Obama Should Not Interfere Publicly in Iran's Elections

I don't give President Obama high marks on several foreign policy issues, yet when it comes to his tempered response to the 'sham' elections in Iran, I fully support his stance.

Even Obama's presidential contender who claims to have more foreign policy expertise got it wrong. In his interview with Gretta Van Susteren, McCain insisted that the president should make a forceful declaration against the disputed results of the Iran presidential elections. In his interview today on NBC he gave more details, read here.

Here's why I disagree with Senator McCain.

In the hotspots of the Muslim world, the us vs. them is defined by extremists groups against pro-West groups. Progressives in Iran, Lebanon and Egypt are not seen by extremists as a product of the evolutionary pulse of the culture, rather as agents of the West. Cases in point:
When Condi Rice shook hands with the secular progressive Egyptian politician Ayman Nour, who led the Al Ghad party in opposing the dictatorship of President Husni Mubarak, demanding constitutional reform and respect for human rights, he was immediately vilified by the Muslim Brotherhood and considered an American agent. This was a huge set back for the secular reform movement in Egypt and consequently allowed more fundamentalism to spread.

Again, when Secretary Rice visited the pro-Western Prime Minister Seniora in Lebanon during Israel's war on Hezbollah in 2006, Hezbollah used this event to cast PM Seniora and the pro-West coalition in the role of Zionist sympathizers. Something that enraged even pro-West Lebanese who were in shelters and came out in support of Hezbollah while their country was under heavy bombardment from Israel. Hence, winning Hezbollah the Arab street support beyond Lebanon's borders that they still enjoy today.

For these reasons, and many others we've documented in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world, I believe that President Obama is doing the right thing. If he comes out in support of Mousavi and his Green movement, the whole movement will be treated like traitors. This will make the job of Ayatollah Khameini and Ahmedinejad so easy. They will concoct the evidence that Mousavi is an American agent. In addition, there is no doubt that the US is continuing its covert operations in Iran, through NGOs and other means. Why follow it with rehtoric that the Mullahs are anxiously awaiting to take advantage of.

These are internal dynamics in Iran that have been percolating for more than 30 years. It is Iranian themselves that deserve credit for this "Tehran Rising." and no one else.

This is where we should leave well alone and put the unclenched fist policy of this new administration to the test.

What are your thoughts?

Obama's first 100 days in the Muslim World

"United States of America is not at war with Islam" president Obama boldly declared in Ankara, Turkey and went on to visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, one of the largest of its kind outside the Arab Peninsula.

The president's strategy to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world is off to a good start.

Here's the Good Start:

In his inauguration speech the President stressed the use of"mutual respect," as a key phrase with a culture that has been feeling demonized for many internal and external reasons.

The first interview he gave to and an international TV network, was with Al-Arabiya a moderate network (dare I say pragmatic) that counteracts the sensationalism and inflammatory reporting of Al-Jazeera (however, al-jazeera produces excellent documentaries on the Muslim world). Obama's interview was well received, and promised to "not only promote an American Agenda, but also to help develop the region." Leaders and pundits in the Arab world praised him, but had a wait-and-see attitude. His Nawruz address to Iran was a good conversation starter with the Iranian people, especially the majority that opposes Ahmedinejad's reckless statements and governing style.

Realizing that Pakistan presents more of an explosive problem than Afghanistan, his administration along with the Japanese secured $ 5 Billion in commitments to Pakistan "to bolster the country's economy and help fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.

Closing Guitmo, was not only an ethical decision based on the Geneva convention and that "the US does not torture," but also a winning strategy against Al-Qaeda's propaganda machine.

Here's where more complexity is needed:

His promise to pull out from Iraq in mid 2010 might be a clever message that might appease the fears of Iraqis and the Arab world, but is not a realistic strategy according to many generals in the Pentagon and in view of a weak Iraqi government and an escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. To most Iraqis this government is considered an American puppet and if history of Iraq tells anything, the power lords in Iraq will not rest until they are ruled by an iron fist. My hope is that any autocratic regime that will appear when the US leaves will be one that is more open to the West.

Sending 18 or 20 Thousand more troops to Afghanistan without systemically addressing the complex underlying problem, will never produce the intended results. The build up in troops must be equally and systemically accompanied by efforts to strengthen the government and security forces while building the culturally-fit institutional, educational and economic infrastructure. Short of doing that, we will repeat the same mistakes that the Carter administration committed in that country.

In their testimony on the Hill, four veterans who served in Afghanistan and managed to establish good relationships with the tribes, complained about the rotation issue of the soldiers. Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Genevieve Chase, who served as an intelligence soldier with the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan in 2006, said troops should be allowed to extend their tours, if requested.“In a culture where a man’s trust and respect is earned with time, loyalty and devotion to a cause, we rotate out units every six to 12 months,” she said.

The other major issue for that country is that the Afghan security forces' loyalty is to their tribes and clans not to an almost non-existing nation; which makes it harder for our troops to train them.

Obama's administration does not yet have a comprehensive plan on how to address the Swat Valley issue in Pakistan and now the spread of Taliban in the Punjab province - the most economically viable province in Pakistan with half of the Pakistani population living in it. I did not expect our president to find immidiate solutions to such a gynormic problem in the first 100 days of his presidency. However, I did expect to see a systemic framework that includes simultaneous strategies to help resolve this pressing challenge. (I will explain the difference between Systemic, strategic and tactical process in future blogs).