Shifting

For years, American policy in the Middle East has sat, like a stool, atop three legs. Support for Israel, protecting economic interests (it's not just oil - there's also a fair amount of trade and banking involved), and the power struggle between the regions two great Muslim powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

One of those legs is about to be broken, and our government needs to construct a new one if it doesn't want to topple ignominiously off of its precarious regional perch.

The poles of influence in the Arab and Muslim world are shifting. Though still wealthy and formidable, the Saudis don't have the same clout they used to. And even as Iran pursues its nuclear program, its leaders are scrabbling to maintain toe-holds in a region that increasingly deems them irrelevant.

Take a look at what's happened over the past few months. Saudi Arabia has been unable to take decisive action in any of the protests erupting throughout the Arab world. Its many GCC-brokered deals to get Yemeni President Saleh out of power have - obviously - failed, many of the troops now keeping the peace in Bahrain are actually Qatari, and the strict, Wahhabi state has had to relent on civil and women's rights fronts to mollify even the threat of protest.

Iran, meanwhile, couldn't even get Iraq to vote against sanctioning Syria. Iraq, which shares a border, a religion, and a number of cultural traits with Iran, instead abstained, allowing the Arab League to ram tough sanctions down Syria's already parched throat. And while Iran might support Bahraini protesters, the Bahrainis don't support Iran, however Shi'ite it is. In fact, according to Wikileaks, Bahrainis from the ruling al Khalifa family to street vendors fear Iran more than anything else.



But as these two powers diminish in regional influence, two others are ascending. One is new to such geopolitical power, the other a veteran playing piece and sometime player of the Great Game - the struggle for colonial and imperial power that took place from the early 19th to early 20th centuries.

The new one is Qatar. This tiny country has wealth, Islamic credibility, and, though its government doesn't interfere with the station's dealings too often, Al Jazeera. Qatar was the first Arab government to recognize Libya's National Transitional Council, provided Libyan rebels with access to the airwaves, agitated for sanctions against Syria, helped end the Sudanese civil war, and enjoys warm ties with everyone from Hamas to the USA.

The old one is Turkey. Under Prime Minister Recep Erdogan's ruling AKP, Turkey's economy has boomed. His defiance of Israel and his willingness to host Syrian refugees have made him a darling of the Arab press, and his charisma is eerily reminiscent of such great historical figures as Mustafa Kemal and, yes, I'm going there, Winston Churchill. Moreover, Erdogan has managed to do all he's done for Turkey as a member of an Islamist party, without trampling women's rights or compromising Turkey's strong identity as a secular country. (His record on Kurds leaves much to be desired, I admit.)

I think this is a good development, if our leaders choose to recognize it. Qatar and Turkey have legitimacy in the Arab world. They have momentum. They were not created from lines drawn in the sand by colonizing powers. And most importantly, from our perspective, they are far from hostile to Western interests.

Unfortunately, as I've lamented before, our foreign policy in the Middle East always seems to lag far behind developments there. But then again, everything in the Middle East is in flux right now. Maybe our habit of tardiness will change as well.

How Do You Pronounce Qatar?

As Anthony Shadid pointed out in the New York Times a few days ago, the tiny nation of Qatar is becoming pretty influential in the Middle East these days.

For those few people who've followed events in the country, the past eight months of frenzied, high profile activity are just the continuation of a methodical, intentional, and brilliantly planned ascension in word politics. And for those same few people, Shadid's poorly veiled allegations of an Islamist agenda are silly, and unworthy of a reporter with such knowledge and experience.

Yes, Qatar has contacts with groups such as Hamas. Yes, Qatar has sent troops into a neighboring Shi'ite country - Bahrain - at the behest of the Sunniest of all Sunni Muslim states, Saudi Arabia. And yes, Qatar has cultivated ties with Islamists in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, hosts Islamic TV shows, and gives Islamists a voice through certain programs on Al Jazeera.

Shadid makes much of these connections, as do many of the people he quotes. But there's something missing in his analysis, something he identifies as "murky" but something that is as clear as the glass you can make from the sands of Qatar's deserts. Intention. The "why" of it all.

Qatar is a country of immense wealth, a wealth built on skeletons. Literally. The Qataris owe their massive high per capita income and absurdly lavish lifestyle to natural gas, a fossil fuel. And because they rely on a nonrenewable resource, and because they rely on business, the Qataris want stability.

Qataris want stability so much that they serve as intermediaries between the US and Iran, according to diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, a role that must feel awkward at the best of times and impossible whenever else. In an effort to find stability, Qatar has offered to help talk Hamas into not being so, well, Hamas-like, according to those same cables. In its quest for stability Qatar lets the US keep an air force base in its territory, invites Western universities to set up campuses near Doha, and hosts Israeli officials.

And in a region where secularists have been largely smeared with totalitarian brushes, where Ennahda has won elections in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood represents the vanguard of renewed protests in Egypt, Qatar's seemingly dubious contacts with Islamists look a lot more like a good investment in stability than a sinister plan of attack.

Frankly, we need to get out of this trend of seeing any new power that talks to Islamists as having an Islamist agenda. It's a bit narrow-minded and reactionary. If I talk to Rick Perry, does that mean I want to execute 234 people? And if, as a reporter, I talk to a jihadi, does that mean I support the demise of all things Western?

Of course it doesn't. So why apply that flawed logic to Qatar?

Given the way things are going in the Middle East, we're going to need some people who can talk to Islamists, and that might not be such a horrible thing. The world didn't come to an end after Ennahda won the Tunisian elections, after all.

Oh. And it's pronounced "Gatt'r."

A Hook Too Fast - UFC on Fox

For those of you who don't know, the UFC stands for Ultimate Fighting Championships. It started as little more than a no-rules brawlfest, dominated by grapplers, and has developed into a multimillion dollar company with a stable full of some of the most amazing fighters you will ever see.

Last night, the UFC tried to break its 18-34-year-old male tough guy demographic and go mainstream. After a few exploratory and ultimately successful jabs with fights on Spike TV and a reality show, the UFC got Fox to host the promotion's equivalent of a cross-hook-takedown-bloody-KO-elbow-to-prone-opponent's face: the heavyweight championship bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos. Both are skilled, aggressive, and have the stamina of a migrating blue whale. The fight was to be a classic - Velasquez' wrestling and cradio against Dos Santos' brutal, pinpoint precise hands and ever-evolving ground game.

I think my apprehension took out my excitement when I noticed that a full half hour of the UFC's debut on Fox would be devoted to slick, highly produced back story.

You see, in mixed martial arts (MMA), the slicker you try to be, the more painful your demise.

Sure, there are exceptions. Anthony Pettis' showtime kick, Georges St Pierre throwing a superman punch off his lead hand, Lyoto Machida's leaping front kick. But generally speaking, a good fighter relies on fundamentals, and a good fight production does, too.

So after being treated to beautifully shot, slyly edited, and frankly compelling footage of both fighters training, talking, and glowering threateningly at the camera, fans and newcomers to the sport of MMA watched two of the most elite heavyweights in the world go to war.

For 63 seconds.

That's how long it took for Dos Santos to connect with a right hand to Velasquez' temple, follow him down to the ground, and rain punishment on him until the ref stopped the action. Dos Santos upset Velaquez for the heavyweight crown, and the fight upset, well, me, and more importantly, UFC President Dana White.

As the AP reported, "White chose the two fearsome fighters for his Fox debut because of the high potential for a stoppage victory -- Velasquez and Dos Santos had ended nearly all of their fights by early stoppage. But White was clearly not thrilled with just how quickly that end arrived, criticizing Velasquez’s decision to stand and fight with Dos Santos, one of the best boxers in M.M.A."

Twitter, which is an important tool for fans to voice grievances with judges, fighters' strategies, ticket prices, etc., reflected some negativity as well. Below are two quotes that summed up what a lot of people were feeling.

"Wow.. Cain Velasquez just got his ass whooped the 1st round.. todays ufc heavyweight chamionship fight was a #disappointment"

"Cain Velasquez vs JDS...what a disappointment."

A quick KO is not what the the UFC needed in order to attract fans and legitimacy. I've been watching fights - and fighting - for an embarrassing number of years, and while participants and spectators alike enjoy a good KO, they like to work for it. Imagine eating the most delicious dish you've ever had without chewing - the taste is there, but not the experience. That's what a first round KO is like. (I could also make comparisons to bedroom mishaps, but that's just crass.)

In an odd way, the event might help the UFC get licensed in New York. After all, a quick KO yields little blood and seems much less like institutionalized ferocity than a drawn-out 5 round fight, and opponents to the promotion and its sport tend to be averse to its brutality. But as far as a positive, lasting introduction to a new group of people and potential fans (and consumers) goes?

My guess is that people who were testing the waters with the UFC on Fox will say to themselves, "Oh, that's what the hype is all about. That was pretty cool."

And 63 seconds later, they'll be back to talking about football, the NBA lock-out, the Pacquiao-Marquez fight, or, God help them, politics.

Outdated

When I was younger, I rode a fixed-gear bicycle.

It was a nightmare. You try riding a fixy on Manhattan’s hilly Upper West Side in the 90’s and then come and tell me how awesome it was.

There’s a reason fixed-gear bicycles are a thing of the past, except in Williamsburg. They are outdated. Their structure, including the lack of handbrakes, makes them frankly dangerous in an urban environment.

In many ways, the USA’s policy in the Middle East reminds me of a fixed-gear bicycle. It is outdated, has not adapted to the times, and is dangerous.

But where a fixy these days helps your image, our policy is alienating us from people we may need as friends.

Consider the travesty of a reaction to Palestine’s admission as a member of UNESCO. Though many American officials, including President Obama, didn’t want to cut off funding to that most cerebral of UN bodies, a 15-year-old piece of reactionary legislation meant they had to stop underwriting any UN organ that admitted Palestine as a member.

As a result, UNESCO will find itself $70 million shorter as it seeks to, among other things:

Choose and help protect World Heritage Sites

Research water scarcity and how to respond

Fight for gender equality

Teach Afghan policemen how to read the laws they’re supposed to enforce

Condemn racism during soccer matches…

The list goes on.

This will not reflect well on the USA. Our country was one of only 14 to vote against Palestine’s admission to UNESCO. 

The votes for? 107.

Do some quick math – we’re about 7.6 times less popular than we were. From the director of UNESCO to the President of Bolivia, the American stance on Palestine's UNESCO membership has drawn little but criticism. Israel, however, was so grateful that it once again flouted American demands by hastening the construction of new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem.

A pity the world can't be more like Williamsburg. Our fixed-gear policy would be trendy.