The Known and the Unknown in the Arab world

Peter Harling is often insightful and knowledgeable in his writing but this piece struck me as more than a tad patronizing and condescending and full of generalizations along the lines of "Nostalgia for the days of repressive regimes has surged".  Nostalgia for repressive regimes? By whom? All of societies or the crony classes?  A bit less overstatements.  And typically in Western analysis on the region produced by journalists and NGO experts, the premise of the writing is a staunch support for the pro-US repressive regimes.  Look at this statement: "Tentative political openings, as occurred in Morocco and Jordan..." I wont argue about the silly changes (meaningless) in Morocco, but what were the political openings in Jordan, unless you are counting the release of a photograph of the King eating kababs at a restaurant in Amman?  And here the authors seems to bemoan what they consider as the abandonment of Saudi regime and Israel, and think that Mubarak was overthrown not by his people but by Obama: "In particular, as said, a fundamental change has occurred in Washington's relations with the region. Thanks to a combination of the trauma of recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequent isolationism, the strategic pivot toward Asia, the shale oil and gas revolution that has diminished the relevance of Middle Eastern energy producers, and inward-looking domestic priorities, America is narrowing down its interests in the region. The Obama administration has delineated two areas to put energy into: improving ties with Iran, both toward and through resolution of the dispute over its nuclear capabilities, and another push at the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. In pursuing welcome but risky talks the US has shown unusual willingness to ignore Israeli lobbying against engagement with Tehran, as well as consequences for other allies like Saudi Arabia, and the fallout of further Iranian empowerment on places like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. If that trend were to continue, we might expect an American posture in the region that would look as if turned on its head...In particular, as said, a fundamental change has occurred in Washington's relations with the region. Thanks to a combination of the trauma of recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequent isolationism, the strategic pivot toward Asia, the shale oil and gas revolution that has diminished the relevance of Middle Eastern energy producers, and inward-looking domestic priorities, America is narrowing down its interests in the region. The Obama administration has delineated two areas to put energy into: improving ties with Iran, both toward and through resolution of the dispute over its nuclear capabilities, and another push at the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. In pursuing welcome but risky talks the US has shown unusual willingness to ignore Israeli lobbying against engagement with Tehran, as well as consequences for other allies like Saudi Arabia, and the fallout of further Iranian empowerment on places like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. If that trend were to continue, we might expect an American posture in the region that would look as if turned on its head."    And here, your Western writers are celebrating the decline of resistance:  "Third, in this context, the challenging, slowly and painfully, of all the old narratives—pan-Arabist, nationalist, various shades of Islamism, anti-imperialism, “the resistance”—is ultimately positive because none of them work." But they fail to tell us why resistance to occupation and foreign aggression is a bad thing? I mean, why would they want a decline of resistance unless they are worried about a challenge to Western projection " of force in the region and a threat to Israeli occupation and aggression.  And here is yet another obnoxious form of the White Man judging the natives:  "Opinions are generally crude, aggressively intolerant and more rigid than ever." (thanks Laure)