Last Update 22:53
Monday, 23 September 2019

Iran Deal: A potential kiss of death for liberalism in the Middle East

Following a historic deal with theocratic Iran, President Obama might go down in the history books as the man who embraced the enemies of liberalism in the Middle East

Nervana Mahmoud , Sunday 19 Jul 2015
Views: 7817
Views: 7817

After 12 years of diplomatic proposals and 20 months of tough negotiations, theocratic Iran and world powers have reached a nuclear deal that, regardless of its potential advantages, is undoubtedly a victory for smart illiberalism and a potential kiss of death for the prospect of liberal, pluralistic democracies in the Middle East.

Both illiberal Shia and Sunni Islamists and illiberal non-Islamist autocrats could receive an enormous boost from the deal.

A few years ago, against all advice, I visited the Islamic Republic of Iran. To my surprise, I found a vibrant nation, with many liberal youth yearning for freedom and democracy. Those youth may now celebrate the lifting of sanctions and the end of isolation, but it is doubtful the nuclear deal will bridge the deep divide between them and their theocratic rulers.

For the Iranian Mullahs, the nuclear deal is an indirect acknowledgment from the West that their anti-modernity model is viable and successful. US President Barack Obama may be genuine in his hopes that Iran will abandon its “path of violence and rigid ideology" following this “historic agreement,” but his hopes may turn out to be no more than wishful thinking.

The regime --now less isolated-- has less incentive to couple its agreed abandonment of its nuclear program with an abandonment of what it sees as successful ideology than ever before.

Many commentators have pointed out that the deal could not have come at a worse time for the Arab world. With open sectarian tension in many Arab countries, a strong Islamic Iran will only inspire other political Islamic groups to try to match up to the Mullahs.

Iran’s regional influence in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen will only prompt a counter movement by forces that share an underlying belief in Islamism, but differ in its sectarian interpretation. Since 1979, Sunni Islamism has learned one important lesson from Iran: “Yes, we can” -– a slogan the Islamists touted quietly, long before Obama uttered those words in 2008.

Arab Islamists saw theocratic Iran as a perfect model for fulfilling their dream of ruling Muslim societies. The new nuclear deal will add two more lessons, and liberal democracy is not one of them-- defiance and lobbying in Washington.

Last Saturday, Ahrar Al-Sham, an Islamist Sunni insurgent group fighting in Syria, published an article in the Washington Post claiming to believe in “a moderate future for Syria.” Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at Brookings, scrutinized their claim: “Ahrar Al-Sham has been one of the most consistent military allies of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra.” The publication of the article in itself indicates how some people in the corridors of power in Washington are willing to buy Ahrar’s narrative.

The implication for Syria could not be more serious. Syria will continue to be torn between two mutually exclusive Sunni versus Shia forces; many of them are radical, ruthless, and undemocratic. Somehow, the Obama administration seems to see no problem in embracing both. As columnist Joyce Karam has written, Obama’s choices for Iran should be coupled with a regional strategy for his administration. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria thinks that Washington and others can talk to both sides of the divide to try to broker a reduction of tensions.

However, tacitly embracing radical Shia militias’ fight against radical Sunni groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS), while pretending that other radicals such as Ahrar Al-Sham are moderate, does not seem to be a sound strategy.

In Egypt, neither the removal of Hosni Mubarak nor the ousting of Mohamed Morsi has produced a liberal democracy. Moreover, a significant section of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its antipathy to Shia Islamism, has started to view the Iranian model as the way forward to regain power.

They wrongly attribute their failure to run the country during Morsi’s tenure to what they describe as their “reluctance to embrace revolutionary politics.” The Mullahs’ violent ejection of their opponents in 1979 is seen as “a model.” In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters will continue to lobby in Washington, hoping that its projection of an Iranian–style defiance will convince the Obama Administration to exert pressure on the leadership in Cairo to change its posture toward the group.

On the other hand, many among President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s supporters will use Iran as a pretext to justify more crackdown on opponents, and argue that world powers, which are willing to lift sanctions against the Iranian regime, despite 36 years of ruthless rule, have no moral ground on which to judge Egypt.

In his speech in Cairo in 2009, President Obama advocated tolerance, respect for minorities, and religious freedom. He also said elections alone do not constitute a true democracy.

Now, as Hisham Melhem, Bureau Chief of the Al Arabiya News Channel in Washington, has pointed out, “after almost six and a half years of trying to shape events in the Middle East, President Obama has very little to show for it except the nuclear deal with Iran.” More alarmingly, the American president seems to have lowered the bar, and is now willing to accept a softer definition of moderation to include any group, entity, or state willing to show pragmatism and cooperation with the United States, regardless of that state’s intolerant actions on the ground.

There are intrinsic reasons behind the metastasizing sectarian and ethnic conflicts that followed the failed Arab awakening. It is unreasonable to expect the United States to “fix” the region; however, it is dangerous for the US to empower illiberalism in a region that suffers mainly as a consequence of its illiberal players. It would be a pity if President Obama went down in the history books as the man who fumbled with the West’s anti-illiberalism alarm button, and embraced the enemies of liberalism in the Middle East.

The writer is a blogger and commentator on Middle East issues


Short link:


Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.

James Stanhope
20-07-2015 02:58pm
What alternative U.S. policy does the author propose?
"It is unreasonable to expect the United States to 'fix' the region" -- Absolutely true. So what alternative U.S. policy does Nirvana Mahmoud propose? Foreign powers cannot impose Western-style 'liberalism' even through violent regime change (example: Iraq). Given the West's paramount need for Middle Eastern allies in the war against ISIS, the West's only workable policy is to accommodate the current anti-ISIS regimes. That's the ugly but inescapable fact. Churchill had to accommodate Stalin and we now have to accommodate Khamenei, Sisi, et al.
Comment's Title
22-07-2015 03:19pm
Malevolent Interference
You are under the notion that interference in other countries internal affairs by force or otherwise is acceptable but did not yield results so far. That is the core of the problem with US foreign policy, why do they think they have the right to meddle in other countries internal affairs? If a country want to be a republic (democratic or otherwise), kingdom or whatever then that's their prerogative. It is the public's job to remove what they perceive as harmful and do what they perceive as helpful to the country.

19-07-2015 08:24pm
With all due respect!
This analysis is wrong: (1) The death for Liberalism in the ME has been there way before Iran Mullahs took over from the Shah. The failed marriage of Religious Extremism from Saudi with the Dictatorial Military grip on most Arab government is the “Kiss of Death” for liberalism in the ME. (2) Iran current government is much more liberal than many in the ME and their old distorted Ahmadinejad regime, the removal of sanctions will allow the well-educated Iranian people to demand more from their government. What we call “Mullahs” have Christians and Jewish MP’s in their parliament! (3) The US didn’t have the deal out of weakness or lowering the bar; the US administration is trying to mend the fences with old foes such as Cuba and Iran; they were hoping for similar outcome in the ARAB world, but the Arab ME is busy fighting each other and jailing and torturing their own people! (4) ISIS, Qaed, MB, Gamaa, and Shabab … have nothing to do with Iran, but Saudi; please check the facts!
Comment's Title
Sam Enslow
20-07-2015 06:42pm
Report in Egypt Independent
The report notes that Saudi Arabia is making diplomatic moves toward The Brotherhood and to Hamas. Those who recall Morsy's Conference on Syria will note that many, if not most, of the clerics attending were Saudi.

Sam Enslow
19-07-2015 08:04pm
Tell them to go way
The only thing this agreement does or was met to do was take away the chance for a nuclear armed Iran. Now since the people of Egypt and the Middle East seem to think the US is responsible for all problems in the area and have no understanding of events here, I would suggest ordering the closing of the US Embassy. And since the EU and Russia and China also believe thus a good deal, they too must be too dumb to be involved in a part of the world that has on its own created a haven if democratic, tolerant, peaceful, and happy nations. The US and its CIA are so dumb they just stumble along unless there is a problem in the region' and then it is the CIA who is responsible. Everyone knows no Arab ever made a mistake or is responsible for their actions.Honest enemies are better than false friends.
Comment's Title

© 2010 Ahram Online.