# Posted 3:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DOMINOS FALLING? Few ideas have been subjected to as much ridicule as the domino theory, which critics across the political spectrum hold responsible for the United States' most damaging strategic failures during the Cold War. Thus, it should come as no surprise that conservative idealists found themselves subject to a fair amount of ridicule and condescension when they began to propose that promoting democracy in Iraq might set off a reverse domino effect that would bring down one Arab dictatorship after another.

According to Thomas Carothers, the foremost expert, bar none, on democracy promotion on either side of the Atlantic, the reverse domino effect is nothing more than "magical realism, Middle East-style,''

How, [Carothers] wonders, would this chain reaction occur? Arab countries are stuck between autocratic governments and Islamist opposition, he says, and ''our invasion of Iraq isn't going to remove those political forces. They're going to be sitting there the next day.'' The war, which is vastly unpopular in the Arab world, is far more likely to improve the fortunes of the Islamists, he says, and provoke governments to tighten their grip, than to ventilate the region with an Arab spring.

(Carothers cited by George Packer in the NYT Magazine, 3 Mar 2003.)

But now there has begun to emerge the first evidence that a democratic domino effect may be taking place. In a front page story on Jordan's response to the American victory in Iraq, the WaPo reports that

With the Iraq war now over...the Jordanian government is out to restore public support by taking tentative steps toward liberalization, including elections, after freezing political reform in recent years.

As home to millions of Palestinians who are (were?) no less sympathetic to Saddam Hussein than their brethern in the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan was one of the countries that most feared a potential backlash against the US invasion of Iraq. Thus, King Abdullah had no reason to depart from his prior strategy of ruthlessly crushing all opposition to his personal dictatorship.

Now, Abdullah can afford to shoulder some of the risks associated with liberalization. In late April, Abdullah's foriegn minister published an op-ed in the NYT calling on the Arab world to promote reform from within. Given Abdallah's record, I thought it best to denounce the op-ed as an act of monumental chutzpah.

But now it is apparent that the op-ed was part and parcel of a diplomatic offensive designed to persuade the United States that Jordan is following its lead on democracy promotion. Now, don't imagine for a second that Abdullah is willing to let the whims of the electorate determine whether he holds on to the throne or not. What he expects is that American officials -- especially less-than-enthusiastic democracy promoters such as Cheney and Rumsfeld -- will exter no pressure for reform so long as they can plausibly argue that Abdullah is doing more for the democratic cause than his counterparts in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

But that is exactly the wrong approach to take. The fact is that those who take the first steps toward reform on their own are most susceptible to pressure. I don't doubt for a second that realists will oppose this sort of strategy on the grounds that it punishes America's friends while ignoring more dangerous regimes. To be sure, pressuring allied states will entail short-run sacrifices. But in the long-term, there is no such thing as a pro-American dictatorship.

On the bright side, there shouldn't be much of an immediate need to pressure Abdullah, since he may go so far as to implement the same broad reforms that his father, King Hussein, did during the heyday of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the early- to mid-1990s. At the same time, there is good reason to believe that Abdullah, like his father, will not go further for as long the conflict in the occupied territories goes on.

From the King's perspective, this is a sensible approach. For as long as the intifada rages, the Hashemites have much to fear from radical Palestinian sentiment. The millions of Palestinians in Jordan have not forgotten that its government had made its peace with the hated Israelis. In contrast to other Arab dictators, Abdullah is not entirely cynical when he says that the conflict with Israel is a serious stumbling block in the way of internal reform. As Abdullah told the BBC,

We will always have the fear of what instability will happen between the Israelis and Palestinians looking over our shoulder if we don't solve that problem," Abdullah said in a television interview with the BBC two weeks ago. "Therefore, democratic reforms, economic and social reforms in Jordan will never go the way we want until we solve that problem."

What all this means is that the Bush administration cannot afford to ignore the intimate connection between the Israeli-Palestinian peace process of democracy promotion throughout the Middle East.

Whether the President recognizes this connection or not is hard to tell. He told the United Nations last September that

The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

But in his February speech on promoting demoracy in Iraq and Palestine, Bush argued that the road to Jeruslem runs through Baghdad -- without suggesting that success in Jerusalem might open the road to democracy elsewhere in the Middle East.

While critics tended to dismiss the argument the Baghdad-to-Jerusalem argument as a transparent justification for war, toppling Saddam Hussein has made it considerably easier for Jordan to become an active supporter of the peace process. If the President is truly committed to democracy promotion throughout the Middle East, he must take advantage of that newfound support -- in Jordan and elsewhere -- to resolve the most enduring the conflict in the Middle East.

It would be a fitting legacy for the 43rd President to become known not just as the greatest warrior in the Middle East, but also its greatest peacemaker. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion