The year of Iran in the White House

By Osman Mirghani

Osman Mirghani

There are many indicators to suggest that this year will be the year of Iran in the White House, with all the repercussions that will have on our region. The latest indicator comes in the form of the leaks about the so-called “Iran-Syria deal”, currently being considered by the Obama administration, with the aim of moving on both fronts. This begins with reaching an understanding with Russia on Syria for the departure of al-Assad and his inner circle, being replaced by a transitional government of “moderate” Sunnis and Alawites. As for Iran, the deal is being marketed as a new initiative from Washington to engage in direct dialogue with the Iranians about their nuclear program, on the basis that the alternative would be to go down the line of tighter sanctions and a covert and cyber war whilst retaining the option for a military strike, which would become more probable over time.

Those promoting this deal see something in it for all parties concerned. America does not want to embark on direct military intervention in Syria, whilst it is wary of the presence of jihadists and radical Islamists in the battlefields against the al-Assad regime. Russia is now convinced of the impossibility of al-Assad remaining in power, but the Russians do not want to look as if they have received a new blow from the West, which they claim deceived them in Libya, and therefore the deal for al-Assad to leave and be replaced by a transitional government including Alawites and Sunnis will be an acceptable way out. As for Iran, it does not want to lose everything with the expected departure of its ally in Damascus, and the proposed deal opens the door with Washington and at the same time enables the Iranians to say that they took part in arrangements for the Syrian transitional phase.

The reality is that Obama, by launching this expected new initiative towards Iran, has returned to the same path he inaugurated in his first term four years ago, albeit with changes imposed by the different conditions in the region now, including the events in Syria and the continuation of Iran’s nuclear program despite sanctions and cyber warfare. In his early days in the White House in 2009, Obama began to send signals to Iran to engage in a “constructive dialogue”, open on all issues of dispute between the two countries. This was followed by a direct message to the “Iranian leadership” and the Iranian people to mark the Persian New Year, calling for a dialogue based on mutual respect. Then, in the middle of that year, Obama announced his administration’s willingness to engage in dialogue without preconditions to overcome decades of mistrust and tension that has prevailed in US-Iranian relations ever since the Iranian Revolution, the fall of the Shah’s regime and the hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran.

Yet Obama’s initiatives faltered and failed to make a breakthrough in relations. They did not resolve the most important issue, namely Iran’s nuclear program, or other heated issues for that matter, despite talk of “limited understandings” on Afghanistan and Iraq. Events at the time also contributed to the downfall of this strategy, including the severely-repressed Green Revolution in Iran, which prompted the US administration to criticize the Iranian leadership. These criticisms increased with the lack of tangible progress on the nuclear front, and the publication of intelligence reports in Washington revealing that Iran would be in a position to cross the “tipping point” and be able to produce a nuclear weapon by 2014 or 2015 at the latest.

Obama’s strategy faced heavy criticism at home and abroad, and questions about its objectives and modest results. There were even those with the opinion that he had sent the wrong message to the Iranian leadership, encouraging them to adopt a more radical path in the region and making them work towards their expansion and interference in various directions, including fuelling conflicts and tensions. This reading may not be too far from the reality, especially with the US withdrawal from Iraq and the growing Iranian interference there with the rise of Tehran’s allies, along with the strong emergence of the Iranian-Syrian axis on the scene, and the warnings of the so-called “Shiite crescent” which several countries considered a direct threat to the regional balance. Faced with increasing internal and external pressure, and Obama’s frustration at not being able to achieve a breakthrough with Tehran via his dialogue initiatives, America’s discourse began to change and take a tougher line in the direction of strengthening sanctions against Iran and its leadership, in order to disable its nuclear program. This was an alternative that the Obama administration favored over military intervention, which was considered highly dangerous.

So why is Obama today returning to a policy that even his supporters admit did not succeed in dissuading Tehran from continuing its efforts to accelerate its nuclear program?

Perhaps, in his second term, Obama feels more liberated from the pressures faced by any president thinking of re-running for the White House, and therefore he wants to give a second and perhaps final chance to the policy of “positive dialogue”. This is in the hope that it will achieve better results than in the past, especially with the changes brought about by the Arab Spring and the sense that Iran may be on the verge of losing its most important regional ally as the Bashar al-Assad regime’s grip loosens in Syria, and what this means for its allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. But more importantly than that, the Obama administration may now feel that its options are limited because the hourglass indicates that Iran is soon going to cross the tipping point in its nuclear program. Based on intelligence estimates and reports, the economic pressures and sanctions, in addition to the cyber-attacks, may have slowed down the Iranian nuclear program but they have not stopped it, and now the Iranian leadership seem to be accelerating their nuclear pace.

There is also another factor pushing Obama to try and experiment with the policy of dialogue with Tehran one last time, namely the repercussions of the economic and financial crisis on America and the global economy as a whole. This has made Washington hesitant and even worried about the cost of entering into a new war, the possibilities of which are more distinct with the likelihood of Netanyahu’s victory in the upcoming Israeli elections. There are those who think that Obama has strengthened his stance with the nomination of John Kerry for the next US Secretary of State, and the possibility of nominating Chuck Hagel for the Ministry of Defense, both of whom have declared their support for the policy of dialogue with Tehran, but not excluding the military option as a last resort.

Whatever the way forward for the US administration, the repercussions will be great and no one in our region can ignore this.

About the Author:Osman Mirghani is Asharq Al-Awsat's Senior Editor-at-Large. 

Egypt: Could Mursi become another Khomeini?

By Amir Taheri

Judging by the barrage of comments triggered by President Mohamed Mursi’s controversial executive decree, Egypt has already fallen under a new dictatorship. Mursi, one commentator insists, has killed the Arab Spring. What Egypt is entering is an “Islamist Winter”, another pundit observes. Pushing hyperbole further, some commentators suggest that Mursi wants to be “another Khomeini”.

Almost daily protests at Tahrir Square leave little doubt that Mursi’s decree has touched a raw nerve. Nevertheless, it is important that any response to Mursi’s move be proportionate. To that end one should try to understand Mursi’s move, without necessarily justifying it.

On close examination, Mursi’s decree appears less frightening than we are led to believe. Because Egypt is in transition, it is not quite clear how executive decisions could be taken and validated. Mursi’s decree is an attempt at dealing with that dilemma, albeit in a rather gauche way that is open to misunderstanding.

Mursi was elected under a presidential, rather than a parliamentary, system in which the President of the Republic is both head of state and head of the executive branch of government. In such systems, the president could take and enforce a range of decisions without the prior approval of the legislative branch of government.

In the United States, for example, the president has the power to make numerous appointments, below Cabinet level, without approval from Congress.

The American president could also take numerous decisions by using a device called “presidential finding.”

When Congress is in recess, the president could even make Cabinet level appointments by decree. An example was the appointment by President George W Bush of John Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations. This was done because the Democrat-dominated Senate had threatened to prevent the appointment by filibustering.

Even on such highly sensitive issues as getting involved in a foreign war, the president retains immense powers for up to 90 days. In some cases, as the recent US intervention in Libya, a presidential decision could be shaped in ways that circumvent the War Powers Act.

In France, which also has a presidential system, the powers of the president are even greater. Unlike his US counterpart, a French president is not obliged to have members of his Cabinet vetted and ratified by the parliament. Nor does he offer the parliament a State of the Union report.

Needless to say in both the American and French systems virtually every presidential decision remains open to legal challenge through the Supreme Court in the United States and the Constitutional Council in France. In both countries any citizen could apply for an injunction. However, even then they cannot expect the court to pre-empt a presidential decision.

What Mursi is trying to do is to introduce a mechanism that resembles the American “presidential findings” and the French “presidential decrees”.

Regardless of the content of the decision taken or to be taken, Mursi has the right to devise a mechanism in the absence of a legislative power. This is needed to protect the decision-making process against disruption through pre-emptive attempts at securing injunctions from the Constitutional Court. To add to complications, the very status of that court remains uncertain if only because the new constitution is not yet drafted.

To be sure, Egypt should move towards the rule of law. But the rule of law does not mean rule by lawyers. One could recall many examples of how the rule of law is twisted into rule by lawyers in many walks of life. The US has witnessed at least one presidential election decided by lawyers rather than the electorate. Outside politics, we saw how a man charged with murder was cleared in a criminal court but then found guilty of exactly the same crime in a civil one.

An example of attempts by lawyers to rule without being answerable to an electorate came in Pakistan earlier this year when a coalition of judges and barristers managed to push the prime minister out in an act of political vendetta.

Mursi’s decree gives him the leeway needed to deal with issues of national security and sovereignty. However, even then, and contrary to what he may think, none of his decisions would be immune from post-factum legal challenge. There is nothing in the Egyptian Civil and Criminal Codes to prevent a citizen or group of citizens from lodging a suit at a court. Thus, Mursi will not obtain anything more than what is allowed under the well-established principle of Sovereign Immunity recognised by both Egyptian and international laws.

As always, Egyptians have shown their originality by producing a political show in which lawyers practice street politics in the name of defending institutional democracy.

Will Mursi become another Khomeini, that is to say a destructive element in Egyptian life? I doubt it. Khomeini won power through terror and violence, and never submitted himself or his associates to the test of free elections. Mursi, however, owes his position to an election organised by his political opponents. More importantly, perhaps, Mursi, like most Egyptians, is familiar with the disaster that Khomeinism has brought to Iran. No sane person would want something like that to happen to Egypt or any other country for that matter. All those who wish to prevent a new dictatorship in Egypt have the right, even the duty, to be vigilant.

However, focusing on the form of policy-making is at best futile and at worst harmful to Egyptian hopes for democracy. What is needed is to focus on the content of Mursi’s policies many of which are deeply reactionary or misguided. Opposing Mursi must not mean trying to sabotage his presidency.

About the Author: Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of the Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the International Herald Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French magazine Politique Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11 books, some of which have been translated into 20 languages. He has been a columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and New York.

Look for signs of Iran in what is happening

21/11/2012

by Emad El Din Adeeb

Iran is playing the role of the saboteur in the Arab arena, exploiting issues of regional tension at the time of the Arab Spring revolutions. This is in order to heat up the region so as to disturb Tel Aviv and Washington, prompting them – at the end of the day – to accept negotiations with Tehran on Iranian terms.

This Iranian behavior, based on trading and bartering at times of crisis, is a fundamental philosophy of the Revolutionary Guards, who control the joints of the state in Tehran. The Iranian principle is based on the following simple premise:

“Stoke up a regional fire until the world complains of the flames, and then they will come to you with their calls to intervene. Here, and only here, can you barter with them and take what you want”. So, the Iranian merchant, who traditionally dealt in pistachio nuts, carpets and caviar, has now become adept at trading in crises.

The question that comes to mind is what crises will be exchanged for what Iranian demands?!

From the Iranian perspective, Tehran is searching for three main things:

1. Recognition of its right to nuclear capabilities, not to manufacture a nuclear bomb.

2. An end to the international trade and economic embargo on the Iranian state.

3. The re-integration and acceptance of Iran into the international community at all levels.

As for Israel and the US, they are trying, with all their might, to do the following:

1. To pressure the Iranian regime from the outside until it starts to erode from the inside.

2. To encourage an “Iranian Spring” to shake the authority of the supreme leader and the religious state, and to support the democratic and liberal forces there.

3. To reign in Iran’s territorial expansions in Lebanon and Gaza, Bahrain and Yemen.

As for the countries that are now bearing the brunt of Iran’s policies, they see Tehran as the new “Great Satan” which has ignited the fires of tension in the region. Some believe that Tehran is preparing to engulf the entire Arab region by heating up all its regional issues, closing down its oil straits, provoking small wars, increasing sectarian strife and providing extremist groups with money, weapons and training, in order to use all of this as a bargaining chip when it comes to negotiating with Washington.

We are just a trivial piece in the Iranian chess game, and it does not matter to Tehran if it inflames the entire region, destroys its economy, and puts everyone on the brink of a devastating war!