Coming: the week of February 8, 2010--Israel and Palestine - Two States for Two Peoples: If Not Now, When?

The original web-launch was delayed because of some file conversion problems. Be patient please.

Sy Hersh talks to Bashar al-Asad

Notable mostly as a sample of the sort of assessment that one might easily hear from political elites across the Arab world. Bashar's implicit yearning for Yitzhak Rabin merits notice.

Iran's Nuclear Program, as seen in mid January

This is part of an interview that I gave more than two weeks ago. Since the interview, Iran has rejected key components of the enriched fuel storage plan devised by the IAEA.

The point that I made emphatically was that the U.S. would occupy a more credible position if it emphasized a strong commitment to a nuclear free Middle East in its diplomacy. President Obama did raise the issue in his Cairo speech, and on a few other occasions, but these references have the quality of boiler-plate. In much of the commentary on the Iranian nuclear program, there is no mention whatsoever of Israel's substantial nuclear arsenal. Israel, of course, does not adhere to the NPT and declares pro forma that it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, whereas, if the estimates of the CIA (not to mention the Vanunu revelations in October 1986) are to be trusted, it already has. To presume that Israel's arsenal is not one of the factors that drive the Iranian program is willful ignorance. It would be naive to presume that Israel would easily agree to surrender its nuclear warheads. Nonetheless, silence about Israel's cache of weapons gives it more freedom of movement on the issue than U.S. interests dictate.

Were it possible to thwart Iran's drive for nuclear weapons without creating a host of other problems, that would obviously be beneficial to the U.S. and the states of the Middle East. My concern, as expressed in the interview, is that that is not very likely to be possible.

Coming first week of February: Israel and Palestine - Two States for Two Peoples: If Not Now, When?

A few comments after a long hiatus, beginning with Iran

Sorry for the long absence, but there were a variety of diversions. I will resume with several posts this week.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann created a bit of discussion a few weeks ago with their NYT OPED, which questioned the level of support enjoyed by the opposition in Iran.

I will not replay the criticisms of other people here, but there is one point that has not been made and that needs to be made. One stated assumption of their provocative piece was that the demonstrators were diffuse in their objectives. This was contrasted with the 1978-79 revolution, in which the authors presume that the opposition to were unified in purpose. In the authors' words: "They wanted to oust the American-backed regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and to replace it with an Islamic republic."

In fact, this is a mistaken reading of the Iranian revolution. As participants in the revolution will readily attest, there was a negative consensus, namely toppling the Shah, but there was by no means any consensus on what should come next. Many demonstrators simply presumed that whatever came after the Shah would be better, others expected a democracy of one sort or another, still others expected a socialist republic, and, of course, those who ultimately triumphed yearned for an Islamic state. Even after Khomeini's triumphant return in early 1979, the shape of the state to be was much in question, and it was not until later in the year that Khomeini's unique role as jurisconsult and that the idea of an Islamic Republic was embraced.

Therefore, the earlier revolution is, contra Leverett and Mann, quite instructive. Today's demonstrators seem to united in their contempt for the regime, but of many minds in terms of what comes next.

I would also not underestimate the courage that it requires for people, young and old alike, to move into the streets and challenge the government. Therefore, although the government may be able to mobilize large demonstrations, for which the participants may be rewarded and will face no threat of imprisonment, we should not devalue the importance of demonstrations that question the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.

There is a difference between the 1978-79 revolution and that is that the security apparatus splintered. We have not seen that happening…yet, and it may not happen. I have no doubt that there are sharp debates with the security forces about how far to go in attempting to squash the demonstrations. It will take more than a few policemen joining arms with Green protesters to signal a major fissure. Even so, you can be sure that the decision, for instance, to castigate Saeed Mortazavi for mistreating prisoners was not made lightly. From a variety of credible sources it seems that President Ahmadinejad favors a severe crackdown and opposed "outing" Mortazavi. So, while it is somewhat useful to try to count demonstrators, it is far more interesting to try to glimpse the contours of the debate within the powerful security apparatus.

A Chatham House assessment of procedural complaints about the Goldstone Commisson

Chatham House - Publications - Reports and Papers - View Paper

Berna Turam presents the November 2009 Campagna-Kerven Lecture Series on Modern Turkey

To see more information on the Campagna-Kerven Lectures, including links to streaming videos of previous lectures and information about all of the fifteen lecturers, check out this site.

Egypt's perpetual succession crisis: Mohamed ElBaradei, candidate?

EGYPT: ElBaradei says he'll only run for president if vote is free, fair | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times: "Mohamed ElBaradei"

Professor Emeritus Richard T. Antoun R.I.P.

Those of you who periodically read “From the Field” will have noticed that I have not posted in some time. Since my return from Baghdad and al-Najaf, and later England, I have been up to ears in a variety of projects, in additional to tending to my students. I will try to resume a more active rhythm in the coming weeks, including a long-promised post on the Hawza, and a reflection on the important Nasrallah programmatic statement.

More urgently, I would like to comment on the horrible news that Richard Antoun has been murdered in his office in Binghamton on November 4, 2009, reputedly by a graduate student who he had worked with some time. I did not know Antoun well enough to count him as a friend, but he did have a formative impact upon me. When I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, more than 30 years ago, he was a visiting professor in anthropology. While I was studying political science at the university, I did foray from time to time into the anthro department (and, of course, I now spend a good part of my professional life in an anthropology department). I fondly recall his wonderful course on Middle East culture, for which I wrote a long paper on conflict resolution that I later drew upon during hot moments in Lebanon. I recall Professor not just as a gentleman, but as a gentle, soft-spoken person who was always sensitive his interlocutor’s feelings. It is hard to imagine him saying anything offensive or cruel. In many ways he always impressed me as content to return to an idyllic Jordanian village far away from the mayhem and corruption of urban life. He was unquestionably a leading figure in Middle East studies. I join, as I hope you will his wife Roslayn in remembering his life and his work.

2009 edition of Hezbollah: A Short History: available in softcover or ebook

With a new afterword by the author.

Sony Ebook.

"Best recent study on Hezbollah"--Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek). "Norton has pulled off a noteworthy feat by producing an accessible yet nuanced study of Hizbollah--a rare achievement in academic research."—Melani Cammett (MESA Bulletin). "[T]he most authoritative, up-to-date analysis of this enigmantic group....Piquant anecdotes and richly textured details make the book enjoyable reading."--Kristian P. Alexander (Middle East Policy). "A series of related essays, each concise and provocative, this is an excellent introduction for the novice."--Joel Gordon (Journal of Military History). “A cogent analysis of [Hezbollah's] emergence and impact on Lebanese politics”—Sheldon Kirsher (Canadian Jewish News). "Norton deserves praise for writing an insightful and multilayered work accessible to a wide...readership."—Rula Abisaab (Journal of Palestine Studies). "...thorough study of Hezbollah, updated with a new afterword in 2008, retraces Hezbollah’s history, from its emergence to its recent struggle against Israel in 2006."—Lina Zuhour (Arab Reform Initiative). "For first time readers on Lebanon and Hizbullah I highly recommend..."—Sami Hermez (International Journal of Middle East Studies). “This short, authoritative book, based on first-hand experience, efficiently analyses [Hezbollah's] status"—Iain Fianalayson (The Times). "America's leading scholar on Hezbollah"—Joshua M. Landis. “Highly informative, jargon-free book...An objective account of the genesis and development of Hezbollah....Highly recommended.”—N. Entessar (Choice). “A good, concise survey by a perceptive student of the Lebanese Shia”—David Gardner (Financial Times). “Thorough, articulate portrait of Hezbollah”—Publishers Weekly. “Norton's timely Hezbollah chronicles that dramatic evolution and its sweeping implications for the region and beyond”—Jonathan Finer (Washington Post Book World). "Everyone who wants to understand the complexities of the Middle East . . . should read this book”—Bruce Elder (Sydney Morning Herald). “Recommended”—Harvard Bookstore. “Norton elucidates . . . domestic and international complexities in Hezbollah”—Allen McDuffee (In These Times). "He ends on a tentative note, voicing hope that Hezbollah will play a "constructive" role in Lebanon. One can only hope he's right."—David Rosenberg (Bloomberg News). “Short personal anecdotes from his time in Lebanon add both color and authority to the book”—Beryl C.D. Lipton (Harvard Crimson). “An excellent summary that ends with a dramatic question: ‘What next?’"—Kail C. Ellis (Middle East Journal). "An excellent primer"—(The Colby File). "Most fluent survey of Hezbollah to date_covers the Lebanese resistance group from its inception to the current Lebanese political crisis”—Margeret Hall (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). : “In an easily read, easily comprehended book, Norton traces the origins and history of Hezbollah”—Suzi Brozman (Atlanta Jewish Times) “The many complex and often changing dimensions of Hezbollah are presented in the book in a clear, concise manner”—Rami G. Khouri (Daily Star). "Suggested reading"--(NPR). "There is no better person to address these questions…than Norton, who has been studying Lebanon, and especially the Lebanese Shiites, for longer than Hezbollah has been in existence. He offers here a brisk and balanced history"—L. Carl Brown (Foreign Affairs).