Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal published this fascinating piece on the rising, so far just cold, conflict between Sunni-led Saudi Arabia and Shia-led Iran. Now these two regional powers have been in competition since the fall of the Shah in Iran in 1979, but as the article by Bill Spindle and Margaret Coker describes, the Arab Spring, particularly with the fall of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni partner, Mubarak in Egypt, things have gotten more heated. The intriguing situation in Bahrain, where the Shia majority is in revolt against the minority Sunni leadership, is a flashpoint in this so-called new cold war. As some of you may have heard, Saudi Arabia sent in troops to put down the insurrection and just announced yesterday that those troops aren’t going anywhere. This will definitely be a story to follow.

Here is the lead in to Spindle and Coker’s worthwhile analysis:

For three months, the Arab world has been awash in protests and demonstrations. It’s being called an Arab Spring, harking back to the Prague Spring of 1968.

But comparison to the short-lived flowering of protests 40 years ago in Czechoslovakia is turning out to be apt in another way. For all the attention the Mideast protests have received, their most notable impact on the region thus far hasn’t been an upswell of democracy. It has been a dramatic spike in tensions between two geopolitical titans, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This new Middle East cold war comes complete with its own spy-versus-spy intrigues, disinformation campaigns, shadowy proxy forces, supercharged state rhetoric—and very high stakes.

“The cold war is a reality,” says one senior Saudi official. “Iran is looking to expand its influence. This instability over the last few months means that we don’t have the luxury of sitting back and watching events unfold.”

On March 14, the Saudis rolled tanks and troops across a causeway into the island kingdom of Bahrain. The ruling family there, long a close Saudi ally, appealed for assistance in dealing with increasingly large protests.

For our third and final Question Time concerning the Libyan war, we turn our attention to the views of a so-called ‘Average Joe’. Our ‘Joe’ is no foreign policy expert or political junkie, but has been keeping an eye on the Middle East upheaval and the situation in Libya. His perspective on the issue should be enlightening as he likely represents many other ‘average’ Americans who are watching these events unfold on their television and computer screens. With the United States militarily attacking Qaddafi’s forces in Libya and many in this country questioning exactly why we are intervening (Rasmussen has only 45% supporting US military action) in the civil conflict, the views, aka support or lack there of, of average Americans will be integral in how the Obama administration proceeds. Enjoy.

1. Why do you think the Obama administration made the decision to join France and the UK to institute a no-fly zone and bomb Qaddafi’s forces in Libya? Do you support the decision? Why or why not?

Average Joe: I think that Obama finally decided to support France and UK because he didn’t have any alternative at this point, and was forced to make a decision finally.  It would be a major disgrace to not support our allies. Yes I support the decision, even tough I don’t think Obama has a real vision or strategy.  I think Libya is an example of a country whose leader will stop at nothing to restore order, and will slaughter anything that stands in the way.  Libya is also a real opportunity to keep the momentum going with regards to rebellion in other oppressive nations ( Syria, Bahrain, Iran etc). Also it’s important to be a nation that supports freedom throughout the world.

2. In Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia there are citizens voicing their opposition to the ruling class and leader(s) and refusing to let the status quo remain. What do you think of these recent uprisings throughout the Arab world? What will they lead to? How do you think they will affect the United States?

Average Joe: I think they are all corrupt nations and I’m glad to see the people starting to rise up against these monarchies and unjust societies.  I think this is only natural as we have seen this in Europe and our own history. It needs to happen. I’m not sure what it will lead to, just as America’s future was unclear in the beginning.

I’m optimistic though, most of the protesting and revolutions have had economic factors as a driving force – no jobs and no opportunity for the masses. I don’t think that any new oppressive or Islamist fanatical regimes could take over and provide the type of economic freedom necessary to satisfy these needs.  I also wouldn’t discount the importance of people remaining “connected” to the Internet and outside world. Something that was so important during the revolutions.  Basically, I don’t see these nations trading one dictator for another.  Once freedoms are established, it’s much harder to take them away.

However if Islamic extremists do take power via democratic elections, so be it.  At least then we will have clarity on where things stand in that part of the world.

Any other ‘Average Joe’s’ out there that would like to comment?

President Obama has had to walk a fine diplomatic line in America’s dealings with the various uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East the past month or so. The governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Bahrain are all strong US allies and their fall would cause numerous headaches for American interests and foreign policies. Libya, on the other hand, does not really fit into this category. Its government leader, Muammar Qaddafi, has been a thorn in the US’s side for decades and has American blood on his hands. Even after giving up his nuclear program to the Bush administration, the Qaddafi regime has on many occasions, including in the past several days, rhetorically stick his thumb in America’s eye.

President Obama has been slow to speak out against and act against the Qaddafi regime at a time when its domestic legitimacy could not be lower. Qaddafi is right now hiring mercenaries to kill and suppress his own people. What does the US have to lose by speaking out and working with the rest of the civilized world (including the Arab League) to bring about his quick demise? Not much.

I would like to highlight two critiques of the Obama administration’s lack of action against Qaddafi from two left-liberal publications. First, Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic…

They are fighting authoritarianism, but he is fighting imperialism. Who in their right mind believes that this change does represent the work of the United States or any foreign power? To be sure, there are conspiracy theorists in the region who are not in their right mind, and will hold such an anti-American view; but this anti-Americanism is not an empirical matter. They will hate us whatever we do. I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention. I see an American president with a paralyzing fear that it will. In those Middle Eastern streets and squares that have endured the pangs of democratization, the complaint has been not that the United States has intervened, but that the United States has not intervened. The awful irony is that Obama is more haunted by the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East than are many people in the Middle East, who look to him for support in their genuinely epochal struggle against the social death in which their tyrannies have imprisoned them. He worries about the repetition of an old paradigm. They are in the midst of a new paradigm. He does not want to be Bush. They want him to be Obama; or what Obama was supposed to be.

And now Christopher Hitchens in Slate…

The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.

It’s hard to throw a virtual rock nowadays at any foreign affairs publication and not find statements of the demise or fall of American power. In many ways, these are accurate statements as American economic power is falling in proportion to some of the rising economies around the world (although it is still top dog by a fair amount). But how about in terms of military, ideological, and political power? I would argue that in these spheres the United States maintains unparalleled influence when compared to other present great powers. The current uprisings in the Middle East showcase the continual relevance of American power, especially compared to its great power competitors. Daniel Blumenthal of Shadow Government notes that….

The unrest in the Middle East reveals, then, two important facts about China. First, talk of its impending global leadership is greatly exaggerated. Second, we should adequately prepare for China’s day of reckoning as well. A tired United States may wish someone else would help manage the global order; wishing is not going to make it happen.

In what ways are the citizens protesting/revolting, present autocrats, and hopeful future leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, etc. courting the approval/help of China? None, that I can see. What is China saying about these movements in the Middle East? Next to nothing. China seems only concerned as to how these protests might spread to their mainland or oil prices. When you are afraid of your own people, how can you spread your influence around the globe in an effective, all encompassing manner? China does indeed hold great power and influence in today’s international environment, but the events of the Middle East the past few months should give pause to those who say the American moment has passed.

That being said, the events in the demonstrations and revolutions occurring in North Africa, the Arab world, and Iran also demonstrate the limits of American power. I mean, President Obama hosted now former President Mubarak at the White House just a couple months before he was sent to the dust bin of history. The US was not only shown to be caught off guard by the Egyptian revolution, but in many ways, powerless to affect its outcome.

Nevertheless, when trouble arises around the globe, whether it be government’s falling, democracy rising, or pirates rampaging, most eyes invariably look toward America.

First off, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of all those who fought and died on France’s Normandy shores 65 years ago so I could sit on a comfy couch, in a beautiful city, and in a country where I can safely say and write whatever I want.  Thank you.  While I’m at I would like to thank those who are this very moment protecting our freedom and way of life in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, and beyond.

'I have a fruit basket, Is there someone named Islam here?'

Now let’s get to Obama’s Cairo speech.  I read the whole speech very early on Thursday morning and took copious notes (all of which I left at work) and my first impression was very positive.  The various topics covered and the audience were far from easy or simple, but President Obama did a serviceable job with a near impossible task, opening a more constructive, fair dialogue between Americans and many Muslims, specifically Arab Muslims.

Obama made quite the effort to show connection between Islam and the United States (sometimes too loosely) and praised Islamic culture and history throughout the speech.  Thankfully within this praise he was able to bring up faults (mainly violent extremism, lack of human rights, and opportunity) and highlight America’s history of progress and promise.  Referring to the latter, Obama had one of his best lines:

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.

This was an effective way to connect Obama’s personal life story (Obama in poll after poll is more popular abroad than the US as a country) to the country that helped him become who he is today.

Though there has been criticism that Obama did not use the word ‘terrorism’ in his speech, I thought he did a bang up job defining the enemy and stating that it was a problem that needs to be combatted head on by both the United States, Muslim states, Muslim people, and Islamic faith.  He forcefully stated that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda (in other words not one of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories that are sadly passed around the Middle East and beyond) and went on to unequivocally state that the US would do whatever was needed to defeat this threat.  However, he was a bit to politically correct and playing to his audience when he finished off this subject with this line, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.’  I’m sorry, but the large majority of violent extremists in the world and those especially targeting the US are Islamic and base their reason for their acts on Islam.  So though Islam itself may not be the complete problem, interpretations and factions of it are.  To deny this would be not calling the enemy what it is.

Moving on.  I was disappointed by the near complete pass Iran’s nuclear program received during the speech.  Here was a sympathetic audience (at least the Arab state leaders) and Obama pretty much made clear that the issue was not a high priority for his administration, as the short Iran section seemed almost like filler and quickly turned to ‘ending the world of nukes’.  I think Obama may have been scared to be the seen as the American President giving demands or saying an Islamic state ‘can’t have nukes’.   This however, does not make good policy.  If you were Iran’s mullahs and you heard that part, you would think, ‘okay, we’re cool’.

I was also not a fan of the continual moral equivalencies (US women’s rights and Middle Eastern women’s rights really have nothing in common, and CIA assistance of the coup of Mosaddeq equals the Islamic Republics bad behavior for thirty ongoing years), but Max Boot discussed this better than I ever could.

Regarding Israel-Palestine, I was largely in agreement with Obama.  Israel does need to stop their settlements (though this is extremely complicated, much more than Obama lets on) and I thought Obama clearly laid out how Palestinian use of violence was unacceptable; ‘It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.’

On to Iraq, which was really short changed by Obama.  He mainly just talked about the US getting the hell out of there, but what about regional stability of the situation or about how the Iraqis were actually having REAL ELECTIONS to an audience that has never experienced such a thing.  I felt that they could have been a great seque into democracy promotion, but Obama faild to do so.  Many have died to make those elections come about and it would have been nice if the President of the United States at least acknowledged what was going on only a few hundred miles away.

That being said, Obama did finish up his speech with some nice words for universal human rights and democracy, but he did so without really using the D-word specifically.  Here’s his best line regarding what people yearn for:

…the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

It is interesting compare Obama’s democracy descriptions with former President Bush (“We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right.”).  Different for sure, but really arguing the same point; democracy is da bomb.

I’m sure my notes had much more insight and hilarious jokes, but that’s all I got.  Overall, a nicely toned speech well-delivered.  The hard part of course is seeing real progress follow the words.

Excuse my absence of late as I was busy getting married. Unfortunately, I did not marry a great power (even South Africa, a regional power at best turned me down). While I was gone many GPP relevant happenings occurred, including a spirited debate on the EU’s place on the Great Power Rankings.

Thankfully that's not me or my wife.

Over the past week Pakistan seemed to fall apart and now seems to be putting itself back together again. The Taliban had made great strides not only cementing their control over regions in which the Paki state gave them autonomy over, but also pushed beyond. These disturbing and threatening moves caused quite a few people to voice serious concern about Pakistan’s short and long-term stability. However, in the past couple days the Pakistani military has launched major offensives to push back Taliban elements in the Swat Valley and attempt to bring back some semblance of state control. The leaders of Pakistan, Zardari, and Afghanistan, Karzai, also attended a trilateral conference with Obama in DC this weekend.

Speaking of Afghanistan and Obama, the US president has further put his stamp on the conflict by replacing (firing) Gen. David McKiernan, who was believed to be too old-school and militarily conventional, with Lt. Gen. Stanely McChrystal, a Special Ops expert. It appears Obama and his Sec of Defense Robert Gates did not believe McKiernan was the right man for their new strategy. Though I don’t know too much about McChrystal besides the fact that he led US Special Ops in Iraq, which caught Saddam and terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi, he comes with high praise. The Obama administration also fought back from claims that their new strategy and use of air strikes was putting too many Afghan civilians in danger, with the outcry from an incident in the town of Farah, where dozens of civilians may have been killed, taking center stage. Obama’s National Security Adviser Jim Jones asserted that the US would not give up the tactic: “We’re going to take a look at trying to make sure that we correct those things we can correct, but certainly to tie the hands of our commanders and say we’re not going to conduct air strikes, it would be imprudent.”

Lastly, Obama announced that he will give a major address in Egypt to the Islam world in a month. The location is no surprise and I am sorry I didn’t predict it here on this page. Egypt has been a major US ally in the region for going on 30 years and Condi Rice made a major speech there when she was Sec of State during the Bush Administration. I will soon right a larger piece about this upcoming speech and Egypt as a host, but right now I will just state that it will be a good opportunity to see how much Obama will push or emphasis human rights and the spread of democracy in the world. As Egypt is a place sorely lacking in both and criticism of Obama’s lack of democracy and human rights promotion is gathering. This speech will likely be a fine example of a great power leader walking the fine line between realism and idealism.

Gotta go, the wife is calling…

I am reading Adeeb Khalid’s book ‘Islam after Communism: Religion and Politics in Central Asia.’ That’s it, I just thought you should know….Juuuuust kidding. Though I plan on summarizing and reviewing the book when I’m finished, I came across this interesting passage discussing Islam and the state that I would like to share. It’s a bit lengthy so bear with me (hey, I’m the one who has to type the darn thing!):

But even when states have sought to control Islam, they have don so to put it to work on their behalf. Having freed up large areas of public life from the authority of Islam and its carriers, they nevertheless have used Islam to bolster their legitimacy or to found systems of public morality based on a particular reading of Islam. The Egyptian state, for instance, derives a great deal of its legitimacy from the argument that it serves Islam. In Turkey, in an approved and properly nationalized form, Islam remains part of the moral education of all schoolchildren. In both these countries, religious higher education is under state supervision or control, but it remains uninterrupted, and the public presence of Islam is unmistakable. The Saudi state, of course, stakes all its legitimacy on Islam, but it keeps strict control over Islamic institutions. In Pakistan, in contrast, the state was never able to institutionalize control over Islam. Rather, the military, both in and out of power, has used Islamic groups for various purposes, from sponsoring the ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan, through instigating an insurgency in Kashmir, to fomenting sectarian violence within Pakistan itself.

Before this passage, Khalid emphasizes that Islam should be looked at like all other religions in the world and in history, in terms of its relations to the state. That is, that the state attempts to use it or suppress it for its own interests. This is Khalid’s main thesis of the book, that Islam is not monolithic and is strongly affected and changed by such other societal factors as governance and economics.

Back to the passage above, Khalid is accurate in that for the most part Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have ‘successfully’ controlled most aspects of Islam while at the same time using the religion and culture for legitimacy claims. The first two, Egypt and Turkey, are mostly secular states, with Turkey’s constitution guaranteeing this, while Saudi Arabia’s government is much more tied to its Wahhabi-Islamic roots. Interestingly, these three states are all key US allies. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both run oppressive societies, but the US sides with them anyways for geopolitical, resource, and stability reasons. The US government appears to accept these repressive regimes over possible Islamist party takeovers, which it fears my have a similiar world outlook to Iran. Come to think of it, did the hostile nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s towards the United States ruin forever possible US support for Islamist parties throughout the Middle East?

The fourth country and only outlier that Khalid mentions, is Pakistan, and it is a state that may be the most important US ally of them all at the moment. Khalid is correct, the Pakistan military, much less its government, has never had control over Islam in the country’s short history. What amount of the blame should the current domestic and regional problems facing Pakistan should be attributed to this lack of state control over Islam? Is there anything different about the culture and religion of Islam that makes it harder for governments to control? Or are geopolitical, economic, international, and other societal factors more responsible?