Soccer Dad

For the status quo

Michael Slackman reporting from Egypt writes:

The good-news thinking goes like this: With Mr. Ahmadinejad remaining in office, there is less chance of substantially improved relations between Tehran and Washington, something America's Arab allies feared would undermine their interests. At the same time, the electoral conflict may have weakened Iran's leadership at home and abroad, forcing it to focus more on domestic stability, political analysts and former officials said.

"When Iran is strong and defiant they don't like her and when Iran is closer to the West they don't like her," said Adnan Abu Odeh, a former adviser to King Hussein of Jordan.

Of course, such an outcome could also prove to be wishful thinking, political analysts cautioned. Other power centers in Iran, from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the military, can have more influence over regional policy than the president. It is also possible that a deeply divided leadership could aim to exacerbate regional tensions to distract attention from its domestic problems.

Most of this is speculation, but later in the article we read:

The Arab governments aligned with Washington are part of a camp that has promoted an Arab peace initiative with Israel. Iran, they have charged, has worked to undermine the peace process by financing Hamas and Hezbollah and by attacking those in the peace camp. Before the elections, Iran was increasingly flexing its geopolitical muscles, often in disputes with its much smaller Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf region. A former Iranian speaker of Parliament, for example, said that Bahrain was historically part of Iran.

Now, Arab leaders are looking to regain the momentum and slow Iran's spreading power and influence, analysts said. They are also looking to use the crisis in Iran to undermine political Islam in general. The Arab world is ruled by authoritarian leaders, kings and emirs -- and its greatest challenge to legitimacy and control is political Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan.

"Opponents of the Islamist movement go far in anticipating the collapse of the Islamic revolution and the end of the Islamist movements and their political project," said Mohammad Abu Rumman, research editor at the newspaper Al Ghad in Amman. "Anticipating the failure of the revolution is an anticipation of the failure of political Islam in general."

This is - perhaps unintentionally - revealing. So the anti Tehran axis is portraying itself as pro-American, or, at least pro-American agenda. But more than that, they oppose Tehran because they see it as a threat to their survival, if not directly, then because of the political Islam it encourages.

Eric Trager learns from the official news sources in the Arab world.

Yet on the other hand, the Arab world's authoritarian regimes fear that the Iranian protests will inspire dissidents in their own countries to organize. In turn, much of the Arabic press has sought to undermine the protesters' credibility by insinuating that they are foreign agents. (Not coincidentally, state-controlled Arabic newspapers typically use the same argument against Arab pro-democratic dissidents.) For example, in today's edition of the Egyptian daily al-Ahram, the top headline on Iran reads, "Khamenei refuses to bow to opposition pressure; Iran looking to reduce relations with Britain ... and accuses America of funding the protests." This portrays the Iranian leader as a bulwark against foreign intervention - an image that resonates with the way al-Ahram typically portrays Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Michael Slackman relying on those apparently close to the leadership, presents the Arab states as an ally of the United States. But, it appears, that their own governments actually fear the reformers more than they fear Iran. So it's not at all surprising that the Washington Post reports that Arab Activists Watch Iran And Wonder: 'Why Not Us?'

Across the Arab world, Iran's massive opposition protests have triggered a wave of soul-searching and conflicting emotions. Many question why their own reform movements are unable to rally people to rise up against unpopular authoritarian regimes. In Egypt, the cradle of what was once the Arab world's most ambitious push for democracy, Iran's protests have served as a reminder of how much the notion has unraveled under President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled the country for 30 years.

"I am extremely jealous," said Nayra El Sheikh, 28, a blogger and Sharkawy's wife. "I can't help but think: Why not us? What do they have that we don't have? Do they have more guts?"

The frustration comes against a backdrop of deep-rooted skepticism among pro-democracy activists that U.S. policies under President Obama will help transform the region, despite his vow to engage the Muslim world in a highly publicized speech here last month. Some view Obama's response to Iran's protests, muted until Tuesday, as a harbinger of U.S. attitudes toward their own efforts to reform their political systems. The Egyptian government, they note, is a key American ally, and U.S. pressure on Egypt for reforms began subsiding in the last years of the Bush administration.

"When Obama does not take a stance, the very next day these oppressive regimes will regard this as a signal. This is a test for his government," said Ayman Nour, a noted Egyptian opposition politician who was recently released from jail. "If they can turn a blind eye to their enemy, they can turn a blind eye to any action here in Egypt."

I will admit to some skepticism about Arab democracy advocates as they tend to be just as anti-Israel as the current elites. However, regardless of their orientation towards Israel, they do seem to want more openness in their societies. It does not appear that encouraging greater openness and freedom is part of the Obama administration's agenda. And it's not just a concern of those of us who disagree with him, even the editors of the Washington Post, who endorsed him, wonder.