Contradictions in the Middle East peace process

Walid Salem writes about the growing contradiction within European, American, and Israeli decision-making since the West dropped its sanctions-regime against Hamas. In Salem’s opinion, while some States favor gradual diplomacy to legitimate Hamas and establish a five-year ceasefire, others are seeking the negotiation of an immediate permanent status solution with Abu-Mazen. And as the complexity of the contradiction grows, one thing has become clear: Abu-Mazen’s hope lies in a permanent peace agreement. Continuing partial agreements will only damage Abu-Mazen’s Presidency, increase tension between Hamas and Fatah, and weaken the possibility for an eventual reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

A failed political party system

Sohail Mahmood details the history of democracy in Pakistan since its independence in 1947. After half a century of a corrupt, self-serving, and authoritarian political party system, the public outcry for democracy, accountability, and social justice can no longer be ignored. In Mahmood’s opinion, no single leader can rescue Pakistan from its current political crisis, nor should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. Reform is needed, not revolution, in order to build a solid democratic foundation for the future of the country. Only by respecting democratic norms, reconstructing the political party system, and promoting national reconciliation can Pakistan find its way out of its current, multidimensional crisis.

Why Israel should negotiate with Damascus

Mario Sznajder questions Ehud Olmert’s policy decisions in relation to the Palestinians, and Syria, noting that Olmert’s leadership has taken on new levels of uncertainty that are uncommon to Israeli politics. In Sznajder’s opinion, Prime Minister Olmert must define a clear political strategy and move forward in negotiations with Damascus. The following article explains why.

The comeback of Iran’s reformist and centrist movements

By Arshin Adib-Moghaddam (for Safe Democracy)

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam writes on the recent rise of the neoconservative movement in Iran’s increasingly diversified political spectrum. Unlike the neoconservative movements of the US or the UK, Iran’s neoconservatives have advocated social welfare, capital redistribution, anti-corruption measures and have pursued a pragmatic foreign policy agenda. Yet, in Adib-Moghaddam’s opinion, their traditionalist preference for preservation over reform, and their combination of the repressive tendencies of the Shah, with the revolutionary rhetoric of Khomeini, has not convinced the Iranian electorate, thus instigating the comeback, in the recent elections, of the reformist and centrist movements.

Tehran ’s Nuclear Challenge

By Arshin Adib-Moghaddam (for Safe Democracy)

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam describes three reasons that would explain why the international community should not be surprised that Iran continues to say no when it comes to any compromise of its rights under the NPT. First, Iran’s grand strategic preferences accentuate radical independence, both political and economic. In the second place, Iran’s foreign policy elites are deeply suspicious of the international community in general and the Western block organised around the United States in particular. The third reason is related to the modified strategic context in West Asia after the demise of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Lebanon. Adib-Moghaddam writes that the international community in general and the United Nations in particular have thus created their own weakness vis-à-vis Iran and unless the latter does not emancipate itself from the dogma of a new Middle East it will continue to fail in its mission.

Jordan and the reconfiguration of the Middle East

Ricardo Angoso and Miguel Angel Benedicto explain how Jordan could play an essential role in the reordering of the Middle East. Jordan’s good relations with its neighbors (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the monarchies of the Gulf) are key to resolving the conflicts of the region, including the confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians. Angoso and Benedicto believe that Jordan’s moderate regime continues to be stable, and one of Washington’s most faithful allies in the region, despite its poor economic situation, and the threats of Islamism and international terrorism. Read on to see why King Abdullah II could have a tremendous influence in pacifying the Middle East.

The changing dynamics of Palestinian politics

Walid Salem writes on the three different strategies that can be taken in order to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: negotiating with Abu-Mazen, negotiating with Hamas, or opening dialogue with both. Due to recent success in convincing the Arab and Muslim world to lift their sanctions, the Hamas-led Palestinian government has become emboldened, and begun to circumvent Abu-Mazen’s authority. Hamas‘ new policy positions also include the opening of direct dialogue with the Israeli government, negotiations with the governments of Jordan and Egypt, and the organization’s slow transformation from a fundamentalist group into a legitimate political force. In Salem’s opinion, neither Abu-Mazen nor Hamas can be ignored in handling the conflict, and the best solution would be to choose the third strategy.

The United States, Israel, and Muslim radical movements

Sohail Mahmood discusses the misguided US Global War on Terror, the failure of Arab and Muslim leadership to ensure the wellbeing of their people and stand up to Israeli and US aggression, and the subsequent rise of extremism. In part because of the growing strength of Arab and Muslim local media, radical groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have become the voice of the Muslim people to express their anger, despair, and disillusionment. In Mahmood’s opinion, the only way to fight fundamentalism is to reform the governments of the region, and change the failed Global War on Terror into a movement of respect for Islam, and support for moderation, democracy, and growth.

Between the Lion of Damascus and the Lion of Teheran

George E. Irani describes how despite the overwhelming results of the US midterm elections, the administration of President Bush is not backing down from its hardliner policies in the Middle East. With the power and influence of both Iran and Syria on the rise, a new (Persian) Cold War seems to be taking place, with relative power manoeuvres and its own arms race. Yet, taking the strife in Lebanon as an example, Irani points out that the US must sit down at the negotiating table with its Middle Eastern counterparts, in order to break this cycle of war and destruction.