Hero or Foe?

I was in a philosophy class back in 2003 when my professor warned me/gave me a public advice: “you better stop right now as you already got yourself into too much trouble”. He was referring to some comments I made – undiplomatic and not-so-eloquently-phrased – about the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. Probably influenced by a book I read about the Revolt and how some Arab forces joined hands with the British Empire to topple the Ottoman rule, I criticised the revolutionary forces, the Hijaz leadership and their putsch. Back in my idealistic days, I believed that loyalty must trump interest and that problems should be solved from within, not without. Now the professor feared for himself perhaps and decided to cut my ramblings short, considering that those leaderships I was criticizing (strictly in the 1916 context) were the same leadership ruling the country today (noting that later on I worked in fact in public institutions loyal to this leadership). In any case, I am sure my professor meant well and wanted to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with class mates who would take much offense to my candidacy.  Questioning the validity of past decisions, and stripping policies from “pressures and justifications and good intentions and nativity and oppression” and all other attributes linked to poor judgments is a necessary activity. As citizens and governments we should not shy away from re-examining past actions and evaluating their soundness. The activity should not always be one that leads to criticism….perhaps they in fact confirm the precision of the decision reached at the time. A neutral, scientific, cool-headed and factual attitude in addressing past events is very important… ….agreeing to de-glorify what we so much enjoyed glorifying is not a shameful act. It restores dignity to the objective and open mind.

Why this memory? Well, I was reading a controversial book that day with the title “Spies Against Armageddon”, a pro-Israel book that - in my modest opinion - lacks a tone of humility and objectivity. In one of the chapters, the authors refer to the case of a double agent who worked for the Israeli Mosssad (intelligence) whilst feeding Egypt false intelligence information at the same time. This double agent was first recruited by Egypt to spy on Israel but then Israel recruited him to serve as a double agent. What both stories agree on is that the spy, Rafat Al Jamal, was born in Egypt, recruited by the Egyptian intelligence, resided in Europe for a while and then immigrated to Israel under a false identity where he established himself as an important businessman. So far so good. Now the story changes; according to the Egyptian version – the one I grew up with and the one I so much enjoying watching on TV as it was converted to a famous series -  Rafat was a shrewd agent who spied with much talent and sent Egypt periodic reports. He even helped out in the Six Days War in 1967 by sending information to Egypt about the day Israel would attack. He also played a role in the 1973 war and was an exemplary citizen of nationalism, heroism and servitude to the Arab nation and cause. How impressed was I with that national hero.

Now, the book. According to the Israeli version, Rafat was caught spying on Israel by the Mossad and was given a choice. He either rots in jail for the rest of his life, or he accepts the offer to work as a double agent. He took the latter option and was recruited by the Mossad. Egypt was under the false impression that he was still a loyal agent, and he, to maintain the façade and avoid drawing suspicion, continued sending information to Egypt (albeit useless and marginal). According the book, he did in fact help out in the 1967 war and did inform Egypt about the date of the attack. But instead of telling them that Israel had planned to strike the air force, he told them that Israel will launch ground operations, hence the decision of Egyptian generals to leave fighter planes in the open. Of course, this deviation of attention immensely helped Israel in the war, giving it an upper hand after destroying the entire Egyptian air force in an eye-blink. Thank you Rafat.

I am not suggesting that the Israeli version is true. But what would have been nice was allowing the audience to decide…give them the opportunity to decide…to learn the facts…to hear both sides of the story. Shielding the Arab sentiment from disappointment has been proven to be extremely destructive. Whether it is about the 1967 war, the Arab Revolt or any other key event in the Arab history, narration must be neutral, responsible and modest. I would like to believe that Rafat served his country and the Arab world, and that Israeli narrations stem from spite and embarrassment. But what I desire and what actually happened are totally different issues. I love the truth, good or bad, and I would like to have the facts to reach a sound decision. In all cases, whether the Egyptian version were right or wrong, I believe that national glory and pride do not reside in one person nor in one plot, but in the nation’s ability to remain proud despite mistakes, deceptions and self-criticism. 

Quatre Efff: France's Foreign Friendships Fueds

Marine Le pen’s interview with Euronews on December 1^st was – unfortunately – impressive. The notorious leader of the anti-EU Front Nationale, who never shies away from protecting the French identity and interests at any cost – is an important contender for the presidential elections set for 2014. Her stances on the international and regional spheres were clear, direct and confidant. Her over-confidence and conviction in what she stands for and how she will translate these convictions into policies pose a challenge to the consistence of France’s foreign policy. Incremental politics? No cheri.

Le Pen said in her interview that she admires Putin’s “cool head”. She acknowledged that there is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of United States, defending the rights of Crimean citizens to take back the 1954 gift and return it to its natural owners and condemning the ousting of Viktor Yanukovich and the illegitimate government that came after the putsch. In the calm Middle Eastern front, Le Pen also questioned the validity of French intervention in the war against the ISIS (ISIL), and categorically refused to join a coalition that has Saudi Arabia and Qatar as members, considering that they are one of the financers of Islamic fundamentalism. And finally, Le Pen said straight out: “I doubt everything the Americans say. Is that clear? Whatever the Americans say is questionable”.

These positions reflect absolute divergence from the current French foreign policy, a policy that is accepted and supported by the majority of the French people. Despite opposition, the French people elected a legislature and a president who took certain stances on foreign affairs, assuming that such policies defend the French interests and ideals. When the Peace Camp military base was inaugurated by Sarkozy, it reflected France’s commitment to help defend Arab Gulf countries against an Iranian attack and is still serving France’s foreign relations in its use as a base for France’s participation in the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq. Moreover, it is a clear message to the USA that Franc is on-board to fight terrorism and is committed to establishing security of the region. France and Saudi Arabia also cooperate on a number of files, whether in commercial relations, diplomatic relations or common interest in the Syrian file. This fanatical terrorism financing cleric regime is not as monstrous as Le Pen paints it be, at least in Holland’s eyes. On the Russian front, France condemned Russia’s stance and acts in Crimea, and joined the EU /NATO coalition against the Russian bear.

Should Le Pen be elected as president in two years time, a major shift in foreign policy is expected. And so is confusion. However, I don’t know who would be more confused, the international community or the French themselves. 

UN$C

New rounds of talks took place between Iran and the United Nations Security Council’s Permanent five members (USA, Russia, France, UK and China) and Germany in Oman in November. The meeting set a November 24^th deadline to reach an agreement with Iran and its nuclear program, where in exchange of lifting economic sanctions, Iran must draw back on its nuclear activities. The deadline was not met, and no one cared really. Before going into that, a brief historic review of Iran and nuclear aspirations will be presented first.

Iran, under the Shah regime, was a western ally. Israel and Iran in fact were buddies. The nuclear program (for civilian purposes) started back then in the fifties and sixties and Israel even offered to help Iran out – an offer snubbed for some reason by Tehran. International cooperation was also offered to Iran, and things went smoothly and peacefully. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 changed everything however, and Iran was no longer the region’s watchdog. The cleric regime shifted the balance of regional power and alliances, and imposed a new set of ideals and national aspirations and orientations. This new ideology affected all aspects of Iranian life, including the scientific sphere, where the nuclear programme was at first disparaged and rejected by the Ayatollahs as being anti-Islamic, considering that any plan to create a weapon that would annihilate people indiscriminately is against the tenants of a benevolent religion (those were the days). Yet, politics trumped ethics, and Khomeini changed his stance on the nuclear issue, viewing the design of a nuclear bomb as a necessity to maintain security and protect the Islamic state. The program was back on again, and nuclear scientists went back to their labs to resuscitate the project. Despite international efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme (in particular Israel’s meddling with plans and manuals and later on introducing software defects) the programme was not halted. Assassinations of scientists, imposition of sanctions and embargoes, and supporting the green revolution were all futile efforts, and the programme is still ongoing.

Against this determination and defiance, Israel threatened on numerous occasions to level the nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, but since the boy cried wolf many a time, no one is taking Israeli threats seriously. The USA has also shied away from military confrontation or supporting Israel in any military operation, while peaceful Europe has been measuring its options. The wisdom of the USA and the EU bore fruit in November 2013 when an agreement was inked between the UNSC and Iran on its nuclear program, each side giving and committing to concessions. This year was to see actual progress on the understanding reached last year, where Iran would further halt nuclear enrichment, and the November talks were held for that purpose.

Now the whole humouring Iran and its leadership is not based on fear of Iran’s backlash against an attack (although it is a factor), nor its ability to close off a major strait in the Persian/Arab gulf against international commerce (also a factor), nor polite diplomacy (definitely not a factor); the reason is economics. This interest is shared by both governments and businessmen. Western investors received the news of talks and the possibility of concluding a final deal with much enthusiasm, visiting Iran shortly afterwards in search of investment and business opportunities. As the Chief US nuclear negotiator with Iran Wendy Sherman said: “as soon as sanctions are suspended, the world will flood into Iran”.

The western world’s indulgence of Iran and its programme and its conditions efforts to curb its programme peacefully whilst offering it an economic break is understandable for two reasons. First, Iran proved not to be an illogical, irrational and fanatical regime, as despite the rhetoric applied now and again, the country did not engage in any acts of aggression and in fact collaborated with its sworn enemy in controlling the Iraqi scene. Second, Iran is a gold mine, both for resources (both material and human) and location, and investors do need to dig into Iran’s business scene. Now Iran’s patience with the West and its intentional prolongation of talks is not based merely on its plans to win time (talking and enriching at the same time), but also on a geo-strategic and political card it is wittingly holding. Iran realizes a few important things: Israel will not attack, the US will not help Israel should it attack, Iran is key in maintaining security in Iraq, the US needs Iran to keep Shiite forces in the region in check, the Syrian regime listens to very few – and Iran is one of the privileged few, and the West is interested in Iran’s economic opportunities and oil (especially in light of what is happening in Russia and the possible consequences of oil supply as a retaliation to any sanctions imposed on the patient bear). Iran, as much as it wants the sanctions eased, is faring well and is no hurry to obey orders in return for rolling back sanctions. The revolution did not work, the economy is struggling but still hanging on, and the people learned how to live under constant economic pressures. It can wait.

Politics is not a product of good will but pure interest, economic interest in particular. Swallowing one’s pride and scaling back on the freedom and democracy rhetoric is a strategy that worked in the past and will work now. Meeting the November deadline was worrying the West more than Iran, as the former has got more to lose. So basically what the West is telling Iran: do what we say, and in return, we will let you let us benefit from your much needed resources. Human rights, democracy, anti-Semitism and the like are not important now. Tehran realized the position it has put the West in and decided to stall….just as a wise Iranian proverb goes: A drowning man is not troubled by rain.