Hannes Artens's blog

The results of reaching out to the Taliban II: Karzai signs law into action that forces wives to have sex every fourth night

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:45:21 -0700

Der Spiegel - April 3
"Western Outrage over Discriminatory Afghan Law"
By Matthias Gebauer

A new law signed by President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan requires Shiite women to ask their husband's permission before leaving the home and forces them to have sexual intercourse. The West is outraged, and German politicians are mulling restrictions in development aid.

It was only recently that Afghan President Hamid Karzai placed his signature under a new law pertaining to Shiite families in Afghanistan. But it didn't take long for a storm of protest to begin washing over Kabul.

Human rights activists say the new law grants even fewer rights to women than when the Islamist Taliban held sway. And in the West, more and more heads have begun shaking in disbelief. The US and Canada, in particular, are putting pressure on Karzai as a result of the law with other NATO member-states following suit.

(...)

Especially shocking for Western observers is that part of the law which deals with the sex lives of Shiites. The Afghan constitution provides for Shiites, which represent between 10 and 20 percent of the population, to pass their own family law based on their legal traditions. But the new law is particularly restrictive. Article 132, for example, mandates that "the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband." Furthermore, if her husband is not travelling or sick, the wife is required to have sex with him at least every fourth night. The only exception is if the wife herself is ill.

Article 133 is just as problematic. "The husband can stop the wife from any unnecessary act," it reads. Furthermore, the law requires wives to get the permission of their husbands before they leave the house, except in cases of emergency. In addition, the legal age of marriage for Shiite women has been lowered from 18 to 16.

--
Read on at Der Spiegel

The results of reaching out to the Taliban I: Video of public flogging of teenage girl in Swat broadcasted around the world

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:30:13 -0700

The Guardian - April 4
"Outcry in Pakistan after video of a 17-year-old girl's flogging by the Taliban is shown on TV"
By Declan Walsh

The Pakistani government has ordered an inquiry into the flogging of a 17-year-old woman by Taliban militants in the troubled Swat valley, after public outrage triggered by shocking video footage of the punishment.

The images, played yesterday on private television channels, show a burka-clad woman being pinned to the ground by two men while a third whips her backside 34 times. The woman is seen screaming and begging for mercy as a crowd of largely silent men look on. She is accused of having had an illegal sexual relationship, according to local law. Her brother is among those restraining her.

President Asif Ali Zardari led a wave of public condemnation, and ordered the arrest of the perpetrators. Prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani termed it "shocking" and called for an immediate inquiry. At the supreme court, the newly reinstated chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, summoned officials to a hearing scheduled for Monday to investigate the incident.

(…)

But the talk of arrests and inquiries are unlikely to amount to much. The Pakistan government's writ has all but collapsed in Swat, where armed militants loyal to a hardline preacher named Maulana Fazlullah have taken control. The teenage woman was flogged in Kabbal, a remote district where Taliban rule is the law. An order by the chief justice to produce the woman in Islamabad next Monday is unlikely to be heeded.

--
Read on and watch video at The Guardian

Europe on the Eve of the G20 Summit

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:50:49 -0700

By Hannes Artens

With leaders like this … Hungary's Ferenc Gyurcsány and the Czech Republic's Mirek Topolanek (current EU president) at the EU Summit on March 19 - since then both have resigned (Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung)

Much has been written on Europe by American columnists these days. Nothing good, so much is obvious. Either American conservatives conjure up the specter of what America will turn into, if they don't put the brakes on President Obama - I wonder how many generations it will take for the Red Scare and the bogeyman of socialism to lose their deterrent effectiveness - or rejoice about it as a doomed cause on the edge of abyss. Distracting the public from the total shipwreck of Reaganomics and the Republican model for society - which actually is what? Proving Edward Gibbon wrong that it can take only two decades to bring an empire down? Indebting the youngest Agonist reader's children's children up to their necks? Selling out a superpower to its future competitor in a street sale called globalization? - they exult in the only good thing about the recession being the demise of God- and spineless Europe.

To be perfectly honest, the EU hasn't given its own people much reason for confidence these days. The G20 summit is hosted by a political zombie, a walking dead soon to have plenty of time to enjoy the "America's Greatest Movies" collection he was recently given by the White House, the heads of government in Eastern Europe are toppling at a speed the originator of the Domino Theory could have never envisioned - even Mirek Topolanek, the current president of the EU Council, is among the victims - Nicolas Sarkozy, well, he does what he's known for, pretending hyper-activism and emitting hot air like a fast breeder producing more futile, eh fissile than he consumes, and last but not least Silvio Berlusconi, who, well, also does what he's known for, 24/7 reinventing himself and his party - Forza Italia was yesterday, today it's Il Popolo della Liberta - and, at 72, entertaining Italy and the world with tales about his sex life. Hardly the leadership one would wish for when facing the worst economic contraction since World War II.

Yet, neither this painfully obvious lack of leadership nor the Weekly Standard et al's usual rantings really worry me. Collectively committing seppuku aside, I guess, folks like Alexander Bernard, Robert Kagan and Billy Kristol will never find anything positive to write on us, Gordon Brown was a prime minister beyond expiry date long before this crisis hit us, the Czech EU presidency was expected to turn out a disaster, and all I can say about Berlusconi's escapades is that God only knows why he hasn't been impersonated by Jason Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live yet. In order to have a more meaningful discussion on the EU's strengths and weaknesses on the eve of the G20 Summit we have to turn to more intelligent American critics. In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, after praising the EU for its strong social welfare state, Hear ye!, Paul Krugman expresses his deep concern about Europe's allegedly less than adequate reaction to the recession.

(Source: Der Spiegel)

In this he, talking of more intelligent critics, unfortunately, joins in the platitudinous gibberish thrown at Europe by the above mentioned about its impotence to deal with the global crisis, wallowing in the prejudice that the EU is not spending enough to stimulate the economy. This allegation is wrong both empirically and theoretically. As the table on the left shows, in percentage of GDP Germany spends equal to the US in stimuli packages. To this, of course, one has to add expenses for social safety nets, which are much tighter in Europe than in America and better protect our citizens, at least for the time being, from the recession's repercussions than any ad hoc measures of the Obama administration; a fact even Krugman has to acknowledge.

But what this transatlantic beef really is about is something deeper, a distinct controversy, a difference of opinion that will significantly determine transatlantic relations and common response to this crisis. While the Obama administration seems to believe that the system per se is right, has just been abused by a few reckless bankers - "A free market still needs to be able to function," Vice President Biden warned at the Progressive Leaders' Summit in Vina del Mar - and that somehow miraculously we'll be able to spend ourselves out of this malaise, if only enough money is thrown at it, Europe and the developing world beg to differ. "It is a world without rules," Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner observed at the same summit, "We have all lived beyond our means," and what we need now "is a strong state that sets rules for the market," German President Horst Köhler detected each and everyone of us as culprits in our current fate, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the summit if stricter regulations are not imposed in London this week. He insists that radical reform is more important than tax cutting, and Angela Merkel threatened, "I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money."

This difference in opinion is substantial. America prioritizes a global spending spree over deep and lasting reforms of the financial system, while Europeans fight for the latter and have adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the former. As Mervin King, the Governor of the Bank of England, established:

Given how big these deficits are, I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits. I think the fiscal position in the UK is not one where we could say, 'Well, why don't we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion?"

Given previous bail outs and stimuli packages it will take the British economy until 2030 to reach its pre-crisis level of indebtedness. In addition to our demands for reform, in Europe, we believe it to be irresponsible to further encumber the next generation with an unprecedented level of national debt without having assessed the effectiveness of our current policies first. Who knows what's going to happen, what masses of unemployed and collapses of public services we may have to deal with over the next years? Shouldn't we act with greater restraint instead of shooting our wad right at what might only be the beginning of a long downturn?

Fortunately, Angela Merkel has managed to rally the European 27 - Gordon Brown is still shilly-shally - behind her position to reject any American insistence on a further spending round before previous measures are not allowed to take root.

On another level, though, such unity in the European position would be desirable and Paul Krugman's critique is downright accurate. He puts the finger on the true sore spot of Europe's handling of the crisis:

Europe's economic and monetary integration has run too far ahead of its political institutions. The economies of Europe's many nations are almost as tightly linked as the economies of America's many states - and most of Europe shares a common currency. But unlike America, Europe doesn't have the kind of continent-wide institutions needed to deal with a continent-wide crisis.

(…)

After all, while there isn't a European government, there is a European Central Bank. But the E.C.B. isn't like the Fed, which can afford to be adventurous because it's backed by a unitary national government - a government that has already moved to share the risks of the Fed's boldness, and will surely cover the Fed's losses if its efforts to unfreeze financial markets go bad. The E.C.B., which must answer to 16 often-quarreling governments, can't count on the same level of support. Europe, in other words, is turning out to be structurally weak in a time of crisis.

All too true. The Euro community no longer allows individual countries to devaluate their currencies in order to stimulate exports and competitiveness, the standard measure in times of crisis in the past, yet at the same time has not equipped the supra-natural institutions, the ECB, with the powers to coherently guide and govern Europe's fiscal policy. The ECB, like the FED, controls the key interest rate (and arguably has been more effective, not following the US' zero interest policy and thus not allowing the European economy to overheat as dramatically as the American), but has no other fiscal mechanisms at its disposal. Economic recovery packages are still put together in individual capitals, which makes a coordinated fiscal policy beyond particularist interests almost impossible and aggravates the impression on the markets that Europe is not doing enough.

In view of the sheer dimension of the crisis such a policy is no longer sustainable. This constructural flaw inherent in the European project, of our political integration not living up to the challenges of our times, is the true weak spot that may cause the whole experiment of the European Union to collapse. This danger is real and lethal, and if not addressed immediately, no holds barred, and comprehensively, our calls for reform will die away unheard and Robert Kagan and Billy Kristol will have real reason to rejoice.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran war novel.

The full scope of Ehud Barak's treason

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:58:48 -0700

By Hannes Artens

Partners in crime: Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (Source: Der Spiegel)

He has really dared to go through with it. On March 25, Israel's Labor Party agreed to join Benjamin Netanyahu's nationalist ultra-right wing coalition - with six of its 13 parliamentary members opposing the move. I have no intention to hide my utter disgust for the remaining seven, who, like their leader Ehud Barak, put personal ambitions and sinecures before their responsibilities towards their country and party. Under Ehud Barak's leadership Labor, the founding party of the state of Israel, has reached absolute rock bottom. From here it can only go further down. Ehud Barak can take pride in the dubious reputation of having single-handedly thwarted a Palestinian state twice - at first in Camp David and now by making Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's new foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman a respectable brand.

When in February 2000 Austrian Wolfgang Schüssel formed a coalition with the late ultra-nationalist Jörg Haider, Schüssel was compared in the Israeli press to Franz von Papen, the German conservative politician whose entry into the 1933 coalition made Adolf Hitler Reichskanzler. Today, I'm barely less disgusted than nine years ago, and although, as a historian, I resolutely abstain from these hapless comparisons, I wonder what analogies the Israeli press has at hand for Ehud Barak these days? What other compliant tools for the rise of fascism to power, if any, may they come up with? For what else has just happened in Israel, almost over night, but the hideous antic of nationalist authoritarianism lusting after the highest levels of power; for what is Avigdor Lieberman but a fascistoid hate preacher, and Ehud Barak the useful idiot who made him possible?

Before continuing with this piece two disclaimers are necessary. For someone born in Vienna, the hotbed of 19th century anti-Semitism, it is almost a given to be accused of anti-Semitism after writing this piece. As much as I have fought anti-Semitism and ethnic or religious intolerance in general in all my writing I have never accepted that my place of birth should restrain me from speaking my mind on certain policies of the state of Israel because of the crimes committed here two generations before me. Instead of the usual self-righteous assurances from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that "Israel has no stronger defender and better friend but … [insert the name of the respective politician]," I simply ask readers to judge my opinion by my own (sic!) and not my deceased or still alive compatriots' record.

Secondly, I'm not comparing Avigdor Lieberman and his hate ranting against Arab Israelis to fascist leaders of the mid-20th century but to fascistoid politicians of the early 21st, which puts him on par with Jörg Haider, his successor Heinz-Christian Strache, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Philip Dewinter and other disgusting figures of the European far right. It is one of history's saddest paradoxes that Lieberman has become more successful than any of those he shares his intolerant mind set with - none of the above has ever made it into government, let alone getting the second most prestigious post - among a people who more than any other had to suffer from ethnic and religious intolerance and persecution throughout all its history. No doubt, this is an utterly tragic development of most profound sadness, not only for Israel but for humanity at large.

"Labor has no place in a right-wing government unless it wants to lose all of its values," former Labor minister Moshe Shahal voiced his strong disapproval. In order to grasp the full scope of Ehud Barak's treason of all the principles his party used to stand for, let us hypothesize what would have happened if Labor had not joined Netanyahu's coalition.

As outlined in a scenario here a month ago, a coalition between the ultra-orthodox Shas party and Lieberman's socially liberal Israel Beiteinu could have train-wrecked any time, with Netanyahu's Likud, trying to mediate, being caught between two stools. More important, though, the international community could have embargoed the government to some degree, such as the US, for example, voicing its willingness to meet and work with Netanyahu - depending on his concessions towards a two-state solution - but Hillary Clinton unfortunately having no time for her Israeli counterpart. Simultaneously, she could have reached out to Tzipi Livni at one of the various gender politics panels both women engage in. Thus, it would have been demonstrated to the Israeli electorate that they, of course, are free to vote for who they like, but that it is at the international community's discretion with who they want to work with. Avigdor Lieberman would have been isolated as a pariah, and Netanyahu snubbed for giving him the foreign policy portfolio. Even better, AIPAC, wounded after the Charles Freeman PR disaster, would have rushed to Netanyahu's defense and thus would have lost its claim to represent the Israeli people as a whole. It would have been exposed as the far-right wing lobbying group it is, strengthening its more moderate competitors, like J-Street, who would have enjoyed the support of Kadima and Labor. Finally, in public perception, the Jewish voice in America would have enjoyed the pluralism it constitutes in reality, instead of being quasi-represented by narrow-minded zero-sum advocates.

All this is not going to happen now because of the blind egomania of one man, who proved a disaster for Israel's national interest in the past, in the present, and looks hell-bent on doing so in the future. Ehud Barak provides Benjamin Netanyahu with the fig leaf of legitimacy he's been craving for so desperately all these weeks. Netanyahu, the shrewd tactician he is, knew well that an exclusively right-wing coalition was doomed to failure; he needed a useful idiot from the center or left to counter the international community's expected opposition towards his government. Tzipi Livni, for all her past shortcomings, proved to be a politician of impressive stature, Ehud Barak the personification of spinelessness. He handed Netanyahu the claim, which he now can rightfully make, to represent a vast majority of the Israeli popular will in his coalition on a silver platter.

"Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate with a government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different. They [the Israelis] know it, and we have to keep on saying that," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana still tried to flex his muscles, but Tel Aviv answer wasn't a long time in the coming: "Frankly, my dear, I give a damn," it said as the coalition contract did not mention a two-state solution with a single word. Instead, Netanyahu went on air with an appeal to international donors to strengthen the Palestinian economy, faithful to his campaign promises to advance the economic track while purposefully ignoring the political.

Are you kidding me? You expect the US and the EU to build up Palestinian infrastructure only for IAF to turn it into debris a few month later? What earthly use did the billions of Euros the EU invested in Gaza have with it now looking like Baghdad after Rummy's unleashing "shock and awe" on it? This suggestion is so ludicrous, it comes down to a ridicule of the international community's efforts, adding insult to injury. No, our answer should leave no misgivings: the Netanyahu-Lieberman coalition, denying the Palestinian people what Israel committed to in Oslo, is no partner for peace and will be treated accordingly. With Ehud Barak on it or not.

However, I'm alas fully aware that to expect such a resolute stance from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic is wishful thinking and that sooner than later we'll witness them cozying up to Netanyahu and Lieberman in the vain hope for them to at least generously stop the one or the other new settler building in the West Bank. The two will give us a hearty pad on our backs, assure us what jolly chaps we are, and then carry on no holds barred to realize their irredentist dreams. All by courtesy of Ehud Barak who made this government "conceived in sin", as Tzipi Livni termed it, possible.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran war novel.

A must read backgrounder on the New Great Game

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:19:23 -0700

Asia Times - March 26
"Liquid War: Welcome to Pipelineistan"
By Pepe Escobar

What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.

Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "global war on terror", which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War", sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin - a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.

All geopolitical junkies need a fix. Since the second half of the 1990s, I've been hooked on pipelines. I've crossed the Caspian in an Azeri cargo ship just to follow the $4 billion Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, better known in this chess game by its acronym, BTC, through the Caucasus. (Oh, by the way, the map of Pipelineistan is chicken-scratched with acronyms, so get used to them!)

I've also trekked various of the overlapping modern Silk Roads, or perhaps Silk Pipelines, of possible future energy flows from Shanghai to Istanbul, annotating my own do-it-yourself routes for LNG (liquefied natural gas). I used to avidly follow the adventures of that once-but-not-future Sun-King of Central Asia, the now deceased Turkmenbashi or "leader of the Turkmen", Saparmurat Niyazov, head of the immensely gas-rich Republic of Turkmenistan, as if he were a Conradian hero.

Read on at Asia Times

A new, unorthodox channel to reach Iran

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:23:33 -0700

By Hannes Artens

It is by clicking through the columns and op-eds of the past two months you best get an idea of the fundamental change in public and media opinion on Iran from a year ago. SecDef Gates can maintain that all options remain on the table for as long as he wants, the public doesn't want to hear about it. They're tired of another war looming on the horizon, and of worrying about their sons and daughters in uniform being sent on another vacation in a foreign land, on which, as Billy Joel sang, they'd come "in spastic like tameless horses and left in plastic as numbered corpses", instead, they'll demand another "Nixon-goes-to-China" opening. And they're right to do so.

No one, from the LA Times to the Boston Globe, is talking about war or how to contain Iran anymore - except the notorious, wrong-from-cradle-to-grave on every single issue John Bolton, the exception to prove the rule. Instead, every scribbler to distinguished pundit is having an opinion on how to best engage Iran, it seems even interns usually tasked to provide Seymour Hersh and the like with ever warm coffee are throwing in their two cents worth on how to reach out to Tehran. This occasionally can reach quite heart-warmingly naive levels, such as the suggestion for President Obama to celebrate Newroz, the Iranian New Year, with the diaspora community in Teherangeles. As most of them are adherers of the late Shah, I fear this won't go down well with President Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khameini. In principle, though, all these well-meaning, self-declared analysts are right: the White House seems in desperate need of advice and unorthodox, new ways of thinking or it will review US Iran policy until there's nothing left to review.

For over four months now team Obama is struggling over how to respond to a letter from President Ahmadinejad from November, in which he congratulated Barack Obama for his historic victory. Meanwhile the White House is not ranking behind Tehran in sending out mixed signals. As positive as the designation of PJAK as a terrorist organization and inviting Iran for talks on the future of Afghanistan were, the appointment of Dennis Ross as Special Envoy for the Gulf Region was a devastating signal, even if he doesn't have much to say. That's like sending Tom Tancredo and James Dobson to discuss an ecumenical mass with the Grand Mufti of Mecca. Likewise, Peter Baker from the New York Times may have had his ten minutes of fame, when uncovering the secret letter President Obama sent Russia, suggesting to exchange a suspension of the idiotic missile defense project in Eastern Europe for the Kremlin's cooperation on Iran. Overall, though, he did the world a great disservice.

One cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Obama administration hasn't really prepared well for assuming the reins. This obvious disorientation is further exacerbated by reform candidate Mohammad Khatami stepping into the ring to challenge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June's presidential election. Now every goodwill gesture until then is feared to strengthen Ahmadinejad, with whom the US would no doubt prefer not having to deal with past this summer. Consequently, even distinguished, pro-dialogue experts on Iran like Tom Pickering, Frank Wisner, and William Luers are debating whether actually anything should be done with Iran until June.

But, hey, it's nothing new that a reform candidate will run, and that Khatami would take the helm was almost a given since December. Worse, there seems to be a general confusion about the designation of roles in this game: it is Iran's to play for time, time Washington definitely doesn't have if it wants to stop Iran short of weapon-grade enrichment.

Add to this the unique, sheer unreadable complexity of Iran's political system with Ahmadinejad being the most powerful president in the Islamic Republic's history thanks to his control of shadowy funds worth tens of billions of dollars and his wholesale network of patronage and clientelism (yet, no, that doesn't make him more powerful than the Supreme Leader, as Shahir Shahidsaless suggests), Ayatollah Khameini hovering over all branches of government as a gray eminence, and the Revolutionary Guard having formed a state within the state beyond parliament's, and I dare say, even the Council of Guardian's control. Consequently, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, with whom true power in Iran rests, has perfected the art of playing all these centers off against each other, dispatching individuals associated with the one or the other to negotiate with the Americans and distancing himself from the delegate's concessions as he sees fit. He is the personified checks and balances, whose prime concern is the preservation of the regime.

Because Americans and Europeans have still not fully understood how the Iranian system works and keep being stunned by Ali Larijani, for example, making goodwill gestures Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't want to hear about, years of negotiations with Tehran have come to nothing. In fact, we've played into the Supreme Leader's hands by allowing him to use us for his inner-Iranian divide-and-conquer schemes. Unfortunately, it seems the Obama administration will continue this lamentable tradition.

We're in desperate need of an unorthodox but working new strategy to engage Iran and bypass the various layers of power that envelop the one man whose decision will matter at the end of the day: the Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khameini. Let's cut the crap of trying to read tea leaves on how Hillary Clinton wiggling ears may somehow affect the outcome of Iran's presidential elections, and instead approach the Supreme Leader directly.

How? Well, a historical analogy might be helpful. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the US was confronted with the same dilemma. They never knew whether they were actually negotiating with Nikita Khrushchev or with the politburo and whether concessions would ultimately have the undesired effect of strengthening the hawks in the Kremlin. What prevented war in the end was Washington opening a new channel for communication. Through a close friend and wartime comrade, Alexander Feklisov, codename Aleksander Fomin, the Kennedy White House talked directly to Khrushchev and could count on their message reaching him and no one but him, because Feklisov and Khrushchev knew each other, trusted each other, and had fought and bled together in WW II. It was a relationship that transcended politics and made Feklisov the ideal candidate to deliver the message.

What we should do is to start looking out for the Iranian Feklisov, a man close to Supreme Leader Khameini, perhaps an associate from his university days or fellow inmate when Khameini was imprisoned by the Shah's regime. We should be searching for someone who's not been tarnished by politics, whose counsel Khameini trusts as a friend more than as a political advisor, someone he knows would not use him putting out feelers to America against him, and, finally but quite importantly, who occasionally travels abroad. Once detected this person should be approached with the offer of a grand bargain addressing all major issues, from nuclear enrichment to Hezbollah, for Khameini's eyes only, coming directly from the Oval Office, delivered by someone Khameini knows is equally close to Barack Obama. Valerie Jarrett, for instance, would be well-suited to deliver the message and a personal letter from President Obama to Ayatollah Khameini. She was born in Shiraz, speaks Farsi, and is known to be closer to Barack and Michelle Obama than anybody else in Washington. I'm sure there's an Iranian counterpart for her among Khameini's closest circle.

To some of you this may sound too cloak and dagger-like, maybe a scenario for my next book? Perhaps so, but it's been done before, succeeded in preventing war between the US and the USSR when bombers were already airborne, and certainly is a more productive opening than the current hesitating, wavering, brooding over what to do, speculating what effects it may have, and in the end not doing much at all. All this proposal's flaws aside, it has four clear advantages: it bypasses the pitfalls of Iranian politics, would not strengthen or weaken one or the other presidential candidate, reaches the ultimate decision maker directly, and convinces him that America is serious about engagement more than any flowery phrase.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says he's not interested in playing American Football but rather sees US-Iranian relations as a chess game? Very well, let this be our King's Pawn Opening then.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

Not another premature "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, please

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:57:35 -0800

By Hannes Artens

When the first results of the Iraqi government elections of January 31 came in, there was great rejoicing in Baghdad and Washington. The American press unison declared Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Barack Obama the big winners at the polls:

-Al-Maliki, not until long ago and presumably still a puppet on Iran's strings, for having abandoned religious sectarianism and by adopting a pragmatic, secular garb saving himself, if not his party, from sound defeat.

-Obama, because the strong showing of secular nationalist alliances would allow him to abide by his campaign promise to withdraw combat troops from Iraq ASAP.

Consequently, when President Obama revealed his withdrawal plans at Camp Lejeune last week, there was a big furor. The liberal press shouted betrayal, and General Nancy Pelosi, joined by the brilliant military strategists Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, voiced her lack of understanding why 50,000 troops would have to remain in Iraq past the 19 months timeframe the president had decided on to withdraw all major combat troops. Conspiracy theorists had a heyday, alleging Generals Petraeus and Odierno to have carried out a clandestine putsch.

No need to worry, the civilian control over the military hasn't been reversed.

The simple reason why the president has opted for a phased out drawback is that he has come to understand the realities of Iraq and America's responsibilities there, while Pelosi, Schumer, and Reid care little about what happens to the Iraqi people as long as they can keep their comfy positions by ensuring a Democrat majority in Congress.

I have to say the liberal media's obsession with leaving Iraq the sooner the better, no matter what the costs, strikes me as bizarre.

One good example is the otherwise respected Robert Dreyfuss, who once was a strong voice in bringing the Haditha massacre to our all attention, has this to say now in The Nation: "Obama is going to have to resist those who urge him, at the first sign of increased violence in Iraq, to slow down the withdrawal ... And if violence does erupt, Obama is going to have to let the fever run its course."

So that's the new political speak in America? Haditha was collateral damage, and if Iraq breaks apart and goes down in ethnic violence we "let the fever run its course"?

The problem is that this line isn't from a dehumanized Dick Cheney but from a progressive journalist, who embodies the American sentiment that Iraq is a "bad war", that the US should have never gone there in the first place, and that now that they are in control they need to make sure no more American lives are wasted in an ill-fated nation-building project.

Agreed, Iraq was a war of choice. Agreed, the US should have never gone there in the first place. But now that George Bush's imperialistic hubris brought havoc over the country, America has shouldered a commitment not to leave it behind in a worse state than they came upon it six years ago.

The day American bombers unleashed "shock and awe" over Baghdad, the future of Iraq became as much America's responsibility as the Iraqi people's. If Afghanistan has taught us nothing but that, it should have made it clear quite plainly what the results will be of the US deserting a people after having used them as proxies in their great power games.

Besides being strategically shortsighted to write off Iraq - who do you think is going to benefit from Iraq relapsing into mayhem after 2011? The party that invented "the surge" and allegedly handed it over in peace and calm - it more than anything else is a moral imperative to stabilize it to a point that minimizes the threat of a recurrence of the sectarian civil war of 2005-7.

The truth is, Iraq is far from having stabilized. The next big clash is just around the corner.

Al-Maliki, far from being a unifying figure, has adopted the nationalist garb and advocates a strong central government because thus he can kill two birds with one stone: he gets the US out of the country by pretending that everything is secure for a smooth handover, and he can direct Arab ethnic sentiment against the Kurds.

To pull off this stunt he needs the support of the Sunni minority, both to keep a low profile until America is out and to assist him in putting the Kurdish Autonomous Region into its place, read significantly trimming their autonomy and forcing them to abandon Kirkuk. Once this is accomplished the whole of Iraq, and not just a Shiite rump-state, will become an Iranian client state.

It's a commonplace that Kirkuk may become the powder keg that could result in Iraq exploding, thwarting America's withdrawal plans.

After nurturing them as their allies for years, America's attitude towards the Kurds and their rightful claims on the city has dramatically changed for the worse over the last two years. Their stubbornness is seen as the major obstacle to national reconciliation. Yet, make no mistake, although multiethnic Kirkuk has always been a city with a Kurdish majority. It is the very reason for the creation of Iraq in the first place.

After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the British needed to craft a "nation by design", as Charles Tilly calls it, that would unite the oil fields of southern Iraq with Kirkuk. During the late 70s and 80s the governorate became the site of unprecedented ethnic cleansing and Arabization campaigns, cumulating in the forceful resettlement and killing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the infamous Al-Anfal operation, of which the poison gas attack on Halabja stands out the most gruesome.

For the Kurds, giving up Kirkuk would mean to cast the achievements of Saddam's ethnic cleansing in stone. Understandably, an Iraqi central government who demands this they can never swear allegiance to.

But this is precisely what Nouri al-Maliki is preparing for. The New York Times reports:

These tensions nearly led to violence last summer in the ethnically mixed city of Khanaqin, which lies outside the current boundaries of Kurdistan, in Diyala Province, but was under the control of the peshmerga. Prime Minister Maliki, emboldened by recent battlefield successes of Iraq's Army and police against Shiite militias in Basra and elsewhere, apparently decided to put the Kurds in their place as well.

Mr. Maliki deployed army forces to Khanaqin, only to have them run right into a standoff with the peshmerga troops. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed, but it should be noted that many of those cooler heads were American - the United States troops who were partnered with the Iraqi Army formations ran interference between the Iraqi Army units and the Kurdish soldiers and brokered a peaceful resolution.

...

And while key leaders from Mr. Maliki's government, various parliamentary opposition parties, and the Kurds all insist that they plan to resolve their differences peacefully, several members of the American military command for Northern Iraq warned us during conversations in Iraq last week that the officers of the newly forming Iraqi 12th Infantry Division have repeatedly stated that once their unit is ready, they plan to occupy their entire area of operations - which includes Kirkuk. The peshmerga fighters, of course, are just as adamant that this would be unacceptable.

The above described role US forces played in de-escalating tensions should give Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid enough reason to reflect on why American soldiers are needed in Iraq until a deal on Kirkuk, satisfying all sides, has been brokered.

This does not at all imply approving of plans some diehard chickenhawks in the Pentagon may entertain to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq. All I'm saying is that the US should not leave before having fulfilled its obligations to the Iraqi people, and finding a solution to the Kirkuk standoff is one yet unfulfilled.

We've seen "Mission Accomplished" being declared prematurely in Iraq before. We must not see this happening again, at greater costs to the Iraqi people, the US, and us all.

In less than two weeks, we will commemorate the 21st anniversary of the poison gas attack on Halabja. In light of more than 5,000 innocent civilians having died that day and tens of thousands still suffering from blindness, cancer, respiratory illness, miscarriages, and severe birth defects, and in the face of the contemptible role the US government played before, during and after Al-Anfal, I cannot think of a more inappropriate time to let the Iraqi people down and for the progressive media to advocate letting "the fever run its course."

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

Ehud Barak is such a loser

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:24:29 -0800

He'll provide Netanyahu with the fig leaf he's been desperately looking for. Thus the right-wing government will find it much easier to evade Barack Obama's pressure. Barak, an egomaniac, narcissistic flip-flopper with the strategic foresight of a blind owl has bungled Camp David before. And now this. I have nothing but contempt for him - Hannes Artens

Barak tells MKs: We must join coalition

Gil Hoffman | March 2

Jerusalem Post - Labor chairman Ehud Barak has called Labor MKs in recent days and told them that the party should join a national unity government led by Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu, sources close to Barak said Sunday. Barak's associates confirmed a Channel 2 report that he had called Labor MKs to check whether he could obtain a majority in the faction for joining the government, but that he might try to bring Labor into the coalition without his faction's support.

"We have to go in," Barak told the MKs. "Be on my side. I don't care if I don't have a majority in the faction. I can pass it in the central committee." A source close to Barak said the party leader felt it would be better for the country and for himself to remain defense minister, and that it was now a matter of persuading his party that this would not harm Labor. more

Go, Bibi, go!

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:12:37 -0800

By Hannes Artens

In a foregone conclusion, Israel's President Shimon Peres mandated Likud's leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday to form a coalition government. With Likud counting on the support of the entire right-wing block, and thus 65 out of 120 seats in the Knesset to back it, the task shouldn't be too strenuous. And yet Netanyahu is all but cheerful. Uncomfortable to join the cabinet table with the fascistoid Avigdor Lieberman who recommended him to Peres, he dithers and desperately vies for Kadima's Tzipi Livni and Labor's Ehud Barak to join in him a unity government.

In the coming negotiations Netanyahu is expected to offer Livni all but his boxers and the premiership. In no use of the former, the latter is exactly what Livni, whose Kadima came out one seat ahead of Likud in the legislative election of February 10, demands. Her price for acting as Netanyahu's compliant tool for his return to power is a rotating premiership, modeled on Shimon Peres and Yitzakh Shamir changing guards during the 80s. If I may dare to add my two cents, she'd be well-advised to send him home with his briefs, the premiership and as many cabinet posts as Liebermann will concede to him, and watch from the comfy sidelines of the opposition bench Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Eli Yishai, the leader of Shas, tearing each other apart. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition has no future, and because he knows that he courts Livni and Barak. They'd be pretty dimwitted to join him on the Titanic.

The day Netanyahu was given the mandate Gideon Levy analyzed the situation in Haaretz, which for its biting sarcasm and downright accurate observations deserves to be quoted at length:

Why isn't Benjamin Netanyahu setting up a right-wing government? Why isn't he carrying out the voters' will to position the right wing in power? Why isn't he taking the opportunity that fell into his hands to form a government in tune with his doctrine?

Why is he talking about a broad coalition, knowing it would force him to compromise his principles? Because he is afraid. Now, at the moment of truth, when he has the ability to implement his ideology, he has gotten cold feet and wants to dilute his government with components that are alien to his doctrine.

…

First, go for the economic peace. Let's see you obtain funding - from the Arab world and perhaps from Israel, too, especially in these economic times - to carry out the projects you promised. Persuade the Palestinians and Americans that this is enough. Let's see what happens after the first suicide attack in the industrial zone built on the outskirts of Nablus or behind Hebron.

Been there, done that. We've had industrial zones - so-called "peace parks" - in Erez, Tul Karm and Atarot. They stand abandoned, in ruins.

Why? Because they weren't enough for the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians understood the deception behind the approach that we give them work and they remain quiet. After all, Palestinians, like other nations, need not only bread but also freedom and self-definition. A weird sort of notion that Netanyahu's fathers also dreamed of.

So go for the economic peace, Netanyahu, the right-wing government will applaud you. A broad coalition may, however, demand more.

Bomb Iran, Netanyahu, because sanctions aren't enough for you, you don't believe in diplomatic negotiations with Iran and you pledged that you, Mr. Iran, would prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear arms at any cost. Let's see you get Barack Obama's permission for the most dangerous escapade of all. Bombard and let's see what happens.

A broad government could stop your quirks, so why go there? This is the most crucial issue on your agenda. Topple Hamas' rule in Gaza, as you promised. Release Gilad Shalit without freeing murderers, as you wrote in your book about terror. Go forth on your way.

…

Build more and more settlements - there is plenty of "state-owned land" and private land to usurp. Then annex the territories. There is no reason not to apply Israeli law to territories that will remain forever in our hands. Annex and annex, from Jenin to Hebron, distribute Israeli identity cards to the residents and, hey, on to the next Knesset elections with two million new voters.

Perhaps America will finally tell you, annex or evacuate, and you will have to decide. Try selling Obama this political merchandise, and we'll see how he reacts. And let's see how you react if he says no. Why not ask his administration for more and more weapons, more economic aid, more diplomatic support and still stand on your principles. Let's watch you in action, Netanyahu.

But the truth is, Netanyahu knows that this would be a horrific sight. He wants Kadima and Labor in his government to hold him back, to prevent him from carrying out his doctrine. This is exactly why they must not join his coalition. Render unto Netanyahu the things that are Netanyahu's. Let's see how it ends up working out for him. And for us.

Spot on! Netanyahu talked too big before the election, he deceived too many with his martial rhetoric for being allowed to evade responsibility by either Livni or Barak acting as the voice of reason in his coalition, and as the subsequent scapegoat for his failure to deliver vis a vis his constituency. By becoming his useful idiots Livni and Barak will accomplish nothing but ensuring a Netanyahu victory at the polls next election. No, believe me, I have plenty of experience with opportunistic agitators of that sort (not for nothing Avigdor Lieberman has repeatedly been compared to Austria's Jörg Haider). The best way to unmask these self-declared people's tribunes as the botchers they are is to put them in a position in which they actually have to decide something and account for it.

Now, you may say that's a pretty cynical exercise to try out at the expense of the Palestinians. Well, sad to say, the peace process is in such dire straits it can hardly get worse anyway. Secondly, this exercise, as cynical as it may be, will prove those analysts like Joel Mowbray, wrong who claim that only the right has the strength and credibility to bring about peace and push it through. In their naiveté they remind me of the Arabs cheering the victory of the "oil man" George W. Bush over the "AIPAC-ticket" Gore/Lieberman. They were in for quite a horrid awakening as are those who believe that Bibi has become more pragmatic since the mid-90s.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I count on President Obama to put the leash on Netanyahu and prevent his coalition's worst possible excesses, such as Lieberman's oath of loyalty or a unilateral strike on Iran, from being implemented. AIPAC, finally challenged by moderate organizations like J Street, will find it considerably difficult to defend polarizing figures like Netanyahu and Lieberman. With Tzipi Livni in the cabinet they'd have more leverage to put pressure on Obama and could more convincingly claim to represent a majority of the Israeli people.

No, this is the way to go. Hopefully, the more concessions Barack Obama wrests from Bejamin Netanyahu, the more impatient his ultra-nationalist, hawkish partners in the cabinet will get, and finally at the point when they realize they'll lose more than they gain from staying in his coalition, they'll blow it. Let's hope this demonstration of failure will come as a healthy shock for Israel's electorate, and let's keep our fingers crossed for something better to follow suit.

Admittedly, a cynical exercise but the outcome of Israel's elections earlier this month has left those who hope and work for peace with no viable alternative.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

Pakistani woman activist speaks out against Sharia law being imposed for peace in Swat

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:33:39 -0800

Hindustan Times - February 21
"Half a solution for half of Pakistan"
By Feryal Ali Gauhar

In the last few months, Swat has largely fallen to militants who have beheaded opponents, burned scores of girls' schools and banned many forms of entertainment. Gun battles between security forces and militants have killed hundreds, while up to a third of the valley's 1.5 million people have fled. A few days ago, the government of the North West Frontier Province - recently renamed Pakhtunkhwa, or the Land of the Pakhtun - reached an accord with the leader of the Tehrik e Nifaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM).

Jailed until recently, Maulana Sufi Mohammad had led over 10,000 men into battle with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He was arrested in 2002 by the government of General Pervez Musharraf, and released last year on the vow that he would renounce violence as a means to establish his notion of an Islamic order. This accord was reached in Peshawar through a 'jirga' where the Chief Minister of the province and members of the TNSM where present to sign it.

The questions that have been raised by the signing of this accord are many. As a Pakistani woman, foremost in my mind are the following concerns: In a so-called democratic polity, how is it possible to engage in a completely undemocratic process engendered by a jirga (assembly of elders) that excludes half the population of any community?

--
Read on at Hindustan Times

An interesting comparison countering some Afghanistan myths

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:02:22 -0800

... although I disagree with the recommended withdrawal.

The Guardian - February 14

"NATO is deeper in its Afghan mire than Russia ever was"
By Jonathan Steele

Twenty years ago tomorrow the last Soviet units left Afghanistan after a nine-year intervention that took 15,000 soldiers' lives. As they crossed the river Oxus I was in the air above them, the only foreign journalist to fly to Kabul that day.

Russian friends in Moscow, where I was this newspaper's correspondent, doubted my sanity, convinced a bloodbath was bound to follow the Soviet exodus. I disagreed. The secular regime under Mohammed Najibullah that the Kremlin left behind had a firmer base than many outsiders realised, thanks in part to support from Kabulis who feared chaos and blood-letting if the mujahideen won the civil war.

Two decades later the ironies of America's war in Afghanistan are telling.

--
Read on at The Guardian

The kind of multilateralism Afghanistan will force Obama to adopt

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:17:48 -0800

Foreign Policy in Focus - Washington, February 13

"Multilateralism in Munich"
By Hannes Artens

Team Obama's debut on the world stage at last weekend's security conference in Munich was highly anticipated. With his pledge for a "new era of cooperation," Vice President Joe Biden struck the right note for a European audience still haunted by the Bush administration's "with us or against us" approach. But once the memory of Bush fades, Europeans will realize the price of Barack Obama's multilateralism. Like the U.S. president, they'll be forced to define what kind of multilateralism they want and what they're willing to sacrifice for it. More than any other issue, Afghanistan will produce this moment of truth sooner than might be expected, while determining NATO's relations with Iran to a greater extent than expected.

On the surface, Biden's rejection of "rigid ideologies" and his claim that the United States "is sincere in seeking [its allies'] advice" and counsel, was balm for the European soul. Many in the audience remember the performances of John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld in Munich six years ago when, on the eve of the Iraq War, they accused Germany of "calculated self-interest" and lambasted its "vacuous posturing."

Below the surface, however, Biden's speech also rang of the past. His pledge to "work in a partnership whenever we can, and alone only when we must," reminds one of Bill Clinton's a la carte multilateralism. But these aren't the golden 1990s, when U.S. power was at its zenith. In this first decade of the 21st century, the capitalist West is facing defeat in Afghanistan and is on the verge of "the worst recession in a hundred years," as British minister Ed Balls put it in perhaps only slight exaggeration. This combination will force the Obama administration to stop cherry-picking issues on which it wants to cooperate and forging ahead on those issues it believes it can still handle alone. Necessity will dictate a more pragmatic multilateralism, in which all sides humbly accept what is realistically possible.

--
Read on at Foreign Policy in Focus

Although I disagree with 70%, an interesting take on Israel’s Gaza War

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:58:25 -0800

Ok, instead of you having to go through the whole article, of which 70% is outright, biased nonsense, I frontpage the three paragraphs I wanted to draw your attention to:

National Review Online - New York, February 13

"Bibi's Choice"
By Mario Loyola

... Thus the dilemma facing the Israeli government last November: The public demanded action, but would abide neither the reoccupation of Gaza nor a surrender to Hamas’s demands. This left only one possible policy goal, namely to manage an indefinite conflict by suppressing the rocket fire, which in turn meant deterring Hamas. Hence Tzipi Livni’s explanation of Israeli war aims in the final days of the Gaza operation: We want to show them that Israel “has gone insane.”

The government prepared a series of options, starting with a massive campaign of precision air strikes, followed by a single reinforced division’s invading Gaza with the initial mission of punishing Hamas. If that proved insufficient, another division would be introduced, and then another, in an attempt to discover whether any level of force could bring Hamas to heel. In the end, diminishing returns on the field of battle, a growing mountain of civilian casualties, and Obama’s looming inauguration forced Israel to halt operations and withdraw its forces—under rocket fire.

Predictably, Netanyahu went from supporting the operation to charging that it hadn’t gone far enough. But the startling fact of the Gaza operation is that Hamas had to survive in order for the strategy to work. One prominent Israeli says, tongue in cheek, “The IDF was quite careful not to destroy them inadvertently.” Prof. Dan Sheuftan of Haifa University explains why: For Israel to deter Hamas, Hamas must be left with something to lose. Moreover, since 2006 Hamas has been caught in the vise of a dilemma between governing Gaza and “resisting” Israel. Overthrowing Hamas would in practice free it from the responsibility of governance and allow it to concentrate on terrorism. Right now, the political reality of governance places real constraints on Hamas; even with the flood of “humanitarian assistance” into Gaza, it still has to deliver for its people ...

--
Read what comes before and after that excerpt at National Review Online

Israeli voters propelled country into perfect stalemate

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:18:39 -0800

By Hannes Artens

A perfect stalemate (Source: BBC, as of February 11, 11AM EST)

If there's one politician this week not to be envied it must be Israel's Shimon Peres. After having fought in the War of Independence, having survived uncounted political intrigues, assassination attempts, his nemesis Yitzakh Shamir, and the verbal sallies of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Davos two weeks ago, the president faces his most challenging hours. Voters at yesterday's parliamentary elections have propelled the country into a stalemate, a Gordian knot-like deadlock, at the moment in the country's history when decisive leadership is needed more than ever.

Peres has no more than a week to mandate either the head of Kadima or Likud to enter negotiations to form a coalition government. While in many Western countries the constitution or political customs require the leader of the strongest party to be given the first shot, the Israeli president is free to mandate whoever he thinks most likely to succeed in forming a stable government. Who is Peres going to choose, is he going to act on his beliefs (he's a member of Kadima and made his staunch support for a two-state solution explicit as recent as on election day) or is pragmatism going to force his hand? And what will his decision and the prolonged stalemate mean for the train-wrecked peace process?

Until last week all polls predicted a done deal. Voters had enough of Kadima's corrupt politicians, the lost war in Lebanon, Tzipi Livni's incompetence to form a coalition when she was given the chance to, Ehud Barak's ridiculous posturing, and the offensive in Gaza proved by far not decisive enough to change their minds. It seemed to be the hour, the given comeback of Likud's Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. But then one man, who can pride himself to have exported European far-right, fascistoid and racist extremism in the mode of Austria's FPÖ, Germany's NPD, France's Le Pen, or Belgium's Vlaams Blok to Israel, single-handedly turned things upside down: Avigdor Lieberman (not related, at least not to my knowledge, to "Fighting Joe"). His Yisrael Beiteinu cost Likud enough votes for Kadima to emerge one seat ahead in the future Knesset. The collapse of Barak's Labour, on the other hand, ensured that the conservative/nationalist block, headed by Likud, could count on a solid majority of between 63 and 65 out of 120seats. Consequently, both Tzipi Livni and Binyamin Netanyahu claim victory, and Avigdor Lieberman is given the role of kingmaker.

Needless to say, last night Livni and Netanyahu praised the perks of a grand national coalition, headed by one of them, of course. But let's play that through for a second. Why should Netanyahu, who turned Livni's advances down last year when he was considerably weaker, yield now when he commands a majority in parliament? And why should Kadima, who's one seat ahead, agree to play second role? No, I can't see a grand coalition to emerge from this. The most rationale solution, a rotating coalition, last tried in the 80s between Shimon Peres and Yitzakh Shamir, was rejected out of hand by Likud yesterday night. The conclusion is: whoever succeeds to woe Yisrael Beiteinu, will become Israel's next prime minister, and the disgusting Avigdor Lieberman will gain a powerful portfolio - no matter what.

Lieberman placed his entire campaign almost exclusively on one single issue: "No citizenship without loyalty", insisting on the over 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel, 20% of the population, to sign an oath of loyalty to the Jewish State; those who refuse would be stripped of their citizenship. For the Arab Israeli members of the Knesset, who Lieberman views as collaborators, he demanded Nuremberg-style trials. As with his European populist-nationalist counterparts (American readers should keep in mind that across the Atlantic "populism" is something completely different than stateside) his economic positions are socialist, on religious issues even liberal, such as a stricter separation between church and state, and the promise of civil marriage. As far as the peace process is concerned, he supports a two-state solution, in order to craft two more ethnically homogenous countries, though. Having said that, Yisrael Beiteinu left the coalition with Kadima January last year in protest against talks with the Palestinian National Authority.And still, Tzipi Livni seems willing to give Lieberman another try, while he, like any good poker player, leaves himself all options open.

At home and abroad, Jewish intellectuals meanwhile are bemoaning the annihilation of Labor, the state's founding party, are understandably devastated about the rise of Lieberman, lament about a consumerist, selfish society, in which ethnic minorities are targeted as scapegoats, having replaced the spirit of solidarity that made Israel strong, and in particular are appalled by the inroads Lieberman made among the Israeli youth - "in preelection high school polls, he swept every school that was surveyed," M. J. Rosenberg writes in the LATimes.

And where does yesterday's election leave President Obama's ambitions to give the peace process a new momentum? In dire straits, to be honest. Many on Obama's team know Netanyahu and the troubles he meant for Bill Clinton's initiatives during the mid-90s all too well. The more so as Bibi's positions seem to have hardened over the years; he refuses to even negotiate on the status of Jerusalem and has repeatedly voiced his general skepticism about a two-state solution. There can be no doubt that overall Washington favors to deal with Livni. But if she is too weak to enforce Obama-brokered agreements with the Palestinians in her own cabinet pinning ones hopes on her appears as futile as counting on divine intervention. "This is like hanging a 'closed for the season' sign on any peacemaking for the next year or so," Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator, summed up the situation. Given the deep divide that haunts the Palestinians since the 2006 civil war between Hamas and Fatah, and that paralyzes Israel since yesterday's election we may consider ourselves lucky, if the peace process will be suspended for one year only and not buried altogether.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

Former President Khatami to Challenge Ahmadinejad in June's Election

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:36:26 -0800

By Hannes Artens

The former and future President of Iran? (Photo Source: Wikipedia)

Brian snatched the laurel from me for writing first about this groundbreaking development on our site, so let's give him credit where credit is due. Now it's official what we all have been speculating on for months and what has become almost a certainty over the last weeks: former president and the standard bearer of the reform movement in Iran, Mohammad Khatami announced his candidacy in June's presidential elections. His decision is rather dictated by sense of duty than conviction.

Conviction that he can muster the support to beat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - for despite Khatami's prominence and reputation the race is far from being called - nor that, if he gets elected, he'll be given the freedom to implement the reforms he thinks pivotal for Iran to advance from international pariah to the status of a respected and pragmatic member of the family of nations.

So how is the coming showdown of titans, the personifications of the deep division running through Iranian society, to asses and where does yesterday's development leave the Obama administration, struggling to formulate a comprehensive approach to the Iranian stalemate?

First, let us have a brief look at the genesis of Khatami's second run. Disillusioned from his failure to use public pressure to force the arch-conservative Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini, to accept the need for reforms and liberalization, and to end Iran's international isolation Khatami ended his second term amidst boos of his erstwhile staunchest supporters, the students and youth of Iran's major cities. They never forgave him his hesitation to walk the last mile and openly challenge the system during the violent crackdown of student protests in July 1999, misinterpreting Khatami's nature. The "man with the chocolate robe," as he's affectionately called by his supporters, is no revolutionary, no Che who exchanged the beret with a turban, out to topple the system, but a philosopher king in the Platonic tradition who believes in cautious adjustments and gradual improvements to save the system, of which he is part of and fought for to come about, for a better tomorrow.

Khatami's legacy was restored by what came after him, much like Al Gore being forgiven all his occasional missteps in the light of the Bush presidency. If the student and reform movement was shocked by the brutality of the regime in the summer of '99, they had no idea what was in store for them, how thoroughly Iranian civil society was to be restricted, and civil liberties curtailed during the Ahmadinejad years (for those of you interested in this sea change, I recommend Azadeh Moaveni's vivid account, Honeymoon in Tehran, that moves anybody who came to know the spirit of optimism of the early Khatami years to tears).

And yet, despite his almost supernatural status as the rehabilitated standard bearer of the reform movement, Khatami hesitated to challenge Ahmadinejad. Reportedly, he favored his former adviser and like minded spirit, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, to lead the reform camp, and only decided to step in himself after Moussavi declined. I believe what brought about Khatami's change of mind in the end, was the historic election of Barack Obama and the need, crucial for the survival of Iran, to accept the hand reached out to them by the new American president. Khatami acknowledges that back in 2001/03, when Iran declared its solidarity with the US in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, supported America's invasion of Afghanistan, approached the White House with a once-in-a-lifetime offer to unilaterally abandon its nuclear project, and was rewarded for these conciliatory gestures with being put on the "axis of evil" list, the recipient was wrong, not the message. Now, when his country faces the choice between war and survival, he puts all his political capital at risk to give it a second try. Or as a former minister of the Khatami cabinet puts it, "the one thing he doesn't want to happen is for people to blame him later that he didn't offer himself when he was called upon and needed most."

Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a close aide of Mohammad Khatami reveled, "if the voter participation is high, we can easily win the election." Although he seems aware of the reform camp's biggest challenge - persuading voters to forget Khatami's failure to push through a liberalization of society - any such hopes are premature. The three-tier race between Ahmadinejad, Khatami, and the conservative candidate - at present either Ali Larijani or Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf seem most likely - is widely open. It all will come down to how much the bazaaris will blame Ahmadinejad's politics for the strangling recession and to what extent he can mobilize the rural masses, he has bestowed the horn of plenty on, to support him. But even then, here's one golden rule of thumb: no candidate, the Supreme Leader has not given his tacit approval, wins an election in Iran. The means at Ayatollah Khameini's disposal to thwart the reformist challenge are legion, a lesson they had to learn the hard way as recent as in the elections for the Majlis last year. Only, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, if the Supreme Leader comes to the conclusion that a second term for Ahmadinejad is not in the system's best interest, Khatami has a chance to win.

And America? Well, the very day Khatami announced his candidacy and the week the Islamic Republic celebrates its 30th anniversary, the paragon of the neocons, the Mussolini-adorer and Iran-Contra veteran, Michael Ledeen, had that much to say in the Wall Street Journal:

Any serious person looking at Iran today, however, would be more likely to conclude that their doom, not their triumph, is right around the corner ... A free Iran must be the objective. There is abundant evidence that the overwhelming majority of Iranians want to be part of the Western world and live in peace with their neighbors. If Iran were free and democratic, we would not lose sleep over uranium enrichment at Natanz. We must be the people's voice. We can offer more hope than Mr. Ahmadinejad's broadcasts from outer space [in reference to the telecommunications satellite Iran launched last week]."

Fortunately, his is a minority opinion. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is struggling for three months on whether to respond to a letter Ahmadinejad sent in November, congratulating Obama for his victory at the polls, and over who will become the president's envoy for Iran (Dennis Ross looks more likely by the day). Admittedly, the decision on how to reach out to Iran and offer them an all-encompassing dialogue without appearing to intervene in its presidential election, or worse, to strengthen Ahmadinejad as the man who tamed the "Great Satan", is a tricky one. Here subtle signals to the Supreme Leader are what this moment demands. A groundbreaking decision last week by the US Treasury to brand PJAK, the PKK offspring George Bush used as a proxy to fight Iran, a terrorist organization, is a formidable example of how to do it. Michael Ledeen's "We must be the people's voice"-verbal flatulence, then again, is the best way to ensure a Khatami defeat. But perhaps this is exactly what he is working on.

--
Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.