Has something indeed "happened" in Iran, as President Obama said in his speech? Has Iran entered a new phase of its post-revolutionary history?

#IranElection on Twitter
The Lede (New York Times news blog)
The Guardian News Blog
Aljazeera.net
Iran Daily
Tehran Times
Islamic Republic News Agency (Foreign Ministry of Iran)

Charles S. Maier writes from Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 18:

It seems to me that a great deal has been happening in Iran for a long while, but we hardly wanted to look, whether because we were wedded in the l970s to an authoritarian ruler to secure a compliant oil-rich non-communist client state in the Middle East; or in the l980s because we were traumatized by the hostage crisis and a religiously-oriented regime we could not fit into Cold War typologies; or in the 1990s because we were unable to appreciate the complexity of a society that included modern and very traditional sectors; or after 9/11 because of the perspectives imposed by the 'war on terror.' Many of the conflicts we attribute to religion are just as powerfully conflicts over cultural complexity: on the one side professional groups, students, those in touch with European or American styles of life who crave post-modern options for personal emancipation, and on the other side constituencies who feel disconcerted if not threatened by these trends, perhaps spiritually motivated, perhaps anxious for their traditional codes of family and gender hierarchies, and often resentful of those with 'intellectual' ambitions. After all, the United States has frequently faced similar tensions. But we have a constitutional regime usually able to dampen them and not have them fought out as choices of state. The Iranian election results don't seem to let us say which side is numerically preponderant, and in any case the current Iranian constitution freezes the role of religiously legitimated clerics, and not electoral majorities, as decisive rulers.

Many Iranians have probably long questioned the 'antagonistic postures toward the international community,' just as many others seem happy to have a roughneck president who will show those foreigners they can't push their country around. As in all potentially revolutionary situations, much will depend on the divisions within the political elite, and they will take the temperature of the streets as well as decide which votes to count or not to count. History, at least in the short term, is often up for grabs.

| | | Charles S. Maier is the Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History at Harvard University, and the author of Among Empires: Ascendancy and Its Predecessors ("This is a truly masterly essay, which brilliantly succeeds in setting the phenomenon of American ascendancy in its proper historical context." —Niall Ferguson)

Fakhreddin Azimi writes from Storrs, Connecticut, June 18:

Since its emergence thirty years ago, the system of rule in the Islamic Republic of Iran has uneasily combined two contradictory impulses: a battered but enduring democratic-republican one, rooted in the revolution of 1979, and a domineering theocratic one, which gained the upper hand due to the specific circumstances of the post-revolutionary era. As the ongoing crisis— the most acute in the past three decades—is forcefully demonstrating, efforts on the part of the custodians of theocracy to extirpate democratic- republican aspirations have met with sustained resistance and have ultimately backfired.

In a manner reminiscent of many crucial moments in Iranian history since the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, the electorate, when sensing a measure of freedom, or a willingness on the part of the ruling elite to allow a degree of competition, and when convinced that their votes could make a difference, have stepped forward in the hope of advancing their democratic aspirations. On June 12, 2009 in an astonishing display of the power of the powerless, the Iranian electorate once again turned to the ballot box, but this time on an unprecedented scale. United by a widespread disapproval of the overall record of Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s presidency, large segments of the electorate from all walks of life chose to exercise their right to vote in the hope of unseating him. They felt that the very process of participation in the elections and its accompanying discussions and debates would in itself further strengthen the discourse of democracy to the detriment of its detractors. Without succumbing to unsustainable illusions, those who supported the main opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Musavi, seemed united in the belief that he would be more responsive to the political and civic expectations of the citizens. They expected Mousavi— a man whose demeanor and sensibilities differ sharply from those of Ahmadinejad— to be less susceptible to demagogy and more amenable to the dictates of practical reason and the norms of administrative competence, transparency, accountability and civility.

The regime itself contributed to galvanizing the public to participate extensively: it stimulated interest in voting so that it could present a massive voter turn out as endorsement of the system, but the ploy seems to have backfired. Feeling cheated, those who voted against the incumbent regard popular participation to have been deviously manipulated; they see the whole affair as having been stage managed to manufacture an unprecedented mandate for Ahmadinejad. This perception has been reinforced by the conduct of the rulers. In their clumsy haste to confirm and celebrate Ahmadinejad’s victory, the rulers miscalculated the depth of public indignation, having become complacent in their ability to control or deflect public reaction through a carefully calibrated combination of fraud and force.

The rulers utilized the formal and ritual procedures of democracy in the hope of being able to occlude its substance indefinitely. But in the context of sanguine enthusiasm and exuberant debate, the rituals associated with these procedures inevitably acquired an unstoppable dynamism of their own, particularly when they were viewed as having been glaringly disregarded. Encouraged by signs of rifts in the oligarchic power structure, which they sought to exploit to promote the purpose of greater democracy, those who voted for change resorted to astute tactics; they employed potent symbols, combined old and new slogans, and adopted the color green, which has both modern and pre-modern resonance in Iranian political culture. They have created a movement which embodies deeply rooted aspirations for a more open and humane society. The post-election frustration and outrage have intensified the protesters’ sense of purpose and spontaneous solidarity. The fact that they have been able to demonstrate their power in massive rallies, defying and challenging the authorities, has further empowered them. Rather than being actively led by Musavi they have left him with little choice but to assume a leadership position. However, despite a reservoir of general support and good will, in the absence of a charismatic leader and organizational resources, the current movement cannot underestimate the suppressive capabilities and resources of the regime or the magnitude of the task of successfully asserting democratic principles and procedures.

The officially ordered investigation of the election results is widely believed to be a move intended not to rectify electoral misconduct but to buy time and somehow defuse the crisis. Yet the regime now faces a genuine dilemma which is rooted in its very structure: if it gives in and makes real concessions to the protesters it will jeopardize its firm grip on power; it will embolden the protesters as much as it will dishearten pro-regime forces whose reactions could prove difficult to contain. If the regime defies the protesters and opts for confrontation, it will equally endanger itself in incalculable ways. Many of its own more sober supporters have warned that the regime’s residual vestiges of legitimacy are at stake. The erosion of legitimacy may not always prove immediately detrimental to a regime, but it has a constantly corrosive effect. In a society imbued with a deep-seated desire for democracy, cynical or half-hearted invocations of democratic formalities will eventually cease to work. Unless prolonged civil strife, violence, or dictatorship—civilian or militarist—cast their dark shadow over the country, it can be safely assumed that, faced with a daunting democratically inspired challenge, whatever course of action the leaders of the Islamic Republic resort to will ultimately benefit the cause of democracy.

| | | Fakhreddin Azimi is Professor of History at the University of Connecticut, and the author of The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule (“particularly strong on retrieving the importance of the Constitutional Revolution and threading it through to the Islamic Republic's current dialectic between republicanism and theocracy.” —David Gardner, Financial Times.)

Charles Kurzman writes from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, June 18, 2009

Troops are out in Iran this week, but in many cases the crowds have grown so large that the security forces are standing back and letting them swarm silently and peacefully through the boulevards—just like in 1978.

Chants of Allah-o-akbar, God is great, reverberate from rooftops at night, expressing popular revulsion against the dictatorial regime—just like 1978. The government has assaulted university campuses and shut down the opposition's offices, but these and other crackdowns have only sparked further protest—just like 1978.

Are we witnessing a repeat of the Islamic Revolution that brought down the monarchy 30 years ago? If so, it would be wonderful irony. It would mean that the children of the revolution—the large majority of the population that was born and raised under revolutionary institutions, that went to schools purged for Islamic purity and was fed Islamically-correct television and radio—had devoured the system that nurtured them.

The irony of the situation is not lost on the protesters themselves. In their text messages from the streets and their phone calls overseas, the Iranian opposition exhibits tremendous self-awareness. They speculate constantly about whether the Islamic revolution is coming full circle.

They note the parallels between this week's outburst of protest and the heroic events of 1978, which their revolutionary schoolbooks taught them in great detail. They liken the closing of universities this week to the shah's closing of universities in November 1978. They speculate whether this week's marches are equivalent to the massive Tasua and Ashura marches of December 1978. The clash earlier this week between a small group of militants and security forces at a paramilitary base in Tehran may have been an homage to the popular convergence on an air-force base in Tehran that sparked the final overthrow of the monarchy in February 1979.

But the biggest similarity between the current protests and the Islamic revolution is the population's widespread confusion about what comes next. read more at Foreign Policy web site

| | | Charles Kurzman is Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the author of the Harvard book, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran ("The definitive account of the Islamic Revolution." —Middle East Quarterly).

Reactions to President Obama's June 4
Cairo Speech, "A New Beginning"

TEXT OF SPEECH | VIDEO OF SPEECH | SLIDESHOW | 14 TRANSLATIONS

Nezar AlSayyad writes from Brazil:

Few speeches go down in history as significant, most are considered so because they are delivered in times of great distress or great celebration by eloquent orators who capture the spirit of the time and who are articulate and speak not only to history but also to the future. Barak Obama's address to the Muslim World—delivered in the carefully chosen Great Hall of Cairo University, one the oldest university of modern learning in Egypt, and hosted by what is now Al-Azhar University, one of the oldest institutions of traditional learning in the Arab World—will go down in history as a great speech.

While the speech is being celebrated in the Arab and Muslim Worlds for the genuine gestures of good will that it offered peoples and nations who felt the wrath of the United States more recently, it should also been seen as a significant speech for Americans and other citizens of the world as well. Indeed, it is the most informed speech that any American president ever delivered to the Muslim World and it shows how real knowledge of this large world region and population can make a difference in American attitudes, policies and positions. It is a speech that emphatically shows the contrast with American foreign policy in the past several decades, a policy that was often based on either fundamental ignorance, religious extremism or hard line ideology. Obama confronted all of that often invoking and subtly apologizing for past American interventions in the region that go back more than half a century. Note his recognition that the US overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran to install the Shah some fifty years ago.

The brilliance of the speech is not that it is intended to appeal to Muslims—note the applause every time Obama cites the Quran—but that it is rather a clever attempt, using different rhetorical devices, to call upon Muslims to exercise their responsibilities as citizens of a globalizing world in which they also exist. Indeed, it is a speech that is meant to confuse western political pundits as it plays with many metaphors that can only be understood in the context of the Muslim World.

The are three types of statements made in the speech that are worth recognizing. First, self-reflexive statements delivered from an American stand point. These include the statement that the war in Iraq "was a war of choice" and not necessity. This was a statement that clearly confesses the errors of the earlier administration and of the Bush Doctrine. Second, there are statements like we must proceed "recognizing our common humanity" addressed mainly to the Muslims of the Arab World appealing for an understanding of difference and tolerance while exercising mutual responsibility. Third, Obama makes statements to the rest of the world urging peoples and nations to stop vilifying Islam and Muslim. Stating that it is part of his responsibility as President of the United States of America to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear" is a powerful statement that no one could have imagined an American president would ever make!

This speech will indeed be remembered for many years to come and it will be used by many in various and conflicting ways for and against the United States. But Obama has taken the high moral ground leaving the Muslims of the world with much to think about in terms of what they must do to deal with the forces of extremism in their societies. Whether they rise up to the challenge or not will be one of the most important shapers of the 21st century.

| | | Nezar AlSayyad Professor and Chair Center for Middle Eastern Studies University of California, Berkeley and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, Cairo.

Ali Asani writes from Cambridge:

One day after President Obama's historic address to the world's Muslims, every word, every phrase, every sentence of his speech is being carefully parsed. The aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror have created a noxious atmosphere rife with misunderstandings, mutual hatred and stereotypes: for many Americans, Islam and Muslims have become the "other," while many Muslims have come to perceive America and Americans as a mortal enemy. How will this speech impact the polarized relationship of the United States government with Muslim communities and nations around the world? What are its implications for US foreign and domestic policy? Reactions to the speech, world-wide, are also being analyzed. The verdict is mixed. Some loved it, some thought it did not go far enough, and a few objected to it as being apologetic, full of niceties but no real substance. What is easy to lose sight in all this analysis is that for many Muslims, Barack Obama embodies in his person, someone they admire and can relate to and, yes, perhaps even trust.

During a recent visit to Saudi Arabia, a Saudi guide told me that when he heard that Americans had elected Barack Hussein Obama as their President, tears of joy welled up in his eyes. "If the great American people can elect a man with Obama's background to be their President," he said, "then there is hope that anything is possible, change can happen, perhaps even in Saudi Arabia itself. I admire that man and what he stands for." I have heard similar comments from Muslims in Egypt, Dubai, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and India. Such remarks remind us that the United States has in its current President a man with a unique background and personality who is uniquely qualified to deliver an unprecedented message of hope and understanding to a world characterized by globalization, interdependence and diversity. As the Christian son of an African Muslim father who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and members of whose family are Muslims, the American President has lived and engaged with many kinds of differences � racial, religious, ethnic, national. Engaging with those who are different from oneself is not an easy task. It is a struggle that tests one's patience and humility but it is a worthwhile struggle for we learn not only to see the world from another perspective but to respect that perspective. When President Obama spoke to an audience of three thousand at the University of Cairo, he embodied for them the values he referred to in his address—respect for difference, human dignity, humility and inter-cultural understanding. When he quoted the Qur'an "Be conscious of God and speak the truth," and went on to speak the truth as he saw it, he represented in his person and demeanor that honesty. When he said that it was his responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative and crude stereotypes of Islam and Muslims as well as of America and Americans, he spoke as a pluralist who understood from personal experience the dehumanizing nature of stereotypes. In a different world Roger Ailes would have said, "He was the message."

Barack Obama's charisma, so apparent during his address, is based on his humanity and humanism. It is true that one speech cannot change the course of history but what is becoming increasingly clear is that President Obama, if he is not already, is rapidly becoming a hero for many around the world, regardless of their national and religious affiliation, including many Muslims. In this sense, he is the worst nightmare for not only al-Qaeda but all those who believe in the clash of civilizations and insist on using difference to dehumanize the "other"—his call to join hands for the betterment of "us" all rather than being intent on destroying "the other"? Will it realize the truth that he has come to recognize, a truth echoed in a Qur'anic verse he cited at the end of his speech—God created diversity so that we may learn from one another?

| | | Ali S. Asani is Professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic Religion and Cultures, Harvard University and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, An Infidel of Love: Exploring Muslim Understandings of Islam.

Hamid Dabashi writes from New York:

In a million years no one would have imagined that a president of the United States would one day stand up in front of million of Muslims around the globe and deliver the speech that the US President Barack Obama gave on 4 June 2009 at Cairo University. Americans of all religious and political persuasions woke up on that cool summer Thursday and slowed down on their early morning chores to watch President Obama deliver this extraordinary speech half way around the globe, mindful of its seismic dimensions. Even President Obama himself had to dig deeply into the old box of American historical memory to find that "the first nation to recognize my country was Morocco," or that "in signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims," or that "one of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—kept [a copy of the Qur'an] in his personal library." Lest there be any doubt of the unsurpassed singularity of the very possibility of a speech like this, all we need to do is not to wonder if George W. Bush or Dick Cheney were ever capable of anything like this, but to imagine for a terrorizing minute if John McCain and Sarah Palin were in charge of American destiny today.

Much hasty praise and considerable legitimate criticism have already been made about the President"s speech, especially about the distance between its floral eloquence and the scarcity of its specific policies, which would push the speech towards hallowed, however soothing, vacuity. But the fact is that the world is so deeply wounded and it is in such dire need of truth and reconciliation with itself that President Obama's words, coming from the person that he is, an African-American descendent of an African Muslim, were like drops of merciful rain on an arid desert. Tomorrow morning, Friday 5th of June 2009, millions of Muslim children around the globe (especially in North America and Western Europe—where they are subject to unrelenting Islamophobia and racism) will report to their classrooms with their heads held slightly higher and prouder of who and what they are. In the wounded world that George W. Bush and before him generations of American military adventurism has left behind, any kind of healing is good—even a healing that is a bit too high on Talmudic, Biblical, and Qur'anic wisdom, but substantially low on the specific wrongs that America needs to right before the world is even with it. Example: A whole eloquent paragraph on the innocent victims of 9/11 and not a single word on hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqis perished or made homeless under American guns. Example II: Landing the Jewish victims of European anti-Semitism, pogroms, and Holocaust on the broken back of innocent Palestinians without the blink of an eye.

Such examples abound in his speech. But as an icebreaker, President Obama's speech touched all the right buttons. He praised the scientific and cultural achievements of the Islamic civilization and its tradition of tolerance and racial equality. He brought the demonized Muslims home to Americans by connecting the Founding Fathers of the nation in one way or another to Islam. Much more he could have done by connecting American Transcendentalist movement to classical Persian literature, or by pointing out that the bestselling poet in America today is a Muslim mystic named Rumi. But there is only so much one can expect from his speech writers who could not even teach him how to pronounce the two simple Arabic words of Hijab and al-Azhar properly. He categorically reiterated what he had done earlier in Ankara that "America is not—and never will be—at war with Islam." He explained his purpose in Afghanistan, called the war in Iraq "a war of choice," meaning it could have and must have been avoided, acknowledged the suffering of Palestinians, and even in a round about way compared the Israeli occupation of Palestine with the white supremacist suppression of the Civil Rights movement in the US and the Apartheid South Africa. Perhaps he did not mean to let it out quite that way—but (his conscience defying him) it came out that way. He admitted that the United States toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Musaddiq in 1953; just before or after he hinted that Israel too must abandon its nuclear privileges.

With a speed of light, Arab and Muslim intellectuals were swift in either praising Obama's speech or criticizing it—for many perfectly legitimate reasons. All those legitimate criticisms notwithstanding, it is only at a symbolic, suggestive, oratorical, plane that the speech must be praised and/or appraised. The most important problem with the President's speech " healing and soothing as it was—is not its lack of specific, but in fact with its general contour, its symbolic trajectory, entirely trapped as it is in a readily received and never questioned binary between "Islam and the West." Who said "Islam and the West" are these vastly divided continents that need bridging? Obama is still squarely trapped inside a false binary. What the world witnesses today has never been a war between "Islam and the West." Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan not because they are Muslim countries. It is only in the tormented imagination of Osama bin Laden and the contorted delusions of Samuel Huntington that there is a civilizational divide between "Islam and the West." Both the assumption of that divide and, a fortiori, the attempt to bridge that imaginary gap are false. America is also at odds with Hugo Chavez in Latin America and with Kim Jong-il in North Korea—and they are no Muslims. America is also at odds with China and Russia—and they are no Islamic countries. There used to be two superpowers running the world, and now there is only one. This superpower is not at odds with any given religion or any religious community. It just wants to run the world and make it safe for neoliberal economics, and even safer and more pacified for the global economic meltdown that comes the morning after.

Why targeting Islam and Muslims to assure them they are not the enemy of humanity, or humanity is not at war with them? Because of 9/11, and the Taliban, and al-Qaeda? History—simple, honest, straightforward history—will go a long way explaining these atrocities before we have any need to tell Muslims they invented Algebra, or that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur'an in Monticello. The Taliban are a band of highway bandits and drug traffickers that President Reagan recruited through Pakistan and had them paid by the Saudi money to fight against the Soviets. Have they killed Americans? The Latin American drug cartels have killed and caused infinite more misery among Americans than al-Qaeda has reportedly done. Should President Obama go to Bogota, Colombia and give a speech that says Latin America has made great contribution to world civilization, Gabriel Garcia Marquez deserved his Nobel Prize, and that overwhelming majority of Latin Americans are God-fearing Christians?

Everything that President Obama said in his Cairo speech on 4th June is laudable, praiseworthy, beautiful and courageous—and they give much reason for hope. He came and talked like a breath of fresh air, like a true prince of peace—he learned well the beautiful truths that the prophetic voice of that great liberation theologian, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, taught him in that Trinity United Church of Christ. The whitewashing of what Ameircans are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan today, or what misery they have caused in Iraq, or how the state of Israel was forced on the broken back of Palestinians can all be set aside for the moment—along with many other specific issues that contradict the spirit of his talk. But far more important than all those specifics, it is the conceptual limitation and the fundamental assumption of a deep-rooted animosity between a vast abstraction called "Islam" and a highly polarized country called "America" that is in dire need of being questioned anew.

| | | Hamid Dabashi is Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, Shi'ism: A Religion of Protest

Ousmane Kane writes from New York:

The election of Obama as 44th President of United States has been celebrated in the whole African continent with great sense of pride. Prior to his historical Cairo address calling for new beginnings, Obama, and the image of America which he mirrors to the world, had been greatly admired by African Muslims in particular, no least because of his African and Muslim background. The sense of compassion for, and understanding of Islam displayed in his address will greatly appeal to Muslims all over the world. Inspite of hostile statements from a minority of extremists, and reservations of significant others vis-à-vis America's strong support for Israel, Obama's Cairo address is likely to alter the perception of America in the Muslim World from a hawkish nation waging a war against Islam to a friendly nation.

| | | Ousmane Kane is Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, Timbuktu and Beyond: Rethinking African Intellectual History.

Sari Nusseibeh writes from Singapore:

There was much more outreach in his speech than anything that has come before from an American official; but its freshness also left me with a sense of concern—not that he may not be genuine, but that he may not have the support from his own administration that he will be needing, first to turn American-Muslim relations upside down, and second, to succeed in bringing about a fair and lasting peace to our region. I think his (yes we can) message is beautiful, especially as he addressed the younger generation in that audience -that we can reimagine the world, and remake it, that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be prisoners of our past. His words reflect the kind of leadership the world desperately needs. I think we should all just hope that be allowed to succeed in his mission.

| | | Sari Nusseibeh is Professor of Islamic Philosophy and President, Al Quds University, Jerusalem and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, What's a Palestinian State Worth?

Youval Rotman writes from Tel Aviv:

Thursday June 4th, 1pm. The entire Middle East is tuned to Cairo. Never before, it seems, have Middle Easterners given so much importance and put so much hope in one single speech. "Middle Easterners" since no other term can encompass the entire population of the region with no difference of nationality and religion. In a historic speech that lasted over an hour and without reading from the text Obama did not fail in giving us a new image of this region, and proved its dependency on the US for such an image.

More than other regions, it seems, the Middle East has been a victim of modern political processes imposed on it from the West, which made it a focal point of political clashes: imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, the cold war, and lastly of course the new invention: "the clash of civilizations." Can Obama's speech mark the beginning of a new era? Most of us want to believe it can. The speech made it clear: the region and its future still depend very much on the West and on America in particular. It is so because it forms part of the same world as the West, but also because the West, after years of political intervention, has a responsibility towards its population. Responsibility is a term long forgotten in today's politics. Obama revives it. More than that, he is a man of vision. And according to this vision America has a major international role to play as a peace maker. In fact, it is the only power that can play it, as the speech makes clear. No peace can be achieved in the Middle East without America. No peace was ever reached here without its intervention.

Framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a political and historical global context is what this conflict lacked so far in order to be resolved. Its resolution is the first priority of both Israelis and Palestinians. But the speech makes it clear: it is also the top priority and the responsibility of the entire region and the rest of the world. This is what makes the speech so important.

Obama knows the power of history; he knows very well the history of the region. He acknowledges the insufferable condition of the Palestinians in refugee camps, the main victims of this region's history, who after more than sixty years were not yet given a chance to live a decent life. But he also acknowledges Israel's fear of extermination. Rational or irrational as it may appear, it is genuine, and in being genuine it has been exploited and manipulated over the last decays. However, the main danger in the Middle East is antagonism, intolerance and hate, which enable fanaticism to gain control. In that respect there is little difference between religious and nationalistic fanaticism (may it be Sunni, Jewish or Shiite). Hate cannot be overcome so easily since it has a momentum of its own. If we, Middle Easterners are left to ourselves, this region will continue to sink into hate, violence and death, which will not stay within Middle Eastern borders.

The majority of Middle Easterners want peace. The majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to live within a two states solution. The majority is still being played with and controlled by a minority who has chosen death for their neighbors and consequently for themselves. It is time to get this jinni back into the bottle no matter who is responsible for its release. The last ten years proved that this cannot be done by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves, certainly in a time when the Israelis have elected a fanatic ultra right-wing government, and the Palestinians are torn between two opposing governments. Reason must come, and be imposed if necessary, from the outside. We should all be thankful that a voice of reason is finally heard.

| | | Youval Rotman is Assistant Professor of History, Yale University and author of the forthcoming book, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World.

Omid Safi writes from Turkey:

Historic. Brilliant. Nearly perfect.

The tone of President Obama's speech in Cairo was most reminiscent of his masterful speech on race in America: acknowledging open wounds on all sides, while laying out a hopeful vision for a shard future. It was a masterful narrative rejecting the Neo-conservative nightmare of the past eight years which perpetuated the fallacy of Clash of Civilizations.

Words have power, and Obama spoke powerful words. He offered the Muslim greetings of peace (al-salam alaykum) to his audience, and acknowledged the reality of Western colonialism, as well as his hope for a shared vision of coexistence and peace. Powerful is the vision of an American president approvingly citing from the Quran [chapter 5, verse 32] that to save one human life is akin to saving the life of all humanity, and taking one human life is akin to taking the life of all humanity. Obama hit many of the right notes: he conveyed to his audience that he is familiar with the vast and glorious history of Islam. The nuanced position Obama took on Palestine/Israel was the most closely watched component of his speech. The tone was expected, affirming America's allegedly "unbreakable" bond with Israel, while also acknowledging that Palestinians suffer in an "intolerable" condition.

Yet the specifics offered were bolder: two states living side by side, a rejection of illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and Jerusalem as a city shared by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Many Muslims were offended that there was no mention of the recent Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Furthermore, it is maddeningly frustrating for Muslims to be repeatedly told that they have to recognize Israel's right to exist when it is not specified the borders of the state they are being asked to recognize: would it be the 1967 borders? 1973? 2009? In addition, it overlooks the multiple times that Arab and Muslim states, including Palestinian authorities, have in fact recognized Israel. As incomplete, and indeed flawed, as that portion of the speech was (delivered under intense pre-emptive pressure from the Israel Lobby), there was a magical, Obama-at-his-best, appeal to the Night Journey (Isra) of the Prophet Muhammad, where he prayed together with all the prophets, including Moses and Jesus, in Jerusalem. This is Obama at a level of rhetorical brilliance and inclusiveness that is simply unmatched in American politics.

There were other missed opportunities: There were no critiques of Egypt's own violations of human rights, something that Muslim human rights activists were eager to hear. As a committed Christian, Obama knows all too well the Biblical challenge of "You shall judge them by their fruits." Obama's words were historic, brilliant, almost perfect. Now comes the hard part of following up on the beautiful intentions and the inclusive words: righteous and courageous action that bring all those of good will together. He—and we—shall be judged, on earth and in Heaven, by those actions.

| | | Omid Safi is Associate Professor of Religion, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of a forthcoming Harvard Press book, Reforming Islam in the "Axis of Evil": Contesting Islam in Post-Revolutionary Iran.

Lamin Sanneh writes from New Haven:

President Obama flagged two major issues in relations with the Arab Muslim world, one being 9/11 and its consequences of global conflict and tension, and the other being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that the way forward lies in mobilizing the interfaith resources of Muslims, Jews and Christians. In combating violent extremism, Islam, President Obama says, is not part of the problem but part of the solution of promoting peace. In that respect the President appeals to history as well as to Koranic passages for models and examples of tolerance, enlightenment, and progress. On the two foundations of history and Scripture the President is confident that we can build a future of mutual tolerance, understanding, and peace. How does this optimism, however, stack up against the reality?

While in the nature of the case the jury is still out on the future verdict of this historic inter-civilizational challenge, all persons of goodwill must hope and pray that the President's gambit succeeds. Like the President, no one is more interested in the positive view of the role of religion in public affairs more than I am. No one can disagree with the call for religion to step up to the challenge of banishing the shadows of enmity, intolerance, and division, and nowhere is that challenge more urgent than on the West-Islam frontier. The President is right that the fault lines of intercultural estrangement should be replaced with bridges of cooperation and mutual trust.

But the scope of the President's vision prompts an obvious question: if history and Scripture are so unambiguously predisposed to his vision, why has it taken this long to recognize it and why would it require the effort and commitment he has called for? He speaks about that commitment in terms of his responsibility "as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." I am not sure what the President means by that statement. Is he, for example, proposing that the peaceful struggle on behalf of Islam's global good name that he is willing to wage will pay dividends that can rival and even eclipse the spoils of militant jihad? As an adroit politician the President summons history and Scripture to the cause he has defined and yet anticipates a problem in the unamenability of history to a unilateral interpretation. While he declares that "throughout history Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds and the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality," he recognizes that not everyone is comfortable about the past and that we must not become prisoners to it. Is a similar caveat reserved for Scripture, too? Are there places in Scripture that would make prisoners of our common values? And what is the place of a non-Muslim President in citing the Koran for prescriptive purposes? The learned divines of Al-Azhar kept a polite silence.

The President calls for new peace initiatives in his second theme of the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both sides making compromise to advance their mutual interest and security. Yet many Israeli leaders and their Palestinian counterparts must wonder where that leaves fundamental issues of democratic reform as the guarantee of long-term peace and internal stability. The rapid emptying of ancient Jewish communities and Christian minorities in the Middle East, the continuing diminution of religious freedom and minority rights, the great setbacks for women's rights in spite of laudable gains in some areas, and the restrictions in political life have defied the light and sweetness of Western liberal declarations. Many Israeli and Arab leaders will be wondering whether their interests will be part of the intercultural stimulus package the President is proposing to offer to the world at large where America's dominance remains uncontested.

| | | Lamin Sanneh is Professor of History, Yale University and Professor of Missions and World Christianity, Yale Divinity School and author of Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa and Islam in West Africa (Harvard Press).