, by a bad messenger.

Israeli Elections: How Liberal is Liberal? Posted by Gayle Meyers

Five days before Israel's parliamentary elections, polls are indicating another flip-flop.  This time, the good news goes to left-of-center Labor and its prime ministerial candidate, Amir Peretz.  Peretz is an unusual candidate for Israel's top job.  He joined the parliament after leading the Histadrut, the country's powerful labor federation, but he has never held a cabinet-level post.  His opponents have made much of his inexperience, suggesting that he is not prime ministerial material. Peretz addresses these charges directly in one of his campaign ads, in which he repeats the accusations leveled at him and shows that they could also have been leveled at Israel's legendary first prime minister, David Ben Gurion.  Lurking under the question question of experience is the question of whether Peretz, who comes from the country's disadvantaged Moroccan sector instead of its European-origin political elite. 

On national security issues, Labor's platform is one that mainstream Democrats can support, but it would not satisfy more pro-Palestinian segments of the progressive movement.

Israeli Elections: Prisoners' Dilemma Posted by Gayle Meyers

Kadima jumped six seats in a poll released last week after the March 14 Israeli raid on a Jericho jail to extract six Palestinians accused of murdering an Israeli cabinet minister.  Political opponents are accusing party leader and acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of ordering the raid for political gain.  The accusations mirror those thrown at Prime Minister Menachem Begin for bombing Iraq’s nuclear reactor just before elections in 1981 and Prime Minister Shimon Peres for launching a raid into Lebanonjust before elections in 1996.  In spite of those accusations, there is a pretty broad consensus in Israel that the raid was the right thing to do, because Hamas had indicated it would free the prisoners. Likud also gained in the poll, adding two seats while Labor lost two. 

Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister and ambassador to the United Nations, has been portraying himself as a tough leader experienced in national security, the only candidate qualified to meet Israel’s military challenges.  In rhetoric similar to President Bush’s 2004 election campaign, Netanyahu’s ads and speeches emphasize the threat.  One TV commercial shows a giant ball of fire, representing the threat of international terror, ready to engulf Israel, and another features the marching feet of Hamas brigades.  Having set up the problem, Netanyahu shows himself to be the answer.  He invokes his older brother Yonatan, who died while commanding Israel’s dramatic rescue of hostages at Entebbeairport in 1976, and reminds voters that while he was serving in an elite special operations unit in the army, Olmert did his mandatory military service as a journalist for the army newspaper.

Israeli Elections: Candidates and Cottage Cheese Posted by Gayle Meyers

Israelis will go to the polls on March 28 to elect new leadership (or to re-elect old leadership.) Campaign commercials pit a talking sperm against an ostrich with his head in the sand, and the ghost of Entebbe hero Yonatan Netanyahu against the hovering spirit of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who suffered a stroke on January 5, 2006, and has been in a coma ever since. The silliness of the ads cannot disguise the different visions that candidates are offering to the public, not only on domestic issues but on issues that could shape the future of peace and war in the Middle East.

Sharon’s party, Kadima, which he formed shortly before his illness, is now in the hands of former Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert. It is leading in the polls but is fighting for votes with Labor on its left and Likud on its right.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which political parties contend for seats in the 120-member parliament, or Knesset. The party that wins the most seats gets to form a government. Its leader becomes the prime minister and the political leader of the nation. (There is a president, but his post is mostly ceremonial.) A March 9 poll gave Kadima a leading 37 seats, with 19 going to Labor and 17 to Likud. Smaller parties, with agendas ranging from civil rights for Israel’s Arab minority to ensuring the role of traditional Judaism in the country’s law and educational systems, vie to become part of the governing coalition.

Electioneering here is a funny mix of slick and simple. The public election system gives every party a certain amount of television and radio airtime, and the ads started running last week. There is some handwringing about whether political candidates can or should be “sold like cottage cheese.” As an American used to short soundbites and attack ads sponsored by shadowy interest groups, not only is the answer to this question an obvious “yes,” but I find the ads to be remarkably long and full of information.

Khalilzad Says What the Administration Won't On Permanent Bases In Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Juan Cole quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad as saying in an interview with al Hayat as telling sectarian opponents of the US presence that:  "We don't want to stay in Iraq."  He's apparently concluded that one way to tamp down the hostility toward the American military, and perhaps even political tensions more broadly, is to reassure the relevant parties that America does not intend to station its military permanently in the country.  But President Bush and and Secretary Rumsfeld have never given such assurances, and - as Kevin Drum has reported - are instead allocating resources to build up what are said to be permanent military installations. 

Right now Khalilzad's efforts are about the only thing standing between Iraq and full-scale sectarian warfare.  Why won't the Administration support him by officially disavowing any intention to build permanent bases?

Caught in the Middle of An Iraqi Civil War Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the only thing worse than civil war in Iraq was civil war in Iraq with 130,000 American troops serving there.  This weekend, after a couple of weeks of relative calm, things blew up again with six simultaneous bombings in crowded markets in Shiite areas.  Shiite militiamen are out on the street and the fear is that this will spark a rash of sectarian violence akin to the outbreak triggered by the bombing of a Shiite temple three weeks ago, and maybe worse.  All this coincides with the planned drawdown of US troops starting this Spring.   

If sectarian violence flares up untamed, what will the US do?  It's been obvious for a long time that the consequences of Iraq becoming a failed state are so severe that the US must do everything in its power to avoid that outcome.  It's equally clear that the US's strategy - despite several reincarnations - has not placed Iraq on a trajectory toward stability.  It increasingly looks as though, despite the best efforts of our military and some improvements in American tactics, Iraq is sliding in the wrong direction. 

The worst thing about this is that now, with Iraq descending into chaos, even if everyone agreed that our presence was doing no good, it would be virtually impossible to leave.  Last fall, when John Murtha called for US withdrawal and the Center for American Progress argued for redeployment elsewhere in the region, drawing down struck many as premature and faint-hearted.  If we leave as Iraq descends directly into mass-killings, however, it will look even worse: unconscionable and craven, an invitation for Iran to have its way.  Given the Administration's rhetoric over the last few months, I can't see it happening.

Any Storm in a Port? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

The ueber-politics-watchers at ABC's The Note make a prediction today that I think is very smart:  the Dubai Ports World case will end with a whimper when the Administration persuades the company to withdraw the US portion of its bid.

This will, if it comes to pass, be both very clever of the Administration and the worst of all possible worlds:

• The US takes a huge black eye in the Arab world, and elsewhere, for our anti-Arab posturing and for our tendency to say one thing about free markets and do another;
• We lose the heat needed to do anything about real shortcomings in port security. that have much more to do with how the ports are supervised than who runs them; and
• Commercially speaking, it probably chokes off private foreign investment in our already behind-the-times ports infrastructure.

(and, if I understand this right, it would still leave the ports in the hands of foreigners... oh, never mind...)

Tehran vs. Turtle Bay: Iran Tests the UN Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Tomorrow the IAEA is expected to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for potential sanctions or other actions in response to Tehran's defiance of IAEA demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities.  The IAEA Board voted on the referral a month ago, but allowed a month's grace time for continued negotiations and an assessment by IAEA Chief Mohammed El Baradei.

Meanwhile the Iranian government is insisting that a Security Council referral will only intensify its determination to go nuclear.  Thus far, while the IAEA has concluded that Iran is taking steps to expand its enrichment program, the agency has not had adequate access or cooperation to determine whether the efforts are entirely peaceful in purpose.  The New York Times reports:

"If Iran's nuclear dossier is referred to the U.N. Security Council, uranium enrichment will be resumed," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said at a news conference, referring to large-scale enrichment. "Nuclear research and development are part of Iran's national interests and sovereignty and we will not give them up."

Larijani goes on to raise the specter of a cut in oil output if the international community continues to apply pressure.

An Iranian nuclear weapon seems to be years away.  Yet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's open defiance poses a fundamental problem.  In light of the drubbing the UN's gotten in recent years for its inability to face down rogue states, the organization must be unified in refusing to back down in the face of Tehran's threats.  The UN cannot do nothing and let Tehran's goading stand. 

But despite the intensive focus on the Iranian threat in recent months, every realistic policy option has major drawbacks.  The problems I outlined here remain unsolved.  Diplomatic sanctions may cut down even further visibility on Iran's nuclear activities.   Economic sanctions will be difficult to target at the government.  A ban on Iranian oil is predicted to send prices spiking, potentially hurting the world more than it does Iran. 

A couple of observations:

- Like the nuclear accord with India last week, this situation pits bedrock principles of international relations (in this case the need for the international community to unite and forcefully face down rogues) against the hard place of a dangerous immediate dilemma (the risk of inflaming an already unstable leader in oil-rich Iran).

- The dilemma also illustrates a rising feature of the geopolitical landscape that I discuss in this article entitled Democracy Confronts the Superpower, namely that public opinion and the pluralization of international relations is playing a growing role in constraining the US's policy options.  There is grave concern that the imposition of sanctions on Iran will fan already stoked nationalism that is tightening Ahmadinejad's hold on power.  So the UNSC debate will take into account not just how to influence Tehran, but what to signal the Iranian people.  After Iraq, and particularly because the Administration learned the hard way that a small cabal of exiles could not speak for the Iraqi people, this consideration is uppermost.

- The upshot is that the Administration and the UN should start small, recognizing that unity of purpose is key in what are still the early days of this debate.  Diplomatic sanctions, asset freezes and the like won't put a tight squeeze on Iran, but they will allow the UNSC membership to reach consensus and lay a foundation for future joint action if Iranian defiance persists.