The Middle East Channel

Egypt’s top contenders appeal disqualification from presidential race

Egypt's top contenders appeal disqualification from presidential race

Egypt's top three contenders are fighting to appeal their disqualification from the first open presidential race since the rule of former President Hosni Mubarak. The move has increased tensions and accusations that Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is looking to maintain power, despite the proposed date of July 1 for a transition to civilian rule. Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's former intelligence chief and vice-president, was presumably disqualified by the election commission for not securing enough signatures. The Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, Khairat el-Stater, was blocked because of a prior conviction under the Mubarak regime, while the Salafist backed preacher, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, was barred for his mother's alleged American citizenship. Abu Ismail claimed charges of his mother's nationality question were fabricated by his opposition, and his supporters stormed the electoral commission headquarters. Suleiman has suspended his campaign, while he awaits a decision on his appeal. He would be allowed to run if he collects enough signatures in the coming days. Shater said his campaign would move ahead. The candidates have two days to appeal the disqualifications, and a final list will be released on April 26.


An advance team of up to six United Nations monitors arrived in Damascus to begin an observer mission to enforce the ceasefire and implement the six-point peace plan of U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan. On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council approved the deployment of up to 30 unarmed monitors in the first unanimously passed resolution on Syria since the beginning of the conflict 13 months ago. The mission may be expanded to 250 in another resolution that could come as early as Wednesday. The deployment has come amid increasing concerns that last week's ceasefire is failing to hold. The Syrian government has kept troops and tanks posted in urban and residential areas, defying Annan's six-point plan. Activists have reported a resurgence of heavy shelling in Homs at the rate of "one shell per minute." Conversely, SANA, Syria's state news agency, said a "terrorist group" attacked government forces in Idlib province claiming, "Since the announcement of an end to military operations, terrorist attacks have increased by dozens, causing a large loss of life."


Arguments & Analysis

Historic transition in Libya must not forget survivors of sexual violence, (Margot Wallstrom, Al Jazeera English)

The wide circulation of weapons does not mean that women feel safe; quite the contrary. From experience, we know that too often men in uniform carrying weapons use their power to abuse women and children. Preliminary findings from UN monitoring in Libya confirm that both women and men were subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence during the conflict. While women were abducted from their homes, from cars or from the streets and exposed to rape in places unknown to them, men were sodomised in prisons and in places of detention as a means to obtain intelligence. This serves as a reminder of the importance of including sexual violence in the list of possible human rights violations whenever war crimes are being investigated.

Hard talks on Iran (The Financial Times

Iran already faces a raft of energy and banking sanctions from the US and EU that are seriously undermining its economy. Iran also knows an Israeli attack this year cannot be ruled out. As a result, Iran's delegation arrived in Istanbul with a more constructive approach to talks than it has demonstrated in the past. Iran did not set impossible preconditions for future talks with its interlocutors -- the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China -- as it has before. Instead, Iran accepted that its nuclear programme should be the subject of more detailed discussions in Baghdad, where the group meets again in five weeks time.

Bahrain: Grand Prix Deicion Ignores Abuses, (Human Rights Watch)

The decision to go ahead with the Grand Prix on April 22, 2012, gives Bahrain's rulers the opportunity they are seeking to obscure the seriousness of the country's human rights situation, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision was announced on April 13 by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and the Formula One Teams Association. As part of a major public relations campaign to clean up Bahrain's image following the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 2011, the Bahraini authorities have been lobbying to have the Bahrain Grand Prix reinstated in 2012. The event was cancelled in 2011 because of political unrest. Not only is the event expected to generate significant income, but it is also being used by the Bahraini authorities to support their claim that the political and human rights crisis in the country is over.

-- Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker

AFP/Getty images

The Middle East Channel

The 'diplomatic window' that clouds U.S. judgment

Negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran are scheduled to begin tomorrow for the first time since January 2011. These talks will offer one of the best opportunities that the current administration has had to begin a diplomatic process that could help end the nuclear stalemate with Iran.

Since discussion about the possibility of these talks first began last month we have heard much talk about a diplomatic "window of opportunity." This phrase made its first appearance at a White House press conference where U.S. President Barack Obama explained: "We still have a window of opportunity where [the standoff over Iran's nuclear program] can still be solved diplomatically." This phrase has since been repeated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, among others.

Yet curiously, almost as quickly as Obama stressed the existence of time for diplomacy, he began to say how limited this period was, saying the window for solving the nuclear issue diplomatically was "shrinking." For her part, Clinton echoed such sentiments recently in Riyadh when she noted that the window of opportunity "will not remain open forever." This notion was further supported by reports from last month that she sent the Iranians what amounted to an ultimatum, warning them that the upcoming negotiations were their last chance to prevent the U.S. from pursuing military options

But Clinton's proclamation on the urgency of the upcoming talks ignores a much more basic and sorely neglected reality: namely, that a widespread view of top military and intelligence officials in the U.S., Europe, and even Israel is that Iran has not decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, although they are leaving the door open for a future decision to do so.

As the amount of time available for diplomacy is directly connected to a future decision by Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon, the U.S. is not completely powerless over how long this window of opportunity stays open. One of the primary reasons that Iran would pursue a nuclear weapon is to create a deterrence option against a future U.S. or NATO attack. Having witnessed the fall of Saddam Hussein and Col. Muammar Gaddafi, while nuclear-armed North Korea remains largely unthreatened despite its constant provocations, Iran has learned how important it is have a nuclear deterrence to protect against western intervention. By ending the unhelpful loose talk of war, and preventing a precipitous military strike by Israel, the U.S. can limit Iran's threat perception vis a vis the U.S. and decrease the likelihood that Tehran will decide to change course and make the move to build a nuclear weapon.

While lowering the rhetoric and refraining from military strikes may decrease the likelihood of Iran deciding to pursue nuclear weapons, the opposite is also true. If the U.S. continues to engage in heated rhetoric or eventually decides to launch military strikes, it is likely that this will push Iran to begin the process of building a nuclear weapon in earnest. Recently Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei both separately warned that a U.S. or Israeli attack would only ensure that Iran made the decision to sprint for a nuclear weapon.

While the U.S. has set its red line at Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon -- rather than the Israeli red line of a nuclear weapons capability -- the amount of time available for diplomacy is actually much longer than Obama and Clinton's comments suggest. As such, the window of opportunity that the Obama administration has described should anyway on its own terms remain open up until Iran makes the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. And if or when they do make that decision, Iran is still believed to be a year away from the ability to produce a nuclear weapon and one to two additional years away from building delivery vehicle for such a weapon.

While Obama's statement that the window of opportunity for diplomacy was closing plausibly refers only to his belief that time is running out for diplomacy before military options are pursued, such statements obscure the fact that diplomacy's utility will not cease after the upcoming talks. Even if Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon and crosses the U.S. red line, there is no military solution. Military strikes can only slow Iran's nuclear program. In the aftermath of U.S. military strikes diplomacy would still be required to prevent Iran from rebuilding its program, throwing out IAEA inspectors, and withdrawing from the NPT.

Furthermore, if Iran actually did acquire a nuclear weapon, diplomacy would still be a major tool in the U.S.'s toolbox. The U.S.'s recent diplomatic efforts with North Korea, which however imperfect led to an agreement to allow IAEA inspectors into the country and to suspend enrichment activities, have demonstrated diplomacy's importance for trying to limit and roll back the nuclear program of a country that already possesses nuclear weapons. Thus, a "diplomatic window of opportunity" is an unfortunate metaphor as it suggests that there is only a limited period of time during which diplomacy can be used, when in reality there is no expiration date. Given that: (1) Iran has not definitively decided to pursue a nuclear weapon; (2) the U.S. can help prevent Iran from opting to pursue a weapon through refraining from threats and military options; (3) Iran would still be at least a year away from building a nuclear weapon should it decide to acquire one; and (4) that once they crossed the U.S.'s nuclear red line diplomacy would still need to be a major part of U.S.'s strategy -- it would seem that the window period for negotiations is not limited or shrinking at all (and in fact, it is a misleading way to frame our current standoff with Iran).

In reality, the only shrinking window is the political one. The U.S. is in an election season and many Republicans believe Obama is vulnerable to assertions of weakness on Iran and of being insufficiently supportive of Israel. With November fast approaching, Obama may be seen to only have a quick political opportunity to negotiate a deal with Iran before attacks by his political opponents begin to harm his reelection prospects.

Additionally, Israel is unlikely to sit idly by, waiting for the U.S. to finish an extended engagement with Iran. The longer negotiations go on the more political pressure Netanyahu is likely to place on Obama through his allies in the U.S. and his own bully pulpit. During this time we might expect to see an increase in Israeli threats to use military strikes against Iran. At some point Netanyahu's patience with Obama's diplomatic efforts may well run out and lead to him to consider a possible Israeli military strike against Iran, with or without U.S. approval.

But despite the political environment diplomacy actually has a much longer shelf life than is currently being acknowledged, and for the first time in a long time there is reason for cautious optimism that some diplomatic progress may finally be achievable.

Since last month's AIPAC conference, where Obama successfully pushed back against immense political pressure and called for ending the "loose talk" of war, we have seen a marked change in tone and a shift away from military options. Obama's words were even noticed in Iran, where Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei offered moderate but extremely rare public praise for the American leader. This was followed by a public reiteration of his fatwa that "Islam is opposed to nuclear weapons."

Given the opportunity that this weekend's nuclear talks present for the U.S. it would be shortsighted for the Obama administration to succumb to the political pressures that would continue to speak the language of unrealistic timelines on diplomacy. Rather, the U.S. should see this as a moment to re-double on a good faith diplomatic push lest the real window of opportunity shut irreversibly.

Loren White is a researcher for the New America Foundation's Middle East Task Force

AFP/Getty images