Even by Middle East standards, the recent weeks have been harrowing. US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 demands to Tehran, just as Israel and Iran’s conflict in Syria heats up, have raised the prospects of a regional war.
Iran scored a major victory in the Lebanese elections after a coalition led by Hezbollah, its militant proxy, secured a parliamentary majority. In Iraq, the firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr upset the American-backed candidate in recent elections and now heads the nation’s biggest party.
Things got even worse after the United States inaugurated its new embassy in Jerusalem last month and violent protests erupted along the Gaza-Israeli border that left more than 60 Palestinians dead. This sparked a bellicose exchange of accusations between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that culminated in the Israeli ambassador’s humiliating expulsion from Ankara, imperilling relations between two of America’s most important allies in the region.
There’s something that links all these crises: the considerable role of democratic majorities and public support in fuelling them.
If there has been one constant in US foreign policy since 1945 it has been the firm belief that the defence and expansion of democracy are aligned with the national interest. That was the rationale for the Truman doctrine and the Marshall Plan, which aimed to buttress America’s Cold War allies and contain the Soviet Union; later, it became a central pillar of the Bush doctrine. Although presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama disagreed on how to promote democracy, they both thought spreading it was vital to America’s national security.
But recent events in the Middle East suggest otherwise. Far from being the panacea that could save the volatile region from itself, democratisation has bred unintended consequences that are tearing it apart. In Iran, Gaza, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and even Israel – the only functioning liberal democracy in the area – democracy may be the problem, not the solution. Instead of moderating extremism, the will of the majorities in these countries has been driving it.
Trump ended his televised statement exiting the Iran nuclear deal with a personal appeal to the Iranian public: “The people of America stand with you.” But it’s not clear that all those Iranians stand where Trump thinks they do. Although Iran’s clerical regime brutally stifles dissent, the supreme leader and his hard-line policies enjoy considerable popular support in the Islamic republic’s regular – albeit only partly contested – elections.
Rather than oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the years of crippling sanctions they brought on, large parts of the Iranian public have embraced them. In one Rand Corp survey from 2011 – at the height of the sanctions – 98 per cent of Iranians said the possession of nuclear energy is a national right.
The sanctions relief that came with the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, didn’t change much. A substantial poll by the Centre for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland conducted just a few months ago found that a whopping 86 per cent of Iranians still consider the development of a nuclear program important for their country, and almost 53 per cent thought Iran should pull out of the deal or restart its nuclear program if the United States withdrew.
Similarly, more than 60 per cent of respondents affirmed that Iran’s interventions in Syria and Iraq were in their country’s national interest, and nearly 95 per cent said it was important for Iran to develop its missile program. When it came to America, more than 93 per cent had unfavorable opinions of the US government (Hezbollah, by comparison, had almost 65 per cent favourability).
Trump, like many Western leaders, seems to believe that if only the ayatollahs were toppled, Iranians would embrace America, give up the nuclear program, halt missile development and cut terrorist ties. But even if some respondents understandably hesitate to criticise the regime out of fear, large parts of the Iranian public have consistently endorsed the programs that have led to international isolation. Given the internal Iranian divisions over economic policy, corruption and civil liberties, the nuclear program remains a rare source of unity.
In Gaza, the will of the majority has proved equally harmful. Although Hamas certainly doesn’t qualify as a democratic movement, it came to power in a sweeping victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. Despite brutalising many of its own citizens, despite the grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite the poverty and degradation in which most Gazans have lived since Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade in response to Hamas’s 2007 coup against the ruling Palestinian Authority, it continues to enjoy considerable public support as result of its fight against Israel.
Lacking any genuine governing achievements, Hamas retains legitimacy because of its ability to rain down rockets on Israeli towns and conduct terror raids through its tunnel system. And conflict has clearly paid off. In the wake of each of its devastating wars with Israel (in 2009, 2012 and 2014), Hamas experienced a resurgence of popular support among Palestinians.
This dynamic explains the current spasms of violence, too. One recent poll, conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace Research after Trump’s formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, found that only 26 per cent of Palestinians still supported a peace deal with Israel (a sharp drop from 45 per cent last June), while 38 per cent endorsed armed struggle – a rise from previous surveys.
Given that most Gazans have traditionally endorsed violence against Israel, Hamas’s growing intransigence and willingness to risk war by waging mass demonstrations and firing rockets at Israeli towns might be expressions, rather than distortions, of the public will. Israeli officials say Hamas forced civilians to participate in the recent protests, but given Gazans’ desperation, it might be that mounting public pressure and discontent forced Hamas to instigate the demonstrations.
Read the full article written by Yoav Fromer at the Sydney Morning Herald.