Happy Holidays

At this time of year, the Christian world observes the birth of an itinerate Jewish prophet 2000 years ago. According to legend, he was born in Bethlehem, a small village outside of Jerusalem, after his family made the  journey from Nazareth in the Galilee to Bethlehem. This is a journey that they could not have made today since the Israeli separation  barrier cuts Bethlehem off from Jerusalem. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism, with a wonderful sense of irony, reminds us of the meaning of Bethlehem for Christians by posting a sign saying “Peace be with you” on the barrier.

Jesus was born into a region that was experiencing a brutal occupation, not all that different from what is happening today. One wonders if his mother felt the same sense of doubt about the wisdom of bringing another human life into the world in that environment that was expressed to me by young Palestinian women.

There were numerous other Jewish Messiahs in Palestine 2000 years ago who advocated overthrow of the Roman occupation and liberation of the Jews by force of arms. Interestingly, the only one who is remembered today is Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus advocated for a different approach to confronting the occupation. The Roman model was “peace through victory”. Jesus proposed a model based on loving God and your neighbor as yourself. He reminded his followers to do good to those that hate you and to turn the other cheek. After seeing the threat that this approach posed for the Roman Empire and what   it resulted in for Jesus, most of us have decided to abandon it.

President Obama seemed to be taking us back to the Roman times when he said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech “Instruments of war do have a role in preserving peace”. During this holiday time Christians and their Jewish and Muslim cousins pray for “peace on earth and good will toward men”. The problem is that after the New Year, we pack up this concept along with the holiday decorations and go back to shooting at each other. We haven’t learned much in 2000 years.

Merry Christmas

What now Iran?

Over the past six months, the “green” protest movement in Iran has morphed from a protest against the disputed election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a movement calling for the overthrow of the Islamic regime. The chants have changed from “Down with Russia and China” to “Down with the dictator Khamenei”. Beginning with the Student Day (December 7 on the western calendar) protests, the protesters have seemed to become more radical and the green color of Mir Hussein Mousavi’s campaign is less in evidence.

When I was in Iran two years ago, most people that I talked to wanted to see the regime change, but did not want another revolution. While there was no agreement about what the best form of government would be, most people would have been comfortable with a reformed Islamic republic. This may no longer be possible.

Iran is a country with over 70 ethnic, tribal and religious groups. In terms of diversity it makes Iraq look like a cohesive state. The binding glue of the state is its Persian history and its overwhelming majority of Shia Muslims. If “regime change” occurs, without a government emerging that reflects at least one of these factors, chaos that makes Iraq look like a “cake walk” is possible.

The opposition is beginning to believe that overthrow of the regime is possible. More and more I am seeing “this regime is history”. The riot police are beginning to show the “V” sign of the opposition. A quote from Iran’s revered poet Ferdosi “When a person’s (regime’s) end comes, the things they do will do them no good” is everywhere on Twitter.

The opposition movement is a leaderless movement and so no one will naturally appear to assume power. Mousavi was originally anointed as the leader, primarily because his wife motivated the women. The movement now seems to have gone by him. A similar phenomenon occurred during the 1979 revolution when only an invasion by Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq rallied the people around the government and solidified the position of Khomeini and the Islamists.

Israel and the US appear to be positioning themselves to fulfill Sadaam Hussein’s role of uniting the Iranians. In 1979, the US began a policy of engagement with Iran, but this was torpedoed by the Israel Lobby and their Congressional allies. We seem to be on the same path. (This story is here) Obama had better start thinking about what sort of outcome he would like to see and what policies make the most sense.

The Afghanistan Dilemma

Last week President Obama outlined his so called “surge and exit” strategy for turning around the deteriorating situation in the 8 year war in Afghanistan. The surge side of the equation is being promptly implemented by the US and its European allies. The exit side is a little more problematic. Faced with criticism from Republican hawks, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton attempted to frame the July 2011 “exit” date as decision point rather that a hard date for withdrawal. The major accomplishment of the “new” is to kick the can down the road.

Given the fact that the Army/Marine Corp counter insurgency manual, authored by current CentCom commander General David Petraus, calls for troop levels somewhere north of 600,000 and a 7-10 year time frame, one might be forgiven for being skeptical of a significant 18 month turnaround with 150,000 troops.

The strategy outlined by the administration is reminiscent of the Soviet Union strategy during their ill fated Afghanistan adventure in the 1980’s; control and stabilize the population centers and the highways connecting them and rely on a puppet government in Kabul to take over. While there are similarities to the failed Soviet campaign, there are also differences. The US is not faced with an insurgent force armed and equipped by a major power providing them with Stinger missiles and thus is able to control the air. The US is also attempting to rebuild the country and not destroy it. On the other side, the Soviets were relying on a much more competent government in Kabul.

On balance, the US will probably succeed in stabilizing some population centers and forcing the insurgency into Pakistan and the Afghan countryside where they can be harassed from the air. The major risk to this plan is that in 18 months we will see some progress and the military will come back to Obama and say “See, we are making progress. Just give us another 50,000 troops and another two years and we can “win”. It will be hard for Obama to say no!

I am old enough to remember Vietnam where steady escalation of troops, casualties, and financial commitment finally lead to the conclusion that the war was un-winnable. Obama had only bad choices, but he picked the wrong one.

Jihad 2.0

Over the last few weeks, President Obama has been both Commander in Chief and Consoler in Chief. As Commander in Chief, he has grappled with the thorny questions of what does victory in Afghanistan look like, what is a proper strategy and what are appropriate troop levels. As Consoler in Chief he has tried to help the nation deal with the murder of 13 people by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas. The media has covered these two events in depth, but has not addressed the linkage between them.

Obama is taking his time considering the proper goals and strategy. In February he said that his goal was to “make sure that it (Afghanistan) is not a safe haven for al Qaida”. If this is the definition of victory, then we “won” in 2002 when the Taliban was overthrown and al Qaida was driven into Pakistan. Since then drone attacks in Pakistan have devastated their leadership and destroyed their ability to organize and implement major attacks such as 9/11. Even if the Taliban returned to power, it is unlikely that they would make themselves a target again by inviting al Qaida back.

In response al Qaida has changed from a strategy of training fighters for a conventional battle to a media and internet based strategy targeted at angry and disaffected Muslims in western countries. Sophisticated websites (Examples are here and here.) call on Muslims around the world to conduct a “holy war” against the “Western Zionist crusaders”. The message resonates with some Muslims who watch innocent Muslims killed and wounded by “Western Zionist crusaders” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza. The strategy has proven successful in motivating attacks from the sophisticated bombings in London and Madrid to the free lance shootings at Fort Hood.

As long as the US continues to be seen as part of the “Western Zionist crusade”, we will continue to face this type of attack. For democracies these are extremely difficult to prevent. Sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan is, in my opinion, fighting the “last war”. It will only give credibility to the al Qaida message that the US is waging a war on Islam.

The realm of self help

During most of the 20th century international law was the “realm self help”. The most powerful nations in the world decided what international law was and then imposed it on weaker nations. No where was this more evident that the “victor’s justice” that was imposed on Germany and Japan following WW II. The victorious allies decided that the military and civilian leaders were responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, tried them, convicted them and imprisoned or executed them.

Following the founding of the UN, international law has become more codified through a series of treaties and judicial decisions, but it is clearly an evolving process. Under a UN Human Rights Committee mandate South African judge Richard Goldstone issued a report that found that there was credible evidence that Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 2008 Gaza war. He called upon the parties to conduct credible investigations within six months and, if they did not, that the cases be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The response of the US and other western countries indicates that we are returning to the “realm of self” where the powerful nations, the guys with the biggest guns, get to decide who is called to account.

When a case was brought in the UK against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a UK court found that he could not be arrested since the alleged crimes were perpetrated in his role as a government minister. When I called my Congressman to request that he not support a House of Representatives resolution which demanded that the Obama administration oppose the Goldstone Report and any referral to the ICC, I was advised by his staff that prevailing opinion in Washington was that the behavior alleged by Goldstone was not the business of the international community and that Israel and Hamas were responsible for conducting their own investigations. (It certainly was the prevailing opinion as the resolution passed 336 – 34)

If this is the state of international law, western powers should have insisted that Slobodan Milosevic and Radavan Karadcic be investigated by Serbia and Republika Srpska and be given immunity from their crimes committed during the Balkan conflict based on their positions as government officials. Is it any wonder that emerging and third world countries accuse the US and other western powers of a double standard?

Make me do it

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stonewalling of US demands that he freeze all settlement activity, loosen the blockade of Gaza and improve conditions on the ground in the West Bank has shown that the US has few options for applying pressure on Israel.

The release of the Goldstone Report which outlined allegations of war crimes committed by Hamas and Israel during the 2008 war in Gaza was an opportunity for the US to exert pressure in a way that did not require Congressional action. The US could have signaled its displeasure by abstaining or voting for UN Human Rights Committee approval of the report. Instead, the US intensely lobbied its European allies and the Palestinian Authority to prevent approval. Predictably, Israel and what Rabbi Michael Lerner calls its “ethical cretin” allies attacked the report on all fronts.

Many who support a just solution to the Israel/Palestine problem have called this just another example US political leaders caving in to the Israel Lobby. There may, however, be another explanation.

The Obama administration is engaged in a major political battle over healthcare reform. In this battle every Democratic vote counts. Congressmen and Senators, such as Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd, who take their marching orders from AIPAC, would not hesitate to torpedo healthcare reform to punish Obama for pressuring Israel. Obama may have been trying to buy time until after the healthcare reform issue is settled.

During the campaign, then candidate, Obama was asked during a small fundraising event in NJ if it were possible to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue without pressuring Israel by reducing or cutting off financial aid. In a manner reminiscent of the parable style of Jesus, Obama answered the question by telling this story.

At the beginning of WW II A. Philip Randolph, President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, lobbied FDR to promote equal employment opportunities. At the end of the meeting, FDR said “You have persuaded me; I agree with you. Now make me do it”. Randolph responded by organizing a march on Washington and FDR issued Executive Order 8802 which banned discrimination in defense industries and established the Fair Employment Practices Committee.

When the issue of pressure on Israel resurfaces in the spring there may be an opportunity to “Make Obama do it”.

Blow up in Iran

On Sunday a coordinated suicide bombing in the restive Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchistan killed 42 people including several senior Revolutionary Guard commanders. The radical Sunni opposition group Jundallah (Army of God) claimed responsibility. Iranian authorities have accused Pakistan, Britain and the US of being complicit in the attack; a charge that the US has vehemently denied. This denial, however, is suspect.
Last year New Yorker magazine’s senior national security correspondent Seymour Hersh wrote an article in which he detailed the Bush administration’ s $400mm covert operations program in Iran. (The entire article is here) The program functions by providing funding, weapons and training to Iranian opposition groups such as Jundallah, MEK and PJAK in an effort to undermine the regime in the Islamic Republic. Hersh describes the US relationship with Jundallah in these words:
“The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.
One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.”
These types of highly classified covert programs take a long time to unwind and have a long tail that even their CIA program officers can’t control. They also can be the spark that ignites a conflagration. We can only hope that this is not one of those.

Confrontation with Iran

This week the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was once again front and center on the world stage. On Monday Iranian officials notified the IAEA that they had begun construction of a second nuclear enrichment facility outside the city of Qom. This announcement prompted a flurry of diplomatic activities by the US and its European allies which culminated in a hastily called press conference featuring President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Each in turn roundly condemned Iran for their “direct challenge” to the NPT regime, “serial deception” and challenge to the entire international community. The western media flashed headlines such as “US and allies warn Iran over nuclear deception” and British “Foreign Secretary David Miliband refuses to rule out military action against Iran nuclear plant”.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad responded that the plant was never a secret and that Iran had lived up to its NPT obligations.
The reality of all this is much more nuanced. The US has been aware of this facility for some time and has elected ignore it. The plant, therefore, is hardly a secret. Iran’s case that has lived up to its obligations has some validity. The treaty as ratified by Iran requires that the IAEA be notified 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. The 2003 protocol, which Iran never ratified, introduced the requirement to notify the IAEA immediately upon the decision to construct a nuclear facility.
The Iranians may have felt that they were doing something positive ahead of the 5+1 talks scheduled for Oct. 1, since they are probably a year away from introducing nuclear material and may have been surprised by the reaction. They did not, however, count American domestic politics.
Having been stonewalled by Israel and the Arab countries on his Israel/Palestine policy, Obama could not afford to appear weak on another Middle East issue. This allowed the administration hardliners on Iran, such as Hilary Clinton and Dennis Ross, to carry the day and raise the specter of “crippling sanctions” and military action.
With their harsh aggressive rhetoric, the western leaders may have put themselves in a corner from which there may be no easy exit. Since any sanctions regime is not likely to be either effective or “crippling” and the unstable hard-line government in Tehran may welcome the conflict as a way of uniting their divided country, the western leaders may, once again, have to choose between backing down in the face of intransigence or taking military action. Will the Iranians sit idly by awaiting an attack which could destroy their retaliatory capability or will they chose a preemptive first strike?
It seems to me that that I have seen this movie before in Iraq. I didn’t like the ending.

War crimes in Gaza

This week the investigative report on the Gaza War requested by the United Nations Human Rights Council was released. The investigating commission, chaired by South African judge and prosecutor Richard Goldstone, found that there were violations of Human Rights Law and war crimes perpetrated by both Israel and Hamas. The report recommended that the case be submitted to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution.
Since neither Hamas nor Israel are signatories to the ICC treaty, the referral would need to be made by the UN Security Council. Israel is counting on the US with its veto power to prevent this from happening. With this in mind, Israel has begun a diplomatic and public relations blitz.
They have accused Goldstone of being biased against Israel and complained that the commission only interviewed Palestinians and selected Israelis. This is a little disingenuous as Goldstone is a Jew and Israel refused to neither cooperate with the investigation nor allow the commission to interview Israeli officials.
Israel has also complained that the report contains more criticism of Israel than of Hamas. This might be expected on the ground of proportionality. During the three week war 1450 Palestinians, mostly civilians were killed while 13 Israelis, including 3 civilians, were killed. The claim that Hamas rocket fire threatened Israeli civilians and thus justified the war raises the larger question, unaddressed in any forum, of what rights to resist are available to a weak people faced with a brutal occupation and overwhelming military capability.
Israel’s diplomatic case with the US is raising two issues. One is that if Israel is held to account for its behavior is Gaza, the US might be held to account for its behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other issue is that any limitations on military action would adversely affect the so called “war on terror”. Both of these issues might have resonated more with the Bush administration that the Obama administration.
If the report ends up in the Security Council, a likely outcome, the US will face a difficult dilemma. Do they support Israel and veto any referral to the ICC and send the message that it is business as usual? Does international law only apply to weak third world countries in Africa and the Middle East such as Sudan? Do western, first world, colonial powers get a pass? Or do they allow the complaint to go forward and risk a further split with Israel and the anger of the Israel lobby in Washington?.

Freezing a Conflict in August

Once the uprising in Iran, following the disputed elections, was brutally repressed by the conservative regime, the situation in the Middle East has become reasonably quiet. With respect to the efforts to resolve the intractable Israeli/Arab conflict over Palestine not much seems to be happening. Given Special Envoy George Mitchell’s penchant for quiet diplomacy, something may be happening behind the scenes. More likely nothing seems to be happening because nothing is happening.
Senator Mitchell has met numerous times with Israelis regarding the US demand for a settlement freeze and with Palestinian and other Arab leaders regarding possible steps toward a normalization of relations with Israel. Neither of these tracks is going anywhere. Israel has no interest in stopping its colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and doesn’t particularly care about normalized relations as they don’t see themselves as part of the Middle East. The Arabs feel as though they bought the settlement freeze in Oslo and have no interest in buying it again.
In my opinion the Obama administration has finally realized that there is no room for a two state solution in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians live alongside each other in peace. The maximum that Israel will give is less than the minimum than the Palestinians can accept.
Israel has no incentive to compromise further. Their overwhelming military power supported by the US and their demonstrated willingness to use it to crush resistance has consolidated the occupation and made Israel largely secure. Netanyahu’s vision of a “Palestinian state” that consists of isolated self governing enclaves in which the PA manages day to day issues and Israel controls borders, air space, security, water, infrastructure and access is largely in place. As Netanyahu says “Call it a state if you will.”
This situation not only serves Israel’s desire for space for settlement growth, but also the need for the Fatah led PA for a continued flow of US/European aid flowing through the PA that can be skimmed for personnel gain.
The inability of the Obama administration to get Israel to accede to their demand for a settlement freeze has demonstrated that there is no political will in the US to constrain Netanyahu from implementing his vision. We are moving into a “frozen conflict” mode. The danger of frozen conflicts is that they have a tendency to thaw periodically.

Shifting Sands

The political landscape in the Middle East has shifted dramatically in the past few months. This shift has had an impact not only in the region, but also in the West. Part of the change is a result of the “Obama Effect” which culminated in his Cairo speech to the Arab and Muslim world.

Over this period there have been a number of changes in regional governments. Israel has elected a hard right Likud led government whose policies on settlements and a Palestinian state have led to a confrontation with the US. The disputed Iranian election has caused the Islamic regime to focus more on internal divisions than on foreign affairs.

All this has caused Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to see Iran as a less reliable ally and to reach out to the US. Authoritarian Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose policies are at odds with the views of their citizens, are happy to see Iran, their regional rival, distracted. On the other hand, they are concerned that their citizens may follow the lead of the Iranians and demand regime change.

Israel’s hard line position on settlements has opened it up to strong pressure from the West. Britain has cancelled several military contracts with Israel citing the use of these weapons in the Gaza war as a violation of UK law.

The US, particularly, is struggling to decide how to navigate this shifting landscape. There seems to be agreement within the administration to engage with Syria. However, with respect to Hamas the divisions within the administration are exposed. Obama’s conciliatory words toward Hamas in Cairo and former UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering’s meeting in Geneva with Hamas leaders prompted a denial by Hilary Clinton that the administration had changed the Bush era policy of isolation or that the administration had anything to do with the Geneva meeting.

The US and Israel have reached a stand off on settlements and there appears to be little room for compromise. One side will have to cave in. How to deal with this situation has divided the Obama administration. This reality prompted a reporter to ask State Department spokesman Robert Wood if the US was considering sanctions against Israel. (The fact that this question would even be asked shows how much the landscape has changed.) Wood’s response was “It’s premature to talk about that.” The next day a different spokesperson felt it necessary to deny that the US would exert economic pressure on Israel.

Anyone who claims to know how this will play out is smarter than I. One thing is certain. The world is a different place.

The gift that keeps on giving

Following the brutal crackdown by the Iranian government on pro-reform demonstrators, an air of relative calm and melancholy appears to have settled over Iranian cities. (Some thoughts on this from an Iranian are here.) What the ultimate outcome of the events of the past month will be, only time will tell. “Victorious” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has returned to the public stage although with a somewhat more subdued message.
Israel’s hard-line politicians and their neo-conservative and neo-liberal supporters in the US, who advocate for a policy of economic and military confrontation with Iran, must be breathing a sigh of relief. For them Ahmadinejad is the gift that keeps on giving. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been trying to persuade the Obama administration that Iran is the highest priority in the Middle East and the Israeli/Palestinian issue should be put on the back burner. Just when American pressure on freezing Israeli settlements was becoming intense, along comes Ahmadinejad to save the day.
For those advocating confrontation with Iran, it is important to have a public foil in power in Iran. Just as George W. Bush was an easy target for the hardliners in Iran, Ahmadinejad also provides an easy target. Bellicose rhetoric in the west helps provide support for hard-liners in Iran and undercuts the reformists who want dialogue with the west. Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in the US have stepped up to help Netanyahu change the subject.
John “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” McCain criticized Obama for not using more confrontational rhetoric regarding the suppression of peaceful demonstrators. Neo-con spokesperson William Kristol has criticized Obama for being “resolutely irresolute” with respect to confrontation with Iran. Reverting to the Bush administration’s “carrot and stick” approach, Hilary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton has called for “even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime". Former Iran special envoy, now in the White House, Dennis Ross has called for a brief 90 day diplomatic effort followed by force, arguing that “the use of force against Iran will look dramatically different should good faith, direct negotiations be tried and fail.”
All of this was modest compared to “loose lips” Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden’s statement that the US would not stop Israel from attacking Iran. This may have been a case of opening his mouth without engaging his brain so typical of Biden. The next day Obama said that the US has “absolutely not” given Israel a green light to attack Iran.
The denial, however, was lost in Iran as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei used Biden’s statement to rally his divided people against “meddling” western leaders. Since the vast majority of Iranians support a peaceful nuclear program, the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability is to persuade them that they don’t need nuclear weapons and that such development is not in their national interest. This will require engagement, compromise and sustained diplomacy. The rhetoric of confrontation will not get the job done.

What now for Iran?

The events of the last couple of weeks in Iran, in which millions of courageous Iranians from all walks of life have taken to the streets in the face violent repression to protest a stolen election, have produced riveting real time theater around the world. These events have also drastically changed the political landscape not only in Iran, but also in the US and in the Middle East. As the Iranian conflict moves from the streets to the back rooms of the Iranian political elite, political leaders of all stripes will need to figure out how to navigate this changed landscape.

In the space of two weeks the Islamic Republic has changed from what Mohsen Milani calls “a stable institutionalized system of governance with both authoritarian and democratic features, with domestic constituencies …” (What I call a pseudo-democracy.) to a brutal, repressive military dictatorship. As the street protests fade, the Iranian political elite, hardliners, moderates and reformists, are working behind the scenes to understand how to deal with this new reality. It will take time for their decisions to emerge.

In the US, the searing images of young Iranian women in headscarves facing down riot police and being shot down for their efforts will take a long time to fade from the American consciousness. No longer will the American vision of Iranians be that of radical fanatics and quiescent, repressed, powerless women. They will be able to get by these stereotypes and see them as people like themselves, struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families. Their perspective on American Iranian policy will certainly be different.

In the larger Middle East, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria who have counted on support from the Iranian regime may begin to question the stability of this support base. Whatever the face of the Iranian regime that emerges from the current conflict, it will be different from that of the past. A reformist or moderate government will be more open to engagement with the west. A hard-line regime will be distracted by the complex question of how to deal with a majority of the population, including almost all of the educated elite who are the backbone of the economy, who do not support them. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria may find it expedient to hedge their bets and improve their relations with the west.

Faced with this changing landscape US policy makers will be faced with difficult short and medium term policy choices. In the short term, the Obama administration, in my opinion, should maintain its low profile and allow the Iranian people to sort this out. In the medium term, a policy of public, full engagement seems to be the best choice. We can only deal with the government we have, not the government we wish we had. With a hard-line regime, engagement is not likely to bring about much immediate change, but the internal and external pressure will be on the Iranian regime.

As Dr. Martin Luther King said in 1965 on the steps of the Alabama state capital:

"I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?"....
"I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again.”
"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.”
"How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow....”
"How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Iran Awakening

When I was in Iran two years ago I was entranced by

Shiraz in May

The parks of Isfahan

And the snow covered peaks of the Alborz Mountains north of Tehran.

These are sights that Neda Agha-Soltan will never see again.

Gunned down in the prime of life, the 26 year old woman has become the symbol of the pro-democracy uprising in Iran. Her picture will haunt me for a long time.

As I traveled through Iran, I was told that “This regime has totalitarian tendencies” and “It needs to change, but we will do it. We don’t need your help”. The young, post revolution, generation is proud of Iran's long history of human rights, dating to Hammurabi, and democracy, dating to the early 20th century. They are resentful of the US over-throw of their Mossedegh led democratic government and support of the autocratic Shah. They are determined to make change happen. Convinced that they had changed the government and that the change has been stolen from them, they have risen up to demand the change.

The movement has been driven by the women, who have issues beyond the headscarf; issues of inheritance, divorce, testimony in courts and child custody that are real world issues. The women of Iran are strong and determined. As my guide said “These young girls are the regime’s worst nightmare.” The political leaders are running to get in front of a popular movement of the young and not so young urban elite and middle class.

All of this is exposing the fault lines in the ruling class. Some support the opposition and some support the conservative rural population and urban poor. Who will “win” is unclear. It will probably end with a compromise, unsatisfactory to everybody. What is clear is that Iran will be changed forever. The bond of trust between the people and their government has been broken. No longer will they do something just because the government says so. It won’t happen quickly. As Iran scholar Gary Sick said “This is not a sprint. It is a marathon.”

It is, however, an issue for the Iranians themselves to decide. President Obama is absolutely right to keep a low profile. Remember “We will do it. We don’t need your help.” The best thing that America can do is to keep this proud people, determined to make change, in our prayers.

If you want daily blow by blow of what is happening, including the “tweets” translated from Farsi, here is a good place. I don’t know when they sleep.

The Lebanese elections are not over

When I was in Lebanon last fall and met with numerous Lebanese political leaders and American diplomats, the consensus was that the Hezbollah led March 8 coalition would win a narrow victory in the parliamentary elections and would be asked to form the next government. US officials were doing everything possible to prevent this outcome; funneling copious amounts of aid through the ruling western oriented March 14 coalition. They were joined in this endeavor by Egypt and Saudi Arabia on behalf of March 14 and by Iran and Syria on behalf of the March 8 coalition.

So much money has been expended by all sides in vote buying, vote renting, air tickets so ex-pats could vote, etc. that the Lebanese economy has continued to move along at a 7% growth rate despite the global recession. After several months of campaigning and mudslinging, the Lebanese people finally got to choose and returned control to the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former prime minister Rifik Harari. The Obama administration must have breathed a sigh of relief.

Western media have portrayed the result as a defeat for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. In reality it was a defeat for Hezbollah’s ally, Christian leader Michel Aoun and his PFM party. Hezbollah only fielded 11 candidates and was counting on Amal, a Shiia party, and PFM to give them a working majority. Although the March 8 coalition received 100,000 more popular votes than March 14, the arcane Lebanese system which allocates 50% of the seats to the Christians even though they are only 1/3 of the population resulted in March 14 winning a majority.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah accepted the results “in a sporting spirit” and called for cooperation among the parties. This will be tested over the next few weeks as March 14 attempts to form a government. Much depends on whether Hariri or current Prime Minister Faoud Siniora heads the government. When the current unity government was negotiated in Qatar last fall, Hezbollah was given 1/3 of the cabinet seats which gives them veto power on major decisions. Despite the fact that nothing much has changed, Siniora, under US pressure, has said the March 14 “won” the election and should govern by itself. This is a non-starter for Hezbollah, who believes in consensus government and could precipitate a governmental crisis. (Hezbollah’s Foreign Minister discusses this here.)


Saad Hariri, on the other hand, has a good relationship with Nasrallah and there could be enough trust to allow Hezbollah to forgo its blocking third. The risks to the Lebanese political system are not over.

Obama in Cairo

On Thursday President Barack Obama gave his much anticipated, much ballyhooed, speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. Prior to the speech the administration attempted to lower expectations by saying that the speech would not propose dramatic policy changes, but rather would address broad principles that could serve as guideposts for policy going forward.
The rhetoric of common roots and common aspirations was, in general, well received in the Arab world and the Muslim world in general. This is a welcome change from the language of “Islami-fascism”, “axis of evil” and “with us or against us” that was the hallmark of the previous American administration.
Even the Israeli government was subdued in their reaction saying publicly “there was nothing new in the speech”. They recognized that there was no upside to publicly confronting an American president who is enormously popular around the world.
In the US, however, conservative Republicans did not feel similarly constrained. Fox News anchorwoman Gretchen Carlson, in discussing Obama’s statement that “the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government”, was astonished that “He apologized for the US role in Iran!” She must feel that it is OK for the US to overthrow democratically elected governments. The Republican Jewish Coalition reacted by saying “President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech. American policy should not be balanced…”
In the last two days there has been much parsing of every word by pundits of all stripes. It reminds me of my Bible study class where we can spend an hour discussing one short verse.
Nevertheless, since there appear to be some subtle changes in the language being used that may portend policy changes to come, I will take this opportunity to do the same. Rather than saying “Iran must abandon its nuclear program” he said “Iran should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power”. This leaves the door open for an agreement that would allow Iran to retain its enrichment program while agreeing to constraints that would insure that the program is used only for peaceful purposes. This is a change that some of us have recommended for some time.
With respect to relationship to Hamas, he acknowledged that “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians.” He slightly rephrased the standard “conditions” on Hamas from Hamas must "renounce violence, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and abide by previous agreements" to Hamas must "put an end to violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and recognize past agreements". This gives Hamas room to enter into a ceasefire in return for a place at the table, recognize Israel without having to recognize a state with no declared borders and recognize the existence of previous agreements without having to agree to abide by them.
All this gives me some optimism that real policy changes may follow which may actually lead somewhere.

The Iranian Conundrum

Most of the ink being spilled this week regarding the Middle East situation involved the disagreements between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu regarding ongoing construction of Jewish colonies in the occupied West Bank. Obama’s policy was clearly defined by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when she said “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Netanyahu responded by saying that construction would continue in existing settlements.
Little is being said about Iran. Netanyahu came to Washington with a plan to divert attention from Israel/Palestine to the Iranian threat. Obama demurred and indicated that he would continue on a path of dialogue and diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic. He said that he felt that progress on the Israeli/Palestinian front would help with progress on the Iranian front.
The problem is what Obama expects as an outcome from the dialogue and engagement. It appears that his goal is a continuation of the Bush administration policy of using “crippling sanctions” to force Iran to abandon its nuclear development program. Hilary Clinton has made it clear on several occasions that the purpose of negotiations is to help rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Special Envoy on Iran Dennis Ross is quoted in an upcoming book by David Makovsky, a fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as saying that the United States will not make progress towards peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration’s new plan. The idea that there was linkage between the Israel/Palestine issue and the Iranian issue was a myth. (If he doesn’t agree with the plan can he be effective in implementing it?) All this begs the question “Are ‘crippling sanctions’ even possible?”
While reformist Iranian presidential candidates have indicated openness to negotiations, even the moderates defend Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They are willing to talk about how to insure that there isn’t a nuclear weapons program. This is an opening for constructive dialogue on how to reconcile the national interests of all parties. In my experience, anything beyond this is a political non-starter for Iranian politicians. Most average people on the street in Iran told me that they support Iran’s effort to develop peaceful nuclear energy.
This policy of isolation of Iran has failed before under Bill Clinton and Bush 43 and it is doomed to fail again. Unfortunately the failure on the Iranian front will have negative consequences for the Israel/Palestine process which only now is beginning to show some promise.

Netanyahu and Obama

This week President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met for the first time as leaders of their respective countries. It is clear that the goals of the two countries are different. The US national interest requires a stable, peaceful region that provides access to energy at a reasonable price. Israel sees its national interest as requiring the maintenance of its position as a regional superpower. Anytime a neighbor has threatened this position, they have attempted to destabilize them. This was accomplished successfully in Iraq with the help of the US Bush administration and their neo-con allies. Iran has now become the center of attention.
Netanyahu came to Washington with the objective of changing the focus of the conversation from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the Iranian threat. This didn’t happen. The two leaders largely talked past each other. When Obama was asked about Netanyahu’s statement that there was linkage between solving the Iranian problem and solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem, Obama said that he thought the linkage ran in the other direction.
Netanyahu refused to use the words “Palestinian state” stating “I did not say two states for two people”.
Israel’s most important national security asset is its relationship with the US. They can not afford to anger the US president. In my opinion he will eventually agree to a “settlement freeze” and a “Palestinian state”. However, what Netanyahu means by this is completely different from what the Palestinians expect. Under his version of the settlement freeze, Israel will continue to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and allow “natural growth” of the settlements. The Likud/Netanyahu version of a “Palestinian state” is one in which the Jordan River is the eastern border of Israel and the “Palestinian state” is made up of self governing enclaves and in which Israel controls borders, access, security and water.
This may be a tough sell. The reality in Washington has changed. The games of wink and nod, say one thing and do another, that were the hallmark of the Bush administration are over. My sources tell me that the Obama administration is preparing to issue its own version of the end game and that this plan is being coordinated with Arab leaders and not the Israelis. It may be announced during Obama’s speech to the Arab world from Cairo on June 6. If true, this has big implications for Netanyahu’s weak right wing governing coalition and may force new elections in Israel where the only issue is “Do we want peace?”.
Stay tuned.

A tale of two narratives

Last month the UN held its Conference on Racism (Otherwise known as Durban II) in Geneva, Switzerland. The US, Israel and several other western countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia boycotted the conference from the beginning on the grounds that it would likely be too critical of Israel.
Following a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he described Israel as a “totally racist regime” who had “made a whole nation homeless”, 23 other European nations walked out of the conference. The other nations who remained behind applauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks and after the speech not only defended his right to make them, but said that they thought he was right.
The nations that remained at the conference were largely African nations and members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Clearly the worldview of these countries differs substantially from that of the European countries and their largely white Eurocentric former colonies. The experience of the largely brown former colonies differs substantially from that of their former imperial colonialist masters. This difference is reflected in their view of Israel.
The current and former colonial powers see Israel a “homeland for oppressed Jews” which was founded to assuage Zionist political pressure and guilt felt for allowing Nazism to arise in their midst. From the viewpoint of the former colonies, Israel is a racist colonial outpost planted in their midst by the imperial powers in order exercise control of the region and its resources.
It is not surprising that these countries should feel this way as the Zionist project has never tried to “hide its light under a bushel” in framing the issue as the fulfillment of the “white man’s burden” to bring civilization to a backward society.
In 1969 Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took there country away from them. They did not exist.”
More recently, in 2003, Alan Dershowitz wrote in his book The Case for Israel that the Jews, being European, provided superior health services and sanitation, and generally were a boon to the miserable ingrates that they found.
Everyone involved in the founding of the Jewish state of Israel recognized, whether they acknowledged it publicly or not, knew that redemption for the Jews meant expropriation of Arab lands by European settlers.
Unless the two sides of this conflict can recognize and understand the others narrative, they will continue to talk past each other and we will have more unhelpful debates like the one in Geneva.

Don't interfere in Lebanon's election

This week Secretary of State Hilary Clinton parachuted into Lebanon to interfere in Lebanon's upcoming election by decrying interference in the election. I received this reaction from a friend in Lebanon. For those that care about our failed policies in the region this is enlightening. (Lebanon's Election)

Is anything happening

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell was back in the region last week. After a high profile kickoff to Middle East diplomacy featuring visits to the region by Mitchell and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, things have been pretty quiet on the Washington front.
Given the priority of dealing with the economic crisis and Senator Mitchell’s preference for quiet diplomacy, this is not at all surprising. I have never been a big fan of diplomacy by pronouncement and press conference that was the hallmark of the Bush administration. Soon the Obama administration will need to make clear the policies that it will put forward to deal with the Palestine question, which is the cornerstone for progress on all other issues in the region.
When I was last in the region in November, there were great expectations that a more balanced US policy would lead to progress in reaching a peace agreement. Regional leaders understood that Obama had bigger priorities to deal with, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy, which would occupy his attention. However, this window of opportunity will not remain open forever.
There certainly is a lot of disagreement within the administration about what sort of policy should emerge. On one side you have Dennis Ross (an incrementalist and “Israel’s lawyer”), Rahm Emmanuel (“our man in the White House” according to his Zionist father) and VP Joe (I am a Zionist) Biden and on the other side George Mitchell (meticulously even handed) and National Security Advisor James Jones.
Among the thorny issues are how to deal with the right wing Israeli government of Likud Party leader Binyamin Netanyahu and what sort of relationship to have with Hamas. Despite encouragement by outside experts and former diplomats to engage with Hamas, thus far the Obama administration has continued the Bush policy of refusing to deal with Hamas unless they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, endorse previous agreements and renounce violence. This policy has always been a non starter.
Many Israelis are concerned about a confrontation between Netanyahu and the Obama administration over efforts to establish a Palestinian state. (Ha’aretz article “Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu” is here)


The Likud position on a Palestinian state is clear from its platform.



The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.



The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.



The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.



Perhaps if we are going to refuse to deal with democratically elected governments who refuse to formally recognize a two state solution, we should include Israel on the list along with Hamas.

Whither the wall

When Israel was formed in 1948 the basic concept was partition of the British mandate of Palestine between Arabs and Jews. This paradigm has been the basis for the current concept of a “two state solution”.
When, in 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to begin construction of the security fence/wall between Israel and the West Bank following the suicide attacks of the 2nd Intifada, his stated goal was to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel. Palestinians claimed that it was intended to create de-facto borders for Israel and was a land grab. Since that time, despite International Court of Justice rulings that the wall was illegal, construction has continued apace.
One thing that I did notice during my most recent visit to the West Bank, however, was the lack of construction activity. The wall/fence was originally designated a “security barrier”. It is clear that the wall/fence no longer serves a security purpose. There is so much traffic through the check points that security checks are cursory at best.
Even Israelis have begun to call it the “separation barrier”. The wall/fence, however, has also ceased to function as a separation barrier and has become irrelevant. The route of the barrier which extends deeply into the West Bank has isolated thousands of West Bank Palestinians on the western/Israeli side of the barrier. They are not Israeli citizens, do not have Israeli ID cards and are separated from their land and villages. In total there are now over 1.5 million Palestinians on the western/Israeli side of the wall.
Because of continuing construction of Jewish colonies, there are now over 480,000 Jews in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Estimates are that over 80,000 of these are on the eastern/Palestinian side of the barrier.
Any concept of partition or separation of these two peoples no longer works. The two peoples are so interconnected that only a single society is now possible. Any two state solution would require the relocation thousands of Jews and Palestinians, something that is not politically feasible for either party. Israeli/US policies of the last 40 years and demographic changes have made a democratic Jewish state in Palestine impossible.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been castigated for saying that “Israel will be wiped off the face of the map”. (A better translation is “The Zionist entity in Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of history”.) What hasn’t been reported in western media is his subsequent statement that “We don’t need to do anything. They will do it to themselves”.
It is time for a new paradigm.

A changing Middle East landscape

As I write this, President Obama is winding up his first major overseas trip to Europe. The trip began with a flurry of summits including the G20, the European Union and NATO with meetings with various heads of state sandwiched in between. By in large he came away from these meetings with optimistic press releases, but little in the way of European commitments on the issues that were at the top of his agenda such as greater European assistance in Afghanistan and increased economic stimulus spending..
The final stop on the trip in Turkey has the potential to be more productive. This is the latest in a series of events, which began during his inaugural address and continued with his al Arabiya interview, designed to reach out to the Muslim world. Judging from the response in the Middle Eastern media he seems to be having some success.
Turkey, by virtue of its geographic location at the confluence of a number American foreign policy interests and its status as a secular democracy governed by the modestly Islamist AK party, is uniquely positioned to be helpful with such issues as Russia, Iran, Syria and Israel/Palestine. Maybe the message to Europe is “If you won’t help, maybe there is someone else who will”.
The question is how Israel will react to US efforts to improve relations with Arab and other Muslim countries. Israeli media pundits have not been all that happy. (An example “Appeasing Child Killers” is here)
It is hard to see how the US can be part of an attack on Iran at the same time it is conducting discussions aimed at stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. This leaves Israel to go it alone and for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu this is job one.
I used to think that we would have advance warning of an Israeli attack on Iran by virtue of the fact that they would have to attack Lebanon first in order to neutralize Hezbollah and their massive missile arsenal which is capable of inflicting enormous damage on Israeli population centers. It now appears that Israel has chosen to begin to prepare the population to cope with large retaliatory attacks by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. (This story “IDF planning largest-ever drill to prepare Israel for war” is here)
Calculations like this don’t seem to make much sense, but I guess, by now, we should be used to people in this region starting wars in the hope that something good will come out of them.

Choices in Afghanistan

As the Obama administration conducted its promised reassessment of the situation in Afghanistan, it faced three basic options for moving forward to deal with this intractable problem. The overall US strategic interest, as Obama has indicated on several occasions, is to prevent organizations with global reach, such as al Qaeda, from using Afghanistan as a base from which to attack US interests around the world.
One option is to scale back ambitions and restrict activities to those that would insure that Afghanistan is not used as an al Qaeda sanctuary. A second option is to mount a large scale counter insurgency effort utilizing large numbers of US/NATO troops to defeat the Taliban, create a large economic development effort and install a friendly government. The third option is to boost US commitment to train Afghan police and security forces to allow them to assume the primary role in the conflict.
Each of these options has risks, advantages and problems. In today’s announcement regarding the way forward in Afghanistan, the Obama administration appears to have signed up for the third option.
The first option would have required admitting defeat and conducting a long term campaign of military attacks and covert actions which would undermine and destabilize the Afghan government. It appears that this endless conflict was not palatable politically.
The second option would have required a large commitment of US/NATO combat forces for a long period of time. The administration would have faced escalating US casualties. Also, providing logistical support to a large combat force would also have been a daunting task. The Taliban has shown an increasing capability to interdict the current supply route through Pakistan and the Khyber Pass. The present alternate overland route through Russia and Central Asia is difficult and limited to “non-lethal” material. The best alternative for a massive logistical effort utilizes the Iranian port of Chabaher on the Gulf of Oman and the existing Indian/Iranian constructed highway into Afghanistan. For this overt cooperation with the US, Iran surely would have extracted major concessions on other issues that would have been politically difficult for the US.
The third option, while eliminating the downsides of the other two, has its own issues. Standing up the Afghan security forces will be difficult, time consuming and expensive. While many of the insurgents and their supporters, both within and outside of the security forces, are not ideological supporters of the Taliban, they do fear Taliban retribution and support them for economic reasons (They pay better.). Countering this will require establishing security, destroying the drug trade (the major source of Taliban funding), eliminating Taliban bases in Pakistan and co-opting low and middle level Taliban. Ongoing attacks inside Pakistan to eliminate bases, with the resulting civilian casualties, run the risk of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan.
What ever the option, the road out of this mess will be long and hard.

The Gaza War and Natural Gas

When Israel attacked Gaza late last year its objectives were always a bit murky. As with the US invasion of Iraq the objectives seemed to change as the war went along. Two weeks after the outbreak of hostilities the Israeli government was still mulling its objectives.
The stated objectives were to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel, to stop smuggling from Egypt into Gaza and to restore the deterrent strength of the IDF. It was clear from the beginning that none of these could be accomplished with a short term incursion into Gaza. So what was going on?
As with most conflicts in this region the answer is “oil” or in this case natural gas.
In 2000, British Gas Group (BG) discovered proven gas reserves of at least 1.3 trillion cubic feet beneath Gazan territorial waters worth nearly $4 billion. A consortium which includes BG and the Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF), a joint venture between the Palestinian Authority and wealthy Palestinian businessmen was formed to develop the resource. The agreement would have resulted in the sale of gas to Israel.
Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005 and the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections in 2006 threw the whole plan into disarray. The Israeli withdrawal made any Israeli legal claims to the resource suspect and Hamas control of the PA would result in funds from Israel reaching Hamas and Gaza and would undermine Israel’s policies toward Hamas.
The only remaining choices for Israel were to either completely destroy Hamas or, failing that, to totally destroy the infrastructure in Gaza in order to prevent a Hamas led government from developing the resource. The enormous destruction of infrastructure during the war and the blockade of all materials necessary to rebuild seems to have accomplished the objective.
Some sources believe that Israel is already “slant drilling” from their adjacent gas fields into the Palestinian fields. It is difficult to verify such claims as Israel has declared this a “closed military area”.
If one is asked a question about why something is happening in the Middle East most people will answer “religion”. A better answer is “oil”.

Engaging Iran II

During her recent diplomatic tour of Europe and the Middle East, Secretary of State Clinton indicated that Iran would be invited to the upcoming security conference on Afghanistan. This is a positive development as both the US and Iran would like to see a stable Afghanistan which is not governed by the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban and the US and Iran can probably reach some accommodation on dealing with Afghanistan.
Other issues between the US and Iran, such as Iran’s nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hezbollah will, however, be much more difficult to deal with. When I returned from Iran two years ago people asked me “What do you think about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?” My answer was “I have no idea whether or not Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but I can understand why they might want them”.
Iran is surrounded by Sunni ruled countries who have been encouraged by the US to be hostile toward Iran and the so-called “Shia crescent”. Iran’s two major adversaries, US and Israel, are nuclear armed and have threatened regime change and a military attack on the Islamic Republic.
Up until now Iran’s strategic defense strategy has been asymmetric. Rather than relying on their conventional forces, Iran has armed and aided Hamas and Hezbollah in order to threaten Israel should either the US or Israel attack. It has also encouraged and supported Muslim Brotherhood related Islamist opposition groups in Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan who are allied with the US. A nuclear capability would give Iran a deterrent defense capability that did not rely on Hezbollah and Hamas or political unrest in the Arab world.
If the US is to be able to convince Iran to change its strategic calculations, there will need to be a major change in American policies toward Iran. Iran will need to be persuaded that the US no longer desires regime change and has taken the military option off the table. They will also expect that the US will demonstrate that it is able to control Israel. (This is a difficult task given likelihood of an Israeli government led by Bibi Netanyahu.)
In view of the large population of neo-liberals and AIPAC supporters of Likud’s hard-line Israeli policies within the Obama administration, it is unlikely that such a major policy shift can occur. So far the US talk has continued to be about “carrots and sticks” to which the Iranian response has been “carrots and sticks are for donkeys”. We will, therefore, likely see a continuation of the adversarial stalemate brought about by the policies of the last 30 years with its adverse implications for stability in the region.

Diplo-speak

As Secretary of State Hilary Clinton completes her first visit to the Middle East, it appears to me that she must have been issued a dictionary and a handbook on her first day at Foggy Bottom giving her words and methods to say absolutely nothing of meaning. Her predecessor, Condi Rice, when asked about the ongoing expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, would say that they were “unhelpful” to the Peace Process. When asked about Israeli government plans to demolish 80+ Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, Secretary Clinton allowed that this was “unhelpful” to the Peace Process.
She also appears to have trained her people very well. The Israeli government has refused allow pasta and copy paper into Gaza on security grounds. Evidently the Israelis believe that Hamas has developed technology to produce a spaghetti bomb and is capable of attacking Israel with paper airplanes. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood carried on this very erudite dialogue with the press corps at a recent press briefing.

QUESTION: But can you imagine any circumstance under which pasta could be considered a dual-use item? Or is there some -- you know, is rigatoni somehow going to be used as a weapon? (Laughter.)
MR. WOOD: I’m not involved in those discussions, so I –
QUESTION: Well, I mean -- I mean, it just seems to be absurd on the face of it, if that’s what happening.
MR. WOOD: Well, there are people on the ground who are dealing with these issues. And I think we should leave it --
QUESTION: Dealing with the pasta dual-use issue?
QUESTION: Yeah, can you take a question on the pasta, please?
MR. WOOD: I’m not going to take the question on the pasta --
QUESTION: Why?
MR. WOOD: -- because it’s –
QUESTION: Well, the United States is obviously pushing it, so obviously it’s something --
MR. WOOD: We’re trying to get humanitarian supplies in – on the ground to the people in Gaza.
QUESTION: Do you think food is a humanitarian supply?
MR. WOOD: Food certainly is.
QUESTION: All kinds of food?
MR. WOOD: I – I’m not able to tell you from here whether it –
QUESTION: Can you get a – can you take the question of what kind of food that the U.S. thinks is a humanitarian supply?
MR. WOOD: I’m not going to take that question, because I don’t think it’s a legitimate question.
QUESTION: You don’t think it’s legitimate that the Palestinians need certain foods and is – should Israel decide what food the Palestinians need?
MR. WOOD: I’m sorry, Elise, I’m not going to – I’ve spoken on it.

It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad.

Which prisoners will be released?

Shortly after Hamas won a substantial majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) 2006 election, Israel arrested over 30 members of the PLC. Those arrested were primarily Hamas representatives and they are still being detained as political prisoners in Israel. Evidently Israel and the US thought that they would be able to deny Hamas a majority in the PLC and that the more compliant Fatah faction would retain control.
The strategy did not quite work out as planned. Hamas promptly boycotted the PLC, preventing a quorum and the PLC has not functioned since. President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) responded by appointing a caretaker government led by Salam Fayad. Hamas considers this government illegitimate since it has not received the PLC vote of confidence required by the Palestinian Basic Law. Hamas also considers President Abbas an illegitimate President as it takes the position that his term expired on January 9, 2009.
Since Israel and Hamas declared unilateral ceasefires ending the Gaza war, there have been ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas on a more permanent long term ceasefire. One of the points of contention has been the release of prisoners. Israel wants the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and Hamas wants over 1000 Palestinian prisoners to be released by Israel. This prisoner exchange will likely happen at some point. Israel has long been reluctant to release prisoners with “blood on their hands”, but since the Hamas PLC members are political prisoners they will probably be among those released.
This event will have a significant impact on the political dynamic in the region. The PLC will be reconstituted and will probably remove Prime Minister Fayad from office and install a Hamas led government. They probably will also begin proceedings to remove Abbas from office. These steps could result in new elections.
Since the Gaza war Hamas’ popularity has increased and polls indicate that they would win any new election. The US and Israel would then be faced with a Palestinian Authority completely under the control of Hamas. Things in the Middle East don’t always work out the way you plan. As Egyptian President Gamel Nasser once told an American friend “The genius of you Americans is that you don’t have simple stupid policies. You only have really complicated stupid policies.”

Where is Dennis Ross?

The Obama administration seems to be approaching many of the world’s trouble spots utilizing special envoys to engage these regions. His appointment of Senator George Mitchell as envoy to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was well received by Israel’s neighbors in the region and by informed observers around the world.
He next appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as envoy tasked with dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because Holbrooke has little experience in this region and thus brings no baggage and preconceived notions to his position, his bulldozer style of diplomacy may be well suited to helping to resolve some of the long festering issues between these parties.
Since, during the campaign, Obama made a major issue of changing the dynamic of US – Iranian relations, most observers had expected that he would promptly appoint a special envoy to Iran. The administration, early on, floated the name of former Clinton administration Middle East advisor Dennis Ross. This idea was not well received in Iran. An Iranian government spokesman described him as a “Zionist lobbyist”. They are right on this count. Ross’s role in the Clinton era Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has been described as “Israel’s lawyer”.
Since Ross’s name was floated, nothing has been heard. Observers, myself included, have wondered what is going on. It is possible that the Obama administration is taking the Iranian reaction into consideration.
It is also possible that, after the issues he has experienced with nominees “forgetting” to pay their taxes, Obama wants to avoid another vetting problem. Ross’s vetting problem stems from his failure to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. (FARA) Ross is Chairman of the Jerusalem based and Israeli government funded Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. (JPPPI) The Department of Justice has long said recipients of this type of funding must register under FARA. (The whole story is here.)
Hopefully this problem will keep Mr. Ross on the sidelines. Improved US-Iranian relations have the potential to change the dynamics of many of the intractable conflicts in the region. Hopefully, we will end up with an envoy who will bring an open minded and even handed approach to the position.

Everyone wins or maybe loses

2009 is a year of elections in the Middle East and the outcomes of these elections will have important implications for the Obama administration’s efforts to make progress towards reducing tensions and bringing peace and stability to the region.
The election season began with this week’s Israeli election which will be followed by elections in Iran, probably in Lebanon and perhaps in the Palestinian territories. The outcome of the Israeli election has produced more confusion than clarity. Both Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud have declared victory and they are both right.
Ms Livni declared victory because Kadima closed fast just before the election and finished with 28 Knesset seats to Likud’s 27. Netanyahu can also declare victory as he is much more likely to be able to put together a coalition of right wing parties than Livni will be able to create a center left coalition. The big winner is Avignor Lieberman, leader of the far right Yisrael Beiteinu party. With 15 seats he is now in the position to be a “king maker”.
Although he is talking to Kadima, it is unlikely that Kadima can sign up to enough of his policy positions, such as ethnically cleansing Israel of Arabs, dealing with Iran militarily, using the same solution for the Palestinian territories that the US used on Japan during WW II and executing Members of the Knesset who talk to Israel’s “enemies”, to attract him into a coalition. Even if Livni were able to navigate these treacherous waters, she would need to bring in the ultra-Orthodox religious parties or the Arabs, both of which she declined before the elections were called.
This leaves a Likud, YB, National Union, and ultra-Orthodox coalition led by Netanyahu as the most likely outcome. Given their positions opposing negotiations with the Palestinians, expanding settlements on the West Bank and addressing Iran militarily, the conventional wisdom is that this government poses big problems for Obama’s agenda.
Not everyone agrees, however. In November a moderate Israeli said to me, “My dream team for peace is Obama and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is so outrageous that even the Americans can’t support him. He should go back to selling furniture in Boston.”

Lessons Learned II

The appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy on the Arab/Israeli conflict was greeted with nearly universal approval in the Arab world. He along with former Senator Chuck Hagel and General Colin Powell were on the short list of nearly everyone that I talked to during my trip to the region in November.
Senator Mitchell brings a Lebanese heritage and a reputation for fairness and meticulous evenhandedness to the job. He also brings experience in the region, having chaired a study group investigating the 2nd Intifada in 2000, without being a so-called Middle East expert with all the baggage that comes with being associated with past failed policies.
Perhaps his greatest qualification is his experience in helping broker an end to the long running and seemingly intractable conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. This experience could serve him well in the Middle East.
In May 2007 Senator Mitchell wrote an op-ed piece in the International Herald Tribune in which he described the lessons that he learned from dealing with this conflict. (The complete article is here.)
He wrote:

“Those who would shoot or bomb their way to power must be prevented from doing so if they are ever to turn from violence to politics.
At the same time, making sure that people realize that violence will not succeed is not enough. They must also come to believe that a true political path exists, one that will allow them to realize enough of their agenda to persuade their followers to turn away from violence.
Negotiations are essential. Peace never just happens; it is made, issue by issue, point by point. In order to get negotiations launched, preconditions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum.
In the case of Northern Ireland, it was right to make a cease fire a prerequisite. Killing and talking do not go hand in hand. But it was also right not to require that parties give up their arms or join the police force before the talks began.
Confidence needs to be built before more ambitious steps can be taken. Front-loading a negotiation with demanding conditions all but assures that negotiations will not get under way, much less succeed.
Parties should be allowed to hold onto their dreams. No one demanded of Northern Ireland's Catholics that they let go of their hope for a united Ireland; no one required of local Protestants that they let go of their insistence that they remain a part of the United Kingdom.
They still have those goals, but they have agreed to pursue them exclusively through peaceful and democratic means. That is what matters.
Including in the political process those previously associated with violent groups can actually help. Sometimes it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it.
To be sure, their participation will likely slow things down and, for a time, block progress. But their endorsement can give the process and its outcome far greater legitimacy and support. Better they become participants than act as spoilers.
Sometimes it is necessary to take a step backwards in order to take several forward. This is precisely what happened several years ago when Northern Ireland's hard-line parties eclipsed more traditional, moderate elements.
Bringing them in slowed the pace of diplomacy - but increased the odds that a power-sharing agreement, once reached, would have widespread support and staying power.”

While the situations in Northern Ireland and Palestine are somewhat different, there are also many similarities. If Senator Mitchell is able to apply the lessons learned in Ireland to the Palestine situation, he may have a chance of success.

Testing II

President Obama has lived up to his campaign promises to move quickly, from day one, to engage in the Middle East. His actions and rhetoric have signaled a clear break with the approach and policies of the Bush administration. He has used words like “respect for the views of Middle Easterners” and “listening to their point of view even if we disagree”. His first media interview as President was on the Dubai based Arab television network Al Arabiya. (An extended excerpt is here.)
His appointment of George Mitchell as his special envoy has been well received in the region. The appointment, however, has not been uniformly acclaimed by the Israel Lobby. Abe Foxman, President of the pro Israel Anti Defamation League said in a news conference “Senator Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed. So I am concerned.”
This is clearly not going to be any easy road to follow. It took sixty years of bad policy to get to this point and it not going to change in a short period of time. As has been pointed out, President Obama is an American politician and not a messiah. Following the road towards peace and stability in the region will be two steps forward and one step back. It will require political courage, perseverance, patience and engagement with all parties.
Last year, following the Annapolis Conference, I wrote that George Bush would be tested right away to see if he was serious about each side living up to their obligations under the so called “Road Map”. Shortly after the conference Israel announced a large number of new tenders to build settlement units in the occupied territories. (This article is here.) George Bush failed the test, demonstrating that he was not serious, and in the 12 months following the conference three times as many settlement units were built as in the previous 12 months.
During the Presidential campaign Vice President Biden stated that he believed that Obama would be tested right away in the foreign policy arena. I think that he expected that the test would come from al Qaeda, Russia, China or some other adversary. Turns out that the test is coming from Israel.
Following the tenuous cease fire in Gaza, Obama called for the border crossings to be opened for humanitarian and reconstruction aid. Israel has said no, taking the position that reconstruction material, such as cement and pipes, could be used by Hamas to rearm. All players in the region will be watching closely to see if Obama passes the test. Will he be able to exert the pressure necessary to insure that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is relieved? His job will be made even more difficult by the likelihood of a Likud victory in the February 10th Israeli elections.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

Congratulations on your election and inauguration as the 44th President of the United States and thank you for being willing to take on what must, at times, seem like the world’s worst job and for being willing to help lead us through these difficult times.

I have recently returned from a political tour of Israel and its neighbors during which I was able to meet with political leaders in the region including Hezbollah and Hamas.

I applaud your rapid engagement in a region whose stability is crucial to US national interests. The appointment of Senator George Mitchell as your special envoy sends an important message that you are serious. Among the people that I talked to, he was on everyone’s short list of envoys that could make a difference.

I know that you would have preferred to wait to engage the Israeli/Arab issues and dealt first with the economic problems, Iraq and Afghanistan, but reality is something that happens while you are making plans. The Israeli attack on Gaza, which has created a dramatic escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has forced immediate action.

It will be impossible to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza without cooperation with Hamas. I encourage you not to accept the conventional wisdom about Hamas without sending someone you trust, like George Mitchell, to talk to them.

There are three things that can be done immediately to move the process forward. A Palestinian unity government needs to be established. We can help by making it clear that we will work with whatever government the Palestinians decide on, including one in which Hamas participates.

We also need to make it clear that building in the Jewish settlements in occupied territory needs to stop. We need to say to the Israelis “what part of stop building don’t you understand”.

Everybody in the region knows that the parameters of a settlement are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative. These parameters need to be enshrined in a policy statement. This is perhaps best done through a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the parameters. Without a vision of an end point the “Peace Process” will continue to be process with no peace.

The two state solution is clearly on life support and some, like myself, argue that it is already dead. We only keep going because the alternative is too ugly to contemplate. Reaching a solution will require enormous political will on all sides. I hope that you will spend some of your political capital to bring about a peaceful solution.

Sincerely,
Don Liebich

From Neo-conservatism to Neo-liberalism

For the past 8 years of the George W. Bush administration the neo-conservative project has been the dominant force shaping American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. The project is grounded in the philosophical worldview of intellectuals and pundits such as Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol. It was implemented at the political level by adherents such as Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney.
The worldview of this group, largely Jewish, was shaped by the Jewish Holocaust and the failure of the western democracies, particularly the US and UK, to intervene aggressively to prevent the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. They see an obligation for the world’s economic and military hegemonic power to intervene, militarily if necessary, to spread western culture and values around the world with the goal of making the world a better and safer place. They see diplomacy as “we make demands, you agree to them and then we talk about what you want”. If you don’t agree then “preventive war” is justified.
With the election of Barack Obama we are shifting to neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism, while not a twin brother of neo-conservatism, is certainly a cousin. Its adherents such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyck, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer, Richard Holbrooke and Hilary Clinton, again largely Jewish have a similar worldview as their neo-conservative cousins. They see the road to peace and stability, particularly in the Middle East, as depending upon the “backward, unenlightened” nations of the region embracing, by force if necessary, western culture, free market economics and western style democracy.
They differ from neo-conservatives in their emphasis on “statecraft” as a preferable option, but at the end of the day if “statecraft” does not achieve the desired result, military force is justified.
One could see the dynamic that will shape US policy in the Obama administration during the Hilary Clinton confirmation hearings.
She expressed her support for so called “smart power”, but when it came to specific issues, like Iran and Hamas, the verbiage came right out of the neo-conservative’s “play book”.
With respect to Iran she said that the United States will “do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state” and “no option is off the table”. With respect to Hamas she said “Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by all previous agreements”. These are “conditions … that would lead to any kind of negotiations.”
With this group making up the Obama foreign policy team it doesn’t look to me like “change you can believe in”

Avoiding a Middle East Regional Conflict

As Israel continues its assault on Gaza a number of diplomatic initiatives, led by the French, are in process to bring about a cease fire. As in Lebanon in 2006, Israel appears determined to press its assault until international pressure becomes so great that they will need to declare victory and withdraw. The US is supporting this effort by instructing its UN representatives to block all UN efforts to demand a ceasefire.
It is not clear to anyone, including the Israelis, what victory means in this case. The goals of the invasion have been variously described by Israeli leaders as a new ceasefire with Hamas that reflects Israel’s terms, to regime change in Gaza, to eradication of the Islamist movement.
The effort to destroy Hamas has been supported, not only by the western powers, but also by so called moderate, conservative regimes in the region such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are undemocratic countries in which the major opposition groups are Islamist and, like Hamas, affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing these conservative governments want to see is a successful, prosperous, democratic Islamic state in Gaza that their opposition can use as a model.
Although Israel is trying to delay any ceasefire in order to give its military time to accomplish its “goals”, January 20th is the drop dead date. One of the contributing factors to the timing of this war was the imminent end of a Bush administration that gave Israel carte blanche. Israel is worried by the unknown of an Obama administration’s policies and doesn’t want to anger him right from the beginning.
One question is can Israel succeed in destroying Hamas in the short time remaining. Another is can Hezbollah, Hamas’ ally, afford to remain on the sidelines if it appears Hamas will be destroyed. Several rockets were fired today into Israel from Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied responsibility and it is likely they were the work of Palestinian groups in Lebanon. It is also possible that Hezbollah is sending a message. If Hezbollah becomes engaged, will Iran, its sponsor, be content to stay on the sidelines?
Iranian parliamentary leader Ali Larijani met for many hours this week with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hopefully they were trying to find a way out of this conflict that has the potential to create $200 per barrel oil and make the current economic crisis look like a walk in the park.

Gaza violence

Violent conflict and war are appealing options for politicians, particularly in democracies and particularly before elections. The conflict tends to rally citizens against a common enemy. This effect can be seen in the high popularity ratings of George W. Bush following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Party leader, has been rescued from a political death by the attacks on Gaza.
These politicians, however, frequently ignore the longer term issues in favor of short term political gain. (This leaves out a discussion of the morality of the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.) These issues include: who is the enemy, where is the enemy, what are the objectives, can the resources be mobilized to achieve the objectives or do the objectives need to be modified to meet the resources.
In Gaza it is not clear that any of this has been considered. Besides electoral considerations, the stated Israeli objective is to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel. How this attack will achieve this objective given the resources that can realistically be brought to bear is unclear to me.
There are a number of possible outcomes to the Israeli military attack on Gaza. Among them are:
One: Hamas accedes to Israel’s demands and meekly accepts the occupation. (Not likely)
Two: Israel ceases military operations and withdraws, threatening to return and bomb, and the cycle of violence continues.
Three: Israel succeeds in killing the Palestinian leadership and destroying the security infrastructure and Gaza deteriorates into a Somalia like failed state dominated by criminal gangs and tribal rivalries and is a fertile ground for al Qaeda.
Four: Israel invades and physically reoccupies Gaza. (Not likely as Israel would then be responsible for 1.5 mm Palestinians.)
Five: Israel invades, and, as in Lebanon in 2006, gets its nose bloodied (Like Americans, Israelis have a high tolerance for enemy deaths and a low tolerance for their own.) and agrees to a ceasefire that stops the rocket fire and opens the border crossings. (In my opinion this could have happened without the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people.)
In my recent conversation with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal he talked about Hamas’ commitment to the resistance, resistance only within Palestine (no cross border operations) and stopping the resistance when the occupation ends. (An excerpt from his comments is here)

It is likely that his view today would be different. (An interesting article on the internal politics of Hamas is here)