As announced by the Interior and Defense Ministries, over 100,000 troops were dispatched nationwide to guarantee not only the safety of electors but the electoral process itself, as armed factions warned they would work towards sabotaging the day. Despite much controversy surrounding the one-man presidential race, Yemenis resigned themselves, hoping that by saying yes to Abdu Rabbo Mansour Hadi, Ali Abdullah Saleh would hear a resounding no.

“We are now declaring the end of the Ali Abdullah Saleh era and will build a new Yemen,” said Yemeni Nobel Peace winner Tawakul Karman as she cast her vote. Both the ruling party and the JMP, the opposition block, have urged their fellow citizens to participate in great numbers as they stressed it is the only way to ensure the country’s stability and unity in the face of so much hardship. “Since soon-to be President Hadi will have for task to restructure the army and amend the Constitution, legitimacy is vital,” said Abdel Qader Qahtan, the Interior Minister.

But if politicians are determined to remain positive, claiming that February 21, 2012 marks the victory of the revolution over repression and dictatorship, activists and revolutionaries alike are less than impressed. Many feel that the political class, aided by western powers, hijacked the youth movement and allowed President Saleh to walk on his own terms rather than that of the people. “The election is a political scenario mapped out in the GCC initiative but in its essence it is irrelevant to the true ideals of democracy,” said Rana Jarhoum, a young activist.

Violence in the South

Medical sources in Aden, the southern regional capital of Yemen and an important sea port reported that clashes in between al-Harak, the southern secessionist movement, and the armed forces were threatening to spark yet another civil war. Doctor Abdel Mageed Kulaib reported by telephone that scores of injured were coming through the hospital he manages with the administration, having had to call back most of its medical staff to keep up. “I have seen passing through 2 children already. I don’t know of their current status but when I last saw them they were seriously injured.”

Following an RPG attack against a polling station yesterday in the center of Aden, al-Harak warned that it would send its militants to prevent the elections from taking place. This morning, armed men stormed several polling stations in the city, threatening to use violence if the ballot boxes were not thrown out in the street. Soon after clashes erupted, gunshots were heard and mayhem ensued. Residents said that tear gas canisters and live ammunition were being used against civilians, despite Field Marshall Abdu Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s promises on Monday that the armed forces would refrain from lethal violence.

“Secessionist sentiments have been brewing in South Yemen for over a decade now, anger is bubbling out and if the central government does not act swiftly, Aden will be engulfed in a violent armed conflict,” warned an al-Harak militant. He added that the South would never recognized Hadi as its legitimate President since the power-transfer proposal was merely provisioning for a reshuffling of the regime and not a real change of play, stressing that western powers and the Gulf had worked at derailing the true Yemeni revolution. “People are now going back home to get their weapons,” said a doctor, adding that he was worried it would trigger a chain reactions throughout the southern provinces prompting a destructive civil war. “People cannot take anymore disappointment or lies, Hadi does not mean change, he is the regime!” said an injured civilian.

Security analysts are now warning of a possible alliance between al-Harak and al-Qaeda as they share a common goal, the destabilization of the central government, stressing that it would put America’s war of terror under serious strain. Add to that the ever growing meddling of Iran in Yemen’s internal affairs and many say Yemen could become the perfect storm.

Under-Age Voting

Journalist Iona Craig reported on her twitter account that she had chatted with a boy of 16 who just had cast his vote and another who had dipped his fingers twice in ink. Several other witnesses in Sana’a said that under-age Republican Guards were being allowed to vote despite being clearly below the age limit. “It is ridiculous we all know who is going to win the elections anyway, why corrupt the system. It is bad enough that Yemen allows child soldiers, do we really need them to vote as well, marring our Constitutions with further crimes,” asked a voter near “Change Square.” Officials, however, deny any wrong doing, maintaining that the electoral process went smoothly and transparently.

And if it might seem pointless to fraud a one-man election, the coalition government knows it needs a high turn out to claim legitimacy and move on to the next stage of the power-transfer, the reconstruction of the military. Ahmed Ali Saleh, President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s eldest son, was seen in Sana’a casting his vote alongside several other military officers, while somewhere in the capital, his opponent, Sheikh Hameed al-Ahmar, also went to the polling station.

As we mourn Anthony’s loss, we hope his legacy will remain a great source of inspiration for all those who aspire to write and report on that complex place called Middle East. We invite you all to visit Anthony’s personal website to explore more about his great works and fabulous journey in journalism: http://anthonyshadid.com

God bless Anthony’s soul.

Reza Akhlaghi

In this episode of Understanding Israel, Israeli Major (res.) and political and military analyst Elliot Chodoff joins me for a conversation about what one can expect from the most recent unity government attempt and what it means to Israel.

On Tuesday, Yemenis across the country woke up to find that a number of posters advocating their electoral participation had been hung throughout their towns and villages, reminding them of their democratic, constitutional and civic duties. But since VP Hadi is the only candidate running for president, and no matter how few people decide to show up to cast their vote the veteran politician will still be pronounced the winner, many Yemenis are wondering whether the whole thing is a farce and if they should indulge in such a travesty of the democratic system.

From Sana’a to Aden, the eastern shore of the Red Sea to the leafy hills of Hadramaut, Yemenis from all faiths and political denominations are asking the same question: “What does this have to do with us?”

Flash Back

At the beginning of it all, when Yemenis decided during the ousting of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak to rise against their own dictator, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, they wanted to bring about real democracy, turning their country into a civil state where justice, freedom and equality would be revered notions, not just ink on paper. But as Saleh held on to his presidential seat and as blood started flowing through the streets of Sana’a, the capital and Taiz, a flash point of the Revolution, foreign nations scrambled to save Yemen from the precipice, too aware of its strategic importance within the region.

From that moment on, revolutionaries were put aside, ignored by the politicians, as diplomats and high ranking statesmen worked at finding a solution to the conundrum that had become Yemen. In between its many overlapping conflicts, widespread poverty and the threat of terror groups looming in the shadows, Yemen is unlike any other land. Very much like President Saleh put it himself, ruling over Yemen equates to “dancing over the heads of snakes”. But for one who truly understands the essence of Yemen, there is an order to the apparent chaos.

The GCC proposal that enunciated the terms of the power-transfer and its mechanisms never actually took into account the will of the people, but rather it was tailored around Saleh’s will, ensuring him an honorable exit with the promise of immunity. In other words, the fate of Yemen’s presidency was sealed by a group of technocrats and politicians, while the good people of Yemen were completely put on the back burner for it was “better this way.”

Democracy

VP Hadi, who is a member of the ruling party, was chosen by both the General People’s Congress and the Opposition as the candidate of the coalition, ensuring that no other contender would enter the presidential race.

And if even Western diplomats have argued that the move was intended to preserve the country’s unity and avoid a bitter battle for power from the various political factions, Yemenis saw no sense in it. Revolutionaries actually contested the legitimacy of the power-transfer deal from the very second it was inked in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, warning that they would continue to fight until Yemen power players would acknowledge their demands.

And although there was no further violent confrontation between the armed forces and the revolutionaries, at least not in the magnitude manifested before the agreement, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis across the nation are still demanding to be heard, rejecting as a whole “Saleh tailored plan.”

“Are you seriously telling me that a one-man-election can be called democratic? Are you telling me that after a year of suffering, blood spilled and all around misery, that the best the West and its minions could come up with is Hadi? Are Yemenis so stupid that the West does not trust them to choose their own leader? Why couldn’t we have a normal presidential elections like in Egypt based on the principle of political pluralism? Is it so hard to understand that Yemen wants a real civil state… not a make believe one where the old regime is still present but with a new face?” a leader of the Independent Youth argued.

Another sore point, which Yemeni are finding hard to swallow, lies in the fact that the United Nations, through its multitude of agencies, is currently throwing away several millions of dollars to organize the elections. “Millions of us are going hungry for we have lost everything in our struggle for freedom and rather than pull all the country’s resources together to bring some relief to war-torn areas, the government prefers to spend the UN money on stupid posters and presidential campaign? It is insulting to the nation. We don’t need posters but we need bread. So kindly Hadi, cash out your checks and feed your country,” said an English teacher in “Change Square”, the epicenter of the revolutionary movement.

Yemen is said to have spent 8 million dollars on Hadi’s campaign, with all the funds provided by Japan, Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Given that the majority of the population lives on under $2 per day, this money could have prevented 4 million of people from going hungry or could have provided 80,000 families with an average salary of $100 for a month. Many are warning that in spite of the coalition government’s claims that all will be fixed after February 21st with Saleh’s departure from power, one might want to have a look at who is leading Yemen’s military. With his sons, nephews and brother still very much in charge of the nation’s fire power, Saleh might not have yet said his last goodbye to Yemen. In which case, the GCC proposal will only allow the autocrat to regroup and plan his comeback.

Over the last month and a half Israel has found itself in an emerging cyber war with individuals from its neighboring countries.  In this video, I speak with Jerusalem Post reporter Yaakov Lappin about the cyber war’s ramifications, how it might develop in the future, and how Israel is dealing with this increasingly prevalent threat.

If you have any questions or feel you have something to contribute to this conversation either post on the site or email me directly at rob.s.lattin@gmail.com.

Houshang Hassan-Yari sat down with Reza Akhlaghi, senior writer at Foreign Policy Association, to answer the above questions and discuss what’s in store for the greater Middle East.
Dr. Houchang Hassan-Yari is Professor of international relations and strategic military studies at Royal Military College of Canada.

In the current geopolitical climate involving Iran and the West marked by loud and reciprocal threats, intensifying sanctions, non-dollar trade paradigms, and an apparent shadow war, what do you think is in store for the region as it pertains to Iranian-Western rivalries?

Hassan-Yari: I think the current situation cannot continue for too long. If there is no peaceful solution in the nuclear issue of Iran, the cul-de-sac will be opened in another way. The war will be the most plausible. Iran is very much isolated in the region.
The United States and Israel have been successful in creating an association between the Iranian nuclear program and nuclear weapons. They were also able to join the vast majority of Arab countries to their perception of the danger that Iran poses to stability in these countries. The sum of U.S. efforts and concerns of the militarily weak Arab regimes have resulted in the necessity to contain a dangerous Iran. If there is a rivalry between Iran and West in the Middle East, it is clearly favourable to the West.

Iran has recently conducted a number of naval and air drills in the Persian Gulf in the course of which it has put on display new surface-to-sea and surface-to-surface missile capabilities. It has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. How do you assess Iran’s military capabilities in countering U.S. Navy presence in the Persian Gulf and in closing the Strait of Hormuz? What do you think would galvanize the U.S. and its allies into concrete military action against Iran?

Hassan-Yari: In this climate of distrust and suspicion which prevails in the Persian Gulf, a miscalculation by the parties involved could lead to a war that nobody wants. The threat of Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, a threat that is taken lightly by the Iranian authorities, will lead to war.
Any aggression aiming international navigation in the Strait may trigger hostilities. It seems to me that the majority of the Persian Gulf Arab countries want to settle once and for all the “Iranian issue”. The problem is that they are unable to do so themselves. This is where the utility of American military power comes in. In other words, Arabs are pushing Americans to a war they want but cannot perform. Israelis also are in a similar situation.

Since taking office, and in particular during his second term, the policies of President Ahmadinejad and his administration have been synonymous with the rise of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iranian politics and economy. Given the prominence of the IRGC in the socio-political and economic management of the country, has it been an effective and capable force in formulating various policies and in executing those policies?

Hassan-Yari: President Ahmadinejad is only one factor that facilitated the rise in the status of the IRGC. The indispensable actor that greatly opened the door to the predominance of the IRGC in all aspects of Iranian life is the leader himself. The latter could not do so under Mohammad Khatami because of the popularity and the resistance of the reformist president. We should not forget that Ahmadinejad is one of them and owes his presidency largely to the intervention of the IRGC in the electoral process of 2005.
The multifaceted IRGC is not a homogenous force. Nor is it a force formed to formulate and implement policies for the common good. The main concern of the Force is to protect the leader and the revolution as it intends to do. Everything it does in the field of security, political, economic and social serves this purpose. In other words, its allegiance is first and foremost the Leader.
Dependency of political power to the military force of the IRGC has forced the former to give exclusive mega contracts to latter in all economic sectors. But as the Guardians do not have expertise in all these areas, they often fail to deliver a good quality product. However, the poor quality of their work was never an obstacle to prevent the IRGC to receive new contracts worth billions of dollars.
Their imprint is deeply engraved in all aspects of life from sport to aviation to missile technology to nuclear programme of Iran.

Recent statements made by former high-ranking officials and parliamentarians (Hossein Alaei of IRGC and Emad Afrough of Majles) appear to be part of a new paradigm in directly challenging the clerical establishment. Do you think these statements signify a new rupture in Iran’s power structure? If that is the case, how could this new rupture play itself out in the upcoming Majlis elections?

Hassan-Yari: What Alaei, Afrough and other rightwing moderates (Principalists /Ossoulgarayaan) pose as a question today are after-shocks of the popular protests of 2009 and the tremors of the recent Arab awakening. These individuals are also very sensitive to preserve intact the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini which is fast eroding since the coming to power of Ahmadinejad and the unconditional support he received from the Leader. They attempt to salvage the Islamic Republic by returning to the values of the 1979 Revolution. They directly challenge the entourage of the Leader and indirectly the Leader himself who has created a propitious environment for the growth of political immorality and toadyism.
This new phenomena is certainly a break with the established order since coming to power of Ayatollah Khamenei in 1989. It is expected to expand gradually as the gap in the conservative camp is widening, a situation that Khamenei is incapable of controling effectively.
A number of scenarios for the outcome of Majles election could be envisaged. If the elections are carried by the camp of Ahmadinejad, the status of the leader will be further weakened and the consequences could be fatal to the Republic as we know it today. A possible victory by the leader’s entourage should not be interpreted as the return to normality.
I think that a return to the former situation when the leader was not objectionable is impossible without resorting to brutal force. Even then, the lull is only temporary. The sanctity of the Leader is broken and with it the unchallenged position of the clergy close to the government. It is quite possible that we witness a return of the clergy in its religious schools leaving power to the ‘civilian’. In Iran, people break the personality before breaking the person.

Iran and Israel seem locked in a strategic rivalry that has gone through different stages, each stage with its own narrative. What are the key aspects of this strategic rivalry that have made the U.S. an indispensable player in it? Do you envision a point at which security establishments from the U.S., Iran, and Israel would decide to negotiate (most likely secret negotiations) as a way out of the current atmosphere of brinkmanship to avert a potentially large-scale regional conflict and save the global economy from spiralling down a path of sever instability?

Hassan-Yari: First, on Iran-Israel rivalry. From the perspective of the Iranian political elite in power, this rivalry has a clear ideological pronouncement. It goes back to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s epoch and the pre-1979 revolutionary romanticism when Iranian islamists received their military training in Lebanon and sympathized with the Palestinian cause. For them, Israel is a colonial creation, artificial and usurper. It is an illegitimate entity, so to disappear. For Israel, Iran was an opportunity to lessen the Arab pressure.
Since the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran, this rivalry has taken on new dimensions. Israel remains not only as an ideological enemy, but also a military obstacle that challenges Tehran’s supremacist claim on the regional leadership. In addition, since the Israeli danger to Iran’s nuclear program has become more pressing, Tehran uses its Lebanese and Palestinian allies to keep Israel concerned about its own safety and away from the Iranian border.
On the other hand, Iran is the only country in the Middle East that poses a challenge to the qualitative predominance of Israel’s powerful military machine in the region. In the final analysis, if Israel can live with a non-militant Iran, Tehran cannot co-exist with a ubiquitous ‘Zionist danger’ in the region. This is where the United States enters into the equation as a moderating force. While Washington would prefer a more cooperative Iran, it seeks to remain the final arbiter of the regional game. It seems that neither Iran nor Israel want their regional importance overshadowed by the American omnipotence.
In regard to a possible “ménage à trios”, Iran-Israel-U.S., in the field of regional security, this hypothesis seems very unrealistic under current conditions. If the United States and Israel can provide manageable compromise to Iran over its security considerations without losing face, the latter, on the contrary, has everything to lose by entering into this game that goes against its identity as “defender” of the dispossessed. The only situation, in which the Islamic Republic will make painful compromise, is if it concludes that its own survival is at risk by persisting in its belligerent posture in regional and international security issues.

Russian officials have repeatedly made it clear that they are fiercely opposed to any military confrontation between the West and Iran. From geo-political and geo-energy perspectives, what are at stake for Russia? Do you think a political tilt by Iran toward the West would change the geo-political equation in Eurasia/Middle East?

Hassan-Yari: Russian resistance to any military intervention in Iran is not a matter of principle, nor is it aimed at preventing another catastrophic war in the region. The Russian calculation is based on geopolitical considerations. Russia is still looking for the lost place of the Soviet Union on the world stage. Any U.S. military intervention in the region further isolates Russia. It is also in this context that we must understand the resistance from Moscow to any foreign military intervention in Syria. For Russia, this is a zero sum game. In addition, an isolated Iran strengthens the position of Russia as an intermediary between this country and the West. Iran’s isolation and demonization has helped Russia develop advanced military and commercial relations with Iran. The same is true for China, with more emphasis on the economic relations with Iran.
A dominant U.S. presence in Iran could compromise Russian’s not too comfortable authority in the Caspian Sea basin. One of the reasons for creating the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was to counterbalance the U. S. presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The fall of the Islamic Republic could revive the spectrum of Soviet containment through a new security belt connecting Europe to Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan.

This year Russia and Iran started doing trade in their respective national currencies, replacing the U.S. dollar and Euro. Similarly, trade has been taking place between Iran and China in Chinese Renminbi and between Iran and Japan in Japanese Yen including for the sale of Iranian oil. Do you think the exclusion of U.S. dollar and Euro from trade by these trade partners could hold geopolitical implications? If so, in what ways?

Hassan-Yari: Since the day after the revolution Iran has tried to to break free from the yoke of the dollar, without much success. The currencies of Russia and China are not convertible, which reinforces the dependency of Iran on Russians and Chinese. It’s an ironic situation because Iran claims to want to break from the grip of the U. S. dollar and to free itself of turbulence of American imperialism by creating more dependency on secondary powers like Russia and China. In its business dealings with Moscow and Beijing, Iran is forced to buy Sino-Russian merchandise. However, the quality of those goods does not meet consumer expectations in Iran. The continuation of this trade policy increasingly limits Iran to two or three unreliable suppliers who put their own national interests ahead of Iranian welfare in any dispute with Americans. Russia in particular has demonstrated that it is not a feasible partner. There is no other country in the world that has hurt Iranian interests as much as Russia since the 19th century.
The recent currency crisis that deeply hit the value of Iran’s Rial showcased the significance of dollar as a safe currency for ordinary Iranians. During the crisis, no one was looking for Russian or Chinese currency. It is also ironic that some ministers in Iran use the dollar as reference when they talk about their non-petroleum exports, the value of the national economy or foreign investment. The language that the average Iranian better understands is that of Dollar, not the Rouble, or the Yuan. In addition, the Central Bank of Iran often manipulates the value of dollar to regulate the amount of liquidity in circulation.
The exclusion of U.S. dollar and Euro from trade by Iran and its trade partners could hold geopolitical implications if Euro Zone dismantles itself and if China decided to dispose its massive dollar reserve. Among some other possibilities one can invoke the unlikely scenario of the Arab oil producers to join the Russia-China-Iran trio in replacing dollar by other currencies. Iran’s economy is too small to have a geopolitical impact on the dollar.

How stable is the regime of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria? How Iran could be impacted by Assad’s fall?

Hassan-Yari: Assad’s regime is extremely weak. It has reached a point of no return and condemned to disappear. Its fall will have major implications for the safety and security of the Islamic Republic as well as the rest of the Middle East. The survival of the Syrian regime is so crucial to the Iranian theocratic system that it forced Tehran to denounce the Syrians protesting against Damascus as agents of Zionism and imperialism while praising Arabs in other countries as Islamist followers of Iran’s Islamic revolution. This position has highlighted the contradiction in the official discourse of the Iranian leadership by substantially weakening its claim to the universality of the Islamic revolution.
Syria is the only strategic ally of Iran in the Arab world. It also acts as a bridge between Iran and Lebanon. It gives Iran direct access to Israeli territory through the Hazbollah and some Palestinian groups. The fall of the Assad regime will also weaken the position of Shiite militants in the region. A regime change in Damascus further limits Iran’s ability to intervene on the regional scene. It will deprive Islamic Iran of a vital window to breathe. Finally, it will make Iran even more vulnerable in facing a possible foreign military attack. Within Iran itself, it will strengthen the resolve of opponents of the Islamic regime.

The Saudi government has made significant military hardware purchases from the United States. The Saudi diplomacy has been also active in countries impacted by the Arab Spring. How do you assess the future of the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and in light of Arab Spring, what are the chances of having a more representative leadership in Saudi Arabia?

Hassan-Yari: The Islamic Republic is not the only country embarrassed by the Arab awakening. The United States and Saudi Arabia have also taken contradictory positions to events in Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere.
The future of the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia depends largely on the Kingdom’s internal dynamics. A democratic Saudi Arabia will be more independent in its foreign policy. It will also have much less appetite for accommodating dictatorships in surrounding countries.
But since we are not there yet, I cannot envisage any strategic change in the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship, even if there is a few sporadic surmountable bumps.
As for democratic changes in Saudi Arabia, they will be introduced very gradually in the absence of a popular revolution. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can not remain immune to the political and military changes that inflame its neighbourhood. The question is the degree and level of change that the descendants of Al-Saud are forced to introduce.

By comparison, this sounds very similar to what was transpiring with Golda Meir and her policy towards the Arab states in the lead up to the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  Golda felt very empowered and believed that her Arab counterparts wouldn’t dare strike against Israel given the outcome of the 1967 War.  She made comments about wanting to make peace but found reasons to evade it.   Like Bibi, she used Israeli security and strength as an excuse to not engage her enemies.  Like Bibi, she downplayed American pressures to make peace.  So what happened in the end?  She ignored the signs of an impending war and over 2,000 Israeli’s lost their lives.

For the sake of Israel, Bibi (left) needs to have more foresight than the late Golda Meir (right). If not, than Israeli society should vote him out of office in the next election.

It is also worth noting that like Bibi, Meir continually turned a blind eye and found meandering excuses for settlement construction, legal and illegal.

To return to the topic at hand, some believe peace with Egypt would not have been possible without the Yom Kippur War.  However, that suggests that it took a war to get Israeli leadership out of the clouds.  Had Golda and her advisors been more balanced and flexible, they may have accomplished the peace accord without the bloodshed.

There is of course no one definitive answer on how to make peace with the Palestinians; and not everything is within Israel’s, or Bibi’s, control (Hamas).  That does not change the fact, though, that he has proven unwilling to make the tough decisions needed to make progress with the Palestinians.  Bibi, and Israeli society, should reflect on the 1973 Yom Kippur War and take heed in the words of Spanish born poet and philosopher George Santayana, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

The “beautiful friendship” which united the 2 countries started to melt away at the pyre of people’s anger, threatening to damage America’s foothold in the region.
Although many democracy militants have accused the United States of America of siding with dictators for it served their middle-eastern policies, accusing them of protecting and in the case of President Saleh harboring war criminals; one could wonder whether America is not playing a much sinister game of plots and betrayals.
One does not need to go back to far up in the history book to remember another well-known autocrat whose friendship was discarded when he failed to fulfill his purpose. Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran was abandoned by his “American friends” and almost sold back to the Ayatollahs when he failed to live up to the White House foreign policies’ expectations.
Could the Obama’s administration turn against Saleh and hand him over to those who are clamoring for his arrest? Could Yemen’s infamous statesman become the new Shah of Iran in his desperate search for political asylum?
One cannot draw away from the remarkable symmetry in between the two deposed leaders. One ran away for his allegiance to the West angered his people so that he feared they would execute him, another was forced to relinquish the power America’s helped him to master for 3 decades. Both turned to the United States and were denied entry, both insisted, both were eventually allowed.
One was betrayed, one is awaiting his fate.

Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran

The very countries which are claiming to be promoting Democracy and Freedom across the Globe, saying that they will always side with those who seek to emulate western standards, are the very ones who crushed the little hope Iran had at becoming a successful democratic state.
Because Iran’s emancipation stood in the way of their economic interests, the United States and Britain decided to assert the Shah’s absolute power over his people.
When Mohamed Mosadeqq, the founder and leader of the National Front of Iran was elected Prime Minister by the Parliament, he immediately announced the nationalization of Iran Oil industry, shutting out the immensely lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which at the time was one of Britain main economic pillars.
The British then convinced the Americans of the need to overthrow Mosadeqq and re-establish the Shah of Iran as the only authority in the country, arguing that the move would serve both nations interest in the region.
Iran strategic geo-political position and its vast Oil reserves represented too much of an asset for western hegemony to let something such as democracy get in the way.

After a “coup d’état” known as the “operation Ajax” failed, the Shah was pressured into issuing a decree stating Mosadeqq’s demotion. Subsequently the Shah fled to Iraq, then Italy for he feared for his life. He later came back under the protection of his allies.
2 decades later, the Shah was ousted by his people as his attempts to westernize and secularize Iran had anger the people and the political class to such an extent that they sought his execution.
In exile and ill with cancer the monarch turned to the United States of America for safety only to be denied asylum. After he insisted for he said he needed urgent medical treatment, the Pentagon agreed to allow him in for a limited period of time. It turned out that the visit of the Royal coincided with an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of some 400 American nationals.
Caught in the middle of much controversy, shun away by his former friends, a terminally ill Shah sought refuge in Latin America to finally come to die in Egypt where he is buried.

Ali Abdullah Saleh

In the wake of the attack on American soil by al-Qaeda in 2001, President Saleh realized that if he had any chance of surviving the military wave which was threatening to come his way he had to quickly seal an alliance with the Western giant.
The Yemeni-American fight against terrorism was born.
And if Saleh manipulated his new “friends” by playing up their fear in exchange for financial support the alliance cost him dearly on the political front.
As Drones attacks became more frequent and civilian casualties mounted, Yemenis started to speak of treason, accusing the autocrat of allowing foreign forces to enter Yemen air space in exchange for cash.
The seeds of revolt were planted.

And although it took Yemen nearly 2 decades to finally mobilize the needed momentum to rise up against the state apparatus, Saleh’s opponents proved impossible to stop.
Having witnessed first-hand the power of the people in Egypt, the White House decided to operate differently in Yemen, preferring to prepare the autocrat’s exit according to a specific set of terms rather than let the mob overtake the presidential palace and potentially ruin any hope of further cooperation on the al-Qaeda front.

But if Saleh successfully secured his political and financial safety as well as that of his extended family, his troubles might not be over yet.
Just as Yemen is preparing to welcome a new president, Saleh who was victim of a bomb attack in 2011 at the very heart of his presidential compound has since been suffering from ill-health, requiring extensive medical attention.
As the Shah did before him, Saleh asked to be allowed to travel to the United States to undergo some much needed medical treatment, only to be refused. Following weeks of intense negotiations and much political controversy, the White House finally agreed to allow Saleh in, providing that his visit be brief and strictly confined to the hospital.

And as the Shah before him, his countrymen are already gathering, demanding that he’d be deported to the International Criminal Court of Justice for crimes against humanity and his assets frozen for having pillage Yemen’s riches.
Only weeks after Yemen’s parliament granted him immunity, Saleh runs the risk, like the Shah did, of being sold out to his opponents for he no longer serves his purpose and has become somewhat of a liability. And since United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declared that no immunity would stand in a court of law when it came to war crimes and gross violations to human rights, the White House could in all good conscience leave the autocrat to suffer the fate he deserves.

Scared to come back to Yemen after having left without the necessary marital authorization, Amal turned to human rights activists, NGOs, journalists, the UN, everyone for help; hoping that someone somewhere would listen. And indeed someone did pay attention.
A few days ago, and with the help of Human Rights Minister Hooria Mashour, Amal and Mogib were allowed under escort to go through Sana’a International Airport without fear of being apprehended. Touched by this young lady’s tale, Minister Mashour said that she wanted Amal to become the cornerstone of a new campaign for Women Rights in Yemen, adding that the Ministry would put its weight behind the project. And although Amal knows that she still has a long fight ahead of her, she now knows that she is not alone and that her plight has been heard. Indeed there is hope for a better tomorrow.

Like thousands of women across Yemen, Amal is the victim of a system that has so far denied women their God-given rights, forgetting that the strong and powerful have a duty to protect those less fortunate. Today Amal is becoming the voice of Yemen’s victims, and we should listen!

The following piece was written by Reza Marashi in Foreign Policy Magazine on January 19, 2012. Mr. Marashi is Director of Research at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and a former Iran Desk Officer at the U.S. Department of State.  The image in this piece, however, is a choice of FPA.
____________________________________________

by Reza Marashi

An eerily familiar drumbeat of war is intensifying across Washington, just as the United States ends its decade-long adventure in Iraq. The ghosts of America’s neoconservative past have dusted off their Iraq playbook to make the case for war with Iran. Their formula is simple but effective: Portray the Iranian government and its nuclear program as existential threats, insist that a chain of catastrophic events will result from inaction, and minimize the costs and risks of war.

If one looks back, however, neoconservative officials in the U.S. government weren’t alone in their push for war with Iraq. A crucial aspect of selling the war to the U.S. public was support within the Iraqi-American community. Iraqi dissidents living abroad, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya, as well as supposed whistle-blowers turned known fabricators like the infamous “Curveball,” led a contingent of vocal Iraqis who pushed for steadily more aggressive actions to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. Their promise that the invasion would be a cakewalk and that U.S. soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy didn’t quite pan out. Now, the fruits of their labor are clear for all to see — a broken country, devastated by war and sectarian strife, with no discernible end in sight.

Iranian-Americans, in stark contrast with the Iraqi diaspora, have largely opposed a rush to war. This is a fact that I have observed up close, while working in the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs and now at the National Iranian American Council, where I maintain close and continuing contact with Iranian-Americans to ensure we accurately represent their views. Together, these two vantage points have crystallized one key takeaway: Iranian-Americans deeply resent the Iranian regime, but prefer U.S. policies that emphasize engagement and de-escalation.

Why have Iraqis and Iranians living abroad reached such drastically different conclusions? For more than three decades, the Iranian-American community has grappled with the paradox of wanting to make Iran a better place — but fearing success as much as defeat. Some worry that contributing to positive changes inside Iran will only strengthen a draconian system, extending its lease on life.

For many Iranian-Americans, this dilemma was resolved by their disastrous historical experience with revolutionary upheaval. Rather than laying the groundwork for democracy, Iran’s 1979 revolution simply replaced one dictatorship with another. As a result, Iranian-Americans strongly prefer to use the rule of law to alter not only the Iranian government’s behavior, but also the thinking of Iranians inside Iran.

Efforts by the Iranian-American community to promote engagement and oppose military intervention have been consistent and cohesive. The University of California, Berkeley, conducted a scientifically sound opinion survey that found that roughly 70 percent of Iranian-American respondents favored dialogue and negotiations between the United States and Iran. In 2008, the Iranian-American community mobilized this majority into a successful campaign to defeat a congressional resolution that would have taken a decisive step toward war.

The Iranian-American community’s overwhelming support for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is also a telling indicator of its political attitudes. For every dollar raised by Republican nominee John McCain from Iranian-Americans, Obama — who was running on a platform that promoted engagement with Iran — raised five.

Iranian-Americans understand from personal experience that abrupt political change is unlikely to produce the desired result. Retired ambassador John Limbert, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran during my tenure in Foggy Bottom, reflected poignantly on this understanding in a 1999 speech. “Our liberal-minded Iranian friends,­ whom we counted on to contain the [1979] revolution’s excesses, proved to be helpless in political turmoil,” he said. “They were too much like us: They could write penetrating analyses and biting editorials, but lacked the stomach for the brutality that wins revolutions.”

Despite the fact that a majority of Iranian-Americans favor a more tolerant, pluralistic, and democratic system in Iran, they see little evidence that U.S. efforts to topple the current regime would bring Iranian democrats to power. Within Iran, rampant popular dissatisfaction has yet to evolve into a sustainable and coherent challenge to the system. The Iranian government’s monopoly on violence has prevented such challenges, but has not ended the desire for change. Even the original leaders of Iran’s Green Movement, which emerged from the country’s contested 2009 presidential election, were attempting to push for peaceful change through the ballot box.

The ongoing death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Iranian-American community even warier about foreign efforts to “liberate” their ancestral homeland. Right or wrong, many in the Iranian diaspora see the U.S. invasion of Iraq as less about nuclear programs or democracy, and more as a gambit to seize oil resources. These conspiracy theories may seem absurd, but behind them lies a deeper reality that is very powerful in the minds of Iranian-Americans.

Few Iranian-Americans would welcome the prospects of a U.S. intervention under the auspices of democracy promotion that, in turn, shattered any semblance of stability and ignited a destructive cycle of conflict. Iran’s contested 2009 presidential election and the ongoing human rights abuses have left Iranian-Americans searching for new ways to help foster peaceful, indigenous change. Their ideas remain diverse, but there is near-unanimous consent that change should occur without bloodshed.

Like their Iraqi brethren, Iranian expatriates want to change their government — it is their methods that differ. A majority of Iranian-Americans would welcome an improvement of relations between Washington and Tehran because it increases the prospects for positive, peaceful change from within. The watershed event of the Islamic Republic’s nearly 33-year history — widespread protests in 2009 — occurred at the height of Obama’s “mutual interests and mutual respect” initiative. Many of the West’s Iran analysts and experts, both Iranian and American, assert that the regime needs a U.S. enemy for its survival. If true, wouldn’t sustained offers of friendship — which would put the Iranian regime’s domestic agenda at the forefront — provide the biggest threat to the regime?

Engagement with the Iranian government understandably spurs many moral dilemmas for Iranian-Americans. Most, however, understand the alternatives — particularly when juxtaposed with Iraq, where war has resulted in nearly 200,000 Iraqis dead (based on conservative estimates), 1.3 million Iraqis displaced, and decades’ worth of destroyed lives for those still living in a perpetual war zone.

Let’s not kid ourselves: There are Iranian-Americans who support U.S.-sponsored regime change in Iran — and in due time, American neoconservatives will find their kindred spirits. We undoubtedly have our Chalabis and Makiyas — some long-established, some coming of age. But it’s clear that most Iranian-Americans distrust anyone who welcomes foreign armies into the motherland.

There is no arguing that Iran must change. The Iranian government’s human rights record is appalling, people lack basic freedoms, and economic disarray prevents Iranians from managing the present or planning for the future. Few Iranian-Americans are calling for sitting idly by and waiting for the situation in Iran to improve on its own. But it’s a rare voice indeed that is calling for war.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Credit: Reuters

In his NYT op-ed today entitled ‘Don’t Do It, Bibi,’ Roger Cohen issued another stern warning to his favorite target, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his piece, he warns about the grave repercussions if Israel were to attack Iran without political support from the United States.

This article is the latest installment in Cohen’s crusade against Netanyahu and the Likud-led governing coalition in Israel. Cohen solemnly recites all the ways in which Netanyahu has mistreated President Obama before he settles down and proceeds with his analysis of Iran’s nuclear threat.

Cohen argues that Netanyahu has stalled in his negotiations with the Palestinians because he foresees a rabidly pro-Israel Republican nominee beating Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. Yet in the next paragraph Cohen contends that Netanyahu is sorely tempted to bomb Iran before the elections because he and his advisors increasingly believe Obama can win in November.

Now, almost everybody following the Middle East understands that Netanyahu is a savvy politician who is not oblivious to American election cycles. Perhaps even more than most politicians, Netanyahu may be better characterized as “cynical” than “shrewd” in formulating his political agenda. And it may be true that Netanyahu indeed forecasts a Republican victory in 2012, but wants to hedge his bets by bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors while Obama courts the Jewish vote in the swing state of Florida.

However, Cohen makes the same mistakes in this article that he has consistently made throughout his analysis of the Iranian threat.

First, he implies that any attack by Israel would be a massive bombing campaign that would instantly and irreversibly unite all of Iran’s people under their oppressive regime and against the West. For starters, any aerial attack would be limited to the nuclear reactor sites and would probably result in few civilian casualties. With the possible tacit support of the US, in the last few years Israel has already attacked Iran’s nuclear program with a computer virus, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and sabotaged missile bases in Iran that resulted in dozens of Iranian deaths. Meanwhile, less than three years ago Iran’s regime was strongly challenged by its populace. While the theocratic government may have suppressed the mass protests in 2009, there is still a strong anti-regime sentiment among Iranians. Moreover, the “regime” itself is an uneasy coalition between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is showing highly visible signs of strain. I’m not sure how Cohen can absorb these facts and compute that an attack by Israel “locks in the Iranian Republic for a generation.”

Second (and he is not alone in this truly bizarre line of argumentation), he reckons that Israel’s security is threatened more by the status of the occupied territories than by Iran. I fully agree that Israel must keep striving to find a way to ensure that Palestinians have a fully functioning state. While the on and off again courtship between Hamas and Fatah certainly complicates matters, it is also reasonable to argue that the Netanyahu administration has shown a distinct lack of urgency in its approach toward negotiations with the Palestinians. I am also gravely aware of the risks that any aerial attack by Israel on Iranian reactor sites would entail (although per above I disagree with Cohen about their nature.) However, I struggle to comprehend how the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, which is grinding toward its 45th year of existence, can be compared to the existential threat posed by the nuclear program of a country whose stated intention is to destroy Israel.

Asghar Farhadi’s thrilling drama from Iran won the best foreign language film at the 69th Golden Globes on Sunday. In accepting the award, Mr. Asghar Farhadi, the director of the movie, dedicated the award to the people of Iran, whom he described as a “truly peace-loving people”.

Raised in a conservative Muslim Yemeni family, Amal came across society’s biased view of what a woman should be, should do and should most importantly NOT want.
A free spirit and a brave soul, Amal fought all her life. Now facing an injustice she can no longer fight alone, she needs your help, our help.
Will you step up or simply let her fire extinguished in Yemen’s Great prison?

Written by Mogib Hassan on behalf and for Amal Hassan, Edited by Catherine Shakdam

“After years of silence and darkness I feel I must speak out the truth and paint to the world the harsh reality of living in Yemen. All over the world women seem to be enjoying freedom and independence…where I come from, where I was raised, Yemen, those words have no meaning. The reality of being a woman in Yemen is pretty bleak. No Freedom, no choice, no independence, only obedience to men-made rules in a men-made system.
For I was born a girl I spent all my waking hours in shackles, a prisoner in my own home, my own heart and my own mind.
Yemen, my country, my home is and always has been my prison.

Most Yemeni men have a very clear vision of what a woman should do and should be: a devoted and submissive object which only purpose in life should be to serve and obey.
If there is one thing that unites men in my country it is that belief that women have to be kept in check and prevented from bringing shame to the family.
I wish men would use this energy and dedication to bring down injustices rather than stand up for a system which is not only unjust but also obsolete.

Strangely enough Islam is the only religion which clearly enounces women’s right, given them a status which on many aspects is far greater than men. Rather than belittle women as many westerners would believe, Islam gives women their rightful place within society, Islam puts women at the centre of it all, since women are after the pillars of any society.

But men in my country chose to turn a blind eye, preferring to assert their own predominance through violence and repression.

The corrupt regime under which my countrymen are living under has managed to turn my nation into a vile and jungle like world where only the powerful and mighty are allowed to oppress and abuse the weak without fear of consequences.
Most of all, women are suffering. But maybe most troubling of all, women are conditioned in such a way that they live in the belief that thing are the way they should be.

For they fear for their “honour” men are locking their wives, daughters and mothers away. In the world I grew up in, women are always responsible, always to blame…we are the root of all evil it seems.
This circle went on for too long. I stand today to say no more repression, no more shackles and no more fear. Today I stand for me and my sisters, I stand for freedom and justice.
Today I reclaim my life, not as a Muslim or a Yemeni and not even as a woman but as me, Amal Hassan.”

It took Amal many years to gather up the courage and the necessary strength she needed to embark on this revolutionary journey. For many her plight might seem benign and foreign, but to so many Middle Eastern women her plight will ring true.

Beyond feminism and a simple stand for rights equality, Amal is defying a millennia old misogynist system where women have no place but behind the walls of their homes.

Beside her brother, her entire family has turned its back on her.

Despite the risks and maybe because of them, Amal decided that she would see her fight through, that she would stand the course of her life no matter the outcome.

She said: “I knew it was going to be an endless war between me and Society. But I also knew that I had to start even though I ventured onto unknown territory. I am doing my utmost not to lose in a society where women are always the losers.”

Though Yemeni law is based on Islamic sharia (inspired from the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Mohamed PBUH) it has been interpreted in such a way that men have gained the advantage, corrupting the very essence of Islam’s position on women.

Even though she knew she stood no chance, Amal decided back in 2010 to end her nightmare of a life with her abusive husband.
She urged her family to stand by her and support her while she was seeking a divorce.
Although she argued her spouse was treated her more like a possession than the woman with whom he had built a home with, constantly beating her and lying to her, she failed to gain her family’s support.

In many families, divorces are seen as shameful, a dent in one’s stature and morality.
Of course no matter the circumstances women are to blame for the split.

In Yemen and to an extent the Arab World, a woman is expected to stay married. The fact that her husband might turn out to be a cold blooded murderer is of very little importance for Society. The words ‘till death do us part take on a whole new meaning in Yemen as in essence only in death can women escape their husbands.
This is not to say that many families do not live in perfect harmony, in respect and understanding of each other. But for those marriages which do fail, there is no hope of escape for women. They are doomed to endure a life of misery for Society frown upon divorce the same way the West did on those who contracted Syphilis.

Most young women in Yemen do not even have the luxury of meeting their future husband as men and women should not mix. Some do not even have the luxury to choose whom they will be linked to for the rest of their life.

“In Yemen, marriages are business transactions where a father trades his daughter to the highest bidder and where the groom tries to bank a discount bride. The then sold bride has to honourably stay by her husband’ sides forever holding her tongue.
If the man however feels unsatisfied he can always send back his possession back to her family where she will bury her shame.
And if in Islam men and most importantly husbands are meant to protect, cherish and provide for their other half, Yemeni laws have translated those duties into something much sinister, allowing men to physically punish their wives if they feel they failed to obey them. Battery is a man’s right, his prerogative where I was born.
Luckily some men prefer not to exercise that right!
I gradually realised that there was something illogical in that way of thinking.
After years of suffering I took up the challenge. My protector was my abuser, and I was going to fight to pry myself from him.”

Amal filed for a divorce after 14 years of abuse.

For more than a decade she lived his prisoner, forced to stay at home while he was away on holiday with other women, forced to live from the scraps he was given her and her children for he cared little for their wellbeing while he was living large elsewhere.

“He was feeding me and the children the way he wanted, allowing us out when he wanted and not showing the slightest respect to me as a person with a mind, interests, rights and feelings which is in a way typical of the average marriage in Yemen. No one would seriously consider women’s feelings or rather winnings.”

Amal appealed to several NGOs in the hope that they would help her get her freedom as she knew that without proper legal representation she did not stand a chance of appearing to Court.
Sadly she never heard back from any of them.

“Despite being an Academic my husband refused to understand my thirst for knowledge preventing me from exploring my interests. I felt trap, condemned to live in misery for my own parents refused to see my unhappiness.”

After years of struggle Amal claimed her freedom. For that she had to outcast herself from her family, becoming a pariah within her own people.

“The price paid was accepting the fact that I was no longer part of my own family but at the same time no longer under threat from my brothers who were supposed to be the decision makers in my life.”

After obtaining her divorce and paying a rather high sum of money to her husband in exchange for her release she was finally able to take flight, free to do what she wanted.
While planning her future she moved in with her brother, Mogib Hassan the one man who had constantly supported her and encouraged to be her own person no matter what anyone else said.

In a matter of months Amal learnt how to drive and enrolled herself at University to complete her Master degree, hoping to then be able to provide for her 3 children.

At the time Amal did not know that Yemen’s justice system gave men a 3 month timeframe within which they could unilaterally revoke the divorce, without even informing or consulting their wives.
To do this the man needs only to go to a notary and write a letter claiming his wife back unconditionally. Unfortunately it is what Abdul Malek Almamary (Amal’s ex-husband) did.

From that moment on Amal was legally obliged to return to her husband.

“This confirms my great regret of being a woman in such an abusive culture. No matter the risk I will never go back to him. I am a free human being, and if I am ever forced to go back I would kill myself.”

Amal then turned to human rights organizations, hoping that they would intervene on her behalf and free her forever from her master. Time and time again she appealed; time and time again she was let down.

Although Amal’s husband had failed for years to provide for her and their children preferring to pursue other pleasures, he was never held accountable for his actions. Yemen justice system had declared him the winner from the” get go”, for Amal had no means to pressure anyone into defending her interests and her rights.

Things got even more complicated when the Revolution broke out.
Her brother, Mogib who was so far financially supporting her lost his job as a journalist and was threatened by the regime for speaking out against President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Soon enough Mogib and Amal realized that they had to flee in order to remain safe.

Their apartment became one of the regime’s target and they both feared that Homeland Security would come one day and imprison them all.

Problem is, in Yemen a woman cannot travel out of the country without a written authorization from her guardian, in which case her husband.
After many trials and tribulations, Mogib managed to bribe enough government officials for his sister to be let through at the airport.

Amal, Mogib and the 3 children left for Cairo, Egypt.

Her husband has now taken several steps towards “recovering” Amal as he now knows that she is in hiding in Egypt.
Potentially Amal could be deported back to Yemen against her consent since she is still legally bound to her husband and given he has the final say.

Her only hope now lies in being granted a refugee status by the UN or having Yemeni officials stand up for her rights and pronounces an irrevocable divorce for which there are legal grounds.

On Monday Januray 10th, Amal is meeting with UN officers in relation to her case (UN reg NO: 28031).

Most Unexpected Event: The Return of Gilad Schalit

Gilad Schalit (center) was welcomed home by Defense Minister Ehud Barak (far left), Prime Minister Netanyahu (left) and Head of IDF Lt. General Benny Gantz (right). (Photo: SFGate.com)

There was no bigger surprise inIsrael this year than the return of five-year captive, Corporal Gilad Schalit.  On June 26, 2006, Corporal Schalit was captured on the Israeli-Gaza border by Hamas militants.  Several proofs of life were provided throughout the duration of his captivity, but in the back of most Israeli’s minds there was the likelihood that Schalit was dead.  The odds were against him, as most Israeli soldiers who have been captured by enemy states and non-state actors have either returned in coffins, or not at all.  Corporal Gilad Schalit defied the odds.  The Israeli population, who intensely lobbied the Israeli government and international community to secure his release, was overwhelmingly satisfied, proud, and inspired by his return.  They could be seen on television weeping and praying.

While a joyous occasion, Schalit’s release was surrounded by controversy.  There was significant debate about the price Israel had to pay for Schalit, more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.  Several of the prisoners were directly responsible for the murder of Israelis. A handful of Knesset Ministers and community leaders felt that the prisoners being released would return to terrorism, and would lead future attacks on Israelis.  There was also the issue of how Egypt handled Schalit’s return to Israel.  Before being allowed to speak with or see his family, Egyptian authorities forced Schalit to do a shameful, and mistranslated, interview on Egyptian national television.

Regardless, the return of Gilad Schalit was a full display of Israel’s value on life, and was a welcomed jolt of optimism to a country that has been experiencing increased international isolation.

Person of the Year: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Though he is not an Israeli, I could not pass up making Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas my 2011 “Person of the Year.”

2011 saw the most recent attempt by the Palestinian Authority to gain full-fledged membership in the United Nations.  Given its timing in relation to current peace-talks and failed Palestinian unity discussions, it is arguable whether this was in fact in the best interest of the Palestinians.  President Abbas did, however, do an admirable job of bringing it global attention.  What makes him man of the year is how little he did with that attention.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addressing the United Nations. (Photo: TheCommentator.com)

In the lead up to the UN General Assembly, there was much speculation about whether membership would actually be granted to the Palestinians.  Most understood that for political reasons it would not be. Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barak Obama were noticeably nervous and dismayed.  They made significant attempts to change President Abbas’ mind and lure him back to the negotiating table for direct talks with Israel.  President Abbas found himself in a unique, and rare, position of power and control.  It would have been more than possible to make reasonable demands of Israel and the US in order to get peace talks back on track.  It could have been a turning point in discussions, bringing some long lost muscle and credibility back to Palestinian leadership.  Instead, President Abbas chose to pursue full-membership to the UN.  As expected, his application was rejected and his reputation spoiled.

Since his failure at the UN, President Abbas has been mostly stagnant and the Palestinian resolve has further eroded.  In the last two-weeks he has openly stated that he is considering Hamas membership in to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  This would likely halt all discussions of peace and lead to a Hamasization of the West Bank.

Forecast for 2012

Given the events of 2011, the upcoming year will likely be a pivotal one for the Jewish state.  There are lots of unanswered questions: what is the future of Israeli-Turkish relations? Will the social protests actually lead to change? What is the future of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank?  What will the elections in Egypt mean for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty? And of course, what is going to happen with Iran?

It would be nice if one could be optimistic about the answers to the above questions, but it is unfortunately difficult.  Israeli-Turkish relations are likely to break off completely barring a change of heart in Turkish regional ambition.  Given the gridlock system of the Israeli government it is unlikely any kind of social change will happen in the near future.  If Hamas is allowed in the Palestinian Liberation Organization the West Bank will likely turn in to Gaza 2, with peace-talks hitting an all-time low.  The Muslim Brotherhood, the likely future ruling party of Egypt, is preaching moderation and peace with Israel, but political pundits believe otherwise.  It will not be the first time politicians have lied about alliances in order to gain international support.  The only place one can find any remote sense of optimism/neutrality in predicting Israel’s 2012 is that it will certainly keep up its covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program.

The truth is that Israel is one of the most dynamic and unpredictable countries in the world.  On any given day, anything can happen.  The only thing that is certain is that Israel will continue its economic development and that its people will do their best to live happy and normal lives.

1. Negotiate:
Richard Holbrook once said: “You don’t make agreements with your friends, you make agreements with your enemies”. It might not be a big claim that most powerful nations in the long run are known by their power to negotiate deals. Parties seeking to get power need to sit with their adversaries in one room and negotiate deals and breakthroughs. Power transition necessitates a minimum level of trust. It is easy to make the other side look evil, especially when lives have been lost, but the only way to avoid more bloodshed is to sit down and negotiate. Why refuse to talk when one wants to collect the power? A take-it-or-leave-it approach will lead to stagnation or chaos.
Egyptian military may have overused its card on the potential outcome of military leaving the political scene, but the protesters may want to ponder the reality of this issue as well. After all, the farthest they need to look is Iraq and its situation over the past decade. In a region where militaries have played and still are playing a decisive role in politics, from Pakistan to Turkey, it is not easy to push the army out of the political scene with a protest or two. A more stable approach calls for a step-by-step campaign, winning demands, making them long-lasting and then asking for yet another round of new demands. People always have the option of going back to the streets.

2. Trust:
Egypt is located in a region where lack of trust is prevalent. In comparison with other parts of the world, the greater Middle East has one of the lowest levels of public trust. Although this has rightful historical reasons, it is hard to imagine that much can be achieved and resolved without a minimum level of trust. Trust is an important issue for forming parties. For example, religious parties have the advantage of building trust over the same background of beliefs, whereas secular parties need to find a basis of common trust in other topics. The outcome of the recent elections has made this matter even more clear.
The ruling elite and the winners of the election also need to build confidence, especially within the opposition groups. If proceeded, they will have a chance to move the country forward, while the society focuses on building institutions and bolstering its achievements.

3. Looking within:
The Middle East has long been rife with conspiracy theories. While one reason is based on the history of the region and the actions of outside powers, one might say that the Soviet propaganda culture has had its effect on the minds as well. While some may blame other countries for selling arms to the Egyptian army, it is important to know that foreign governments will do what is in their national interest; after all, they work on the basis of their own public opinion as well as the support of their corporations. This is an accepted notion in politics.
Moreover, if the Egyptian army cannot acquire the equipment it needs from western countries, it can easily go and shop around in other parts of the world. The important thing is to change the culture of violence so that the army cannot take arms against the people. Pointing the finger at outsiders will just postpone nation building and reforming the culture from within.

4. Non-violence:
Ramin Jahanbegloo, the nonviolent thinker, states that nonviolence is an ethical imperative and violence is a never-ending cycle that must be broken in each nation’s history once. A quick look back at the past century shows that nonviolent reforms have brought deeper changes with more lasting effects than violent reforms have. What is important about nonviolent action is that like any other form of action, it can be preached, spread, and learnt. The revolutionary anger is usually not a state in which best decisions are made or best actions are taken place. Egyptians, like some other Arab countries, have shown the tendency and the will for nonviolent action. This can be emphasized, internalized, and regarded as a great achievement within the whole nation. Violence leaves scars that can remain with people for generations; it has the tendency to derail the process of democratization and has to be avoided by any means.

5. Patience:
As cumbersome as it may seem, building lasting democracies and achieving justice, liberty, and prosperity will take more than months or years. These problems did not start over night and the solutions will not take effect over night either. Forming institutions, nurturing capable leaders, spreading trust, and inspiring a nation to get involved with building their own future, are projects of a lifetime. It is time for another sort of revolution and this one will definitely be a long one.
It is getting more clear that the development of democracy is neither dependant on the actions of single individuals, not even of a specific party; nor is it a building, garrison, or a city square, whose occupation would result in liberty and prosperity. Democracy is a culture, defining and institutionalizing of which needs lifelong dedication, passion, practice, and faith.