March 29, 2008 4:07

Arab Disunity in Damascus

So I'm probably one of the first western journalists to live blog from an Arab Summit. The experience would be a lot more exciting if I was actually at the Arab Summit, and not in a smoke-filled holding pen for journalists about 3k away from the actual conference with no food, minimal water, and even less coffee. At least I was able to join the photo pool that was bussed into a hotel outside Damascus (where the event is being held) for a two-minute relay-race snapping pictures of Arab leaders. Say what you want about these guys, but at least they know how to dress.

Other than red-carpet style fashion commentary, there really isn't much to do at an Arab Summit. They are notoriously long on hot air and short on action. Please let me know if any of you can think of some major accomplishment that came from an Arab Summit. I'm having trouble myself.

That's not to say these gatherings are unimportant. They are like high school reunions, where attendees feign indifference even though they spent three months beforehand getting in shape and getting makeovers.

This year's host, Syria, has made a particular effort to look like it has moved up in the world. Cleaning crews gave the city one of the most thorough going overs its had since the Mongols sacked it in the 15th century. The government built a score of villas along the airport road to house princelings from the Gulf states, banned commercial flights, booked every four- and five-star hotel in town, and recalled all government-owned luxury cars for use by official delegations

There's more than just traditional Arab hospitality at work here. Syria is determined to break out of the international isolation and quasi-pariah status imposed upon it by the Bush administration and western countries that consider Syria to be a state sponsor of terrorism. The Syrian regime of President Bashar al Assad believes that it is the key to solving the major problems in the Middle East -- the Arab-Israeli conflict, the civil war in Iraq, and the political crisis in Lebanon. Critics say that Syria is helping cause many of those problems.

But it is Syria's role in Lebanon that is causing the most controversy among its Arab brethren. Some of them accuse Syria of mounting a campaign to bring down the American-supoprted Lebanese government with a string of attacks that have killed Lebanese politicians and journalists in order to regain control of its smaller neighbor. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, America's main allies in the region, refused to send high-level delegations to this year's summit, and Lebanon -- which still has no president thanks to the political crisis between the government and the Syrian-backed opposition -- sent no one at all.

Arab families normally keep their personal problems private, so such an open display of squabbling bodes ill for the future of the region: in the Middle East public disputes rarely remain polite. The split at the summit reflects the larger regional face-off between Israel, America and its Arab allies on the one hand and Syria, Iran and their militant proxies (Hamas and Hizbalalh) on the other. One fear is that some kind of war will break out now that the summit is out of the way. (Watch out for how Hizballah responds to the assassination last month of its operations chief Imad Mugniyah.) Another is that the Lebanese government will pay a price for spurning Syria's advances. It's been weeks since the last attack. Expect another soon.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Damascus

March 28, 2008 6:43

Mission Impossible?

I had a short interview today with Ashraf Rifi, the general director of Lebanon's Internal Security Forces, whose Beirut headquarters are now a miniature fortress surrounded by concrete blast walls. The fact that his own officers have themselves been targeted in an ongoing and unsolved series of politically-motivated assassinations isn't the only problem General Rifi faces; among others he's trying to seal the country's border to prevent Lebanon from becoming a jihaddi safe haven and regional weapons dump, prepare for a possible resumption of hostilities with Israel, and deal with an ongoing campaign by the Hizballah-led opposition to bring down the government through mass demonstrations.

As I left the maze of checkpoints and armored sport utility vehicles, a middle-aged woman in a leopard print suit was lodging a complaint through the bullet-proof window of the front sentry-box. "I want to see whomever is in charge," she said. "Someone has stolen my Facebook and e-mail, and I don't know how but I want them back."

I'm off to Damascus tonight for the Arab Summit. See you all there.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

March 27, 2008 9:37

Training Day in Ain al Hilwe

Photos by ALB

Just got back from a long day in Ain al Hilwe, the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, where among other things, I visited a training center for young fighters run by Fatah.

The camp trains some 200 children (boys and a few girls ages 6 to 18) about a dozen of whom live in the barracks full time, several having dropped out of school. Here they learn to use firearms, practice hand-to-hand combat, and are taught Palestinian nationalist ideology. In these photos, blindfolded young fighters disassemble and re-assmble assault rifles (above), and make presentations about the specifications and capabilities of various common weapons, including rocket propelled grenades (below).

The mainstream Palestinian political parties in in Lebanese camps are more militant than their counterparts in Israel and the occupied territories, in part because they represent refugees. Since most Palestinians in Lebanon are descendants of those who fled during the 1948 war that led to the creation of Israel, they are particularly concerned that their right to return to their lands and homes will be negotiated away or watered down in a peace settlement.

Others just want to live anywhere but in a Lebanese refugee camp.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Ain al Hilwe

March 25, 2008 4:07

So You Wanna Be a Hizballah Fighter?

Hizballah's state-within-the-Lebanese-state -- its hospitals, schools, banking system and even its consumer goods stores -- is a closed society that's off-limits to outsiders. But no part of the structure is more closed and more secret than the military wing, access to which is extremely limited for an American journalist such as myself. But my assistant, Rami Aysha, grew up in Haret Hrek, the mostly Shia Muslim suburb of Beirut that is Hizballah's main stronghold in Lebanon, and at my request, he spoke to a few Hizballah fighters in his neighborhood, some of them former school chums, about the process by which they became members of the formidable anti-Israeli militia.

The two phases in the development of a Hizballah fighter are like Boy Scouts and Boot Camp. During the first phase, Hizballah recruiters keep an eye out for young Shia Muslim students in both Hizballah-run schools and the national school system. They look for energetic kids, violent kids, and smart kids, from the age of seven into the late teens, and begin taking them on field trips and workshops where they are given a through ideological indoctrination, and then as they get older, a brief introduction to the AK-47 assault rifle.

Two important themes stick out: from the beginning, the training stresses the path to martyrdom, which is achieved through honesty, prayer, and combat. And from the start, Hizballah organizes its child recruits into the basic cellular structure of the organization. Each is assigned to a cell of about five kids, with each cell having its own kid commander, and their own missions: usually games and exercises like treasure hunts. This stage ideological training can last for years, or it can be done in as little as 9 months, depending on the zeal of the recruits and how much free time they have from school.

Hizballah trainers constantly separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who pass all the ideological training tests, move on to learn the basics of warfare: weapons training and outdoor maneuvers for a total of at least 9 months, much of it in the Bekaa valley. All along the way, the trainers are on the lookout for those with special abilities. The lazy ones -- with the ability to sit for hours on end without getting bored -- are chosen as lookouts to watch Israeli troop movements; the brave ones are chosen for attacks, the smart ones are chosen for intelligence and security; and the smart and unpredictable ones -- the guys who don't look or act or behave at all like fighters -- get chosen for what is called reverse security, or counterintelligence.

When they graduate from military training, the new fighters are broken up and sent off to join cells out in the field or overseas alongside veterans. Of all the fighters, about one in ten is chose to be a commander, and goes to Iran for a few months of special training. The number of Hizballah fighters is a secret, but in a recent speech, the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, hinted that there are tens of thousands of them.

Though men make up the majority of Hizballah's frontline fighters, there are plenty of female fighters as well, mostly reservists. And even if don't carry weapons themselves, women are the ticking time bomb of Hizballah. They vote, and (especially if they are married to another member of the Resistance thanks to a Hizballah mating service) they'll give birth to the next generation of fighters.

--Andrew Lee Butters with reporting by Rami Aysha/Beirut

March 21, 2008 9:00

A Bogus Baghdad on the Atlantic

Long ago, I shared a house near Morocco’s capital, Rabat, with a French geologist named Olivier. From his expeditions, Olivier brought back desert roses, crystal geodes and a Parisian girlfriend who paraded around the swimming pool in a bikini bottom and high heels. “To protect from zee scorpions,” she’d say. The house was near cliffs devoured by Atlantic storms, next to the grave of a Muslim holy man, Sidi Moussa.

I was recently back in Morocco and asked a local if she’d heard of Sidi Moussa. “Yes, of course. Only now we call it Mogadishu,” she replied. “The movie ‘Blackhawk Down’ was shot there.” Slums had engulfed the house, and no longer was there any French redhead in stilettos. Like I said, that was years ago.

It was Ridley Scott who directed ‘Blackhawk Down’, and he was back again. This time he was turning my old neighborhood into Baghdad. The arrival of his movie crew was quite an event in Rabat; my friend Rick was hired as an extra to play ‘Man in a Bar’, a job for which he says he was perfectly suited. There were posters of Saddam, American soldiers jumping from Humvees with their make-believe guns. It was quite surreal, but having being in Baghdad, I have to say, my old neighborhood looked the part.

Many Hollywood movies, from Crusader epics to noirish spy thrillers, have colored the west’s impressions of Islamic culture. Nearly all were actually shot in Morocco, pretending to be someplace else. Morocco is, after all, way out in the far west of North Africa. Morocco was even a stand-in, a clumsy one, for parts of ‘Charlie Wilson’s War”, set in Pakistan. But Morocco has so little to do with the Middle East --Gaza’s grittiness or Cairo’s chaotic grandeur-- these films could easily have been shot on a back lot in Burbank. The reason why Alejandro Inarritu’s ‘Babel’ was so realistic: for once, Morocco played itself.

But Hollywood and Morocco were made for each other: they both value illusion and storytelling above substance. For centuries, Morocco has been a fantasy destination for artists –-Matisse loved Tangier, as did the late great writer Paul Bowles—and it was only a matter of time before Hollywood caught on to the kingdom’s weird tolerance for the fantasies of others. One diplomat in Rabat told me: “In Morocco, symbols, sometimes count for more than reality.” We were talking about how Moroccans, many of them, anyway, can hold in their minds the conflicting image of the modern, jet-skiing monarch King Mohammed VI as also being a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed and thus imbued with special, almost divine, powers.

I was glad to see that the king exhibited this tolerance in a way that his grim and suspicious father King Hassan II never would have. On March 18th, the current monarch pardoned one of his hapless Moroccan subjects who was clapped in jail last month for having masqueraded, as a joke, on Facebook as the king’s own brother. After all, the guy was only pretending to be something he wasn’t, like Sidi Moussa turning into Mogadishu or Baghdad.
---by Tim McGirk/Rabat

March 21, 2008 6:30

Happy Nowruz!

Here's a YouTube clip of Googoosh singing "Makhloogh", a Persian love song, on the occasion of the Iranian New Year today. (Thanks to Bahram9821)

TIME caught up with the legendary Iranian singer and ex-film star, who is still very popular with Iranians inside and outside Iran, a few Nowruzs ago. Read the story and the Q&A.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 21, 2008 4:20

Iraq War at 5

What is there to say on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war? It's been a mess ever since the U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad and the place collapsed in chaos and looting.

Apart from his sons and daughters, some cronies, Iraqi Sunni beneficiaries, die-hard Arab nationalists and some desperate Palestinians, nobody would ever have cried over the demise of Saddam Hussein. That was never the issue, but rather whether a war to overthrow Saddam would make Iraq and the Middle East better, or worse.

We can roughly count the human and material costs. In addition to more than 4,000 U.S. and allied troop deaths, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. The situation on the ground is so chaotic, in fact, that the estimates range wildly, from more than 30,000 (Bush in 2005) to more than 655,000 (a Lancet study in 2006). I think the British group Iraq Body Count probably has the most realistic figure, some 80,000 to 90,000 as of today. Let's not forget there are about 4 million Iraqi refugees, including perhaps 2 million who fled outside Iraq's borders. There is also the incalculable human cost of the damage to Iraq's social fabric that the deaths and population movements imply. Of course, Saddam did a pretty good job of harming Iraqi society himself, but the invasion was supposed to make things better.

I'm not sure if anyone has reliably estimated--or could even do so-- the amount of material damage done to Iraq itself, in terms of destroyed infrastructure, unrealized oil wealth, etc. But the price paid by the American taxpayer alone is staggering--roughly $600 billion, perhaps $4 trillion before its all over. That's compared to the $50-60 million the Bush administration had indicated at the outset of the war, by the way. Economists could also take a stab at figuring out the impact of the war and related Middle East tensions on the skyrocketing price of oil, which is destabilizing the global economy. The current record highs of $100-plus a barrel are about four times the pre-invasion price.

Will all of this have been worth the dear price, if the war prevented another 9/11 and if we accept that democratic transformation in Iraq and the wider Middle East is a long term process for which the Iraq invasion was a necessary catalyst?

The U.S. government's own evidence now, of course, shows that Saddam did not pose the apocalyptic terrorist threat that the Bush administration claimed as the principal justification for the invasion. The Iraq Survey Group's October 2004 study for the CIA said that the Iraqi regime did not possess chemical and biological weapons and had only ambitions for a nuclear program. Another study for the Pentagon released two weeks ago found that there was no link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.

Five years on, I don't see any chance that Iraq will become a functioning democracy in any meaningful sense of the term in my lifetime. Whether the suicide-bombing toll goes down a little or back up a little, the country is badly fractured along ethnic and regional fault lines. That's a reality that will be endlessly manipulated and exploited by more powerful neighbors and outside parties. Five years later, Iraqis are living with well over 100,000 U.S. troops still all over their soil, invading Turkish troops now helping themselves in the north, and with Iranians who are busy using political, religious and intelligence operatives to draw Iraqi Shiites into Iran's web of influence. Iraq's problem is not unlike that of Lebanon; though the Lebanese state nominally never ceased to function, Lebanese factions plunged the country into a civil war in 1975 and one way or the other the Lebanese are still trying to sort out the shambles. Even today, 33 years after the 1975 descent into conflict, tensions are so high that many Lebanese are expecting a new civil war to start any time. Will Iraqi factions still be fighting it out 33 years from now? On the basis of where things stand now, you can't rule it out.

Nor is there any evidence that the Iraq war has been a catalyst for democratic change throughout the Middle East. The Bush administration's pro-democracy drive was a contributing factor yet hardly a decisive factor in the emergence of freedom activists in the years after 9/11. In any case, the administration itself lacked the courage of its convictions to do more than it did; it has already largely forgotten the democrats and retreated back into the friendly embrace of its Arab authoritarian allies. If anything, the Iraq war and the administration's mixed messages have helped make democracy a dirty word--made in U.S.A.-- for many Middle Easterners. There are many things that the world can do to help foster better systems of government as well as peace and prosperity in the Middle East, but invading Iraq is probably not turning out to have been one of them.

I'll leave you with the thoughts, for and against, then and now, of two Americans who have been immersed in this issue:

President Bush, who explains his move to invade Iraq in 2003 and defended his decision in a speech this week;

John Brady Kiesling, a career U.S. diplomat who quit the State Department to protest the war, who explained his reasoning in a resignation letter in 2003 and sticks by his views in a new Op-Ed with two other colleagues.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 21, 2008 7:16

Easter Weekend

/

Last night, the streets of Beirut were filled with Christians walking church to church, visiting seven of them as a ritual for Maudy Thursday.

I'm away for the weekend to meet my parents in Rome. Happy Easter!

--Andrew/Beirut

March 19, 2008 4:10

Qalibaf: Iran's Next President?

Nahid Siamdoust, who's been covering the Majlis elections for us, has an informative interview on time.com today with Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf. Depending on the fluctuations of Iranian politics, he could conceivably be Iran's next president.

In the interview with Nahid, Qalibaf, considered a pragmatic conservative, expresses views as well as a tone that are markedly different from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Qalibaf talks about his belief in a centrist Third Wave that will direct Iranian policies in the new parliament.

Check out the full interview, but here's a taste:

On the ideal Iran:

Neither Islam nor the revolution gives us the right to interfere in people's private lives.

On realism:

I was a commander in the war, and we were constantly making decisions in situations of crises. This has affected very much our self-confidence, how our character and attitudes have been shaped, but also our management style, our attention to reason. You can't be irrational in war.

On the economy:

Our economy is public and must be privatized. A bill's been signed and we're in that process, but it's much too slow, and the government is investing massively in business at the same time that it's supposed to privatize its shares of the economy. We need more reason and far-sightedness on the economy, not just looking at our own tenure but beyond that. Otherwise I think the rise in oil prices was a golden opportunity that the government not only didn't take advantage of, but even turned it into a threat to domestic production because of the high volume of imports that the government pursued with the oil money.

On the nuclear dispute and U.N. sanctions:

Our negative relations with the West have an impact on our economy, we can't deny that. Our relations have led to what we see today, which is a third round of sanctions. But this does not mean that because of these problems we will withdraw our claim to our rights. I think the world must accept that the issue of nuclear energy is a technical and legal issue; it is not a political and security issue. However, it is clear that we could have used better means of conveying this to the West and the rest of the world. It is clear that the U.S. doesn't want the progress of this country because that wouldn't fit in with its interests in the region. But we must do our best with the help of the [International Atomic Energy] agency, the E.U. and other international bodies to resolve this issue, and abstain from unnecessary rhetoric. We need to proceed with reason and with a more suitable rhetoric.

On Iraq, the Middle East and America:

Iraq... is under American occupation, not our occupation. The Americans organized elections there and a government arose out of those elections. Since then we have accepted that government and helped it. Iraq is our neighbor... I think in fact that Iran and the U.S. have many common interests in the region; our position in the region should not be one of opposition, but friendly competition with other powers... As the Leader[Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] pointed out as well, no one said that there will be conflict between us forever. Not at all. It is not reasonable politics to say we don't ever want relations... . A revolution has happened here and people have chosen a different path, and already, 30 years have passed. The West must believe this path and come talk to us. If the West changes its mind on this, many opportunities will open for both of us.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 17, 2008 9:49

Jazz Therapy

Photo by Pasqual Gorriz

Last night a friend took me to see Dhafer Youssef, an Arab jazz musician, for a concert in downtown Beirut. My hopes weren't high: I not a big jazz fan, and since Lebanon is a small country on the brink of war, I figured that the only people wiling to tour here would be second-tier derivative acts who couldn't make it in Europe. But what I heard on stage was something so singular and so universal, I left feeling that I had just experienced a pure expression of modernity.

Youssef's music is an elegant rebuttal to clash of civilization theorists. He secretly began listening to jazz on the radio while at Koranic school, and now his singing and oud playing combine Spanish, Arab and Berber traditions, stripped down to their essentials and backed by a laptop-wiedling Norwegian jazz ensemble. I couldn't imagine how anyone could pack so much emotion into such haunting solos, and then he held his nose and started a nasal chant that sounded like Nina Simone doing the call to prayer through a high school public address system. Totally strange and instantly beautiful.

I looked through You Tube for a quasi-legal sample of his music, and none quite do it justice. But try and get your hands on his album: Digital Prophecy.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

March 17, 2008 9:03

Israel's Ides of March

You get the feeling after the Yeshiva killings in Jerusalem that something nasty is building, slowly, inexorably. A few of the distressing signs: it's springtime here, and droves of Israeli families are heading north to picnic in the fields of wild flowers near the Sea of Galilee. But often now, when they near an Arab village, youths appear on the hillsides throwing stones. The police say there’s something systematic to this harassment. Arab kids are being paid by militants to stir up trouble. It’s possible, or maybe they’re just angry.

Back in Jerusalem, rightwing Israeli demonstrators tried to stampede into the Arab village on Jebel Mukabar and destroy the home of Alaa Abu Dhaim, the Yeshiva gunman. Shouting ‘Death to Arabs’, the demonstrators got a lot farther than they should have, considering that the police had advance warning: the night before, posters sprang up around Jerusalem exhorting good Jews to “demolish the home of the murderer and expel his family and supporters.”

The rightwing youth dodged the police barricades with remarkable ease and raced into the village, hurling stones. The police caught them, and arrested 22 protesters. It’s not as if Jerusalem police haven’t had experience breaking up riots; they’ve had plenty. They’re world-class. Fear and anger are running high among Israelis and Arabs, and the Israeli police are the thin blue line between them. No matter how angry Israeli cops may be over the yeshiva killings, their impartiality is all that prevents an outbreak of far worse violence in these days when the prospect of peace grows ever dimmer.

By Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

March 17, 2008 5:06

Cheney in Arabia: Victory Lap, or Salvage Operation?

Dick Cheney arrived in the Middle East today, starting with an unannounced stop in Baghdad. With 10 months left in office, what is one of the chief architects of recent U.S. Middle East policy up to now? Is this the VP's idea of a victory lap, quaintly commencing in Iraq on the fifth anniversary of the invasion? Or something more substantive? A senior U.S. official briefing reporters said: "It's going to be a really interesting trip." When people in the Middle East hear lines like that out of Cheney's office, they tend to start reviewing their evacuation contingencies.

Cheney stood on the deck of a U.S. warship on a 2002 trip to the Middle East and threatened Saddam Hussein with the war the U.S. did launch a year later, in 2003. Last May, Cheney was back, standing on the deck of the same warship, threatening Iran:

"With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike. We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region."

But it's looking less likely that Cheney's military option will see the light of day before the Bush administration leaves office next January. I don't see Admiral Fallon's sudden departure/removal as commander of U.S. forces in the Gulf as a sign of an impending attack on Iran, as many are now speculating. I agree with Defense Secretary Gates, who called the link "ridiculous." Bush's own anti-Iran swing through the Arab world two months ago didn't leave many leaders impressed. Inside his own administration, the diplomacy option seems to be the strong focus. Last month, outgoing U.S. diplomat Nicholas Burns, the State Department's point man on Iran, suggested he did not see an attack coming:

"I don't think conflict with Iran is inevitable. There is plenty of space for diplomacy. I think the issue plays out well beyond 2009."

Cheney's announced 9-day itinerary includes "Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank and Turkey." Cheney's unnamed official as much said that the trip to Oman is to big pat on the back of Sultan Qaboos for being such a faithful, headline-shunning ally.

What the Cheney briefer told journalists about the rest of the trip makes it look like less a victory lap than a salvage operation--that is, to salvage the wreckage of the Bush administration's decision to change the region at the barrel of a gun instead of through diplomacy. No wonder Cheney's heart doesn't seem to be quite in it.

Judging from the anonymous briefer's comments, Cheney will talk to King Abdullah bin Abdulzaziz al-Saud about Iraq and oil--presumably asking for the Saudi's help in increasing U.S. success in Iraq and decreasing the price of petroleum. Well, the Saudis warned Cheney and his boss against invading Iraq precisely to avoid the mess the country and the world are in right now. Political fragmentation and civil war in Iraq. Fueling Islamic extremism and terrorism everywhere. Destabilizing the entire region.

It's also worth remembering another cost of Bush-Cheney's approach is the runaway oil price. Before the 2003 invasion the price fluctuated between $20-30 a barrel for quite a while. On Friday before Cheney left Washington, it hit another all-time high of $111 a barrel. This is not to say that the U.S. is responsible for all the tensions/problems in the Middle East, far from it. Yet, there's no doubt that the U.S. invasions and continued saber-rattling, and Washington's encouragement of Israel's military operations and unilateral actions, have stirred up the pot very, very considerably--and oil prices have skyrocketed as a result of all the uncertainty in the world's most important oil-producing region.

Then Cheney will move on to talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Cheney has exhibited scant interest in the Annapolis peace process belatedly initiated by Condi Rice in the twilight years of the Bush presidency. Cheney's briefer suggests that no special extra pressure will be forthcoming from the VP on Israel--the party that maintains the overwhelming military advantage and which occupies the land Palestinians seek for an independent state-- to abide by its confidence-building commitments under the Road Map, such as freezing Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territory. "At the end of the day, they're the ones [i.e, not Bush or Cheney] who are going to have to have the will to get this done," the briefer said.

From there it's on to Turkey, which has angered some inside the Bush administration for invading northern Iraq in search of PKK guerrillas. Funny, the Turkish government warned the Bush administration not to invade Iraq precisely because it feared that the Kurdish region of northern Iraq would become a safe haven for PKK fighters staging terrorist attacks on Turkish territory.

The briefer made it clear that everywhere Cheney went he would want to discuss with Middle East leaders the threat posed by Iran. It's funny how the Bush administration's game of pick-up-sticks in Iraq did leave the Iranian regime in such a better strategic position in the region--including in Iraq itself. A few weeks ago, somebody did run a victory lap during a colorful and historic state visit to Iraq. Oh yeah, that was Ahmadinejad, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

-By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 16, 2008 12:55

Iran: Voter Turnout Slump Continues

The election returns from Iran are favoring conservatives over reformists, but as expected, conservative pragmatists opposed to hard-line President Ahmadinejad seem to be making important inroads toward influence in the next Iranian parliament.

Perhaps the more immediate result of the balloting on Friday is the possible slump in voter turnout. The Iranian regime regards high turnouts as proof of the Islamic Republic's power and legitimacy. But despite a very aggressive voter turnout effort led by Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei himself, the result may not be very impressive. The turnout trend has been downward since the regime's hardline supervisory bodies, like the Guardian Council, began disqualifying large numbers of reformist candidates in the 2004 majlis election.

According to the Iranian news service IRNA tonight, quoting Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, 22.8 million Iranians voted in the election. As in the past, when various factions cried tampering with the figures, there seems to be some disagreement about what percentage of the overall vote that constitutes. Pour-Mohammadi said 60%, others says 65%.

The number of voters dropped since the 2004 parliamentary election, when a reported 23.7 million Iranians cast their ballots. That's about 1 million fewer voters this year.

The 2004 figure represented a dramatic decline from the 2000 parliament election, due to the fact that the public became disillusioned by all the candidate disqualifications. In the 2000 election, by contrast, which was swept by reformists, 26.8 million Iranians voted.

That was in line with the enthusiastic turnouts for reformist President Mohammed Khatami's election landslides in 1997 and 2001, when 28.1 million and 29 million Iranians reportedly participated at the polls. Khatami received 20.7 million and 21.6 million votes, respectively.

In the 2005 presidential election won by Ahmadinejad, the turnout was again high, at 29 million. But his draw was anemic compared to Khatami's performances in past elections. Ahmadinejad polled 5.7 million votes in the first round, and in the second round required because there was no constitutional winner in the first round, he polled 17.2 million in a two-man race.

The message of the Iranian electorate seems to be that without more competitive elections in which reformists are permitted to fully participate, apathy is in danger of becoming a trend. That, in turn, will be bad news for a regime that holds up voter participation as proof of unequivocal support for the Islamic system of government.

-By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 14, 2008 8:11

The Ruins of Nahr al-Bared

Nahr al-Bared/ Photos by ALB

Nahr al-Bared was once one of the most pleasant Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, located where a cold mountains stream meets the sea, and surrounded by orange orchards and banana plantations. It was also one of the largest marketplaces in north Lebanon, thanks to a brisk business in maritime smuggling.

Now it is a miniature Stalingrad on the Mediterranean. The uprising last summer by an insurgent jihadist group -- Fatah al Islam -- reduced Nahr al-Bared to rubble and made its 31,000 residents homeless. The incident was an warning of how, sixty years after the founding of Israel, the unsolved Palestinian issue still has the potential to wreak havoc in the region.

Though most Fatah al Islam members were foreign Arabs not Palestinians, the fractured politics and the lack of security in Palestinian camps (which lie outside the authority of the Lebanese state) make them excellent incubators for extremists groups. Inside the concrete jungle of a Nahr al-Bared (the perfect urban warfare environment) perhaps 300 well-armed jihadiis of Fatah al Islam almost proved a match for the inexperienced and poorly-equipped Lebanese army, which eventually bombarded the group -- and the camp -- into submission.

Mohammed Ali Hamid, a camp resident, shows shrapnel wounds from a Lebanese army rocket /

But the extent of the destruction at Nahr al-Bared is also evidence of the emnity that still exists between Lebanese and Palestinians. On a recent visit to the camp, almost all the buildings showed signs of systematic looting and burning, which the residents of the camp blame on the Lebanese army. Indeed, Palestinians accuse the Lebanese army of taking revenge against Palestinian civilians for the 160 Lebanese soldiers who died in the battle. "The war with Israel was much easier than this," said Mohammed Ali Hamid, a 76 year-old veteran from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, whose home in Nahr al-Bared was hit by some twenty rockets and artillery shells last summer. "At least, the Israeli jets just went after military zones." All of this has historical echos of the civil war era (1975 to 1990), when Palestinian militants turned Lebanon into a base for attacks against Israel, and sparked 15 years of internal conflict.

Meanwhile, the children of Nahr al-Bared, inheritors of the trauma of '48, have acquired new traumas of their own. The children at one kindergarten act out the searing memories of being refugees from a refugee camp. They shout at each other "Where is you ID?" and "You don't have permission!" and form little checkpoints in the playground. In class, they draw pictures of burned houses, dead bodies, and Lebanese soldiers locked up in jail. Their teachers suspect that they punch and kick each other because they are being punched and kicked at home by parents on the brink of collapse themselves. "The fingerprints of the army are everywhere in the lives of the kids in the camp," said Josephine Rabih, a teacher and resident.

/

During the battle last summer, more than one Nahr al-Bared resident told me that the bombardment of the camp was part of a secret plan to clear the space for an American air force base. However, the Lebanese government has publicly committed itself to rebuilding Nahr al-Bared. But you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder how that's going to be accomplished.

The Lebanese government is already struggling under one of the world's largest per capita public debts (about $60 billion in a country of four million people) spent on reconstruction after the civil war and the war with Israel in 2006. Now the Lebanese and the UN have asked for an additional $300 million in aid for the reconstruction of Nahr al Bared. But the Lebanese political system lacks transparency and has a reputation for corruption that has helped fuel an internal political crisis. And in the advent of another war with Israel, or civil strife in Lebanon, the Palestinians of Nahr al Bared could easily be forgotten again.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

March 14, 2008 6:49

An Iranian "Third Way"?

Millions of Iranians are out at the polls today, selecting a new parliament. It'll take awhile before the results are in and trends can be conclusively discerned. But I think it's likely that the outcome will somehow lead to a Third Way in Iranian politics.

The last decade has been dominated by nasty battles between Iran's populist reformist movement and entrenched hard-line forces at the core of the Iranian regime. Neither of these sides has been able to achieve very much, and Iranians are getting fed up with both of them.

President Mohammed Khatami's election in 1997 ushered the reformist movement into power. But his eight years in office left the reformist camp deeply disillusioned, partly because hard-liners successfully blocked most of Khatami's initiatives, and because reformists themselves became upset that Khatami and his allies didn't fight harder for their principles. Khatami's answer to that was that the hard-liners were too powerful and dangerous, and that pushing any harder risked plunging the country into a civil war of sorts.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election in 2005 was a turning of the tide in favor of Iranian hard-liners, ideologues who advocate a militant, nationalist foreign policy and intervention by the state in economic decisions to benefit the poor, religious classes of Iranian society--i.e., the bedrock of the regime's support. Ahmadinejad's policies haven't worked very well, either. His militant foreign policy has dangerously isolated Iran from the West, bringing economic sanctions and choking off badly needed foreign investment and partnership. His egalitarian domestic policies have driven up unemployment as well as inflation.

A serious problem with this political stalemate is that it is turning off Iranian citizens. Hard-liners don't have vast popular support in Iran. Reformists have huge potential support, especially among the young. Yet, as long as hard-line bodies rig the elections by keeping reformist candidates off the ballot, this support stays at home on election day. Over time, that apathy will become the biggest threat to the future of the Islamic regime.

Iran's traditional conservatives therefore may be the biggest winners in today's election. They are certain to win a substantial number of seats in the new parliament, and could therefore become the most important opposition to Ahmadinejad's policies. If they succeed, one of their own may then emerge as an effective challenger to Ahmadinejad in the 2009 presidential elections.

That scenario could see an important turnaround in Iran's foreign policy, at a time when a new American president is getting settled in at the White House. Iran's traditional conservatives are pragmatic rather than strictly ideological in their outlook. Make no mistake: they are strong believers in the Islamic system, and they don't have much time for the democratic transformation of Iran that many reformists seek. But they seek a strong, vibrant Iran that is a leader in the world, and believe that one way to achieve that is through international cooperation and pragmatic policies. They would be more flexible about accommodating international concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and more amenable to addressing U.S. strategic interests.

The next leader of Iran--perhaps Ali Larijani or Hassan Rowhani, both of whom are former nuclear negotiators, or Tehran Mayor Mohammed Qalibaf-- may well be somebody who the next President of the U.S. "could do business with," to borrow Thatcher's '80s phrase about Gorbachev. That could be one of the eventual results of today's election. That's all very hypothetical, of course, but worth keeping an eye on.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 13, 2008 7:44

Saudi Women: Which Way Out?

The Arab News in Jeddah has some interesting stories about the tragedies and semi triumphs of Saudi women.

Correspondent Molouk Ba-Isa has some pieces on a conference of 200 Saudi businesswomen and academics, called "The Saudi Woman Between Economics and Social Reality." One of them highlighted how some women in the royal family are pressing the cause of women's rights, which is good to see. Princess Adelah, for example, said while job opportunities for women were increasing, the Kingdom still ranked last in the world in having women in the workplace, just 5.5% of the female population. Putting women to work would serve the development of Saudi Arabia, she said. But she lamented the fact that besides the unemployment, Saudi women are lagging way behind in investing their money due to the lack of effective investment channels and activities available to the sheltered female half of the country.

Ba-Isa had a related article focusing on the issue of guardianship --the fact that a Saudi woman of any age is legally under the guardianship of her father, husband or some other male relative. That means they need the male guardian's consent in order to go to school, open a business or travel, as Dr. Fawzia al-Bakr, a professor at King Saud University in Riyadh, complained. She denounced the practice as one that stifled the activities of Saudi women in the private sector.

The story quoted a young Saudi woman named Fatima who was blocked from pursuing the major in marketing that she sought. After she was dumped into a literature program at her university, where the professors "cared more about what I was wearing than what I was learning," she dropped out. She refused to give up, however. She won a scholarship to study in the U.S., so that's where she's headed now.

The story of Asma doesn't have a happy ending, at least not yet. Arab News reporter Arjuwan Lakkdawala has a heartbreaking piece about the dilemmas of "married spinsters"--women who are rejected by their husbands, end up staying at home with their parents, life's opportunities closing off around them.

After no one in her tribe or family sought her hand in marriage as is Saudi custom, Asma agreed to marry a man who already had one wife. They went through the formalities but the husband appeared to have second thoughts and tormented Asma with criticism. He refused to stay with her and refused to divorce her, putting her into an indefinite state of marital limbo that effectively makes young childless women social outcasts. Legally, measures can be taken against the husband to compel him to keep his wife or divorce her. But most families are too mortified at the thought of losing face not to mention the dowry that the husband paid for his bride.

Last month, incidentally, Arab News had an amazing story about a business woman named Yara who landed in prison for having coffee with a male colleague. Splashed across six columns at the top of the front page, the story included the headline, "From Starbucks to Malaz Prison."

If you haven't guessed, it was another case of the Saudi morals police cracking down on women for what is deemed illegal behavior in the ultra conservative Kingdom. Yara, a 40-year-old, wife of 27 years and mother of three, who is a partner in a Jeddah company, went to Riyadh to inspect a new branch office. When the power went out, she and the colleague went down to a Starbucks cafe in the lobby to chat about such things as brand equity and sovereign wealth funds. Soon a squad from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice pounced, discovering that the two were not related. She was initially denied the right to call her husband, was strip searched and forced to sign a confession. "I was scared for my life," she told the paper in a tearful interview after she was freed. "I was afraid that they would abuse me or do something to me." Also interviewed by the Arab News was her husband Hatim, who commented, "I look at this as if she had been kidnapped by thugs."

The Arab News has some excellent women journalists and publishes quite a lot on Islamic women's issues, so I recommend bookmarking the paper at http://www.arabnews.com if you're interested in this topic.

Hey, Saudi women: We'd dearly love to hear more from you in the comments!

--by Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 12, 2008 3:22

Bush's Crusade Continues

For a good, up-to-date explication of what President Bush sees as a Christian-driven mission to spread freedom to the Muslim Middle East--and how that's going-- read or listen to his speech to a convention of Christian broadcasters in Nashville yesterday. My condensed version:

...You show millions the path to salvation and the peace of God.
I thank you for guiding the faithful. I thank you for strengthening America's families. I thank you for standing up for our values, including the right to life. And I appreciate your firm belief in the universality of freedom. I believe -- and I know most of you, if not all of you, believe -- that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth has been given the great gift of liberty by an Almighty God. And today I want to speak about this precious gift, the importance of protecting freedom here at home, and the call to offer freedom to others who have never known it.

You and I know that if given the chance, men and women and children in every society on Earth will choose a life of freedom -- if just given a chance. Unless, of course, you don't believe freedom is a gift from the Almighty. The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to all humanity.

It is no coincidence that the region of the world that is the least free is also the most violent and dangerous. For too long the world was content to ignore oppression -- oppressive forms of government in the Middle East, in the name of stability. The result was that a generation of young people grew up with little hope of improving their lives, and many fell under the sway of violent extremism. The birthplace of three of the world's great religions became the home of suicide bombers. And resentments that began on the streets in the Middle East killed innocent people in trains and airplanes and office buildings around the world. September the 11th, 2001, was such a day. We saw firsthand how the lack of freedom and opportunity in the Middle East directly affects our safety here at home.

Nineteen men killed nearly 3,000 people because someone convinced them that they were acting in the name of God. Murder of the innocent to achieve political objectives is wrong and must be condemned. These murderers were not instruments of a heavenly power. They were instruments of evil.

This kind of enemy must be confronted, and this kind of enemy must be defeated. It is the calling of our time. Generations are often called into action for the defense of liberty, and this is such a time. Since 9/11, we're on the offense.

The best way to defeat the enemy in the long term is to defeat their hateful ideology with a vision based upon hope, and that is, a society is based upon liberty.

Freedom can transform societies. And some day, if the United States is steadfast and optimistic, a President will be able to say, [an] amazing thing happened: I sat down at the table with a leader of Muslim nations, all aiming to keep the peace, to spread freedom and keep America secure. We're engaged in this struggle all across the world.

We had better aspirations for the people of Afghanistan... They continue their campaign of bloody and horrific attacks, all attempting to demoralize the people of Afghanistan, and all attempting to wait the coalition out. For the sake of humanity and for the sake of the safety of our people, for the sake of human life and human dignity, and for the sake of the security of the United States of America, we will stop this murderous movement now, before it finds a new path to power.

[In Iraq] Shia, Kurds and an increasing number of Sunnis joined America to advance a bold vision, and that is to build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East....Anyone who doubts the importance of defeating this vicious enemy need only imagine what would happen if we were driven out of Iraq before the job was finished. What would happen if they seized territory from -- to be able to have safe haven? What would happen if they seized oil fields and used their wealth to attack America and our allies?

The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries. I believe that success of these two countries will show others the way. It will show others what's possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our Maker. That's why we're doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

Evil in some form will always be with us, and we must never be afraid to face it. I know you understand that. I also know that you understand that for those who are on the front lines, and for those who struggle against evil, they could be helped through prayer. And I appreciate your prayers. I appreciate your prayers to help comfort millions of people. I appreciate the fact that you pray for our troops and their families. And I appreciate the prayers that you have directed my way. I feel your prayer. I can't tell you how meaningful they have been, to help Laura and me deal with -- do our job. And I can report to you this: that the prayers of the people have affected us, and that being the President has been a joyous experience.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 12, 2008 1:55

A Fearless Saudi Woman at the Wheel

Wajeha al-Huwaider is at it again. Saudi Arabia's most creative human rights activist made a 3-minute YouTube video of herself driving a car in Saudi Arabia. Of course, in the Kingdom where women are barred from driving and are deprived of other basic rights, her jaunt down a country road behind the wheel was an illegal act that could have gotten her thrown in jail. Not long ago, she posted an earlier video on YouTube that showed her trying to apply for a Saudi driver's license at a police station.

It might not seem like much, but such acts of civil disobedience amount to breaking social taboos in ultra conservative Saudi society and are extremely rare. If you think the YouTube videos are a silly stunt, think again. Al-Huwaider is a very serious woman, a Georgetown University graduate, a journalist honored by the International PEN organization. She has been banned from writing in Saudi Arabia because for her human rights views. Two years ago, Saudi authorities temporarily confiscated her passport, barred her from leaving the country and pressured her to sign a statement promising to quit human rights activism. The authorities don't think she's silly. They think she's dangerous.

Many Saudi liberals believe that women will never get their rights if they don't demand them. Few Saudi women stand up to be counted like Al-Huwaider does. In 2006, on the first anniversary of King Abdullah's ascension to the Saudi throne--Abdullah is seen as sympathetic to granting more rights to women but reluctant to cross swords with the Kingdom's hard-line religious powers-- she staged a one-woman protest on the causeway linking Saudi Arabia with the state of Bahrain. She held a placard reading, "Give Women Their Rights." She was arrested within 20 minutes. But as her YouTube videos demonstrate, al-Huwaider is a woman who refuses to be silenced.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 11, 2008 2:01

Did We Overreact to 9/11?

Olivier Roy, a French researcher who is one of the most experienced and astute analysts of political Islam, had a useful Op-Ed in the International Herald Tribune last Friday. He argues that whatever happens in Iraq, whatever choices the next American president makes about George Bush's military commitment in that country, al-Qaeda will not take power and establish an Islamic state in Iraq.

Roy defines al-Qaeda as a non-territorial global organization that has never tried to establish an Islamic state and focuses on the strategy that has made it famous: direct confrontation with the United States. Roy says al-Qaeda relies for members and recruits on disenfranchised Western Muslims with no strong political roots in Islamic lands. Al-Qaeda has sought to hijack existing conflicts for its anti-Western jihad, and aligned itself with radical Islamic groups in various countries. But history has shown that those groups have local aims and interests that ultimately clash with al-Qaeda's global jihad. As in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan previously, local Iraqi groups inside Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda's top brass, will call the shots. Ironically, Roy suggests, the U.S. military presence in Iraq helped generate some Iraqi support for al-Qaeda.

Says Roy: "Local actors, Islamist or not, want a political solution on their own terms. They do not want chaos or global jihad. As soon as there is a discrepancy between 'the policy of the worst' waged by al-Qaeda and a possible local political settlement, the local actors choose the local settlement."

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, seemed to validate this view where Iraq is concerned. Testifying to Congress last September, Crocker said, "The world should note that when al-Qaeda began implementing its twisted vision of the Caliphate in Iraq, Iraqis, from al-Anbar to Baghdad to Diyala, have ovemhelmingly rejected it."

Roy's argument loosely ties into the quiet, largely taboo debate--one that few American politicians dare enter into, anyway--about whether the U.S. "over-reacted" to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Nobody is suggesting, of course, that the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 wasn't an outrage, deserving of justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. The question is whether the horrific attacks led the Bush administration and the U.S. in general to greatly or massively overestimate the threat posed to the U.S. and global security by Islamic extremism. With regard to Iraq specifically, did an overreaction to 9/11 propel Bush to invade the Middle East and strongly predispose Americans to initially support the war? If al-Qaeda has no political future in Iraq, or in any other country, for that matter, as Roy suggests, doesn't that mean that Islamic extremism didn't pose the apocalyptic threat to Western civilization that justified the invasion in the first place?

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

March 10, 2008 6:21

Nothing to Celebrate

One of my favorite -- if obvious -- metrics of the health of civil society in any given place is celebratory gunfire. If locals mark major events like weddings, sporting victories or the start of spring break by shooting off a couple hundred rounds of high-velocity ammunition, it's a sign that at the very least there's something wrong with the police department, if not the social contract.

Partying with firearms is nothing new in Lebanon, and neither are the injuries caused by bullets obeying the laws of gravity. Still, for the most part, citizens of Lebanon express their love of explosives with high-grade Chinese-made fireworks rather than weapons. (It's become fashionable to launch bottle rockets -- at any and all hours -- as a way or marking no a return from pilgrimage to Mecca, much to the chagrin of those living next door to the pious.)

So it's a fairly bad omen that most major speeches by the country's politicians are now accompanied by pre- and post-game firearm fusillades. But it's not just assault rifles and heavy machine guns making the noise anymore. Below is a cell-phone video clip of a member of Amal, a Shia Muslim political party, launching a rocket propelled grenade over a Sunni Muslim neighborhood on the occasion of a broadcast by the head of Amal, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Party henchmen in Sunni neighborhoods do the same thing when one of their nabobs blabber. No one ever gets arrested.

It's stuff like this that has many people worried about another civil war.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

March 6, 2008 1:30

March Madness in Lebanon

It’s that time of year in the United States, when fans of college basketball start preparing their office pools and feverishly working the old boy network for tickets to the big alma mater home game. But if you think Americans get a little carried away in the name of a basketball tournament, consider basketball games in Lebanon, where riot police and the occasional armored personnel carrier are as common as cheerleaders.

Basketball is the most popular sport in Lebanon, and for inhabitants of a small Middle Eastern country, the Lebanese have got surprisingly good game. With a mere 4 million people, Lebanon often ranks near the top of the Asian championships, lagging just behind the likes of China (population 1.3 billion). Unfortunately, Lebanon’s toxic brew of sectarianism and politics cause as much excitement as the athletes. All 12 of Lebanon’s semi-professional basketball teams have some sort of religious or political affiliation. And despite the fact that fans from rival teams are segregated into stands on opposite sides of the court, fights break out so regularly that last year that the government barred spectators from attending games for a few months last year. Even when there isn’t violence, games resemble political rallies – with flags, political salutes, and chants that mention political leaders – as much as they do sporting events.

That’s a problem because in Lebanon, politics have a way of turning ugly. The country fought a devastating civil war from 1975 to 1990 mostly along religious lines: Christian vs. Muslim. Today the battles lines are forming once again between those Christian and Sunni Muslim groups allied with the American-backed government, and Shia Muslm and Christian groups that form an opposition movement supported by Syria and Iran.

These tensions – heightened by concern over the possibility of another war with Israel – spill onto the court. Because Lebanon’s Shia Muslims generally prefer soccer (perhaps reflecting their status as a traditionally disenfranchised minority) the main action is Christian vs. Christian, and Christian vs. Sunni. In fact, basketball is an extension of politics to such a degree that when General Michel Aoun, a Christian leader, turned against the country’s mainline pro-government Christians, one of the first things h