Middle Eastern Democracy

Is Middle Eastern democracy really something that America, the West and Israel should fear?  Some people feel very strongly that it is.  These same people are quick to conjure up images of World War III, genocide, and nuclear holocaust, further stoking the flame of fear.  Some claim that there is something inherent in Islam or in the Arab mentality that makes people here anti-American and anti-Western or that because of historical animosity, no other outcome is likely.  They promote the idea of a "Clash of Civilizations" between Muslim nations and the West and say that peaceful coexistence between a democratic Middle East, the U.S. and Israel would be impossible. 

 I for one don't buy a word of it.  I'm living in possibly the most fervently Islamic state in the world and nothing I have seen or heard leads me to believe that there is a predisposition for Muslims to hate America, the West, Christianity or Judaism for that matter.  In the case of Egypt, the revolution has not taken a particularly Islamic tone.  Christians and Muslims protested side by side.  Some Christians even vowed to protect mosques from attacks by pro-Mubarak supporters while Muslims prayed.  Women were heavily involved in protesting as well and are looking to have their own set of grievances heard, showing the revolution's secular and progressive leanings.  The belief that a democratic Middle East will be automatically anti-American and anti-Israeli is something no one could convince me of, but don’t get me wrong; the possibility of that result, particularly in some countries is still a real one.  So how the U.S., Israel and the international community decide to proceed could make all the difference.  Thankfully, if the right people are willing to notice, there are lessons from which to be learned.

Model:  Iran

Iran, whose Islamic and anti-American 1979 revolution is everyone's worst fear for nations currently experiencing popular protest, is exactly the model that Washington should be looking at in deciding how they want to involve themselves in the affairs of countries engaged in their own attempts at revolution. In 1953, the intelligence agencies of the UK and the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected, secular government of Iran under the popular leader Mohammed Mossadegh.  Mossadegh two years previously had nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company costing the Brits millions.  Once Eisenhower came into office the British were finally able to convince the Americans that his nationalism and cold-war neutrality were threatening enough to help them get rid of him.  The coup they executed succeeded in toppling Mossadegh's government, led to his eventual humiliation and life-long house arrest, and installed the harsh dictatorship of Mohammed Reza-Shah Pahlavi.  Pahlavi's rule was characterized by lavish spending on the part of the elite thanks to special deals made with the U.S. as well as the brutal oppression of the population through extreme violence and secret police.  

The people's response to Pahlavi, his harsh rule, and America not only propping him up but putting him into and keeping him in power was the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  The Iranian people had tried secular democracy; America wouldn't let them have it because it wasn't good for business and they feared communist collusion.  So the next time they had a revolution it was decidedly anti-American, anti-Shah, and because the secularists had lost legitimacy it was easily taken over by Islamists.  The result is the Iran we have today and the hardly tenable situation western governments have with the current regime there. None of this is conspiracy theory.  It is widely-known fact (outside of the U.S.).  Verify it independently.  Don’t take my word for it. 

If the U.S. had left well-enough alone in Iran it's true that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's investors would have had better days.  It's also very likely that Mossadegh would have led Iran to becoming a democratic, secular, modern, progressive although predominantly Muslim country on par with modern-day Turkey.  The 1979 Islamic revolution never would have happened and so neither would have the Iran hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war and the continuing struggle with present day Iran's radical Islamist constituents whom Iranian rhetoric must always placate.  So in hindsight, were short-sighted interests really worth interfering with Middle Eastern democracy, propping up a harsh ruler and eventually making such an enemy over, at the cost of so many additional dollars, lives and hardships?

The Israel Question

There are those that feel that Israel's security and possibly their existence would be jeopardized were the people of Muslim countries in the Middle East allowed to have their voices heard.  Again, I don't see this as a likely or reasoned outcome given a few conditions.  An attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, plain and simple.  And I believe that no state, no matter how fatalistic or supposedly in favor of martyrdom would risk their own assured destruction.  Also, getting along with Israel and in-turn the U.S. means good business, and governments love what's good for business.  Some would say it's hard to blame Israel for not wanting to make that leap of faith though, since it is their existence on the line if crap did hit the fan, but becoming much more reasonable and concessionary in their efforts (or lack there of) to reach some sort of an agreement with Palestinians in the context of the greater Middle East would go a long way towards ensuring lasting peace in the region and getting more of the general Arab public open to the ideas of recognition and peaceful coexistence.  My fear is that it is not their existence that Israel actually fears for, but instead their sovereignty over a "Jewish" state, something that would not be possible if they were effectively pressured into a one-state solution now that the two-state process is effectively dead.  

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - -

I would like to think that it is possible for all people to have a say in who their leaders are.  I’d like to believe that leaders and governments are capable of acting not purely out of self-interest.  I’d also like to believe in real and lasting peace.  I doubt that all or even any of these hopes will ever become a reality.  It seems that it will be difficult for major players, the U.S. in particular, to behave not according to their short-term political, military, or economic security.  But if they did.  If they happened to actually support the ideals of freedom and democracy they claim to represent and helped to empower the people of these nations instead of those who oppress them, maybe they (and Israel by extension, or vice versa) wouldn't be seen as an enemy.  As the Great Satan.  As the meddler, the hypocrite who manipulates, spies, schemes and orchestrates all in the interest of resources and power, if not some greater Zionist conspiracy (in the eyes of some).  Who knows? Maybe we could all even start sharing this big ol' rock we're living on a little better.  But at the same time, it is all together possible that there are those who stand to benefit a whole lot more from fear, oppression, and war.  And maybe those folks are just too powerful.

Still, we're starting to see that in the information age, when governments are no longer able to get away with violent repression without it being plastered all over Twitter and Youtube, maybe people's voices can no longer be effectively silenced.  So maybe it's time governments of the world actually started to listen, or they may be forced to.