THE MIDDLE EAST IN 2007

• First Iran.  I have been perplexed at the continued popularity and arrogance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president.  Perhaps the most significant evidence of his audacity was the Holocaust conference he hosted in mid-December.  Why did he do that?  There are perhaps six reasons for this seemingly ludicrous conference:

1. The conference was to expose the hypocrisy of the West.  Michael Slackman has observed that “just as Soviet leaders used to invite Americans who suffered racial or political discrimination to Moscow to embarrass Washington, Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to enjoy pointing out that countries like Germany, France and Austria claim to champion free debate yet have made Holocaust denial illegal.”  In doing so, he seeks to demonstrate the ingrained hypocrisy of the West.



2. He has also drawn a moral equivalency between questioning the Holocaust and the decision last year in Europe to publish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad.  This is good PR in the Arab world, for on the surface he claims a moral superiority to the West.



3. He seems to genuinely believe that the volumes of documentation, testimony and oral history on the Holocaust are exaggerated and an aspect of the Zionist conspiracy to falsify history and buttress the case for Israel as a nation state. 



4. The conference did not really deal with the nature of the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, it only pursued the fanciful wishes of those who deny these facts.  But in doing so, he and Iran are solidifying their previous bridges they have built to neo-Nazi groups in Europe.



5. Slackman comments that “Across the Middle East, contempt for Jews and Zionism is widespread and utterly mainstream.  Many say the Holocaust has been wildly exaggerated and used to justify the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 at the expense of the Palestinians, a move viewed as yet another example of Western imperialism. . . Battling Washington, chiding Arab leaders and claiming to promote the Palestinian cause have made him extremely popular on the streets of Cairo to Morocco.”



6. Mustafa El-Labbad, editor of a Middle Eastern magazine, has argued that the conference is “for public consumption in Arab countries.  It is specifically directed toward deepening the gap between the people and their regimes and toward embarrassing the rulers so that the regional power vacuum, especially after Iraq, can be filled by Iran.”  This reality points out one of the unexpected consequences of the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein:  There is no other power left to check the growth of Iran. 

See Slackman’s article in the New York Times (14 December 2006).

• A second area of concern is Lebanon.  With the summer conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Sheik Nasrallah, Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader, is emboldened.  He sees an opening to assert his influence and overthrow the government of Fouad Siniora, a pro-Western leader.  With the support of Syria and Iran, Hezbollah is in resurgence.  As I am writing this, there are demonstrations in Beirut with the express purpose of bringing down the Siniora government.  These protesters are obviously backed by most of Lebanon’s 30% Shia minority, pro-Syrian factions, disgruntled Christians and other more radical groups.  Their goal is the ending of the Siniora government or the appointment of enough opposition ministers (i.e., Shiite leaders) to grant Hezbollah effective veto over policy.  [By law the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim.]  But the Siniora government does enjoy considerable support—anti-Syrian Christian factions, near-unanimous backing from the Sunni and Druze minorities, who together make up 36% of the population.  There is an almost equal balance right now between the two forces.  Both sides claim a majority, and both see this clash as a defining moment for Lebanon.  For the US and the EU, the Shiite crescent across the Middle East is growing and no one wants to see Lebanon in that arc.  There is even the strong possibility that a civil war could erupt between these factions.  In short, Lebanon will remain a seething hotspot in 2007.  See The Economist (9 December 2006), pp. 51-52. 

• Third is Somalia.  Six months ago, the Bush administration launched a new policy in war-torn Somalia, placing the State Department in charge after CIA efforts failed to prevent Islamic fundamentalism from seizing power in Mogadishu.  The goal was for diplomacy to draw Islamic fundamentalism into partnership with other US-backed Somali leaders.  Since coming to power in June, the Islamists have expanded their hold on the south.  The US-backed government remains divided and a separate Arab league initiative seems dead.  Al Qaeda has now established itself as a presence in the Somali capital and the fear is that Somalia will become the next haven for terrorism.  Meanwhile, a war between Somalia and Ethiopia seems probable, bringing more radical factions into the Horn of Africa.  Osama bin Laden promotes and greets approvingly this seemingly imminent war.  It almost seems that Somalia is spinning out of control.  In addition, trouble here could spark a wider war in the Horn of Africa, where there are long-standing regional animosities.  Somalia has been deteriorating since 1994, when the US and the UN withdrew.  Warring clans began competing for power while the rest of the world turned away.  Islamic extremists saw an opportunity and began to move into Somalia.  With all the focus on the Middle East proper, the Horn has been neglected, it would seem.  We are now paying the price.  See Karen DeYoung, Washington Post (18 December 2006).

In conclusion, Iran, Lebanon and Somalia will be the centers of developments within this region.  When one adds the nuclearization of the Middle East and the demise of the nation state within this region, there is little hope for optimism or for stability.  The Bible says - keep your eyes on the Middle East.  Year 2007 will be no different.