Juan Cole is skeptical about the results of the Iranian election yesterday, pointing out what appear to be some rather glaring red flags. The big question that’s on a lot of people’s minds is the effect that Obama is having on this and other recent elections in the Middle East. I’ve been fairly pleased with Obama’s approach to the region so far. His speech in Cairo was well-timed and struck the right chords. But I also tend to agree with Josh that it’s wrong to give him all the credit for Hezbollah’s poor showing in the Lebanese elections earlier in the week.
That said, I disagree with this:
Let’s rewind with a little context: Contrary to all conventional wisdom (even conventional wisdom in Israel), Israel’s war on Hezbollah in 2006 was actually successful. It was not, as everyone reported, a sort of mini-Vietnam for the Israeli army. I’ve been arguing this for a while. And anticipating Hezbollah’s troubles.
Check it out: Israel routed Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon.
I think this AP report provides better context for what happened there. While the author contends that Obama actually did weigh on the minds of Lebanese voters, concerns over Iranian influence were the main impetus behind the rejection of Hezbollah.
Lebanon is a nation used to being caught in the middle of larger battles, between Israel, the U.S., Syria and Iran. The Lebanese Civil War on the 80s splintered the country into a number of factions, many of which became specifically aligned with one or more of those outside powers. The recent trend in Lebanese politics has been to oppose whichever faction appears to be taking the hardest line within those larger conflicts and raising the temperature in Beirut. When that faction was Israel in 2006, Hezbollah gained in strength. Today, that faction appears to be Iran. And while I agree that Obama’s speech in Cairo didn’t necessarily directly inspire Lebanese voters to vote one way or another, the perception of change that Obama’s election has brought to how the U.S. will deal with the region most likely altered the perceptions of who many Lebanese see as a greater threat to their stability.
UPDATE: Gary Sick has an interesting post on what’s happening in Iran.
Don’t you find this kind of statement wishy washy?
“And while I agree that Obama’s speech in Cairo didn’t necessarily directly inspire Lebanese voters to vote one way or another, the perception of change that Obama’s election has brought to how the U.S. will deal with the region most likely altered the perceptions of who many Lebanese see as a greater threat to their stability.”
On one hand, he agrees Obama didn’t influence the vote…on the other hand, Obama’s election changes perceptions of the Lebanese…which he’s just explained is what incluences their votes (they vote against the faction most aligned with an outside power.
You might as well say on the one hand, Obama could be influencing them, but on the other hand, maybe not.
This adds to our understanding….how?????
Why are we involved with the security of Israel? Aren’t they strong enough to take care of themselves?
I think we should just get out of these crazy military adventures in the Middle East and let the people who live there run their affairs. Same thing goes for the Korean Peninsula – let the neighborhood take care of things.
All these military campaigns do is deplete the treasury, piss-off the rest of the world and get military folks killed and wounded. Enough all ready!!
@1 Lee is writing for people who comprehend nuances and can handle ambiguities, not you.
@2 Isolationism got us World War 2. A bit of timely intervention when Hitler was still weak might have saved the world a lot of grief, although that’s debatable. As for meddling in the Middle East, that’s where two-thirds of the world’s oil supply is. So, while it’s easy to agree with your sentiments at a visceral level, the reality is more troublesome.
@1
It’s about direct vs. indirect influence, and I agree that I’m splitting hairs somewhat. I think Josh was responding to those who said that Obama’s speech influenced the vote. I’m just saying that it wasn’t necessarily the speech, but that Obama’s election has changed the underlying dynamics in the region somewhat. But that, in itself, is not something that Obama has “done”.
I heard King County election officials were in Tehran keeping an eye on security, but they did find boxes of purple fingers “eleven” times.
@6 I heard you like gay sex with horny goats.
mmmm Bush/Cheney administration rig election in Ohio in 2004 (with help of CEO of company providing tally machines and numerous individuals with direct ties to White House) to insure reelection and four more years of grand theft America while trouncing the US Constitution. Iran leaders follow example. GOP likes Ohio outcome (well, except for all those people going to jail for their role in the fraudulent election), but hates Iran outcome. Classic hypocrisy.
Fool@8: Per Lee above, people in Iran focus on the more recent American issues. Can’t you figger it out dumb arachnid? You need to update your attack. Oh wait a minute… it’s weak sauce. ACORN is their model now. If it can perform miracles in certain locations in the US, why not use the same tactics in Iran. Looks like it may have worked tremendously.