Posts Tagged ‘Juan Cole’

The Adults Are In Charge (for now)

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

As many of you know, some of my work is devoted to characterizing the cavernous  moral fissure that has opened up between our dominant political ideologies.

That fissure was clearly evident last week in the aftermath of the sordid spectacle that occurred on the floor of the chamber during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.

As usual, historian and blogger Juan Cole gets the characterization exactly right.

On September 9, 2009, a man named Joe Wilson, a congressman from South Carolina, yelled “You lie!” at the president as he was defending his universal health coverage proposals from nutty rightwing smears.

Joe Wilson, whom the Health Industry lobby has given $244,196 in campaign contributions, was of course himself lying when he implied that President Obama’s plan will cover illegal immigrants. It will not.

President Obama graciously accepted Wilson’s subsequent apology, even though no modern president has been yelled at that way by a minor rural politician.

On July 6, 2003 another Joe Wilson called a president a liar, in an opinion essay for the New York Times. This Joe Wilson had bravely stared down Saddam Hussein in fall, 1990 as acting ambassador in Baghdad and been commended for his courage by George H. W. Bush.

George W. Bush had falsely alleged in his State of the Union Speech that Iraq had recently bought yellowcake uranium from the West African country of Niger. The allegation was based on a clumsily forged document that had been discounted by the CIA and was proven false within 24 hours when finally shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Wilson’s complaint that the assertion had been false and that he had shown it false before the war was deeply embarrassing to the Bush administration. It responded by smearing Wilson and then attempting to out his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative working against Iran’s nuclear program. Plame’s career was destroyed and all her known agents and contacts around the world were burned; some of them may have quietly been killed (we have no way of knowing). Ultimately, the truth of the anti-Wilson, anti-Plame campaign came out and Richard Bruce Cheney’s chief of staff, was found guilty of an attempted cover-up. Cheney had ordered the outing of Plame; it happened via another route, but Cheney was conniving at it. Cheney is a traitor and should be rotting in jail.

Note that the first Joe Wilson was dead wrong, but that the Obama administration responded in a gentlemanly way to his charge.
The Bush-Cheney administration, in contrast, attempted to besmirch the reputation and the life of a dedicated lifetime civil servant because he spoke the truth to the president.

The story of the two Joe Wilsons and how they were treated is the story of two visions of America. The Bush-Cheney vision is a nightmarish landscape of blighted lives and cruel indifference to basic human decency. The Obama vision is just the Golden Rule, with which the people who vote for the evil Joe Wilson typically profess acquaintance.

Ancient history? Water under the bridge? Let’s move on; look forward, not backward? Well, no. As Cole says:

The evil Joe Wilson (R-SC) is the remnant of Cheneyism in this new America, painfully being born from the rubble made by the old.

Sometimes the paradoxical adage “the more things change, the more they remain the same” seems about right.

What is Going On in Iran

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

Although it didn’t get much play in the press over the weekend, events in Iran continue to be interesting.

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President and force behind opposition figure Mir-Hossein Mousavi, took the podium for Friday prayers. Via the LA Times:

A sermon by powerful cleric and opposition supporter Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani reignited Iran’s simmering protest movement Friday, heartening thousands of supporters who braved tear gas and club-wielding militiamen to march and chant slogans across Tehran.
In a highly anticipated speech, Rafsanjani slammed the hard-line camp supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, criticized the June 12 election results and promoted several key opposition demands. Analysts said his description of the unrest as an ongoing “crisis” was a signal to keep the pressure on Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. […]

His speech, as well as the ensuing pitched clashes between security forces and supporters of opposition figure Mir-Hossein Mousavi, suggested that the political firestorm surrounding the marred vote would continue and that the movement it had inspired remained strong.
Reformist websites estimated that more than 1 million people participated. That number could not be confirmed, though even supporters of the hard-line camp who attended the prayer session to show support for Khamenei acknowledged that the crowds were huge.

The story reports clashes between police and protesters, arrests, and defiance on the part of the huge crowd.

Here are two eyewitness accounts via Juan Cole (here and here)

And two video accounts (here and here)

There is a good deal of controversy regarding Rafsanjani’s intentions. Middle East Scholar Juan Cole argues that Rafsanjani is attempting to lay the foundation of an understanding of the Iranian revolution that would undercut the hardliners.

The reform movement and its allies among pragmatic conservatives have developed a narrative about Khomeinist Iran. They allege that it is ultimately democratic, and that the will of the people is paramount. It is popular sovereignty that authorizes political change and greater political and cultural openness. Precisely because democracy and popular sovereignty are the key values for this movement, the alleged stealing of the June 12 presidential elections by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is intolerable. A crime has been committed, in their eyes. A social contract has been violated. The will of the people has been thwarted.

The hard liners hold a competing and incompatible view of the meaning of Khomeini’s 1979 revolution. They discount the element of elections, democracy and popular sovereignty. They view these procedures and institutions as little more than window-dressing. True power and authority lies with the Supreme Leader and ultimately all important decisions are made by him. Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Misbah-Yazdi is an important exponent of this authoritarian view of the Islamic Republic. The Leader in this view is a kind of philosopher-king, who can overrule the people at will. The hard liners do not believe that the election was stolen. But they probably cannot get very excited about the election in the first place. Khamenei and his power and his appointments and his ability to intervene to disqualify candidates, close newspapers, and overrule parliament are what is important. From a hard line point of view, the election is what Khamenei says it is and therefore cannot be stolen.
Rafsanjani desired in his sermon to lay a Khomeinist foundation for the more democratic view.

According to Cole, the take-away message of the speech was this:

His solution to this crisis of confidence consists in the following steps:
1. All parties to the dispute should act only in accordance with the law.
2. The authorities must exert themselves to regain the confidence of the people.
3. The door must be left open to free and unrestrained public debate among the contending parties, including on the state-run radio and other media.
4. Demonstrators and other prisoners of conscience must be released by the regime.
5. The press must be left free to publish a wide range of opinion on these issues.
Rafsanjani seems to have been acknowledging that the results of this election are unlikely to be overturned. But he is urging fresh legislation and wide open debate as means of resolving the crisis.
So is what Rafsanjani is saying about Khomeini and Khomeinism true? Probably only partially. Khomeini is notorious for having rejected popular sovereignty as a principle. But he did put an elected president and parliament into the constitution, and he surely knew what would follow.

 

It appears that the regime in Iran has not succeeded in crushing the opposition and that the battle over the direction of Iranian society is far from over.

That is heartening. Best wishes to the protestors whose courage is inspiring.

A Solution to the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

It is generally acknowledged that the only solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is to create a Palestinian state. It is also generally acknowledged that the political conditions in Israel make that solution virtually impossible.

U.S. policy for years has been to try and nudge the two parties to an agreement through confidence-building measures. But that obviously has not worked.

Mid-East expert Juan Cole has a different sort of solution:

In fact, I think Obama should make it clear that by 2011 he will simply recognize as the Palestinian state the government of the Palestine Authority that is elected next January. That would be an excellent way of forcing all the parties to make sure those elections are not handled carelessly. And it will put everyone into over-drive in making sure the transition goes well. I have been saying for some time what Ahmed Qurei recently did, that if the Israeli settlers want to stay in the West Bank, they must accept Palestinian citizenship. A government of Palestine that has Jewish constituents might anyway be a good thing.

Obama has an opportunity, through making sound and wise policy on this issue, to resolve 80 or 90% of the problems the US has with the Middle East. It looks as though he is going to give it his best shot.