Revolution in the Middle East

For those of us not distracted by the news of Charlie Sheen’s 911 call or other exciting news, it is apparent that the entire middle east is changing in front of our own eyes.

Understanding the particulars of the events in the various middle eastern countries is essential for us as the citizens of the only remaining world superpower, a country that is spending over half a trillion dollars a year to police the world and to shape or influence world events to preserve our national interests.

Regardless of outcome on the grounds, there goal for the US should be that american interests in the middle east be preserved for the long run. To that end, we can expect our government to be proactive and not be on the losing side at the end of the day.

The united states diplomacy has a difficult task as the our traditional allies, with the exception of Israel, consist of the governments, not the people.

As the people revolt against their dictatorships, the united states is left chasing its tail trying to decide when to come out in support of people power and against its “friends”, the dictators. With the situation so fluid, the only certainty is that at the end of the day the united states’ most immediate goal is not to be on the losing side, regardless of who wins the ongoing philosophical arguments.

With about a hundred billion dollar a year spent on wars designed, in part, to introduce democracy to the middle east, you would think that, in principle, we should welcome the intrinsic democratic revolutions by the people of so many middle eastern countries at no cost to us. The obvious reasons why thats not the case is that, minus the dictators, we cant really guarantee the actions of middle eastern governments in the future when it comes to oil exports, or supporting US peace initiatives, or having normal trade and political relations with the USA.

During the Egyptian revolution there was an argument made by many that the US shouldn’t support that revolution because if the regime of dictator Mubarak falls, it would be replaced by an Islamic regime hostile to Israel and the USA. The US administration came very close to choosing the losing side because of that argument. President Obama eventually realized that the Egyptian youth revolting on the street of Cairo didn’t care less if the USA was convinced of their cause, they were determined to overthrow the regime regardless. Ironically, in the demonstrators’ darkest days, one could see commentary in arab media calling for the big bad USA to intervene and be the savior in from the regime’s brutal force. At the end of the day, the US was widely credited with protecting journalists (by intervening when Aljazeera reports were arrested) and by encouraging the army not to fire on the people. It was a close call but at least we’re not the enemy of the people, at least not yet.

However we want to analyze the middle eastern revolutions, we can not start by arguing that “democracy” is unpredictable and thus “dangerous” when it comes to the middle east. The United States must believe in what it’s selling. The pendulum of democracy works in egypt just like it does here, all we have to do is make sure that the free change of governments from right to left and vis versa is not impeded by dictators. Even If we assume that the islamists end up governing Egypt, which is very unlikely, its better that they are in a democratic framework, like the case of Turkey, a US ally.

The other big issue is protecting the existing peace treaties between Arab nations and Israel. I can only think that any peace that requires the subjugation of so many countries under never ending dictatorships is not a real or lasting peace. Best chance at peace in the region is when democratically elected governments, representing their people, can reach a middle ground. Such peace won;t as fragile as they one we have now.

Revolutions in the middle east are not new; nations revolted against colonial powers and previous kings many times, only to be pushed back into dictatorships, after a few months of democracy. The United State’s role in the immediate future lies in it using its remaining influence to ensure that democratic principles are protected in the post revolution states in the middle east.

In Tunisia, all appears to be going as planned, but if we look carefully we see that the interim prime minister was given emergency powers and he issued a decree dissolving the ruling governing party. This maybe in line with the mood on the streets, but didn't the previous dictatorship start by outlawing the unpopular or unwanted political parties?

In egypt the military is now in charge, but it refuses to abolish the 30 year old emergency law that allows the government to arrest anyone. anytime, without due process or giving them the right to challenge their arrest in court. The military says that they will abolish the law as soon as the crisis is over. In other words we, they want to preserve the right to illegally crackdown on descent during the transitional period, if they so chose. Mrs. Clinton, in addressing this issue seemed to somehow say that we don’t like it but that it’s up to the “Egyptians” on this matter; one of the demonstrators main demands was to to free them from this law.

I would argue that this is one of the few risk free stances that would give the US credibility and allow the US to be the guardian of democracy. What better image for the USA in the middle east than a superpower that uses its influence to protect democratic values. I say lets take our 1.3 billion dollar yearly check to the egyptian army for a spin and secure true democracy for the Egyptian, and shamelessly take credit for it. Egyptians won’t help but be grateful.

In Libya, the west happen to promise Mr. Gaddafi to stop pushing for regime change in return for canceling his nuclear program and ceasing assistance to terrorist groups around the world (he even supported the IRA in its heyday). Its wonderful to keep one’s promise but this regime is using live ammunition against its people for the past week resulting in over 200 people dead and hundreds of injuries. It’s time for us to say, that we support, at least morally, the Libyan people in their hour of need. It is clear that the Libyans won’t stop until this regime falls and they will remember who stood with them and who didn’t. In fact I predict that this paragraph will become obsolete with hours of me writing it. It won’t kill us to be clear in our condemnation of the regime given it’s use of extraordinarily brutal tactics against peaceful demonstrators, but it is crucial if we are interested in preserving US interest in the future Libya.

In Bahrain, there happens to be sectarian ting to their revolution. Bahrain is similar to Sadam Hussein’s Iraq in that a sunni minority rules a Shiia majority and because of the small population of the country, about the size of population of Maine, they bring in sunnis from outside the country and employ in the security forces and the army. One other little complication for us under these circumstances is that the American navy fifth fleet has its base in Bahrain. The Shiia population, if successful in their revolution despite our objection, will likely cancel that base contract with the USA and be closer to Iran given the religious links.

One other issue is that Saudi Arabia has a Shiia population in the Saudi areas closest to Bahrain, and they have the potential of rising against the Saudi King, due to long standing grievances. There is actually a great danger that the Saudis may in fact decide to militarily intervene in Bahrain if it feels that the government of Bahrain is about to fall. They have a mutual defense pact to cover such intervention.

Back to the basic argument, if it looks like the people have momentum and will not stop until the government is down, then we should consider supporting the people, the winning side, in order to protect our interests, including the naval base. In fact of the US sides will the people of Bahrain in the near future, there is no way we would lose the naval base or our other interests.

In Yamen, the president of Yemen had united north and south Yemen after years of civil war then decided to stay on as president for 3 decades. The demonstrations in Aden (south) are not just calling for regime change, but some are calling for separation from the north. The southern part of Yemen also happen to be were Alqada is most active. In the North (capital Sana) the people are calling for regime change. Watching the events day to day, in local media, it looks like the number of deaths and demonstrations is rising everyday. With most people in Yemen armed, there is potential that the currently peaceful demonstration, might turn violent and result in full blown civil war. US diplomacy has the hardest choices in Yemen, compared to the other ongoing revolutions, nonetheless, the US can ill afford to be passive and take no stance allowing an totally anti-american regime to emerge, that would provide safe-haven to Alqada. I would argue that in the case of Yemen, with more than 50% illiteracy, the USA needs to be more decisive early in order to make an impression on the poorly educated people and their future democratic government, not to mention, being able to advocate for the post revolution territorial integrity of the country.

In case of Iran, a non-arab country, with a theocratic dictatorship, the events in the rest of the middle east is sparking a new wave of protests there. Unlike, the arab countries, Aljazeera is not very active in Iran, leaving the BBC persian as one of the few TV services that provide the people of Iran with real news. The government propaganda is in full gear and the events on the street are not know to the people until days later as protestors cant sent their clips to the BBC via the internet. This is robing the demonstrators from the support of the millions of sympathizers who might at any moment decide to join them if they see in real time the events on the ground.

The USA has no leverage over the government in Iran so the daily condemnations are not what they Iranian people are looking for. Instead, what the Iranian demonstrators on the street need is access to Satellite based internet, thats not subject to government control.

The other caveat in Iran is that the visible opposition leaders are not calling for regime change, yet. The “green movement” is a reform movement that is in the process of evolving into a revolutionary movement, with or without it’s own original leaders. My feeling is that the Iranian opposition leaders will be like Gorbachev in the soviet era, very eager to reform but stop short of abandoning the regime entirely.

Lets hope that the Iranians revolutionaries continue their momentum and save themselves from 30 years of dictatorship. Needless to say, that that would be great for the USA, not to mention myself. If they succeed, will get to visit my country of birth for the first time in 20 years, without any fear of arrest and arbitrary execution.