Hamas, Iran & Moderate Extremism

Yesterday's (26/3/2009) New York Times ran a not-so-trenchant and less-than-revealing Op Ed piece by Roger Cohen. His column was also conceptually flawed and ideologically misleading. Cohen suggests that the Obama administration would do well to involve “moderate elements of Hamas” in any attempts to resolve the sixty year old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But Cohen fails to reveal just what a “moderate element” of Hamas really is.

That question calls to mind a conversation I had just last week during a delightful lunch with Lord David Trimble. He is a gentleman who knows a bit about the search for peace. Indeed, Lord Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for his part in resolving the troubles in Belfast, Ireland.

In striving to apply the lessons of Northern Ireland to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lord Trimble spoke of his dealings with “moderate extremists” in Northern Ireland. That term mystified me. So I asked: “Just what is a moderate extremist?” In fact, I then used Hamas as an example. I politely queried Lord Trimble: “If a Hamas extremist is dedicated to expunging Israel’s existence, is a moderate Hamas extremist one who still seeks to expunge Israel, but is willing to do so in a less-than-overt fashion?”

The latter scenario is precisely the approach implicitly advocated in Roger Cohen’s cited Op-Ed piece. The argument suggests that Hamas could join a Palestinian unity government which might then make peace with Israel. In that event, by use of this unity government subterfuge, Hamas could technically deny that it recognized Israel. As such, Hamas’ recognition of Israel would be de facto and not dejure. It sounds so nice. It's almost palatable. But there's a rub.

That approach has multiple flaws. The most critical is the presumption that moderate elements of Hamas either control or form a decisive portion of Hamas. That assumption is certainly egregious, probably fallacious and quite unsupported by certifiable facts. And we haven't yet defined what a moderate extremist is. Still, when dealing with subterfuge, political doublespeak and/or the masking of reality, itis always easier to simply foam at the mouth.

That said, there is a good deal of political foaming currently afloat in Iran, which -not incidentally- is Hamas’ primary banker. In fact, the run-up to Iran’s Presidential elections is a veritable cesspool of political doublespeak and linguistic obfuscation. Indeed, Iran’s presidential contest is plagued by the use of multiple terms whose meanings are confusing, overlapping and mystifying. A few cases may be illuminating. Now pause a minute and take a breath. Here goes.

Mohammed Khatami (Iran’s President from 1997-2005) recently withdrew his presidential candidacy. He had been alternately described as a moderate and/or as a reformist. Of course, what a moderate is and what constitutes a reformist depends on an observer’s subjective view. Still, it was widely thought that Khatami’s moderate reformism was reflected in his liberal (sic) interpretation of Islam. Thus, Khatami’s political posture was portrayed as being contrary to that of thec onservatives and/or hardliners who hate him, i.e. Mr. Ahmadinejad. Indeed, Khatami has asserted (much to Ahmadinejad’s disgust) that “the Holocaust is an historical event and we reformers do not deny it, but more important, the issue has nothing to do with us.” Well and good. So on to another candidate.

Mir Hossein Mousavi (Iran’s Prime Minister during its ten year war with Iraq) is a moderate reformist on social and economic issues. But he is also known to be a radical revolutionary Islamic ideologue and a radical on international issues such as Iran’s enrichment of uranium and on his antagonism toIsrael. If those descriptions are not sufficiently disconcerting, then consider that Mousavi prefers to describe himself as a principalist. Just what that is will be examined when we discuss the current IranianPresident.

Medhi Karroubi is a reformist oriented cleric who is also an ex-speaker of the Iranian parliament. He is also critical of Ahmadinejad. His presidential campaign slogan is “Change.” Regardless of where Karroubi found the inspiration for his sly slogan, he has yet to articulate the precise direction of the change he favors. So, Karroubi is the reformist candidate for change in an unspecified direction. Seems clear enough does it not?

Then there’s the unannounced, but aspiring, presidential candidate Abdullah Nuri. He was once Iran’s Vice President during Khatami’s administration. Nuri is viewed as a liberal, but only because he favors opening links to dealing with America. Mr.Nuri spent five years in jail for insulting Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Commander-In Chief, and holder of the unilateral power to declare war. Virtually nothing of import happens in Iran without his imprimatur. So, Abdullah Nuri can kiss his presidential aspirations good-bye.

And, finally, there’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He now describes himself not as a conservative, but as a "principalist" (the Farsi term is: osul-gara). Those in the know say that the Farsi term is most meaningfully translated as fundamentalist. Indeed, Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hajjatieh. That group is a secret society known for its virulent anti-West and fanatically anti-Sunni attitudes. It believes, as does Ahmadinejad, that the return of the Islamic Messiah (The Mahdi) can only result from the creation of chaos on earth. (Do you catch my drift?) That said, Ahmadinajad has a leg up -but not a lock- on being re-elected. He has Khamenei’s imprimatur.

The long and short of the Iranian presidential campaign is really not so complex. The Iranian media has described reformers, moderate reformers, conservatives and moderate conservatives, radicals and even one alleged liberal (who defiantly rejects that label). But everyone running for president wants to be called a principalist (don't forget, that's Farsi for fundamentalist!).

In actuality, it is absolutely foolish to label any Iranian presidential candidate as either reformist, conservative or any not-so-subtle variation thereof. Any close inspection suggests that -to a great extent- they all represent little more than varying flavors of the same political pie. Clearly, a reformist candidate may not be a reformer at all. In some cases, the reformist candidate is simply a conservative seeking to attract reformist votes to his principalist candidacy, whatever that means.

So back to where we began this foray into disconcerting political terminology. Maybe the mentality behind all the double-speak and verbal subterfuge is not all that confusing. Maybe a moderate extremist– be he in Iran, in Hamas or in Northern Ireland– is still someone who seeks to do harm, only in moderation or not right away. It only remains to be asked: "How moderate and when?”