Bicker, Back & Forth, PS.

A few hours ago in an interview with Radio America’s Dateline Washington Rep. Dana Rohrabacher claimed that the Iranian people are protesting because they want a democracy and that President Obama is a “cream puff” for not interfering in Iran. Rohrabacher believes that the US is missing an opportunity in Iran that we need exploit. He went on to say:

“Well I think that Mr. Obama, if he continues to have these types of attitudes, we’re going to see things get very bad, very quickly. Already the North Koreans have challenged him and realized that he’s a cream puff, if that is what he is indeed going to be as a President, and there was no absolutely no response to their blatant nuclear weapons activity, and now if the Mullahs in Iran are permitted to just roll over opposition something like Tiananmen square, we will have missed a great opportunity, but it also means that we will pay a price for having radical Mullahs, they will be emboldened in the future.”

he continued,

“The last thing you want to do is make is sound like these people are isolated that these people in the streets don’t have any backing. The strongest thing the President was able to say was the world is watching. Well, what the heck does that mean? That we are going to watch we’re and do nothing. What we need to do, is make sure, and I have already done this, I have had video taken that was sent all over Iran on the Internet that was distributed by some student organizations that basically I was telling the people of Iran that we’re with them. Be courageous. Don’t let this moment go by. Let’s seize the moment so that we can live in peace between the United States and Iran, and they can live in some kind of freedom instead of being terrorized by these cuckoo Mullahs.”

Such negative rhetoric just serves to promote the same bi-polar politics so common in Washington – everything isn’t necessarily black or white just because one position is republican and the other democrat. In his book The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria presents a short primer on where the world is today, and the role he sees the United States playing in its future. As ever Mr. Zakaria is fair, balanced and nonpartisan, he is in my opinion, one of our national treasures on matters of international relations and globalization. He refers to the fact that as the US moves foreword we will need to rely more on our “soft power” than our “hard power”. The concept of soft versus hard power is one that Zakaria has promoted for years through his work with the Council on Foreign Relations. Soft power in short is our perceived desirability (our democracy, justice and culture), hard power is dispensed by our armed forces and by our ability to tarrif and embargo. Even the bastions of capitalism recognize this, see “Soft power drives Globalization” by Tim McGee, Director of Macro Strategy and Research, US Trust (part of Bank of America).

President Obama’s approach therefore not only demonstrates a deep understanding of the political milieu of Iran but is also does much to restore some modicum of our soft power, a national resource which was decimated by the methods of the former administration.

Rep Rohrabacher shows a fundamental misconception of why the Iranian protesters have taken to the streets. They are protesting what their perception of election fraud. They are not protesting to promote a Western style of democracy in Iran or to deminish the Mullahs. One must understand that the presidency Ahmadinejad holds is in no way not akin to the presidency of a US president, a position in which the US executive is able to steer the national agenda in significant degree. Rep. Rohrabacher is missing the fact that even if the opponent Mousavi were to have won and become president, the leadership and political power holders would remain entirely unchanged. Iran is in large part a theocracy governed and steered by the Ayatollah and the Guardians.

Ahmadinejad and his supporters are already poised if not currently using American meddling as an excuse to crack down on protest. Why would we willingly give them more ammunition for this charge? Let us not forget that both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are noting short of anti-American anyway. The reality is that a perception of meddling would likely cost Iranian protestors’ lives.

Iran, for the first time in its history is seeing real dialogue, real debate and real expression of policital dissent. We will not promote regime change in Iran by picking sides or supporting one party over the other, however we do risk the destruction of the domestic reform movement which is now growing in Iran. One thing we cannot easily comprehend as Americans is that the demographics of Iran and the US are so diferent. In the US the median age is 37 by 2008 estimate, with a vast number of the population over the age of 50. In Iran by 2008 estimate the median age is just 26 with a small section of the population over 50. Iran is a young country which means that change is coming anyway. Their desire for western benefits such as liberty and wealth acquisition, the attraction to our “soft power” will ultimately do more to move the country toward a western democratic model than even invasion and occupation.

In the US as in Iran our young people were somewhat dethatched and disenfranchised from the political mainstream for at least the past 15 years. What engaged them for the 2008 election was the confluence of dissent over the Iraq war, disgust at the methods we empolyed and the emergence of a truly globally transformational figure, President Obama. Iran is facing the same situation and their young people outnumber ours and then some.

Obama is no “cream puff”, instead he is demonstrating a deep understanding of Iranian politics, perceptions and demographics. President Obama is right on track, because in despite Rep. Rohrabacher’s perception, the Iranian protesters aren’t trying to get rid of the Mullahs at all. They are standing up, speaking out and placing their lives jeopardy to oppose a rigged election. There is a real possibility that this infant movement will grow into a full blown adult revolutionary movement. A strategy of heavy handed, meddling interventionist as Rohrabacher suggests would be the most assured way to kill it before it lives long enough to get out of diapers.

President Obama in his promised diplomatic visit to a major Arab nation gave a speech which was in balance fair, informed and as usual eloquent. It came as yet another stark contrast to the “clash of civilizations” vitriol which had become the norm over the past eight years, perhaps much longer as President Clinton’s foreign policy with regard to the Arab world seemed to go little further than “Israel can do no wrong”. As is becoming evident as his style, President Obama drew parallels, honored the rich tradition and heritage of Islam and made it clear he realizes that the complexities which face Arab nations are neither insignificant not as simplistic as the small fanatical Arab minority would claim.

In speaking in earnest of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that “Israel isn’t going to go away” and at the same time saying “peace be upon them” when talking of both Muhammad and Abraham seemed to place our foreign policy back on rational ground. While he was critical, particularly of the deprivation of rights from women, he fell short of the real issue, perhaps wisely, the fact that the Arab world has failed to separate it’s core morality and social policy from it’s religious piety.

As Deepak Chopra stated in an article he wrote this week for the Washington Post, and reprinted in the Huffington Post, the Arab world, in the name of devotion to God, deny basic rights to women, permit terrorists march under the banner of faith; remains silent as mullahs control credulous masses of believers; and permits education for the average citizen to be totally centered on the Koran.

“All of these are backward trends. They run counter to the modern world. In fact, the overwhelming dominance of dictators and royal families in the Arab states doesn’t begin to be consistent with democratic values that are two hundred years old in the West. Human rights are more or less non-existent. This is an appalling state of affairs, and no amount of tolerance from America’s side alters that fact.”

In every Muslim country without exception, core social values have medieval roots but atop the swelling masses the illiterate masses, a tiny oligarch sits. This oligarchy is rich, secular, and westernized. It pays lip service to the mullahs and fears their power. But the oligarchy rarely lifts a finger to share its wealth and influence, to extend opportunities to average citizens, or to challenge the reactionary social forces that the jihadists represent. Their sole aim is to stay on top and suppress anyone who opposes what the elite wants. It consists of those who have tea at Harrods of London, and shop in Paris and contrary to Islam have a glass of wine with dinner, they do so more frequently than they attend a mosque, but dare not challenge the theocrats.

When I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia this was most certainly the case, the privileged Westernized minority ran the country, lived Western lives, and spent more time showering the retailers of New York, Paris and London with money than they did in residence in their own countries. Those of them who owned businesses, delegated their management and operations in whole, because at that time foreign companies were required to have a majority Saudi partner. The result of this policy was that well positioned Saudis earned 51% of all Westinghouse’s operations and did so for little more than their signature on documents registering the business – who can blame them for taking the money and living mostly out of country. However that was 30 years ago and despite the development of rich infrastructure they still chose to reside out of country more than in – but not it isn’t because of lacking retailers or survives, it is simply to avoid the same piety they will not challenge. They do nothing to oppose the mullahs or to sound off as a voice of moderation, modernization. Rarely, if ever, do they share their wealth and influence to raise the standard of living, education and wellbeing for the ordinary citizens. They simply care about nothing more than retaining their position, wealth and status and oppose only those who would challenge this.

President Obama’s speech turned a spotlight on the true way the West perceives the Arab world, but who is listening? Certainly the Jihadists and Mullahs will neither hear nor care, The masses may get a sense that America is not at war with Islam itself as the fundamentalists tell them but true change will escape the Arab nations until the privileged few stop their hypocrisy and awaken. If they don’t change, then the religious backwardness of the Arab world will keep on blindly supporting its opposition to Israel, modernity, democracy, and a better future for ordinary people.

Let’s hope that President Obama is saving that message for another day and not acting upon the same motivations that keep the ruling Arab class from challenging the mullahs – the fear of kicking the hornet’s nest.