As mentioned previously, there has been a general increase in repression in Iran in recent years, and several bloggers have been arrested and imprisoned Similar repression is taking place in Bahrain. You can keep up with developments and suggested actions with The Committee to Protect Bloggers.
This is worth thinking about in relation to the current euphoria about positive developments in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine (and some positive gestures in Egypt and Saudi Arabia), and attempts to tie all this to the elections in Iraq.
In the long run, freedom is on the march, and has been ever since its most determined enemies were defeated in World War II. Democracy has stood the test of time, while those who thought they could do better with armed force (generals impatient with squabbling politicians and communists impatient with incremental reform) have failed.
The Islamic world has lagged behind in all this: until recently there were no Islamic majority states that could be described as fully democratic. On this score, developments in Turkey and Indonesia have been more significant than those in the Middle East[1]. Probably the most significant development in the Middle East is not the recent political stirrings but the rise of independent media, most notably Al-Jazeera, but also blogs and other websites. Hence the importance of protecting these media from those (including Allawi and Khamenei) who would suppress them.
Within the long-run trend to greater democracy around the world, there have been frequent reversals, and the (apparently) successful suppression of democratic reform in Iran is one of the most notable and depressing. It’s hard to imagine that the current rulers can stay on top forever, given that it is now obvious to everyone in Iran and outside that they lack any real popular support, but they don’t look like giving up power in a hurry.
It would be easy enough to make a case that the Iranian regime is being strengthened by the threat of US military intervention, since the normal effect of external threats is to discourage domestic dissent. But, as I argued a year ago, there’s little evidence to support this. The trend towards repression was under way well before the invasion of Iraq, and even before Bush’s election.
The same is true of most of the positive developments that have been putatively linked to the invasion of Iraq. Libya began creeping in from the cold when in turned in the Lockerbie bombers in 1999. The recent progress in the Palestine-Israel dispute owes much more to the fortuitous passing of Yasser Arafat than to anything else. And while it would take a real expert to properly explain events in Lebanon beginning with the recent assassination, it seems safe to conclude that the main factors are Lebanese rather than external.
The places where the stance of the US has played a role have been Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Undoubtedly, rhetoric about letting freedom ring translates into pressure for (at least symbolic) steps away from repression by prominent US allies/clients. But even here the Iraq invasion has been ambiguous. It’s nearly four years since S11 and the pressure for liberalisation exerted on states like Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia has been very modest in that time. The fact that these states have served as convenient locations for torture[2], basing and resupply in the war on Terrorism/Iraq undoubtedly helps to explain this.
In this context, pressure on Syria for a complete withdrawal from Lebanon is all very well. The US is in a much stronger position to insist on fully democratic elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and should either do so, regardless of the short-term consequences, or get out of the Middle East altogether.
fn1. Of course, Turkey is partly in the Middle East, but the positive developments there are clearly related to Europe: events in Iraq, particularly the prospect of an autonomous/independent Kurdish state represent a test of Turkish democracy rather than a stimulus to democratci reform.
fn2. Egypt and Pakistan have been the preferred locations. But, as the Maher Arar case showed, even Syria will serve if it is mutually convenient
John Quiggin 
The Long March to Freedom has, more often than not, been forced under the threat of US arms eg the Hot War against Nazism, the Cold War against Communism. Having said that, it looks like Bush is defining victory down in the Middle East by rejoicing in the replacement of Baathist governments that feared (or cooperate with) America/the West by Islamacist mass movements that hate (and terrorise) America/the West. The fact that democracy movements in Lebanon, Egypt & Turkey are driven by Islamacists whose world views are perfectly insane is not something to be overjoyed about.
…………
For once I might agree with po-mos in saying tha “Islamia” is a social construct. One has to make ethnic distinctions when analysing “the Islamic world”. The real laggards in civil reform have been the SW Asian Arabics, whilst the C. Asian Turkic and SE Asian Malayan Muslims have tended to be more secular & moderate. Even then, the Lebanese had democracy for a while. But then disparities in the Shiited birth rate led to sectarian conflict and a long civil war, although I realise that the peculiar institution of multiculturalism is beyond criticism.
……….
The most significant development that is driving political change in the ME is the rise of Islamic demography, which is the populist wave behind the rise of Islamic democracy. Muslim women have not really taken to the pill so they have been breeding big families, which always spells big trouble for conservative governments.
New media are a double-edged sword. Ayatollah Khomeni came to power in Iran on a popular revolution based on new media tape recordings of his speeches. Al Jazeera is full of hot-head journalists and rat-bag agitators eager to whip up anti-Western sentiment.
Since the collapse of the neocon project in Iraq the Bush administration has been flailing around for a credible exit policy. Prating about “freedom on the march” appears as good a diversionary tactic as any other. For those who are inclined to forget the recent past, Bush didn’t want those elections. Sistani forced them on Bush. And Sistani still has it in his power to raise the Shiites if he believes that the current arrangements are unsuitable.
It is true that Bushite democracy rhetoric has cracked the door open a little in some of the anti-islamist dictatorsips of the region: Egypt, Syria, Palestine and perhaps Pakistan and in the incredibly complex and unstable factionalised Lebanon. But in these countries, as in Iraq, the beneficiaries of majoritarianism, as Jack Strocchi implies, will be islamism of different stripes. This happened in Algeria several years ago. Vicious military and paramilitary repression (assisted by the lunacy of local islamism) prevented an islamist takeover. Democracy had nothing to do with it.
When the United States recovers from its current Bushite mania, it is likely that permanent interests will trump US newfound desire for democracy in the region.
This return to business as usual, that usual business being oil, will necessitate an embrace of some dependable authoritarian who will need to be more subtle than the usual run of dictators until the masses get over their flirtation with “democracy”.
This post has me slightly worried. Does the normally phlegmatic JQ fear a US attack on Iran? The post would appear to be an insurance policy so that when hostilities break out he can defend himself against war-mongers calling him a Mullah-lover.
Brings to light the schizophrenic tendencies in the neocon approach to the Middle East. Support democracy, except when it brings to power people you are opposed to. I don’t think you have your cake and it too here. A commitment to democracy cannot unfortunately be made while retaining control of the outcomes of that democracy. Especially with a wide variety modern media available and effectively beyond control.
I do not think it will necessarily be possible to bring about “dependable authoritarian” rule in Iraq going forward even when/if sanity returns to the White House. The Shiites are united and I doubt they will be fooled into supporting a dictator even if he tries to keep the fact he is a dictator discreet. Given their recent past history with Saddaam I doubt they will want to risk it. Without Shiite support it will not be possible bring to power the kind of person a real politik America would want within the current political framework. And they cannot support someone outside the current political framework (ie a coup or something along those lines) without repudiating all the work they have done to bring about democracy. An interesting problem for whichever administration inherits Iraq in the future.
wbb,
I doubt JQ cares too much what the war-monger’s think.
An open question for everyone out there.
What are the odds of an attack on Iran by US or Israel before the year is out?
I place it at about 60%.
“A commitment to democracy cannot unfortunately be made while retaining control of the outcomes of that democracy.”
Dunno wbb, this reads like a pretty good description of the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections to me.
On your point about the consequences of letting the democratic gini out of the bottle, I’m inclined to agree with you. What the Americans want and what the Americans will get lie beyond the scope of the most shocking shock and the most awesome awe.
When it comes to democracy, progress, inevitability etc., people should look at the reply I just made to JS here.
Or look at the discussion of an article of Robert Conquest’s here and in Jerry Pournelle’s mail page for that week.
swio – you can get some good money then at http://www.intrade.com – you can 10 to 1 odds for
“USA to launch an Air Strike by June 30 against Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria”