Mohammed Bouazizi was an educated young man, from Sidi Abu Zeid, a small town in Tunisia, who entered the job market that had no jobs. To support his mother and sister, he undertook, without a license, to sell vegetables on the street. When the authorities confiscated his vegetable cart, insulted him, and refused to hear his grievances, he proceeded to set himself on fire, and in due course, to set the entire Middle East ablaze.

 

What does Mohammed's act of self-immolation mean? It means that a young man, such as Mohammed, needs to find a way to earn a living, and needs as well the freedom that makes his life worth living. It means that the model that has been put in place in the Middle East, with its corruption, and its oppression, and its denial of human rights and basic freedoms, is out of step with the aspirations of the people. It means that in the hyper-connectivity of today's world, one man's rage is another man's call to arms. And it also means as well that there is an opportunity now to build a new Middle East from the ashes of the old.

 

But how do we go about building a new Middle East? We begin by looking at two key players in particular: the head of state, and the man on the street. To a great extent, the future of the Middle East depends on the interplay between these two. What does the man on the street want? As was the case with Mohammed Bouazizi, the man on the street wants a job, and the freedom to live his life. And what does the head of state want? He wants, above all, security from within, and without. He wants to know that his rule will not be undermined by dissent from within, or by aggression from without. The head of state, therefore, has no choice but to do what he can to grow the economy, as a way of creating the jobs which will placate the citizenry, and as a way of obtaining the resources to fend off aggression from other countries and other groups.

 

If we look at what motivates the head of state, on the one hand, and the man on the street, on the other, we can see hints of the grand bargain that could be struck, and the prospects that are now out there for a new Middle East. The man on the street wants freedom and jobs. The head of state wants internal and external security, and a growing economy that fulfills the needs and aspirations of the people. Both of these players, therefore, should be able to agree that economic growth and job creation are at the heart of what needs to be done. And both may also agree to close the deal as follows: We will work together to grow the economy and to bestow freedom to the people, in exchange for the people agreeing to respect the rule of law, and to maintain an orderly transition to freedom and democracy.

 

In the past, other mechanisms were put in place to maintain some semblance of stability on the street. Those measures will no longer work. The old model is out. Something new must take its place. The new model will be about freedom and jobs. Those are the causes for which Mohammed Bouazizi died. They are also the causes on which a grand bargain can be struck in the Middle East between the head of state and the man on the street. In the midst of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." In this new revolution, the one we see unfolding before our eyes, the new formulation might go something like this, "Give me freedom, and give me a job, and I will agree to your rule, for as long as you stay true to the dream we can both share."

Clearly, the model that has been put in place in the Middle East is on its way out. But what comes next?

 

People on the streets of Egypt, and throughout the Middle East for that matter, are rejecting the status quo even as we speak. What we have come to expect in the region are regimes which usually have a strongman at their center. The opposition is kept in check using a whole host of constraints on personal freedoms and human rights. The powers that be enrich themselves, in a corrupt way, at the expense of the people, who are desperate to make a living. The foreign aid that comes in is diverted away from the people at every turn. The military is courted by the government, as the guarantor of security, in the face of the rage that swells up in the hearts of the people. When necessary, and it is always necessary, diversionary tactics are used to divert attention away from the corruption and incompetence of government. And yet again; a new generation of young graduates enter a job market where there are no jobs.

 

There is no question that a model of this sort is out of step with the needs and aspirations of the people. They yearn for freedom and they need jobs. So too is this model out of step with the need to compete in a global economy. And the opportunities that exist for people to connect on line make it even more difficult for such a model to persist. A change is called for. But will it be a change for the better? Or will it be change for the sake of change, which ushers in an even greater measure of oppression, and an even bleaker vision for the future?

 

Let there be no doubt that the extremists, wherever they may be, and whatever religion they happen to subscribe to, are ready, willing and able to assume the reigns of power. In the past, this is precisely what happened. The Ayatollahs hijacked Iran's revolution and sidelined the aspirations of the people in the process. Hezbollah is doing as it wishes with Lebanon, leaving the will of the people in the dust. Hamas has gobbled up Gaza and is undermining the possibility of a free, independent and prosperous Palestine. And the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave inspiration to al Qaeda, and to Hamas, is poised to seize the moment, to take control, and to remake Egypt in its own image.

 

If the people on the street ultimately end up choosing extremism, there may be no real way to stop that from happening. However, we owe it to the people on the street, to ourselves, and to the future of the Middle East, to at least put an

alternative on the table. We need to put a different model in place; one that inspires in people a sense of hope, one that competes effectively for hearts and minds, and one that is more likely to achieve some measure of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom for the Middle East. The old model is on its way out. The extremist model should be kicked out even before it takes hold. And a new model, a Vision of Hope, should be given the chance to take root in the minds of the people who remain open to the possibility of a brighter day.

 

What will the new model look like? It will have at its core an ideological framework based on common sense, an Ideology of Common Sense. It will have a consortium of top business leaders revitalizing the Middle East with good paying jobs; jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which weaken the hold of extremist thinking. It will use ideology and investment to sell people on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It will sustain the hope with public and private diplomacy. And finally, it will embolden us to fight against extremism, but it will also give the fight on the ground a good measure of credibility by positioning the fight within a Vision of Hope. We are not fighting a war against terror. We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

 

The model I'm talking about will take several generations to construct. A good thing is hard to build after all. But in the meantime, we should put the vision out there, so that when elections come around, the people on the street will at least have a choice. And if I were them, here is how I would vote: No to the outdated model of the past. No to the dead end model of the extremists. Yes to a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.

 

 

Things are heating up in the Middle East. People throughout the region are fed up, and rightfully so. They've had it with the oppressive regimes, the corruption, the lack of economic opportunities, and the denial of human rights. And yet, as the anger continues to mount, and as the possibility of change begins to loom large, we must step back and ask ourselves: Where will the rage take us?

 

Several possibilities come to mind. The regimes could intensify their response, with violence, and the people on the streets might back down. We've seen this scenario play out time and time again. Alternatively, the government could back down, only to be replaced by new political leaders who resort to the oppressive agendas of the past, in the name of restoring a sense of order. And finally, ideological extremists could sense a power vacuum in the making, and could seize the opportunity to bring about regime change. Such an outcome could easily bring back the oppression, but this time in the guise or religious fanaticism. All these various outcomes would be bad, because they do not adequately address the needs and aspirations of the people.

 

If we want our rage to count, we have no choice but to focus like a laser beam on what it is we want; and to figure out how we're going to get there. Suppose, for example, we agree on a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. These three things, Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, depend on one another, like the three legs of a three-legged table, each leg supporting the other two, and all three supporting a Vision of Hope:

 

• Peace supports Prosperity and Freedom because you must stop the violence to grow the economy, and to institute democratic reforms.

 

• Prosperity supports Peace and Freedom because people need to believe that their sacrifices on behalf of peace and democracy will eventually lead to a better economic future.

 

• Freedom supports Peace and Prosperity because people will elect leaders who have the political mandates to make the painful concessions for peace, and to institute economic reforms.

 

Now here's the tricky part. How could we go about realizing a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom? The trick is to find a mechanism that seems non-threatening on its face, but which is calculated to bring about positive change. That way, it may be possible to effectuate change, without having the existing regimes over-react, and without bringing to the fore new oppressors in the making, such as the ideological extremists. My best guess is that business is the key. Business is ideologically neutral. Business can create a neutral pathway to peace. Business creates its own ideological imperative. Once people are making money together, they are much less likely to go at each other's throats. Business can create good paying jobs and the prosperity that results. And finally, once people begin to make a decent living, and once they come to enjoy more peaceful relations with their neighbors, then eventually, the personal freedoms of the individual come to be respected and even protected by the powers that be. Human rights and personal freedoms go hand-in-hand with economic development.

 

It is difficult to say with certainty that an approach of this sort will work. But it is definitely worth trying, if for no other reason than all the failed attempts that came before. Take China as an example. China is still a dictatorship, there is no doubt. And human rights continue to remain an illusive dream. However, as a strong and vibrant middle class begins to take root, and as people's standard of living begins to improve, there is every reason to believe that the rights and freedoms of the individual will grow in stature, and that the government will eventually have no choice but to accommodate this new reality.

 

Since economic development is at the heart of what needs to be done in the Middle East, I believe that it would be good to put together a group of top business leaders who will work behind the scenes to promote the peace, and to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs: jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking, wherever such thinking is to be found. Eventually, if the stars align just right, and granted it's a big "if," I see the possibility of using a mosaic of mutual self-interest in the Middle East, to create a strategic/economic alliance between the Arab states, Israel, and the U.S., which would usher in the peace, and revitalize the region. It may seem a bit far fetched, given all the turmoil that is brewing even as we speak. But it is precisely the turmoil which may one day give birth to the dream.

 

Please join us at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org/

President Obama finds himself in a bit of a bind when it comes to Iran. And the dilemma he faces is not unlike that faced by many policy makers when it comes to the Middle East. Who do you support, the government, or the people?

 

When he ran for the Presidency, Obama vowed to negotiate with Iran's leaders with respect to such contentious issues as their nuclear weapons program, and their support for terrorist groups. And at the time, the prospect of using diplomacy as an olive branch, seemed to be a reasonable approach, as contrasted with President Bush's inclination to wield big sticks, with no carrots in sight.

 

However, in the wake of Iran's most recent election, and in light of the protests and violent clashes which are taking place there, even as we speak, would negotiations with the newly elected government confer legitimacy to a regime whose legitimacy is being contested by a great many people on the street? And yet, if you ignore the current opportunities to negotiate, even with an unsavory regime, do you lose the chance to find a diplomatic solution to what could otherwise result in war?

 

But then again, if you fail to give moral support to the protesters, do you run the risk of betraying your ideals, and alienating the people, for that matter, by espousing the cause of freedom here at home, while failing to do so abroad. Do you dare to play politics as usual when freedom is at stake? Is it hypocritical to cherish freedom, on the one hand, but to withhold support from those fighting for it, on the other? And is there a price to pay for such hypocrisy?

 

In a way, President Obama's hesitation about supporting the protesters in Iran is symbolic of a much larger picture, whereby Western leaders find themselves torn between maintaining quiet deals and understandings that have been struck with non-democratic governments in the Middle East, and their supposed commitment in the West to the ideals of democratic reform and the right of all people to be free. The gap that often exists between pragmatic arrangements, especially those securing the free-flow of oil, and the moral obligation to empower people in their quest for human rights, is not an easy gap to bridge, and the decision is often made to sacrifice human rights on the alter of what is "real," and what is "necessary."

 

And yet, as is becoming quite obvious in Iran, the voice of the people resonates loudly around the world, and is not easily silenced, even by the most repressive of regimes, using the harshest means of intimidation. Especially now, in the time of the internet, and you-tube, and twitter, and all the other varied tools of instant and ubiquitous communication, the natural inclination to speak out cannot be stifled easily. And as people around the world begin to speak to one another, the collective wisdom of the common man will begin to coalesce, and to make itself heard, and known, and believed, and a new ideology will be born, based on such ancient common sense principles as: the right to be free, the right to speak out and to be heard, the right to pursue happiness, and the right to search for justice whenever justice is denied.

 

So what advice can we give President Obama as he navigates through these treacherous waters? Perhaps we could tell him, as he takes everything into consideration, that freedom may not always be easy to support, nor practical in the short-run, but it is a moral imperative for many around the world, just as it is for Americans here at home. And therefore, we owe it to those struggling on the street, and to our long-term strategic interests, to find a way to lend our support to the cause of freedom, and to make it clear to all the dictators out there, that sooner or later, they will have no choice but to accommodate the will of the people, and their yearning to be free. It doesn't have to mean chaos. It doesn't necessarily have to mean war. It just means that society will only find its peace when the fundamental aspirations of the people are taken into consideration, and become a permanent fixture in the political landscape.

 

 

People around the world are not all the same. They don't all want the same exact things. But at the end of the day, my guess would be that most people the world over do want some similar things, and that freedom would probably top the list of what most people need and want. Iranians are no exception.

 

What is freedom? Not an easy question to answer considering all the hype that goes into that one simple word. Freedom means different things to different people, and its meaning changes as circumstances dictate. One approach is to say that freedom is our say in how our lives are playing themselves out. We want to believe that our small voice is being heard even in the midst of the noisy confusion that fills our daily lives; that we matter in the overall scheme of things. And the belief that everyone should count, may explain some of what is going on in Iran.

 

Freedom means that if we're already being given the right to vote, that our vote should count, and not be swept under the rug of authoritative ambition. People want a say in who governs them, in who holds the reigns of power, and in what policies he or she decides to pursue. It is not simply my right to vote that is important, but the knowledge that my voice, as contained in my vote, will be heard, even if only as a whisper.

 

Freedom touches on the personal as well. Women, for example, may choose to dress traditionally, but they want to make that choice, not have it thrust upon them by angry men wielding big sticks. My right to choose is at the heart of what it means to be free.

 

And people want a say as to which direction their country is heading. Dictators no doubt have their ideological agendas. But what is deemed necessary by the dictators is not necessarily in the best interest of the people. The man on the street often knows best what is in his best interest better than anyone else. People have a right, for example, to demand that their government's economic policies will create good paying jobs, and not sky-high unemployment. People want to be proud of their nation, and not have to justify why certain ill-conceived policies are further isolating them from the world community. People want to believe that their personal security is being regarded as sacred, and not undermined by the looming threat of war.

 

The yearning for freedom is a hard thing to quash. There are people in Iran putting everything on the line; even their own lives. The fight for freedom often brings out the best in us, by which we are willing to sacrifice our own safety for the sake of something we believe in, something greater than ourselves. The willingness to rise to the occasion, and to put a noble cause, like freedom, above everything else, is unique to us as human beings, and is what allows us to aspire to our greatest potential.

 

I don't envy the leadership in Iran. They must be frustrated beyond belief. They have convinced themselves that they know what's best for their people, and somehow, the people just don't get it. How dare they rise up in this fashion?

 

I don't know what will happen in Iran. But I do know that something has happened there already. Their votes were silenced, so the people rose up and made sure that their voices wouldn't be. Would this make a difference in the long run? No one knows for sure, but one thing is certain; Iran will never quite be the same. The people have spoken, and their voices will reverberate in our collective consciousness forever, along with all those countless others who cast their lots in the search for freedom and justice. Those voices can never be silenced. They will continue to make themselves heard until the day comes when the dream of freedom will be made real, and when true justice will be meted out to all.