Why It Matters : Middle East

The Arab World Gives Obama Poor Grades

Newsweek — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:29:22 GMT

By Seth Colter Walls

Back during campaign season, more than a few liberal talking heads predicted that Barack Obama’s international heritage could change America’s image abroad, were he to become president. This week’s insta-reaction from the Arab press suggests that the honeymoon might already be over where it is needed most urgently: in the Arab Middle East.

President Obama did what he could on his first day in office to try and shore up those conciliatory bona fides by placing a call to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abaas. But one look at the Arab press on Thursday morning revealed how thoroughly the recent Israel-Gaza conflict may have scuttled any potential ameliorating effect of an Obama presidency on anti-U.S. sentiment.

For example, the lead editorial in Thursday’s edition of Saudi Arabia’s pro-government Al-Watan daily was headlined “Obama’s intention to reconcile with the Islamic world is at stake.”

“Many observers maintain some hope of seeing the new master of the White House keeping his promises, even though we are aware of the pressures exerted by the Zionist conservative and left wing to uphold chaos and instability in the Middle East and around the world,” the paper wrote in an unsigned editorial. If that sounds a touch strident for an editorial greeting a new American president on his second full day in office, the next sentence doesn't let up: “The world will be unable to cooperate with Washington if it upholds the policy of the strong lord raising his club against all those who disagree with him or do not serve his interests.”

Keep in mind this is a Saudi daily, not a Syrian or Iranian one. In the regional proxy war between Iran and the U.S. for Arab hearts and minds, Saudi Arabia is doing whatever it can to shore up the Western-supported Fatah party led by Abbas in the West Bank, as he competes against the more militant strain of Palestinian politics represented by the Iran-backed Hamas party that rules Gaza. At this week’s Arab League summit, it was also Saudi Arabia that objected to a stronger denouncement of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while also staking out the relatively lonely position that its 2002-era peace plan—which calls for full recognition of Israel by Arab countries—is still on the table. (Though not for long, King Abdullah was forced to admit on Monday.)

That pessimism regarding Obama’s ability to bridge the Arab-Israeli divide was echoed in London’s Palestinian-owned Al-Quds al-Arabi on Thursday. In an opinion piece, the paper’s chief editor wrote that while Obama’s stated intention of building better relations with the Muslim world was a positive sign, such an outcome could only be secured by “lifting American military and diplomatic protection from the Israeli massacres and imposing Israeli respect of international pacts and UN resolutions.”

Indeed, if there’s one thing that Arabs and Israelis might be able to agree on today, it’s that skepticism is the proper attitude in response to any notion that an Obama presidency will perforce induce any positive developments in the Middle East. “I can tell you, anecdotally, from talking to regular people and working closely with the political leaders, there is a good deal of skepticism,” saidDahlia Scheindlin, a pollster and political strategist who is currently consulting for the small, left-wing Meretz party.“Regular people are worried he’ll look weak before the dreaded enemy of the Islamic world. Commentators wonder why he didn’t mention either Israel or Iran in his [recent] speeches. ... While people are generally pleased by Obama for America’s sake, the mood here is so dour regarding chances for peace, so cynical regarding our own politicians and so certain that there will be a resurgence of violence here sooner or later, that they can’t exactly remember to be excited about Obama for Israel’s sake. If you ask a regular Israeli whether Obama can change anything, he’s likely to say ‘we hope so,’ and roll his eyes wistfully,” she added. “They’ll be watching closely, but phone a call to Abbas doesn’t mean Abbas will magically regain the credibility among Palestinians to lead the Palestinian people to a peace accord. And Israelis are pragmatists—bordering on pessimists.” (Find out how the West Bank thinks of Obama in Newsweek Katie Paul's interview with Fatah advisor Diana Buttu.)

Still, pragmatism aside, a Kuwaiti editorial page noted on Thursday that there’s no specific cost associated with being optimistic, even as hopes for regional peace appear greatly diminished. “We do not have high hopes of Obama or his administration, especially when it comes to stopping the aggression of the Zionist entity on Palestine,” wrote a columnist in Thursday’s edition of the independent newspaper Al-Rai al-Aam, in an article headlined “We won’t lose anything if we feel optimistic.”

Left unanswered, however, is the implicit question regarding what, precisely, there is to be gained from unearned optimism. Any chance President Obama has for an Arab street honeymoon may depend on his ability to convince all parties involved to hope just a little bit longer as he settles into the job.

Pakistan: Enthusiastic, But Circumspect

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:02:23 GMT

By Fasih Ahmed

Lahore -Reactions in Pakistan to America’s historic presidential elections run the gamut from enthusiastic approval, especially among the country’s educated young, to outraged disbelief, especially among Pakistanis who remember Obama as the presidential candidate who vowed to send troops into Pakistan if Osama Bin Laden were pinpointed and the Pakistani government failed to capture or kill him.

"I am really happy and excited for America today!” said Anum Sohail, a social worker. “It’s commendable what they’ve done, it’s history we can all learn from.” She said it was unfortunate that Obama didn’t allow himself to be photographed with Muslims on the campaign trail. “But anti-Islam sentiment is so high there that I guess he had to be careful,” she said. She did not expect U.S. policy toward Pakistan to change under President Obama. “It’s shameful how our leaders have made us so dependent on the U.S.,” said Mujeeb Shah, 38, a bookstore checkout clerk. “Obama will not change the U.S. policy of invading and killing Muslims,” he said. “America should leave us alone and respect our sovereignty!”

Adeel Butt, a 23-year-old lights salesman, says it’s too early to know what an Obama presidency will mean for Pakistan. But he has suggestions: “They should help us bring prices down, end poverty and give us cheap oil,” he said.

Citing Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s friendship with assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Obama’s friendship with Pakistanis while at Columbia University and his visits as a student to this country, Sen. Safdar Abbasi from the ruling Pakistan People’s Party says an Obama presidency augurs well for democracy in Pakistan. “Both Obama and Biden are friends of the Pakistani people and will support our recently-won democracy,” he said. The Biden-Lugar Bill would provide Pakistan with $15 billion over 10 years.

See the full round-up of the world's reaction to the election of Barack Obama.

Obama's Election: The View from Iraq

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:42:09 GMT

By Lennox Samuels

The day that U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker had chosen to inaugurate his huge new embassy in Baghdad coincided with an even more significant occasion, the election of America’s first black president. The cavernous reception area in the $700 million complex hushed as Crocker extolled the historic nature of Barack Obama’s victory. The diplomat deftly linked the fortunes of the two countries he serves. “Just as history was made last night in the United States, so too are Iraqis making their own history," he said. "Like America, Iraq will achieve great things and it will do these things through its elections.”

Crocker addressed the question many Iraqis, as well as American troops and expatriates, have: “What will Obama do about Iraq?” In America, the ambassador assured, “We have one president at a time” and George W. Bush will be president for the next two and a half months. “We will have full continuity of unity and purpose as we move through our transition.” In other words, it will be, at least for now, business as usual – in this case nation-building in Iraq. The reassurance was vague and general, but few expected more. In Baghdad, the landmark election of Obama is being celebrated by most, but few are under any illusions that it will change much of anything.

At least, they insist, no change will be discernible for some time. “The government has welcomed this [result] and shows all respect to the will of the American voters,” Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari tells NEWSWEEK. “Ultimately, it will have an impact on Iraq, but I personally don’t believe there will be a dramatic change or a quick disengagement.” U.S. military brass are on a similar page. “The guidance has not changed out here,” says Air Force Maj. Gen. Mark R. Zamzow. “We continue to do what we have been doing here and our Iraqi partners are well aware of that.” That is not to say senior officers are not moved by the Obama’s ascension. “As we work our way through a period of reconciliation, this is a powerful signal to the Iraqis of democracy in action,” says Army Brig. Gen. David Perkins. Referring to Obama’s victory speech, he adds, “it shows that you are not beholden to a political party; you are beholden to the people.”

American troops are cautious about their soon to be inaugurated commander-in-chief. The U.S. military traditionally leans conservative and that is largely true in Iraq. But some enlisted personnel bristle at the suggestion that they march in lock-step with conventional wisdom. Many supported Obama and greeted his election with enthusiasm – albeit muted. At Forward Operating Base Prosperity in central Baghdad, reaction among soldiers of the 4^th Infantry Division is mixed. “The Republicans have pretty much destroyed our country,” says a 20-year-old private first class from California. A 20-year-old private from Michigan offers a historical explanation for his Obama support: “With the first George Bush, we went into debt. Clinton almost erased the debt and then the second George Bush came and racked up even more debt.” Yet another PFC says his family in Montana voted for Sen. John McCain and that he might have as well – if he’d voted. He adds though, that, “It is time for a change.” A Missouri-reared sergeant, 22, morosely decries the election results. “With the Republican Party, there’s no chance of downsizing the military and there would be less cuts,” he says. “I don’t blame Bush for the recession; it could have happened with anybody."

At a time that Iraq is seeing less violence and hearing more talk of investment and restoration of basic service, many simply hope that Obama does not arrest the process. In fact, they identify the president-elect with a strong vision for their country. Karim Wasfi has watched the campaign over the last 21 months and says Obama represents hope. “I’m more hopeful with Obama,” says Wasfi, director of the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra. “I hope he gets out of the impending doom of uncertainty that’s coming. He’s got a very tough challenge, but he’s a hard worker.” Even State Department employees, officially apolitical, look to Obama for a better future. “This is so affirming about the dynamic energy in our nation - the vibrant expression of the voices of our people,” says a public diplomacy officer. “Yes, we want change.”

But many ordinary Iraqis remain unimpressed. In a country accustomed to conflict and disappointment, people have a hard time seeing how one person can have any significant impact on American policy, which many view with suspicion and distrust. “Obama has nothing to do with the Iraqi situation and we don’t expect much change to happen here, for he is not alone to decide,” says Marwan Ahmed, a government worker. “He is just a new face.” Bookshop owner Naiem Abdul Jabbar sees Obama as the chief executive of a global business that has a never-changing agenda. “An agenda,” he says, “aiming at achieving only American interests all over the world, not the interests of others, include Iraq.”

Virtually everyone, however, seems to believe that Obama is up to whatever challenges he will face. “I met him when he was here and liked him very much,” National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie tells NEWSWEEK. “After he left, we discussed it and we said “this is presidential material.’ “

-with Salih Mehdi

Israel: Mixed Feelings

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:30:33 GMT

By Kevin Peraino and Nuha Musleh

Jerusalem- For Israelis, Obama’s victory was bittersweet. At a number of key moments over the past eight years—including during the second intifada and the 2006 Lebanon war—the Bush Administration stood squarely behind the Jewish state. Despite increasing disillusion with Bush’s “freedom agenda,” many Israelis were unwilling to turn on what they saw as a steadfast ally in the Republican party. “Bush was very good for [Israel],” says Shai Bazak, a former aide to Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. “I know they don’t like him in the States, but he’s very popular here.” Still, he added, “I don’t think this president is going to change a lot. Israel is the least of his problems.” Reaction in the Israeli press was mixed; at least some government officials grumbled that Obama was an unknown quantity and worried that he might soften the American position toward Iran. For the most part, though, Israelis took the news in stride. “It’s safe to assume that Obama will not abandon Israel,” wrote Aluf Benn in Wednesday’s editions of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper.

At a breakfast reception at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel hosted by the American ambassador to Israel, James Cunningham, Israelis stepped over red-white-and-blue balloons and watched on flat-screen televisions as the results came in. One wore a popular pro-McCain t-shirt that made a pun out of the Hebrew words for yes (”ken”) and no (”lo”). It read: “Mc-Ken,” and under it, “Lo-bama.” Other Israeli guests quietly insisted that they were relieved to see the Illinois senator prevail. “I think it’s about time for a change,” said one, requesting anonymity in order to speak freely. Still, he added, “I don’t really think anything’s going to change.” As for Israeli officials, Cunningham says a number have told him in recent weeks that they were “impressed” with Obama during his recent trip to the Middle East.

Palestinians, who have been largely disgusted with Bush’s Middle East policies, were thrilled with the election results. “I’m excited,” says Haider Shafi, who sells coffee at a Bethlehem checkpoint. “All night I listened to the radio. He wants a solution. He’ll definitely help us.” Even as many remained skeptical that an Obama Administration would drastically shift American Mideast policy, some Palestinians couldn’t help getting swept up in the moment. Mahmoud Hassan, a 45-year-old Palestinian laborer, spent three hours waiting at a checkpoint Wednesday morning. “I should be pessimistic about American policies,” he said. “But I’m not.” Still, Palestinians worried about the president-elect’s safety; many are concerned that he could be assassinated. Others speculated that an Obama White House alone would not dramatically re-orient American loyalties. “It’s the Congress that counts,” said Palestinian Mouhamad Salame, as he waited at the Bethlehem checkpoint.

See the full round-up of the world's reaction to the election of Barack Obama.

What the World Thinks of Barack Hussein Obama

Newsweek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:24:09 GMT

By Barrett Sheridan and Fred Guterl

The most common reaction across the world to Barack Obama’s Tuesday night victory was a simple one: “Thank you.” It was a sentiment directed not at the president-elect himself, but at the American people. Having felt abandoned by the United States for so long, and especially after the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush, people across the world saw Obama’s victory as an affirmation that yes, America still does represent something special. Nelson Mandela, in a congratulatory letter to Obama, perhaps summed it up best: “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.” It was also a good excuse to celebrate. Kenya, the home of Obama’s father, declared a national holiday, and Brazilians proclaimed a new era of "esperanza". The few disappointed by the final tally—a dour-looking Tory in London, some security-conscious Israelis—did little to dampen the global celebration.

Parisians reacted with enthusiasm and relief to the news, some of them turning on a dime to become Amero-philes. The French newspapers, after 8 years of George W. Bush, might perhaps be forgiven for getting a little tipsy on Obama. Obama fervor reached South Asia, too, although the candidate's promise to follow terrorists into Pakistan with or without Islamabad's approval cooled the excitement of some there. In Iraq, everyday citizens have their doubts about what Obama means for peace in the country, but politicians agree that he is "presidential material." South Koreans struck a balance between pessimism and optimism; they worry over the future of a pending free trade deal with the U.S., but are encouraged by Obama's attitude towards negotiations with the pariah state to their north. In Japan, Obama's victory served to remind some voters of stagnation in their own domestic politics.

Our team of foreign correspondents has cavassed the globe for the morning-after reaction to this historic election. The event was cause for celebration and contemplation in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Seoul, Durban, Lahore, Baghdad, Tokyo, Russia and Rio.

Israelis Vote for U.S. President

Newsweek — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:08:53 GMT

By Joanna Chen

Jerusalem -- Israelis face two big elections. At home there's the contest between Tzipi Livni's Kadima party and Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish Likud party in February. And many voters in Israel are also getting ready to mark their ballots in the U.S. presidential race. About 42,000 Americans residing in Israel—half from swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—are registered to vote in the contest. Their ballots could tip the balance if the election tighten up.

In 2004, when more than 30,000 Americans voted, Israel accounted for the third highest number of absentee ballots among foreign countries, after only Canada and Britain. So far more than seven thousand registration forms have been mailed on behalf of voters to forty-six different counties around the U.S., according to Vote from Israel (VFI), a nonpartisan organization based in Jerusalem. With the help of a handful of volunteers, VFI has set up fifty drop boxes around the country and is sponsoring events for registering and voting. "People here feel involved," says director Shimon Greenspan, who founded the group along with his wife, Dena, two months ago. "They feel this decision will affect their lives, especially in Israel but also for their families back home in the U.S." Most voters are Jewish and many hold dual Israeli-American citizenship, but there have also been a sprinkling of calls from Palestinians with American citizenship living in the West Bank.

Greenspan cites two main reasons for the increased interest in voting from Israel this year: the precarious global economy and fears of a nuclear threat from Iran. But individuals vary widely in their reasoning. "I've never voted before but this time I feel I need to do something," says IT analyst Moshe Mizrachi, 32, who has lived in Israel for ten years and is registered in Ohio. "Israel is a vassal state and very much connected to the policies enacted by the American government, so this really matters." Mizrachi, who supports Republican John McCain, voted earlier this week at a gathering in a Tel Aviv bar hosted by VFI, where a packed crowd of mostly young, secular voters enjoyed half-price beer and big screen football. Noah Efron, a lecturer at Bar Ilan University, intends to vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama. "I don't think Israel stands to gain anything but I want to be able to say to myself and my children that I voted for this historic change in American politics," he says.

Voters who registered through VFI have also been encouraged to participate in the first absentee exit poll of the U.S. elections, slated for publication later this week by Keevoon Research Strategy and Communications. "The results are going to be explosive because these are real people, real voters [and] real U.S. citizens", explained Keevoon's CEO Mitchell Barak. Since it's believed that many of the voters are casting ballots for the first time, the results could be surprising and may influence the way American Jews, at least, will vote on November 4.

Turkish Court Narrowly Averts Crisis

Owen Matthews — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:23:27 GMT

Turkey was just one judge’s vote away from a constitutional coup. But after three days of secret deliberations, Turkey’s constitutional court voted six to five not to ban the country’s ruling party and exclude its top leaders from power. Seven votes were required to shut the party down on charges of allegedly plotting to introduce Islamic law to secular Turkey – a judgment which would certainly have plunged Turkey into a full-blown political crisis. Instead the court’s members – hardline secularists all – nevertheless decided to pull back from the brink and impose a simple penalty of cutting the party off from State funding – effectively a slap on the wrist for the AKP, but at the same time a face-saving solution for the judges.

Chief prosecutor, Aburrahman Yalcinkaya had demanded that Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country's president, Abdullah Gul, and 69 other AKP figures be banned from politics for five years. Their crime, according to the lengthy indictment, was that they had allowed the party to become a focal point of “anti-secular activity". In particular, the prosecutor was incensed by the AKP’s lifting of a two decades-old ban on female students wearing Islamic headscarves at university.

A seemingly trivial pretext, perhaps, for banning a democratically elected government – and one which is the most popular in modern Turkish history. But the court case is just the latest and most dramatic episode in a decades-old confrontation between political Islam and the secular establishment, which has sworn to keep religion out of public life in accordance with the radical secularism of Turkey’s founder, Kemal Ataturk. In 1999, just three years before his party swept to power, Erdogan himself was imprisoned for sedition after reciting a religious poem at a rally. And just last year, Turkey’s politically powerful military tried - unsuccessfully - to prevent Gul's election to the presidency, also because of his strong religious beliefs and his headscarf-wearing wife. The AKP called the military’s bluff by immediately calling an early general election, which it won in a landslide, and then successfully re-nominating Gul. The secularists’ response to that defeat was to draft the indictment which was knocked down by the court today.

Nevertheless, the AKP must tread carefully to avoid more time-wasting battles which have distracted the ruling party from much needed reforms and spooked markets. "I hope the party in question will evaluate this outcome very well and get the message it should get,” warned chief justice Hasim Kilic in his ruling. "The verdict on cutting treasury aid has been given because of members who decided that the party was the hub of anti-secular activities but not seriously enough [to close the party].” The subtext was clear: the court had decided to spare the party – and spare the country months of political turmoil – but now expected the AKP to steer clear of more provocative moves such as the headscarf law.

The ruling is good news for Turkey’s path to the European Union. EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said that "despite everything, this is a good day for Turkey and for Europe … There is a vast majority among the Turkish people who are in favour of European values. I'm sure this played a role, as stated by the president of the Turkish constitutional court."

It should also allow the AKP to take up a long delayed reform program on free speech and democratization. “Today’s decision by the Constitutional Court not to close down the ruling Justice and Development Party has averted a political crisis in Turkey,” says Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The ruling party should honor its election promises now and revive the long-stalled reform of human rights in Turkey.”

Israel Reacts to Obama's Private Prayer

Newsweek — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:50:59 GMT

By Kevin Peraino

Nearly a week after Barack Obama made a brief campaign stop in Jerusalem, Israelis are still shaking their heads over the aggressive reporting of their local news media. Last week the Israeli daily Ma'ariv published a photo of the prayer note Obama tucked between the stones of the Western Wall--a common tradition among Israelis and foreign tourists. "Lord -- Protect my family and me," said the note, which was written on the stationery of the King David Hotel, where Obama was staying. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." (Obama's spokespeople later declined to confirm or deny that the prayer was his.)

The theft--by a student at a local yeshiva--was quickly condemned by the religious figures in charge of the wall. "The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker," Shmuel Rabinovitz, the rabbi who manages the site, told a local radio station. "It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them." Rabinovitz and his colleagues do occasionally round up the notes to make more space, but those prayers are then buried unread on the nearby Mount of Olives. In Obama's case, the yeshiva student ultimately returned the note, but by then newspapers around the world had published its contents.

Among Israelis, ever conscious of their country's image abroad, and especially in the United States, the theft continues to generate criticism in the local blogosphere. On the Web site of the Jerusalem Post over the weekend, one reader complained that the theft was a violation of Jewish religious law and demanded a public apology. "Just hope that Obama will refrain from suing the jerk, even though he deserves it," the reader wrote. Others called for a boycott of Ma'ariv for publishing the note. Still, other Israelis dismissed the theft and view the prayer note primarily as a savvy campaign ploy. "He wrote the note knowing it may very well become public," said one. "Obama is not stupid."

Super Tuesday: The View From Iraq

Silvia Spring — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:05:04 GMT

For Sgt. Matthew Villalpando, Tuesday wasn't so Super in Baghdad. The California native has to be at the International Zone's Checkpoint Two by 6 a.m. every day for work, so when the results of the primaries started rolling in late Tuesday night, he was sound asleep in bed with his alarm set for 4 a.m. He didn't even have time to check on what had happened before heading out the door Wednesday morning.

Like Villalpando, most troops were too busy--or tired--to stay up to watch Super Tuesday's results as they unfolded back home. Few had the time to vote themselves, saying that, given their busy schedules, it was not a priority. While the Iraq war provides unprecedented means for soldiers to follow events back home--satellite television, cellular telephones, Internet and daily deliveries of the Stars and Stripes newspaper--there are still pockets that are out of touch. In a new base set up two weeks ago in an abandoned house in the Arab Jabour area, less than 100 soldiers live without any hook-up to the civilian world--they only have one room with electricity so far. Not only did most not know Super Tuesday was held yesterday, many still did not know the outcome of the Super Bowl.

Soldiers abroad vote by absentee ballot, which they can request over the Internet from their home states. Voting Assistance Officers at the U.S. Embassy can also help, but some still say the process should be made simpler.

Yet even for those who did not vote in their states' primaries, there is a strong feeling that the next American president could have a direct impact on their lives. Sgt. Villalpando is leaning toward supporting Sen. Barack Obama. "He displays confidence, good character and the backbone to bring this war in Iraq to an end," he says. "It's time to cut our losses."

"We're waiting for someone to come along who is going to step up and let us know when we can get out of here," says Sgt. Jeff Foster from South Carolina. He says most of his unit feels the same: "they are looking for someone who will bring us home." Foster thinks that person is Hillary Clinton, who has promised to start pulling out troops within her first 60 days in office.

Others plan to vote for the candidate who will stay the course. Specialist John Goodall, who describes himself as pro-military and pro-life, says he plans to vote for Republican candidate Mitt Romney because of his support for the Iraq war and the soldiers fighting it. Romney is against a quick withdrawal from Iraq and advocates strengthening the military by increasing its size by 100,000 troops. "It's important to me that people in Washington understand that you can't pull us out too soon and expect everything to be hunky dory," Goodall says. "You have to let us do our job and finish it."

One soldier, who did not feel comfortable giving his name, was shocked to hear how much money the candidates were raising--and spending--compared with how much soldiers get paid. (Obama raised $32 million in the month of January alone.) The 45-year-old from Indiana is currently undecided but says Iraq is the most important issue for him. "I don't believe either side has given a real stance on the war. They've all changed their positions," he says laughing, "but they're all about change."

Elsewhere in Baghdad, Iraqis seemed unaware that Tuesday was a critical day for American politics. Some voiced conspiracy theories that involved Israel rather than the American people getting to choose the next U.S. president. Others suggested that Iranians should be much more interested in U.S. elections than Iraqis. But most simply didn't care. "[Iraqis] do not want to know anything about the elections, whether Mrs. Clinton will win or Mr. Oklahama or Obama will win," says 33-year-old Mustafa al-Ebadi. But since both Clinton and Obama plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq if elected, Iraqis like Ebadi might indeed soon want to start paying attention.

With Hussam Ali in Baghdad and Larry Kaplow

Deconstructing a Straits Encounter

Seth Colter Walls — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:52:43 GMT

With news of U.S. and Iranian ships passing uncomfortably close in the night off the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, it's time once again to consider what's on the minds of the power-brokers in Tehran. Was the incident the result of rogue Revolutionary Guard ship commanders or part of a deliberate escalation by Iran? That the incident was announced by the Pentagon is noteworthy, as Iran might have been expected to toot its own horn, were it proud of the maneuvers. (Think of the drama it whipped up over the British seamen captured in the same waterway back in 2007.) This time, the official line from Tehran is that this was the "normal" kind of bumper-to-bumper traffic in the strait.

This is the foreign policy parlor game that used to be called "Kremlinology" during the old Cold War, and has no name at all now. But all intelligent guessing aside, one thing is clear: as a contentious symbol in the struggle between reformists and conservatives in Iran, America remains without peer. In legislative elections scheduled for March 14, conservative supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are attempting to maintain their dominance by appealing to a sense of nationalism -- specifically touting the president's success in countering U.S. threats and "intimidation." For their part, the reformists are playing on the suspicions of many Iranians that Ahmadinejad's provocations risk too much in the service of too little.

While the reformists have been distracted in recent days by the usual controversies over who can vote (the conservative parliament just passed a bill raising the voting age) and which of their candidates can run (an unelected government body can toss out any candidate deemed to be insufficiently "qualified"), the conservatives have, appropriately enough, had their analytic eyes trained on America.

Here's the revealing close to an otherwise windy tract in the January 5 edition of Iran's conservative Jomhuri-ye Eslami:

"Due to the continuous failures of the Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, the circumstance is extremely difficult for the Republicans inside America. The situation is so dramatic in the Republican camp that an unknown candidate like [Gov. Mike] Huckabee has won the internal Republican election [referring to the Iowa caucus]. Huckabee's victory sends this message to Bush and his administration that they have lost their popularity even amongst their own party members. The Democrats have also faced a similar situation. Due to their failure to take the Bush administration into account the people do not trust the main body of the Democrats anymore. ... The victory of Obama and Huckabee proves the failure of both leaders of the two main parties in America and a gradual deterioration of America's power in general."

The purpose of such agit-prop is unmistakable. To any voters worried about American reprisal in the face of Iran's nuclear policy, the message from Ahmadinejad's forces is that the U.S. electorate is sure to blink first and change political course -- like a ship in the strait -- as part of an increasing powerlessness. Therefore, a tack in the direction of Iran's own "agents of change" in the legislative elections would be not only unnecessary, but the renunciation of a great victory. In this light, it's not hard to understand how the decision to instigate some mischief on the Strait of Hormuz might have been conceived. And while there's no guarantee such stunts will continue to work on Iran's voters, Iran's conservatives must privately be weeping over the coming end to the era of such ready-made propaganda in the Bush 43 years. Just as we no longer have an analogue for "Kremlinology," so, too, will they be forced to discard some expired political language at approximately this time next year.

Key U.S. Ally Killed in Iraq

Larry Kaplow — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:17:02 GMT

America lost one of its most effective and colorful Iraqi allies in a roadside bomb blast Sunday. Gen. Qais Hamza Aboud, police chief for the Babil province, was killed in the midday attack on his convoy. Qais, who American officers sometimes called "The Godfather," was a Shiite Muslim known for cracking down on Shiite militias and criminal gangs as well as going after Sunni insurgents. His brash charisma – including his salty language and affinity for Jack Daniels whiskey - was recently described in a story about Iraqi warlords by NEWSWEEK's Kevin Peraino.

Qais had consolidated control of the security services in the province, a key crossroads region south of Baghdad. The former car salesman had used American backing to build his 800-man Scorpion force and assassins had already targeted him several times. He also faced down powerful figures in the central government as he took on militias with powerful friends.

His death shakes the region and the American forces' strategy there. The area is known as a transit point for Al Qaida militants into Baghdad and a breeding ground for Shiite militias. Sunday evening, a curfew was placed on the city of Hilla, the provincial capital near where the attack took place. Just hours before the attack, U.S. officers cited Qais as a symbol of progress. "Right now I see amazing momentum at the local level. Let's just focus in on Gen. Qais and the Babil police," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who praised him for going after insurgents no matter their sect. Gen. Qais will be a hard man to replace.

The crime of not dying for your country

Owen Matthews — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:29:30 GMT

In most countries, soldiers returning from being held hostage in enemy territory would probably be treated as national heroes. Not so in Turkey. Last week, eight Turkish soldiers kidnapped in an Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) ambush on Oct 21st were released unconditionally by their captors. But the soldiers – six privates and two non-commissioned officers - returned to their homeland to face accusations of betraying their motherland. Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said on Monday that was “not entirely happy” about the soldiers' release – adding that they were still being questioned by Turkish military interrogators about their ordeal. "No member of the Turkish armed forces should have found themselves in such a situation," Sahin told an audience at Ankara University. “As a Turkish citizen I cannot accept the fact that they went with the terrorists that night. Our soldier is prepared to die if necessary when he is protecting the country." Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek yesterday denied telling ministerial colleagues that two of the kidnapped soldiers had PKK sympathies and could have gone over voluntarily.

The story says a lot about the way Turkey works – and how, despite years of EU-inspired reforms, the country has still retained many of the habits of mind formed during years of military dictatorship. For one, the Turkish press remained almost silent about the fate of the eight kidnapped soldiers – a story which in any really open society would have been daily, front-page news. There were no explicit gag orders, explains a Turkish friend who edits a section of a major national paper – rather, the military “made it clear” through private, personal chats with top editors that it “wouldn’t be helpful to the Nation” for coverage to continue. “It’s not a censorship thing – we were doing our duty as citizens,” explains my friend – an American-educated Turk – with no trace of irony. “We couldn’t endanger the lives of our countrymen just for sensational news.” Then, after the soldiers’ release, came a backlash against the captured men which placed the blame for their kidnapping not on the Army – which still retains a powerful mystique in Turkey’s national ideology – but squarely on the soldiers themselves. "Shame, shame, what shame! Eight weak soldiers. I wish they had stood and fought and become martyrs," reads one comment left by a reader on the website of Hurriyet, Turkey’s largest circulation daily, and quoted by the BBC. "What were they doing when their comrades were martyred beside them? If I were them I would be unable to look anyone in the face after this," says another.

Soviet prisoners-of-war returning to Russia after years of slave labor in German camps after World War Two (or as Russians call it, the Great Patriotic War), were often sent immediately to the gulag for “betraying their country.” Their crime was to allow themselves to be captured rather than die for their country – even though it was in many cases the shortsightedness and incompetence of the Red Army command which caused their capture in the first place. It’s truly jarring to see Turks – in many ways such a European society – reacting in the same way. Their soldiers had the effrontery to come back home alive – and are now paying the price for not living up to the macho ideals of a society which is still deeply militaristic.

Lebanon's looming presidential crisis

Fred Guterl — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:16:28 GMT

Reporter Seth Colter Walls has filed this analysis of recent military maneuvers:

The wires are hot today with news of Hezbollah's weekend maneuvers along the border with Israel, as reported by Lebanese outlets. Pretty much everything about the revelation is newsworthy – in particular that Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was supervising the exercises in person, and that anyone was ever told about them at all.

Historically, Hezbollah has been vague yet boastful about its military training. After the summer of 2006, when Israel simultaneously miscalculated Hezbollah's strength and yet still managed to administer a pounding Lebanon has yet to recover from, Hezbollah now appears willing to deter any future Israeli campaigns through greater military transparency.

As much as Hezbollah's leak to Lebanese media was obviously directed at Israel's military planners – and pegged as a response to recent Israeli war games on the other side of the border – it also has to be looked at in the context of Lebanon's presidential crisis, which comes to a head this month.

I wrote in greater detail about Lebanon's complicated presidential politics recently, but here's a summary: Lebanon's next president has basically two options with regard to the Shiite militia and political party. First, he (sorry, no women are in this presidential race) could stand deliberately astride of any effort to get Hezbollah to disarm, like leaders installed by Syria after Lebanon's civil war – including the current occupant of the presidential palace, Emile Lahoud, whose term expires Nov. 24. Alternatively, the next president could team up with the Western-friendly parliamentary majority in attempting to usher in a stronger Lebanese state – thereby giving Hezbollah less of an excuse to operate as a military organization.

Lebanon being Lebanon, most politicians' attitudes on such matters are not a secret, thus the impasse. While many Lebanese are nervous about international reproach over Hezbollah, some of those same citizens look to Hezbollah as their most stalwart protector against Israeli attack. Nasrallah himself has made a lot of hay out of the fact that calls for Hezbollah to abandon its weapons amount to an effective unilateral disarmament for all of Lebanon – a weak state with a weaker military. When your country has spent two-thirds of the last 25 years either occupied or cleaning up from the wreckage of war, having a strong fighting force is something you might value, no matter who in the world objects.

So, less than a month before a fateful changeover at the presidential palace, Hezbollah's military exercises - impressive as they indeed sound – pose a rhetorical question to Lebanon's war-weary populace: Do you really want a president who would negotiate this kind of military strength away?

Ahmadinejad's accountability moment

Fred Guterl — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:28:34 GMT

The ouster of experienced nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani would seem to favor President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Iranian politics is more complicated than that, reports Newsweek's Seth Colter Walls:

Is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being set up for a fall by the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? The question is being considered by some regional experts in the wake of this month’s administrative shuffle in Iran, which saw experienced nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani thrown over in favor of a harder-line Ahmadinejad ally.

Since all such moves require Khamenei’s tacit approval, initial reactions tended to follow the conventional wisdom about Ahmadinejad’s presidency thus far: namely, that his favor in Khamenei’s eyes, and resultant power, greatly exceeds that of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

Vali Nasr, author of “The Shia Revival” and an expert on democracy in the Islamic world, offers another interpretation that's not so favorable to Ahmadinejad. "Ahmadinejad is being given enough rope to hang himself with if he fails to bring a good result with the nuclear issue," says Nasr.

Just as Ahmadinejad got his proposed budget passed, yet has failed to improve Iran’s sputtering economy, Nasr says Khamenei is happy to let Ahmadinejad take responsibility by giving him free bureaucratic reign over issues such as the nuclear negotiator’s post. If either Tehran’s tenuous relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency or Russia’s cautious support for Iran’s civilian nuclear program take a downturn before parliamentary elections next spring, voters will know whom to retaliate against. (In the event reformists retake the parliament, Ahmadinejad would likely face a fateful no-confidence vote.)

Judging by the content of their editorial pages, Iran’s reformists clearly sense the opening. Putting the president on notice that an accountability moment is in the offing, an Oct. 22 commentary in the reformist daily E’temad stated: “The [Ahmadinejad] government currently has more control ... than when it first came to power—and it is evident it should equally be answerable for this level of control.” If things go badly and Ahmadinejad is stuck with sole blame, the president may well wind up wishing he’d had some of that Khatami-era interference from the Ayatollah. After all, in the Islamic Republic, sometimes a little clerical guidance can be a blessing.

Putin's Persian gambit

Owen Matthews — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:31:53 GMT

What did Vladimir Putin hope to achieve as he stood side by side with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Teheran yesterday?

Photo: AFP

Certainly the visit was a boost to Ahmadinejad. Ever since Russia – believed by many in Tehran to be Iran’s only major international ally - backed a UN Security Council resolution censuring Iran and imposing mild sanctions last March, Iran has been dangerously isolated internationally. Now, it seems, the relationship is back on track – and, crucially, Iran is a degree more confident that thanks to Russia’s veto on the Security Council, there will be no further tightening of sanctions.

That diplomatic boost for Ahmadinejad sounds like a loss for Washington. Indeed, when George Bush hosted Putin at the family estate at Kennebunkport, Maine, this summer, much of the talk was on Iran and persuading Putin to continue his support for UN sanctions. At the time Putin agreed that Iran should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Yet yesterday Putin confirmed at a press conference in Tehran that Iran also had the right to "pursue its civilian nuclear power projects." That’s actually something not even the United States denies – but the symbolism of Putin coming to Iran’s defense was significant.

So what changed? In many ways, Putin’s visit was really about Russia’s relationship with Washington, not about its relations with Iran. From Putin’s point of view, Russia’s relationship with Tehran is a vital diplomatic bargaining chip, to be swapped for concessions from the Americans. And, as US policy in Iraq becomes increasingly geared towards preventing Iran from becoming dominant in the region, it’s a bargaining chip of great value.

Russia, if it wants to, can pull the plug on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and its ability to defend itself at any time. Russia is currently building Iran’s only nuclear power station a Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf, which forms the sole justification for Iran’s program to enrich nuclear fuel. If work on Bushehr is cancelled, Tehran has no fig leaf to cover its pursuit of uranium, forcing a dangerous political choice on Iran’s leadership between continuing with the enrichment program and risking full rogue state status, or suspending it along with the reactor. Bushehr is due to be finished by the end of next year, but Moscow has been using delaying tactics in order to extract maximum political leverage. Construction work was recently suspended, allegedly over payment problems. But the reality is that Russia wants Bushehr to use nuclear fuel provided by Moscow – in line with IAEA demands – rather than from Iran’s own enrichment program.