Rob's Politics Blog

With every passing day the status quo in the Middle East comes undone. Ongoing warfare in Iraq, an increasingly unhinged regime in Iran, an increasingly hard-pressed regime in Syria facing an increasingly headstrong Lebanon, and - with the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon - an uncertain situation in Israel accompanied by the rise of anarchy in the Palestinian territories: all these things augur a turbulent 2006. The Middle East has not been so unsettled since the 1970s.

What brought all this about? The invasion of Iraq must rank as a key factor, but it cannot be the only one. Oslo's clock struck twelve in the fall of 2000, making the relative calm of the 90s seem borrowed time. And, perhaps, time ran out for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon - this being compounded by the relative ineptitude of the leadership in Damascus. Iran's revolution has been off the rails for some time now; the extremism of Ahmadinejad comes after a decade of ineffectual moderation that fundamentally failed to meet the aspirations of the young Iranian population.

Such times would call for steady, wise leadership in Washington. We can't count on that. Nor, though, can we count on kneejerk opposition to presidential leadership to somehow illuminate the way forward. Bush's having been wrong about Iraq says nothing about his policies toward Iran or Syria. Here the relative caution of the Democratic leadership is a sign of prudence and not cowardice. Fundamentally it is recognized that the challenges of the Middle East are occurring on their own impetus - what is unfolding is a set of events only somewhat related to American policies. They cannot be wished away and they may have more disastrous consequences if let alone.

The one comfort is that the United States is not acting alone for the most part. Britain, France, and Germany have taken a leading role in confronting Tehran. France has worked with the United States to get Syria out of Lebanon. And the reality of Israel's pullout from Gaza, coupled with anarchy there and Ahmadinejad's rejectionism has pushed European public opinion back toward a greater realism. This is a challenge for the entire Western world, and if there is a bright side to this it is that the relative consensus that preceded Iraq may yet be recovered.

With the election of Evo Morales to the presidency in Bolivia, we can safely say that the Bush administration lost Latin America. It did so in spite of its earlier promises to pay special attention to the region. Hugo Chavez, who Bush has handled poorly - most notably by displaying an ill-timed exuberance when a coup seemed to have occurred in Caracas - now has a new ally. Who would have thought that Fidel Castro would gain so many friends after the fall of his Soviet patrons? Our ability to prosecute the war on drugs will be further hampered.

This is, in part, the fruit of Bush's own inattention to the region. Potential allies like Mexico's Vicente Fox, have been ignored or poorly rewarded. The collapse of the Argentinian economy at the beginning of the decade brought a yawn from Washington, despite the damage this did to popular perceptions about free market economics throughout the region. In an era when we fight a global struggle, the support of Latin America would have been nice to have.

I've wanted to post here for some time, but hadn't quite felt like it. I have a backlog of observations I'd like to move off the runway. I felt like writing this months ago when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He has helpfully reminded me of what I originally wanted to say

As reported today, Ahmadinejad made headlines around the world by denying the Holocaust. In his words:

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces, and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that, they condemn that person and throw them in jail," IRNA quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said. "If the Europeans are honest, they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."

You have to appreciate the candor of the man.

You see, the to and fro of rhetoric about Israel's place in the Middle East has tended to obscure the continuing power of rejectionism - the view that Israel should be wiped off the map. Much of rejectionism is cloaked in less frank euphemisms - Arafat's favorite one was to speak of liberating Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad seemingly has no patience for verbal niceties, rather he has the bluntness of a Persian Bill O'Reilly. And we should thank him for that.

A more careful leader in Tehran - a slippery pseudo-reformer like Hashemi Rafsanjani - would be at ease muffling rejectionism and allowing European opinion to think that Iran could somehow be pacified. Ahmadinejad's bellicose utterances do more to awaken European statesmen to the serious risks posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program than the Bush administration ever could. Ahmadinejad's open embrace of hateful rhetoric has put Europe in the uncommon position of verbally defending Israel.

Ahmadinejad's constant recourse to Israel-baiting speaks volumes about his political position at home. Several of his appointments have been blocked by Iran's clerical elite. His economic policies are failing - and he campaigned not on being able to finally wipe out those darn Jews, but on his ability to deliver a better living standard to ordinary Iranians. With Ahmadinejad, extremism in Iran has put its best face forward. If and when he falls, no one will be able to restore the mullahcracy. And every act of his in the international arena seems to be expediting that day.

As a perceptive Slate article points out, the new German coalition government is without one of Germany's most sincerely pro-American politicians, Joschka Fischer. Fischer - it should be remembered - stood to the right of Gerhard Schröder on the Iraq question - though a skeptic on the WMD question, he had no desire for a trans-Atlantic rift and none of Schröder's callow electoral motives. At considerable risk, Fischer supported the Kosovo war in 1999.

Naturally, the Bush White House has taken no notice of him.

When President Bush came to Mainz last February to shake hands with Schröder for the cameras and pronounce a new day in German-American relations, he was introduced to a tart-looking but not-quite-familiar man.

"Hello, what's your name?" Bush said to Joschka Fischer.

"My name is Mr. Fischer," deadpanned Germany's then-foreign minister. "What's your name?"

Let no one say Germans are bereft of a sense of humor. And let no one say this White House knows how to treat its friends.

I don't have much to say about Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than it seems mystifying if one reads it as anything other than an act of cronyism. Miers does not stand out in any way from the pile of prospective justices; only if her loyalty to the Bush clan is taken into account does she become notable. It is truly a special kind of loyalty when she has proclaimed Bush to be the most intelligent man she's ever met.

This is probably a nomination worth opposing on the simple grounds that her primary qualification is a slavish loyalty to a failing president.

Tom DeLay's indictment, coming on the heels of the announced investigation into Bill Frist's sale of stock, marks the further degeneration of the Republicans' grip on power. DeLay will fight this indictment to the bitter end - it's doubtful that anyone will be able to persuade him otherwise. The question is how many other Republicans he will take down with him. How many other representatives will be tainted by association with Jack Abramoff and the other sleazy characters with whom DeLay has allied?

Who are the replacement leaders? Will DeLay's removal from power entail a civil war within the House GOP? Tensions tend to bottle up under a stable, tight leadership; with the Hammer on the sidelines, ambitious lieutenants may find themselves with a rare opportunity.

The ongoing collapse of the GOP's leadership affords Democrats with an opportunity to make 2006 an historic year - even with the gerrymandered state of things. The myriad failures of Republican governance only become clearer by the day; it remains for the opposition to deliver a concrete alternative message.

2005 has not been a terribly auspicious year for Bill Frist. Any elation he carried into the new year stemming from his role in ousting Tom Daschle must have dissipated by now. The winter and spring saw him getting embroiled in the entire Terry Schiavo mess and the concurrent battle over judges, in which he attempted to paint the Democrats as being opposed to "people of faith." To his eternal discredit, he attempted to diagnose Schiavo from the floor of the Senate (a poor second opinion that was invalidated by a subsequent autopsy).

Frist has an eye on the 2008 GOP nomination and, having preached to the Falwell/Robertson choir, tried to cross the aisle on the stem cell issue. This, more than anything, just incensed his former fans.

Now, the good doctor is being investigated by the SEC for the sale of stock from his own company two weeks before it took a major hit. He had claimed that the stock was being held in a blind trust, but it would appear that he received updates about it nonetheless.

With that, the GOP enters the 2006 midterm season with both of its Congressional leaders under investigation. Frist's own chances in 2008 are looking poor. At the rate he's going, he'll have managed to generate his own scandal cloud, his own reputation for crass partisanship, and his own PR problem with the religious right. Kudos to you, Bill.