Obama's Cairo Speech Making a Difference Already?
NY Times: U.S.-Backed Alliance Appears to Win in Lebanon
An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.
Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.
It appears that President Obama's speech in Cairo last week may have influenced some voters in the Middle East.
Looks like it may have also helped in Iran:
The presidential campaign, now in its final week, has reached a level of passion and acrimony almost unheard-of in Iran.
In part, that appears to be because of a surge of energy in the campaign of Mir Hussein Moussavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad in the election, set for Friday. Rallies for Mr. Moussavi have drawn tens of thousands of people in recent days, and a new unofficial poll suggests his support has markedly increased, with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.
But many Iranians say the campaign's raucous tone is due largely to Mr. Ahmadinejad's unexpectedly fierce rhetorical attacks, which have infuriated his rivals and their supporters, and drawn some blistering ripostes.
"This campaign is a watershed in the history of Iran," Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst at Tehran University, said. "We've had debates before, but nothing like this. Ahmadinejad is accusing everybody of corruption -- he is basically saying the same thing the counterrevolutionaries have been saying all along."
So much for the right wingers claiming Obama made America less safe with his speech.
I'm sure you would make that conclusion even if Obama made his speech just half an hour before the polls opened in Lebanon and Iran.
June 8, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least the Iran claims are tempered above by Ahmadinejad's "blistering ripostes", which I have to say is a term that I'll have to use at some future time: "John prepared a blistering riposte, but chose to grit his teeth and endure his teacher's tirade instead."
June 8, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I am sure you would have said the same thing no matter what the circumstance was.
June 8, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Does this mean that Israel is NOT the only democracy in the ME? First, I hear this comment that Lebanon has elections and therefore a democracy, and now Iran too?!?! This is too much for a Monday.
June 8, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/07/more-on-cairo/
June 8, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey et al, no one who knows the region thinks that Obama's speech had bupkes to do with the Lebanese election results:
"I don't think that this had much of anything to do with The Speech, though at some level Obama's policies over the last few months may have contributed to shifting the perceived political stakes and terms of reference in advance of the elections. If anything, the U.S. influence came through overt American intervention in the election, which I found rather heavy-handed: Obama administration officials, including Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Jeffrey Feltman, more or less openly campaigned for March 14 (Biden famously held a private meeting with March 14 leaders on his recent trip to Beirut, and Feltman gave an election-eve interview to the Arab press warning that a March 8 win could endanger American aid to Lebanon). As external influences go, *huge amounts of Saudi cash and explicit threats made by American and Saudi officials about the consequences of a March 8 victory probably mattered the most.
The main impact of the outcome from an American perspective is that it avoids the complications which would have followed a March 8 victory. Had March 8 won, opponents of Obama's Middle East strategy would have pounced. We would almost certainly have seen a massive campaign arguing that Obama's policies had weakened America's allies in the region, which would have been wrong and unfair (see above) but which would have put the administration on the defensive. Obama would have faced a tough decision about how to respond, and how to reconfigure relations with a slightly-Hezbollah-dominated as opposed to a slightly-March 14-dominated government. All of this would have consumed time and energy, distracting from the actually important issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian front, Iraq and Iran."
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com
*The Saudis invested an estimated $500 million in this election.
June 8, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe the timing was only coincidental.
So Iran suddenly tolerates "ripe" rhetoric?
June 8, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys, didn't the Republicans CLAIM that Ronald Reagan's speech to Gorbachev, "Tear down this wall" actually 'caused' the collapse of the Soviet Union? Didn't the take credit for HIS words?
Well....tit-for-tat!
June 8, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. I'll try to remember to credit you if I use it! :-)
June 8, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine if reality is irrelevent.
June 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering the same thing today. Did Obama time his speech with the Lebanese elections in mind? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
June 8, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
THAT makes a lot of sense.
June 9, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Slackman of the NYT addresses the subject.
A taste
June 8, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink