Is hope losing out to fear in the Middle East?
The phrase “the Arab Spring” self-consciously echoes of the Prague Spring which referred to the rapid flowering of the political culture of Czechoslovakia in early 1968 from orthodox communism to inchoate dreams of “socialism with a human face.” The Prague Spring was then crushed by the Soviet invasion of August 1968. The revolutionary emergence of humanistic hope lead directly to militaristic retaliation of reactionary fear.
And right now, the Middle East’s two most militaristic and ideologically aggressive governments–Iran and Israel–have more to fear than they did six months ago. Neither is an Arab country, which gives them even more reason to worry.
Israel has lost its best friend in the neighbhorhood, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was willing served as the warden of the jail known as Gaza. Israel’s strongest enemy, Iran, will soon restore diplomatic relations with Egypt. And Israel’s suffocation of Arab political rights seems no more attractive or tenable or inevitable than Mubarak’s.
Meanwhile, Iran has to worry too. The Islamic Republic crushed the abortive Green revolution of 2009, only to see the popular demands for accountable, participatory government spread across the region two years later. Not coincidentally, the Iranian government itself is wracked by another power struggle, this one between President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Khameni, suggesting that dissatisfaction with the country’s theocracy has spread from liberal reformists to conservative populists. And Iran’s closest Arab ally, Syria, is trying to stave off a popular uprising that might turn into an armed rebellion.
Iran and Israel have long waged a war on words, and perhaps now is no different. Israel talks loudly about stopping the next international humanitarian flotilla to Gaza and fears Iran’s nuclear ambitions while Iran denounces another Western intervention in the region and flaunts the big stick of its new ballistic missiles that is boasts can hit Israel.
But with two militarized governments feeling defensive and fearing emboldened democratic populations whose very existence is unprecedented and threatening, the prospects for miscalculation, if not war, seem barely concealed.
“Our message in this drill is that our strategy is defensive, but our tactics are aggressive,” said an Iranian general on Monday.
“Iran’s tentacles extend to all those who are working against Israel,” said a top former Israeli intelligence official on Tuesday. “In the next confrontation there is a likelihood that more than one front may erupt, and Tel Aviv will be turned into the front lines.”
It doesn’t sound good.




The persistent fantasy
Foreign Policy’s useful survey Who Wants to Bomb Iran? offers more evidence of one of the most peculiar fantasies in U.S. opinion making circles: that democratic forces in Iran would welcome–or not object to–a U.S/Israeli attack on their country’s nuclear facilities. The chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen is under no such illusions so the phenomenon is less a political danger than an interesting species of American provincialism which assumes the benevolence of U.S.-inflicted violence is apparent to its victims.
Continue reading »