Iran tried to take advantage of the Arab Spring. It failed,
miserably.
BY COLIN H. KAHL
One
year ago today, Egyptians took to the streets to demand the removal of Hosni
Mubarak's three-decade-old dictatorship. As they waved flags and chanted for
the fall of the regime, another ruler 1,200 miles to the east was calculating
how to use their act of courage for his own profit. On Feb. 4, at the height of
the protests in Tahrir Square, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
took the stage in Tehran to deliver his assessment of the revolutionary moment
unfolding in Cairo.
Speaking
partly in Arabic, Khamenei described events in Egypt as an "Islamic
awakening" inspired by Iran's own 1979 revolution. The speech was blasted
out to thousands of Egyptians via text message, and Khamenei even claimed on
his webpage to have personally inspired the pro-democracy demonstrations,
comparing them to "the yell that the Iranian nation let out against
America and against global arrogance and tyranny."
Khamenei
was not alone in predicting that the Arab Spring would provide Iran an
opportunity to expand its influence across the Middle East. Early on, some
Washington commentators fretted that he may be right. Writing in Foreign
Affairs, for example, Michael Scott Doran, a former official in President
George W. Bush's administration, cautioned that the "resistance bloc"
led by Tehran was "poised to pounce, jackal-like, on the wounded states of
the region." And, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the
Knesset as recently as October that he doubted the "high hopes that
blossomed in the Arab Spring" would be realized, arguing that Iran would
manipulate events to expand its influence.
But
even at the time, Khamenei's assertions fell on deaf ears among the hundreds of
thousands risking their lives in Tahrir Square. When asked about Khamenei's
boastful claims, one Tahrir protester mocked: "Egyptians were not inspired
by Iran. Rather, the Egyptian people are inspiring the world." This proved
a much more astute observation than the supreme leader's. As Foreign Policy's
own Marc Lynch documents in his compelling new book, The Arab Uprising, the
2011 revolts in Egypt and elsewhere were inspired by decades-old grievances
against corrupt regimes and the mutually reinforcing demonstration effects of
simultaneous movements rising up across the Arab world. Iran had nothing to do
with it.
The
reaction in Tahrir Square represented a sign of things to come. Iran has tried
to exploit events, but the winds of political change have not blown in Tehran's
favor.
When
Mubarak fell, Iran's leaders moved out with swagger. They saw one pivotal U.S.
ally gone, and perceived an opportunity to exploit unrest to undermine other
pro-Western regimes, especially Saudi Arabia. They sought to develop contacts
with Islamists in Egypt and Libya, expand ties to opposition movements in
Yemen, and capitalize on the indigenous Shiite protests in Bahrain. And Iran's
leaders seemed confident that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime,
Tehran's state ally in the Middle East, was immune from the populist wave
because of its militant stance toward Israel and the United States.
One
year later, however, it is hard to find evidence that Iran has benefited from
the Arab uprisings. In fact, Iran's regional position has taken a big hit. With
the partial exception of Yemen, Tehran has struggled to build new networks of
influence with emerging Islamist actors. Meanwhile, Assad's regime has been
thoroughly delegitimized, expelled from the Arab League, and is wobbling in the
face of nationwide protests. This, in turn, has created considerable anxiety
for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that constitutes Iran's chief non-state
ally.
The
perception of Iranian meddling has also decimated Tehran's "soft
power" appeal across the Arab world. Surveys conducted in Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates by Zogby
International show Iran's reputation in free fall since the Arab Spring began.
Just a few years ago, Iran enjoyed a strong majority of support among the
populations of all these countries; as of July 2011, Iran had a net unfavorable
rating in every country but Lebanon.
This
is not just a temporary setback for Iran, but a sea change that could deeply
undermine its regional ambitions. To be sure, the trajectory of the Arab Spring
remains uncertain, and rising sectarian tensions and political backsliding in
some countries may provide opportunities for Tehran to cause mischief. But
several underlying dynamics suggest that Iran's struggles will continue.
As
Arab publics increasingly look to their own governments to represent their
interests, Iran's ability to leverage regional discontent to influence the Arab
street will continue to wane. Moreover, emerging political actors vying for
influence and votes in an increasingly populist landscape, including both
secular parties and Sunni Arab Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood,
will be keen to brandish their Arab nationalist credentials and will be
reluctant to forge close associations with Tehran. Within hours of Mubarak's
fall, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman was already taking pains
to emphasize that "Egypt is not Iran. Egypt can build its own model of
democracy according to its culture and Islamic preference."
The
Iranian regime's brutal response to its own 2009 protest movement puts further
limits on its influence over the Arab Spring. The regime's refusal to respect
universal rights, while claiming to back democratic movements across the Middle
East, is irrefutable evidence of hypocrisy. And Iran's continued support for
the Syrian regime's bloody tactics -- at the very moment that Assad faces
growing pressure from fellow Arab states and Turkey to end the violence and
step aside -- only magnifies this double standard.
Classic
balance of power dynamics have also triggered extensive pushback from Tehran's
regional rivals. Iran's nuclear ambitions, combined with widespread concerns of
Iranian-backed subversion, have motivated unprecedented arms purchases and
security cooperation among the Arab Gulf states. Exaggerated perceptions of
Iranian meddling also produced the ill-advised Saudi intervention into Bahrain
last March. In the face of perceived Iranian threats, Saudi Arabia and its
allies are likely to continue to circle the wagons.
Lastly,
as the prospects of Assad's political survival in Syria continue to dim, so do
Iran's hopes for regional supremacy. For years, Iran's close alliance with
Syria has provided it with a platform to exert influence in the Arab world, and
a base from which to funnel support to militant Lebanese and Palestinian
organizations threatening Israel. But with the pro-democracy movement in Syria
persisting in the face of severe repression and Assad's regime facing
international estrangement, Iran's most critical alliance is increasingly
tenuous.
If
Assad falls, Iran may attempt to compensate by doubling down in Iraq. But the
susceptibility of Iraq's Shiite-led government to Iranian hegemony is widely
exaggerated and Iraq cannot replace Syria as a gateway to the Levant. Iraqi
nationalism is profound and local distrust of Iran, a country Iraq waged the
bloodiest war of the late twentieth century against, runs deep. Iraq also
desires a long-term partnership with the United States and improved relations
with its Arab neighbors -- goals that are incompatible with Iranian domination.
One
year after the Egyptian revolution began, Khamenei's hopes -- and Western
analysts' fears -- have not materialized, and are not likely to. Although it
has been fashionable to describe Iran's growing power in the Middle East,
actual events suggest the opposite. Iran's economy is reeling under sanctions,
and the regime's nuclear activities and saber-rattling increasingly mark it as
a pariah state. And as the Arab Spring marches on, Iran will find itself
falling further behind.
-This commentary was published in Foreign Policy on 25/01/2012
-Colin H. Kahl is associate professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. From January 2009 to December 2011, he was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.
-Colin H. Kahl is associate professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. From January 2009 to December 2011, he was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment