The person appointed was a friend of Bush’s from Texas named Sada Cumber. It was not a bad idea for Bush to take a step, albeit a symbolic one, after the occupation of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the Guantanamo nightmare. Of course it was odd that the person who was appointed to mend relations with the Muslim world, of which 85 percent is Sunni, belonged to the Ismaili sect. But during his term Cumber, who was born in Pakistan, traveled to Muslim countries, listened to problems and fostered solutions. For example, he brought the torment that people face at borders when traveling to America to the administration’s agenda.During one of his trips he came to Turkey and met with a group of journalists. The purpose of his trip was to see how Turkey viewed the situation in the Middle East, America’s role, the Iranian nuclear crisis and the Palestinian issue. Certainly Turkey’s improving reputation as well as the fact that the OIC secretary-general was a Turk also played a role in the visit. He said what surprised him the most during his meetings in Turkey was how Turks were unconcerned about Iran’s nuclear program. Sada believed that like most countries in the region, Turkey should also be greatly concerned about a nuclear Iran. The reason being that if Iran gained nuclear power it would rattle power balances in the region and turn into a threat to surrounding countries.
When I recalled that the public did not see Iran obtaining nuclear arms a threat due to the immense reaction to America and Israel, Bush’s representative said the governments of countries in the region had a completely opposite view on the matter than the people on the streets. On camera and in front of crowds, administrators give messages that perhaps appeal to the streets, but behind closed doors administrators discuss just how serious of a threat a nuclear Iran would be to regional peace.
There is no doubt that in the Middle East there is a rift between the administrations and the streets over many issues. What the elites in Arab capitals say in front of the public is different to what they say behind closed doors. Until recently, there was no concrete evidence which showed that the rift over the critical Iranian issue was this wide. The 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll, produced by Maryland University in conjunction with Zogby International and released last week, is very striking in this respect.
The poll concerned Turkey mainly from the point that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has indisputably become the most popular leader in the Arab world. Erdoğan surpassed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was the most popular name in the same poll two years ago, due to his firm stance regarding the Palestinian issue in particular. The Shiite leader, Nasrallah, ranked fifth in this year’s poll. While Erdoğan topped the list with 20 points, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received 12 and Hosni Mubarak received only four points from the Arab public. According to the poll, Turkey is not yet among the countries that Arabs want to see as a superpower. However, it is the second country in the region after France that is seen as having constructive politics.
The poll’s section on Iran is also crucial. According to the poll conducted in six Arab countries that closely follow the Iranian issue -- namely Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia -- the people on the street are not against Iran becoming a nuclear power. In Egypt, which is believed to be the most apprehensive on this matter, 82 percent of the public see Iran obtaining nuclear power as a positive development. The rate of those who see it as negative is just 6 percent. In Lebanon 57 percent and in Jordan 61 percent see it as a positive development as well. In Saudi Arabia, where the administration is strongly against a nuclear Iran, no more than 29 percent of the public sees it as a negative development. Will this tremendous difference in views over such a critical matter be resolved? Which side will convince the other side? Isn’t the biggest weakness of Middle Eastern countries the tremendous contradiction between the administration and the public, anyway?
