Elliott Abrams on Mideast Democracy: Journalistic Travesty vs. Ground Reality
Mr. Abrams writes in the NY Times (June 11) about what he calls “Lebanon’s Triumph, Iran’s Travesty”. He, like most outside (Western, especially US) observers, is more gushing about the results of the Lebanon election than Lebanese and Arabs, who are more subdued because they are really on the ground. There is a reason for that: the opposition still won a majority of the popular vote (nearly 55%) even as it lost the race for parliament. That may not bode well for the future of the “winning” coalition.
“Hezbollah’s inability to win support outside its Shiite base, along with the poor showing of its Christian ally, Gen. Michel Aoun, leaves Sheik Nasrallah diminished…..” Like Thomas Friedman two days ago, he blatantly ignores the fact that the “opposition” won nearly half the Christian vote.
True, though, that Nasrallah’s stature is probably somehow diminished. Lebanese politics may have entered a more "subdued" phase, but that happened before the election. The "front" with Israel looks like will be quite for some time, with an impact on internal Lebanese politics.
He does make some good points on Iran, though, but he seems to be itching for a war no matter who wins today’s election in Tehran. True, Iran’s elections have their limitations, especially the undemocratic process for vetting candidates, and the dominant role of the “selected but unelected” supreme leader. Still, when was the last such elections, with fierce and open debates, were held in such allied bastions as Riyadh or Cairo?
That NY Times piece could have been written by Dick Cheney or Karl rove, or… Come to think of it, it was, it was.
Cheers
mhg
Comments