The Syrian uprising's interested onlookers: Iran, Israel, Russia, and Saudi Arabia

By Ali Ezzatyar

The Arab Awakening has a common denominator: the peoplewant the downfall of the regime. It is a pretty good one, too. While itensures nothing, it is the first, and perhaps the most difficult, of many stepsbefore democracy.

Bashar al-Assad, Tyrant of Syria

It goes without saying that each Arab country, with all ofits distinctions, will see its individual route meet special hurdles andcircumstances. An unfortunate reality is that many of these obstacles havenothing to do with domestic considerations at all, but rather international ones. Weknew this. It's the story of the modern Middle East.But what has become increasingly clear over the last 14 months is just howimportant one of these countries actually is to everyone else. We get somecolor on the American perspective by reading the paper. But this is how theother important players are looking at the biggest prize of the Arabdictatorship club, Syria:

Iran: Theworld's initial fears that the Arab Spring would play into the hands of thechampion of anti-Americanism, Iran,seem unfounded at this juncture. Tunisia,Egypt, and Libya, for allof their imperfections, have not turned into hotbeds of terror ripe for Iranianinfluence. Syriais the one country in the Arab dictator family that was traditionallypro-Iranian all along. It was the only Arab country that provided materialassistance to Iran duringits war with Iraq, and it isan important buffer and ally in Iran'ssupport of anti-Israeli groups. Syriaand Iranshare a disdain for the Saudi royal family; they also have had poor, oftenadversarial relations, with the Arab world's West-friendly dictators past andpresent. So while Iran touts itself asthe champion of populist and Muslim revolution, lauding Egyptian and Bahrainirevolutionaries as the continuation of the struggle for justice, it has keptits hands muddy and bloody in assisting Syria's crackdown against its own people.For Iran, the survival ofthe Ba'ath regime is imperative; it is its only genuine ally in the region, andit will stop at nothing, including assisting in the crackdown against innocentcivilians, to ensure that Syriadoes not become the Arab Awakening's next casualty.

Israel:Israeloften distinguishes itself as a democracy in a sea of dictatorships, but it washorrified by the Arab Spring when it began. The reality was, most of the Arabdictatorships had cooperative relationships with Israel, and their powerful armieshad a leash on the anti-Israeli sentiment that is rampant among theirrespective populations. There are even reports that Israelexplored the idea of sabotaging the revolution in Egypt in its early days in Tahrirsquare. But for the same reason that Egyptwas a potential nightmare, the Syrian revolution is viewed more positively in Israel. Syria is, by any account, Israel's realarch-nemesis. The two countries have been to war multiple times, and Israel occupies Syrian land in the Golan Heights. A more democratic regime, in Israel's view, is less likely to supportterrorism, and is less likely to align itself with Iran. There does remain the danger,however, of a more legitimate Syrian regime being more successful in convincingthe world that Golan should be returned. That is bad for Israel. Onaccount of this uncertainly, Israel is watching developments very closely inSyria, with a preference for the ouster of the Assad regime, replaced by aweak, fragmented Syrian government incapable of challenging Israel orharnessing support for anti-Israel groups in Lebanon.

Russia:We can always count on Russiato pull no punches with respect to disregarding human rights in the interest ofgeopolitics. And they are putting on a master-class display in Syria. Sincethe days of Hafez al-Assad, Syriahas been Russia's mostimportant ally in the Middle East; it housesan important army base there and has billions of dollars worth of commercewith the Assad regime. In addition, Bashar is a key element of theMoscow-Tehran-Damascus triangle, helping Russia compete with Americandominance in regional affairs. For the same reason that Russia refuses to come down hard on Iran vis-à-vis its nuclear activity, it hassinglehandedly (making use of its sizeable influence on China)paralyzed the international community's ability to institute a legal reprimandof the Assad regime. With Russiaon the Security Council, thousands more can die in Syria without the United Nationsgetting involved in a meaningful way.

Saudi Arabia: The primary outside supporter of the Syrian uprising, Saudi Arabia ispouring cash and arms into the hands of anyone who will help hasten Basharal-Assad's demise. It is the most worthy of missions, in the Saudi mindset, toeliminate Saudi Arabia'straditional Arab foe. Among the many proxy wars these two countries have foughtagainst each other, including in Lebanon,the downfall of Syria helpsfurther weaken Iran, thecountry that Saudi Arabiaviews as most dangerous to its survival. Iranhas called the Saudi dictatorship the least legitimate of regimes, and dreamsof the day Saudi Arabia'ssubstantial Shi'ite population, which happens to be in one of the most oil-richprovinces of the country, will rise up against the Saudi regime. This is Saudi Arabia'sdoomsday scenario.

And the Arab world's longest-lasting uprising continues.

An October Surprise: Will Israel attack Iran?

By Ali Ezzatyar 

The question of whether Israelor America will attack Iran has had ashelf life that is unheard of in international affairs, and the factors thatweigh on a yes or no answer to the question have changed surprisingly littleover the last ten years. But there isone variable that could alter everything this year: November.

Prior to, and in the early stages of the Iraq War, there was the notion in foreign policycircles that America couldlaunch a military attack on Iranitself. America had aninterventionist president driven by perceived ideals that made Iran seem likea perfect target. Such an attack would have been primarily designed to ensurethe failure of Iran'snuclear program; the larger question was whether George W. Bush would try totake it all a step further and force regime change in Tehran. These were ideas being discussed asearly as 2002; it wouldn't be farfetched to say an attack on Iran felt asimminent then as it does now.

The more "Mission Accomplished" became the biggest Americanforeign policy quagmire in generations, however, the less likely an Americanattack became. And somewhere around when the 3000th Americanmilitary serviceperson was killed in Iraq,the idea that America couldattack Iranfor any reason had vanished into seeming impossibility. Until now, the ongoinginstability in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the 2008 election of apresident critical of recent American interventionism, continues to hamstring any notion that the United States could embark on a military venture againsta bigger, more powerful, more complicated Iranian foe.

It was about the same time, during Iraq's most tumultuous moments ofthe last decade, that talk of a unilateral Israeli strike became prevalent. Israel hasalways been considered the primary beneficiary of such an attack, and hence theidea that their highly capable military could go it alone was always feasible although not preferable to an overwhelming American strike.Until recently, however, there was the notion that Israelwould not act without America'sapproval. This was because the success-to-repercussions ratio for Israel was poor, but also because the chaos ofwar in Iraq and Afghanistan made intervention in Iran dangerous to America,Israel'smost important ally, no matter who the attacking party was.

And since George W. Bush was seen as one of the mostIsrael-friendly presidents ever, America'shamstring was necessarily Israel's.The logic was that if Israelattacked Iran without America's go-ahead and help, America couldget dragged into a third war, which could ultimately serve to tarnish U.S.-Israelirelations permanently. George W. Bush was thought to have put his neck on theline sufficiently for Israel,and we assumed then and know now that he drew a red line around Iran. A thirdwar in the Middle East for George W. Bush would have been disastrous, even moredefinitively writing off George W. Bush as one of America's worst presidents,and ensuring failure in the 2008 presidential elections for any Republicancandidate. After Obama's election, the writing was well and clearly on the wallfor Israel: we are notattacking Iran,and neither are you. 

So why the history lesson? If the foregoing is mostly true, I think we can draw two importantconclusions:

First, not enough has changed elsewhere to make anAmerican attack on Iranany more likely in the short term as it was five years ago. Afghanistan is increasingly unstable while Iraq'sdirection remains a huge question mark. Furthermore, Pakistan has come to resemble moreand more an ally-turned-enemy, and any fallout from a breakdown in relationsthere could be catastrophic. There is just too much risk involved with anattack on Iran.

To the contrary, and more importantly, this is the mosttemperate climate for an Israeli attack on Iran we have seen. There are someobvious reasons, such as unprecedented Iranian isolation, Iran'sreportedly nearing critical stages in its nuclear development, and recentaccusations of assassinations of Israelis abroad. But there is something muchmore profound from an Israeli perspective.

A plurality of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is theleast Israel-friendly president in American history. They harbor suspicions about hisintentions in the region and generally believe he may abandon Israel in ways unprecedented topresidents before him.

An attack on Iranthis year is unquestionably dangerous to Obama's reelection. There is noscenario where a unilateral attack by Israel will not hurt Obama'schances. We probably do not need to discuss how a failed attack, the mostlikely scenario of a unilateral Israeli strike according to most analysts,would be disastrous for U.S. interests and the president personally. But even a successfulIsraeli attack would wreak havoc on financial markets, on American interests inthe region, and portray Obama as a man with no control over a key regionfor U.S. interests. This is the most likely scenario for an unlikely Republicanwin in November 2012.

Even if the American public is critical of an Israelistrike, the hawkish Republican candidate-turned-president, who has beendistinguishing himself all year long on the principle of being forceful with Iran, comes to power with Israel'sinterests in mind. It is win-win for Israel.

If Israel waits long enough to ensure there is no sanctionfrom an Obama administration for its attacking Iran, but not until after theelections themselves, it can both perform an operation it has been planning foryears, and one which it sees as vital to its long-term survival, whilesupplanting the president of its largest benefactor that it wants to see goneanyway. Could Israelbe planning an October, or perhaps August / September surprise? It wouldn't bethe first time Iran has beenused to win a U.S.election. (Remember this one?)

The odds of an Israeli attack on Iran are the highest they have been in ten years.

"We can do this": Not really live-blogging SOTU 2012

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And so it begins...

I have no intention of really live-blogging President Obama's address night. I'm just going to sit here, drink my Traquair Jacobite Ale from Innerleithen, Scotland (a strong beer flavored with coriander), and comment at random on a variety of things, some of them having to do with the SOTU.

No Americans fighting in Iraq in nine years. And Osama bin Laden is "not a threat to this country." True on the first point, not so much on the second. Osama is still powerful, even (or especially) in death. But I get the point. Obama has ended an unpopular war but is anything but a pacifist. He's a militarist, too, and he got the baddest of the bad guys. Trump that, Mitt! -- or... Newt?!

What theater, though. How fitting that the SOTU is on the same day as the Oscar nominations. (I know, the Tonys are theater. But you get the point.)

"What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We must reclaim them." Ah, Obama the non-partisan. But a good case to make in a speech that, let's face it, is more or less the opening salvo of Campaign 2012 for Obama. You'll have to find the partisanship between the lines, it seems.

The president is making the case for recovery: businesses are hiring, jobs are coming back, new rules are in place to prevent shit from happening. Fantastic. "I will not return to the policies that brought about this crisis in the first place." Something like that. I just wish I had full confidence in his sincerity. He's done too much for Wall Street for me to believe that he means it -- or, rather, that he'll back up what he means with action, and lasting change.

Well, we heard this before the speech... Osama is dead, GM is alive and kicking. He just made the second point. "The American automotive industry is back." (The quotes may be slightly off, by the way. I'm doing the best I can.)

Message to Americans: Your manufacturing base is not coming back. Sorry. It may get better, and there's certainly an opportunity for innovation to improve domestic manufacturing, but the world has changed -- and it's not changing back. Just ask Apple. Billions and billions of dollars in earnings and cash, but where does it make its iconic "American" products? But, sure, go ahead and try to deal with outsourcing and stop companies from avoiding taxes.

Ah, corporate tax cuts. Of course. What else is new?

Oooh, Eric Cantor looks pissed. Is it because Obama didn't show up with a hammer and sickle?

Don't get me wrong. Policy-wise, I'm for most of this. It's fine. And certainly preferable to what the GOP has to offer. But it's all quite delusional nonetheless. Because, of course, if you tell the truth in American politics, you're doomed. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

"Americans will always win." If there are fair trading practices. Like I said: delusional.

Education... something something something... teachers... something something something... Seriously, it's all good. Though Boner -- sorry, Boehner -- looks unimpressed. I guess he doesn't think kids should stay in school.

Okay, there's no point following this. It's all about speaking points, issue after issue. It's about how the speech will be reported in the media: President Obama said a, b, c, d, etc. I just say, though, there's not a lot that's terribly compelling in this speech so far. He's moving from issue to issue, avoiding partisanship, offering some delusional/aspirational goals, along with a few concrete policy proposals, but that's about it. "We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform now." Okay, but how? And do you really think Congress will be sending you any sort of meaningful reform package anytime soon? Of course not. It's just about hitting the right notes. Like... equal pay for women! Well, fine. Who's against that... other than the Republicans? "Expand tax relief to small businesses." Great. And?

Sorry, I don't mean to be so negative. I know he's doing what he has to do. It's all part of the theater of the SOTU. And I know that leadership requires the communication of such aspirational goals. But I'm not sure what the unifying theme of this speech is. What philosophy, if you will, is driving the president? Or if not philosophy, what vision? Maybe it's coming when/if he ties it all up.

Forget the laundry list of policy proposals for a moment. What is this speech about? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Sullivan, who's live-blogging tonight, of course:

And now a Santorum-style focus on manufacturing -- and the same old abuse of the tax code to influence the economy. This is industrial policy, based on populism. It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform. It's a throwback to paleo-liberalism. Tax breaks and subsidies to keep jobs at home. It's spitting in the wind of the global economy -- and it fails to grasp government's proper role. Workers here will never be cost-competitive with the Chinese. This is fantasy -- and cheap populism.

I have a different view of "government's proper role" than Andrew does -- I think it should have an activist role to try to rectify capitalism's injustices -- but I tend to agree with this. What we're hearing tonight is populist nationalism. Maybe that's the theme, the vision, the "philosophy." 

And, yes, it's all quite "vapid" (while making the tax code more and more complicated).

More Sullivan:

This speech is beginning to make Bill Clintons' look like clear and visionary. But people loved Clinton's long laundry list of micro-policies. I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

I agree it's the worst, trying to think back to the others (through the haze of this ale). It just seems overly processed, as if lines were approved by focus groups and then glued together.

But who can object to "a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans." Republicans, of course! Once more, I hope he's serious and actually follows through on this. It might help if his presidency weren't sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Uh-oh, now he's going after millionaires. Class warfare! That's what we'll hear from Romney et al. What we're hearing is that the Republican response will be all about how "divisive" this speech was. As if it's divisive to say that millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes. But that's how Republicans think -- they have no interest in requiring the rich, and especially the super-rich, to sacrifice anything at all, even for the common good.

On foreign policy, especially with respect to the Middle East... again, it's not that I disagree with what he's saying, it's that there's no unifying theme to what he's saying. No argument. No unifying vision. He'll stand up for human dignity... but he'll do everything he can to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons? He may not mean it, but... what... he's still got military action on the table? Military cooperation with Israel -- that got a standing ovation -- hoo-wah! Again, what exactly is Obama's thinking on foreign policy, on America's place and role in the world? Or is it all ad hoc, while sucking up to popularity?

"America is back!" Sure, back from where it was under Bush, but what does that mean? "America is the one indispensable nation..." On behalf of every other country in the world: Screw you, America. Seriously, do we need this sort of jingoism, cloaked as it may be in Obama's liberalism?

Would the world be a significantly worse place without America? Think about it.

And now: the military. De rigueur, of course. (And I'm generally fine with it. Not every U.S. serviceman urinates on corpses. Most of them are honorable men and women. What I object to is Obama's militarism, and, make no mistake, he's a militarist. Maybe not as reckless a militarist as his predecessor, but still one nonetheless. He'd do a lot better if he thought less that the military was the solution and considered other alternatives to the establishment of peace.)

Maybe now we'll get some genuine passion: the mission to get Osama. Oh, please. America is like that Navy Seals unit? That unit is a microcosm of America? "There is no challenge too great, there is no mission too hard..." Uplifting rhetoric, I suppose, but a bit forced, no?

"The state of our union will always be strong." Wait, did he say at any point that it is strong? I mean, I wasn't going to watch because of course we all know the state of the union is awesome. What else was there to say? But I wonder.

Anyway, now I have to stop watching. However mediocre the speech, it's the post-speech punditry that is truly horrendous, and it will be no different tonight.

Here's a final word from Sullivan:

This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others' backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn't Sparta. It's America. And to use the raid on bin Laden as the model of our future cooperation struck me as too easy and trite an analogy.

Yup.

Look, who knows, this speech might have been fine. Gergen just called it "politically shrewd." And that's pretty much as CW as it gets. But it wasn't a powerful speech at all, despite what super-partisan Begala is saying, and while he may have done a lot tonight to reach out to independents, he'll have to do a lot more on the campaign trail to energize those of us who consider ourselves members of his, and his party's base.

Have a good night, everyone.

**********

Okay, just a couple of comments on Mitch Daniels's GOP response:

Not much red meat for the base, but it's got its share of ridiculous partisan points: For example, Obama's "constant disparagement" of business? Really? In what world is this true? How is it anti-business to save Wall Street and the auto industry?

And he praises Steve Jobs as a job creator? What, for creating low-paying jobs in China? Please. I realize this guy is more reasonable than most in his party, but his absolute faith in the private sector (and claim that Obama and Democrats are anti-market and don't trust/believe in the American people) is far more delusional by far than anything Obama said tonight about populist nationalism. In fact, much of what he's saying is just blatantly dishonest.

Ah, there it is: Obama the divider. Please. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Credit Daniels for saying the rich shouldn't have tax advantages, but otherwise this is just your typical old-school Republican nonsense. Just less crazy, and less crazily put, than what we normally hear from Republicans, Mitt and Newt included.

And now... good night.

Egypt's progress

By Ali Ezzatyar

Approaching the one-year anniversary of the Arab spring, it's very easy to forget that the events of 2011 would have been unthinkable last Christmas. Browse through the op-ed pages of every major newspaper or foreign policy journal, or the title of any of the books that were being published on the region this time last year: not a single clear, quantifiable notion that one man's self-immolation in Tunisia would light the entire region on fire. One of the earliest, and perhaps the most important, of these fires, was Egypt. I venture to say, contrary to many, that things are going fine there a year later. 

It's not ideal that the ruling military establishment remains effectively in power even now; its promises to step aside and hand rule over definitively to elected civilians are still unfulfilled. It is also clearly tragic that about 200 Egyptians have lost their lives since the stepping down of Hosni Mubarak, in continued clashes with each other and the security forces. But, almost a year after Egyptians rallied past security forces and into Tahrir square, the signs appear more positive than negative.

One big fear of mine was that, with the ouster of Mubarak, the leaderless mass movement comprising most of Egyptian society that ousted him would get complacent. That could have happened for many reasons. It could have happened because a society that is not allowed to demonstrate in mass for decades out of fear of reprisal can easily lose focus when its immediate goals are achieved. It could also happen, like it did in Iran, because an event or series of events from outside of Egypt would allow the military to consolidate its power at the behest of the people. In fact, Egyptians have demonstrated remarkable resilience and intolerance for the continued vestiges of authoritarian rule. With the help of social media, activists have continued to organize and maintain focus on the goal they espoused on the eve of their revolution. They are keeping the pressure on the military, including through democratic elections and continued reforms.

Additionally, the extreme elements of Egyptian society, notably the Islamists who were supposed to fight for an Islamic State, never showed up. I don't know if they existed, existed in such a small number, or are singing another tune post-revolution, but the reality is clear: The largest Muslim block in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, has not espoused ideas that are any less democratic than most "Western" countries. They are also being watched closely by those same Egyptians watching the military, since their inactivity in the early revolution has discredited them, and their unwillingness to confront the military head on continues to do so. This is all healthy. While the Muslim Brotherhood probably has a plurality of Egypt's support, there are probably more people who, together, could combine to make their lives very difficult when they step out of line. So, while the military has always acted as a counterbalance to the Brotherhood, a large cross-section of the Egyptian population now has the tools at its disposal to create its own counterweight, and it has done so.

Finally, while fully-fledged democracy hasn't been born overnight in Egypt, nobody can say the revolutionary project has unraveled. It is a work in progress, and it is moving forward. Continued strife, even oftentimes despotic rule by the Egyptian military, has not slowed it down. The more the military ratchets up its behavior or words the people don't like, the more people are pouring back into Tahrir square. The Egyptian blogosphere is as active as it has ever been. Everyone is under scrutiny by everyone else, and the system in place now is moderately democratic and moving in the right direction.

We can't say we are happy with Egypt as it is today, but a status quo takes years to build. Perhaps we can say, at least (and with tacit encouragement for Egyptians to continue), that we are happy with its progress, less than one year in.

"The Protester" is Time's Person of the Year

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's a bit goofy, but, then, Time often goes goofy with this award. Remember when you -- yes, you -- were Time's Person of the Year? Maybe that made some sense, but it seemed pretty stupid at the time.

Well, 2011 was indeed a year of protests, particularly in the Middle East but also Occupy Wall Street. And whatever the outcomes of those protests (regime change here but not there, OWS protests forcibly shut down and the movement fading), there is no denying that they achieved a great deal (e.g., in Egypt and Libya) and effectively challenged a corrupt and unjust status quo (e.g., in Greece, as well as OWS generally), changing the content of political discourse and bringing much-needed attention not just to issues like income inequality but to those suffering under the weight of that status quo.

The question now is whether 2012 will see any sort of follow-through from these protests or whether the protesters and that for which they protested will be relegated to the dustbin of history. We can hope that it's the former, but we will all need to play our part in not letting the status quo prevail.