What now Barack?

Last week the Obama administration announced that it was giving up on its efforts to persuade the Israeli government to temporarily suspend settlement construction in the West Bank. (This story is here.) Faced with Israeli intransigence, despite much groveling and many carrots being offered, the weakened US government, faced with a bi-partisan “pro-Israel” Congress, decided to declare defeat and withdraw. This turn of events has been eloquently described by Jewish-American MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

“Washington’s pathetic capitulation to Israel while pleading for a meaningless three-month freeze on settlement expansion—excluding Arab East Jerusalem—should go down as one of the most humiliating moments in US diplomatic history.”

This leaves us to try and decipher “what now”. Of the options available, there are no good ones. The first and most likely option is the continuation of the status quo of “peace and apartheid”. The Israeli government has successfully separated Jewish and Arab residents of Palestine through a network of housing restrictions, walls, settler only roads and checkpoints. The US has recruited and trained a Palestinian security force that has taken over much of the occupation. Western aid supplies a source of funds which supports the bloated Palestinian Authority (PA) bureaucracy and allows senior figures to line their own pockets. Although some in Israel would like to expel all of the Arabs from Palestine, (The latest efforts are here and here.) the status quo seems to be reasonably stable in the short run. It does not, however, solve the larger problem of providing a fertile recruiting ground for violent radical groups bent on attacking the US and its allies.

One other alternative being discussed is a unilateral declaration of statehood by the PA based on the “1967 Green Line” followed by application for UN membership. There have been some informal moves in this direction as Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have recognized a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Others will likely follow. This step is largely symbolic as the chances of the super majority required in the UN General Assembly and Security Council for membership being achieved over the objections of the US are small.

A third, and probably most effective, alternative is to disband the illegitimate PA government and turn the whole mess over to the Israelis, forcing them into a violent and expensive direct reoccupation of Palestinian territory. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has long threatened to do this, but it has always proved to be empty rhetoric. The leadership has been unwilling to give up the perks of power. Eventually this change may come about as old age catches up with Abbas with no means to replace him. Hamas is the most likely candidate to fill the power vacuum.

Only time will tell what will happen. It may not be pretty.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Middle East

Wikileaks Strikes Again

This week Wikileaks, the website dedicated to publishing classified documents, began release of thousands of “diplomatic cables” which transmitted information and assessments from US embassies around the world to the State Department. As was the case when Wikileaks published videos of US troops in Iraq killing unarmed civilians and US military battlefield assessments from Afghanistan, the US government reacted with strong language calling the release “ an attack on the international community” and a “reckless and dangerous action” which endangered diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the world.

Thus far the damage seems to be mostly political and diplomatic. Dispatches from embassy officials which classified foreign leaders as “Robin to Putin’s Batman” (Dmitry Medvedev), “Flabby old chap” (Kim Jong Il), “the crazy old man” (Robert Mugabe) and “penchant for partying” (Silvio Berlusconi) will probably not endear these officials to the leaders that they must interact with.

The general theme that seems to run through the dispatches when they are compared to stated US policy is that if their lips are moving US diplomats and administration officials are probably lying. This is not a new revelation. In his book “A Peace to End All Peace” which the chronicles the efforts of Britain and France to carve up the Ottoman Empire after WW I. David Fromkin describes British diplomat Mark Sykes as “an innocent: he believed people meant what they said.” Everyone in the diplomatic game will now be more skeptical of what they are told.

Media pundits have made a big deal of the dispatches which describe efforts by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain to encourage the US to start a war with Iran. This release will likely cause serious issues for these undemocratic authoritarian regimes whose policies do not reflect the views of their people. While the governments have expressed grave concerns about the threat of a nuclear capable Iran, a recent University of Maryland/Zogby International poll shows that 57% of those polled in these Arab countries believe that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons it would be a positive outcome for the region. 77% of those polled believe the US poses the biggest threat. (Right behind Israel at 88%)

The good news is that, thus far, the Obama administration has resisted these calls for war. Let’s hope that common sense continues to prevail.

Marching Toward Fourth Middle East War

A year ago President Obama announced his so called “surge and exit” plan for the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan. At the time, I opined in this space that, faced with a bunch of bad options, Obama had picked the wrong one. (This post is here.) Obama’s plan was to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan for 18 months and then begin a drawdown. I expressed that, faced with the deteriorating situation on the ground, the 18 month timeframe was unrealistic and the most likely outcome was that the military commanders would show enough progress to persuade Obama to deploy more resources and extend the timetable. Unfortunately this prediction has become the reality. This week in Lisbon, Obama will propose extending the NATO combat role until 2014 and, since our NATO allies are reducing their troop commitments, more of the burden will fall on the US.

Now, two years into the Obama presidency, it remains unclear what the strategic objectives in Afghanistan are and what the face of victory looks like. The stated objective is to deny al Qaeda a base of operations in Afghanistan from which to attack US interests. The problem with this plan is that al Qaeda has not been in Afghanistan for nine years. They have moved their base of operations to Pakistan and have opened franchises in Yemen, Somalia and Algeria. Faced with this reality, the US is escalating its attacks and deployments in Pakistan and Yemen (Can Algeria be far behind?) creating a fertile recruiting environment for al Qaeda. (This story is here.)

As if this were not enough, in this month’s midterm elections, the angry American electorate, exhibiting great cognitive dissonance, returned to power the same people who created the problems that made them angry in the first place. Already asserting their newly found power, Republican hawks have begun to propose a package of carrots and sticks to pressure Obama to attack Iran. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has recently said, “If he (Obama) decides to be tough on Iran, beyond sanctions, I think you’re going to see a lot of Republican support for the idea…”. (This story is here.)

All of this has happened far from the view of the American voter. Only 7% of the voters said Afghanistan was important to them in the election. Over the past few decades several phenomenon have contributed to insulating the general public and their political representatives from the consequences of the most important decision that they must make, whether or not to take the country to war. The advent of the professional military means that only a small portion of the population is directly affected by the wars. Increasingly we are seeing the development of a professional military class where son follows father and daughter follows mother. They are isolated from the rest of the population who go about their business unaffected. We have effectively created a fourth branch of government that, backed by their supporters in the military-industrial complex, has enormous influence and is politically unaccountable. This trend is troubling to me.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,Iran,Obama

A Modest Proposal for Iraq

During my conversation with Nawef Masawi, then Hezbollah’s Foreign Minister, he described how democracy in Lebanon functioned. He said that Lebanon’s democracy is “not a democracy of figures (individuals) it is a democracy of communities.” (The conversation is here)

In the Taif Agreement of 1989 which ended Lebanon’s long and brutal civil war, power was distributed by a sectarian distribution of offices and seats in Parliament based on a 1932 census. The 128 Parliament seats are allocated 64 to Christians and 64 to Muslims. The President must be a Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament a Shia Muslim. This distribution reasonably reflected the 1932 demographics, but, as a result of ongoing emigration of Christians, the Christian representation in government far exceeds their proportion of the population. However, nobody wants to reopen the old sores of the civil war and revisit the agreement.

As Masawi points out, the system results in a government based on decision by consensus. When, in 2008, under pressure by the Bush administration, Prime Minister Siniora tried to override the consensus and attempted to curb the power of Hezbollah, major political unrest ensued. The crisis was averted when the Emir of Qatar brokered the Doha Agreement which awarded Hezbollah a ”blocking third” in the cabinet. This effectively gives them veto power on major decisions.

The result of this system is a very weak government in Lebanon which has difficulty getting anything done. However, the system has remained in place for 20 years with little sectarian conflict. No confessional group is incentivized to try to gain complete control as there is no way to increase their number of seats in Parliament. They are limited by the sectarian allocation.

A similar system might work well in Iraq. Allocation of seats and cabinet positions resulting in a distribution of power among Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds, based on population with major decisions, such as allocation of oil revenues, requiring a super majority, would result in a weak central government forced to govern by consensus. Such a system would probably be acceptable to all of the regional and extra regional players who are trying to influence the outcome.

Since the March 2010 elections, Iraq has experienced political gridlock as no group has been able to establish a coalition to form a government. Outside parties have been exerting pressure to protect their interests and the interests of their client groups. The US has tried to insure that their western oriented Sunni and Kurdish allies come to power and that major US oil and construction interests have the upper hand in future contracts. Iran wants a weak Shia dominated government which will not repeat the Saddam Hussein military adventures and will not allow the US to have a threatening military presence right on their border. Saudi Arabia wants to protect the interests of their Sunni Muslim brothers. Syria and Turkey also have strong national interests in the Iraqi outcome.

Under a consensus system, nobody would get everything that they want, but they might get enough to stop interfering and allow the system to function.

Technorati Tags: Lebanon,Iraq

Soft Power Wins for Iran

Critics of the George W. Bush administration have frequently cited his reliance on “hard power”, particularly military force, to achieve US foreign policy objectives as a major cause of declining US popularity and effectiveness around the world. Although she generally agreed with Bush administration policies, particularly in the Middle East, Hilary Clinton attempted to differentiate herself from the Bush administration policies and Barak Obama’s emphasis on “soft power” during the run up to the 2008 election by coining the phrase “smart power”.
As we have discovered by observing Secretary of State Clinton in action, her definition of “smart power’ is significantly different from “soft power”. For her, “smart power” is an attempt to put a softer face on “hard power”. As she is discovering, it is very hard to put a soft face on drone attacks, “crippling sanctions” and ongoing occupations.
“Soft Power”, on the other hand, consists of persuading others to what you want because they see convergence between your interests and their interests and they understand your respect for their interests and appreciate your assistance in achieving them. We can better see the effective use of “soft power” by observing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon.
During the visit Ahmadinejad met with Christian President Suleiman, Sunni Prime Minister Hariri as well as Shia leaders of Hezbollah. He toured the country in an open vehicle welcomed by adoring crowds. (Try to duplicate that Barack Obama.)
Western media and leaders have tried to portray the visit as “provocation” and an attempt to subvert the “pro-western” government of Saud Hariri. Former British Intelligence officer and Director of the Beirut based Conflicts Forum paints a different picture in a recent post.
“Iran’s popularity on the streets should not surprise anyone.  It is real, and it is heartfelt – and extends beyond the Shi’i of the south of Beirut.  Having been present here in Beirut throughout the war of 2006, I experienced the almost universal shock at how leaders and so-called ‘friends of Lebanon’ such as Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice tried to fend-off and delay a ceasefire – in order to allow Israel more time to ‘finish the job’, i.e. to destroy more bridges, more infrastructure and impose civilian casualties – as our ‘price’ to be paid for Hizbullah’s seizure of Israeli soldiers. Feelings here are still raw on this point, and all sectors of opinion know that the only real support for Lebanon in those dark hours came from Syria and Iran.  Unsurprisingly, there was a direct element of gratitude in expression to Iran in recent days both for the support then, and its subsequent economic assistance to repair the damage.” (The complete post is here.)
The clear winners in the Iraq war have been Iran and the larger Shia community. By finding common interests with potential allies and working with these allies to achieve their common interests, Iran has effectively exploited this victory and increased its regional influence. The hard liners in Tehran have also been able to exploit US lead sanctions, which are making life difficult for ordinary Iranians, to improve their internal position. Soft power works.

Missing Pieces to the Middle East Puzzle

One of the encouraging events in the Obama administration’s efforts to revive the Middle East peace process occurred last week with almost no coverage in the western media. (The story is here and here) Following the meeting in Jerusalem between Netanyahu and Abbas, US envoy George Mitchell left for Lebanon and Syria to discuss the status of the negotiations.

Over past decades various US and regional actors have tried, in vain, to solve the ongoing puzzle of the Arab/Israeli conflict. These efforts have been thwarted by the fact there have been two pieces missing. The focus has always been on bilateral discussions between Israel and the Palestinians mediated by the US. All parties have ignored the part that must be played by Lebanon and Syria in achieving any comprehensive and lasting solution. Each of these countries has a significant role to play in resolving two of the most difficult issues, right of return for refugees and water.

Overall, there are close to 5mm Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 conflicts and their descendants residing in various countries within and outside of the region. Of these over 400,000 live in Lebanon, a country of 4mm people. These people have been housed in refugee camps in Lebanon which have among the worst living conditions that I have seen and have been denied the most basic opportunities to earn a living and provide for their families. My conversations with Lebanese of all political parties indicate to me that there is no political will for absorbing this population. (This would be the demographic equivalent of the US absorbing 30mm Iraqi refugees.) Any workable solution to the refugee situation must take into consideration the Lebanese point of view.

Control of water resources has always been a major part of Israeli settlement and occupation policies. Settlements in the West Bank have been built on strategic hilltops in order to insure Israeli control of access to the aquifer. Resolution of the conflict between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights has been thwarted by Israeli insistence in retaining control over the headwaters of the Jordan River. Israel, along with Jordan and Syria have used so much of this resource that, by the time the Jordan reaches the Dead Sea, it has been transformed from a crystal clear mountain stream into a   polluted ditch.  No solution to the issue of fair water access for all is possible without a major role for Syria.

Previous efforts to ignore these issues during peace negotiations cannot be continued if there is to be any resolution. I don’t know what was discussed in Beirut and Damascus, but hopefully refugees and water came up.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Lebanon,Syria,Peace Process

Korans, Islamic Centers and Being American

The 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was the first enemy attack on US soil in sixty years. The shock of realizing that the US could no longer isolate itself from global violence had dramatic impact on the American psyche. Americans who previously rejected torture, extrajudicial killings and preventative war came to accept them as necessary and common place occurrences. This year’s 9/11 observance combined with announcements of the planned construction of an Islamic community center near the WTC site and “Burn a Koran Day” by Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center brought issues and tensions of freedom speech and freedom of religion to the foreground.

When I was in Amsterdam a few years ago, I visited the Anne Frank house which has been converted into a museum and memorial to this courageous young girl. One of the exhibits was an interactive display that at the time was exploring the tension between freedom of speech and prohibition of offensive and hate filled speech. Using video news clips, visitors, after identifying their nationality, were asked their opinion as to whether or not the speech should be prohibited. It was interesting to observe that Americans generally came down on the side of freedom of speech whereas Europeans generally favored restrictions. This difference in mind set is reflected by America’s strong backing for the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and many European countries making such speech as Holocaust denial a crime punishable by prison sentences.

But just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Should Pastor Jones burn 1000 Korans? In my view, burning books is a really bad idea. In reality it is not the books that are being burned, they can be replaced. What are really being destroyed are ideas and opinions. As Nazi Germany demonstrated in the 1930’s, it is not a long journey from burning books to burning people. Fortunately Pastor Jones seems to have seen the light.

Should Imam Abdul Rauf and the Cordoba Project build the Islamic Center? In my view, absolutely they should. The construction of an interfaith center dedicated to religious understanding and cooperation is not a desecration of “sacred ground”. It is an affirmation of the values that define us as Americans when we are at our best. After a number of years of showing the world that we honor our values more in the breach than in actions, it is time to start showing America at its best, even in a time of stress and anxiety.

 

Technorati Tags: Koran Burning,Islamic Center

A Bad Start to Israel/Palestine Negotiations

Those involved in this week’s much discussed beginning of direct discussions between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were rudely introduced to the realities of the region when Palestinian gunmen shot and killed four Israeli settlers outside of the city of Hebron on the West Bank. Hamas, which in the recent months has observed a ceasefire, immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.

The US main stream media has described the attack as an effort by Hamas to sabotage the upcoming talks, citing their refusal to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”. While only Hamas knows their reasons for initiating the attack, my take is somewhat different.

Based on my discussions with Hamas leaders, I believe that Hamas would accept a solution that was based on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, a just solution for the refugees and approval by the Palestinian people in a referendum. (Khaled Mishal said similar things to NY Times here)

So why initiate the attack at this time? If the reason was to sabotage the negotiations, the attack was completely unnecessary. They will most likely fail without any help from Hamas.

I think that Hamas is trying to send two messages. One is that they cannot be ignored in any negotiations. They are a player and, as indicated by their victory in the 2006 elections, they speak for a large number of Palestinians. The US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority ignore them at their peril.

The second message is that the status quo is not sustainable. For the past two decades since the Oslo Accords, Israel’s policy towards the “peace process” has been to have all process and no peace. Through the use of walls, barriers, settlements, attacks, targeted killings and arrests Israel has succeeded in maintaining the occupation with a modicum of calm. They are perfectly content to have the negotiations either fail, with the Palestinians being blamed, or drag on endlessly. Hamas’ message is that they are not going to allow this scenario to be perpetuated indefinitely. It is significant that the deadly attack occurred in an area of the West Bank totally controlled by the Israelis.

It is unlikely that the US will hear this message and more innocent civilians will die on both sides.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Hamas

The Rachel Corrie Story

Last week’s presentation at the Nexstage Theater in Ketchum of the one woman play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” has certainly provoked animated dialogue in my community, to the degree that this discussion can be called dialogue. (See here and here) Charlotte Hemmings’ portrayal of Rachel Corrie, a young woman from Olympia, Washington, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while defending a Palestinian home in Gaza engaged everyone in the audience. There was, however, a large gap in the way that people in the audience responded. On Tuesday night, one questioner linked Ms Corrie to terrorists and Hamas. On the other hand, on Wednesday night most of the conversation was about how it felt to lose a daughter who was so committed to human rights and justice.

One of the problems with any attempt at conversation on this subject is that it is often not about facts. With some exceptions, almost everybody can agree that Ms Corrie was in Gaza as part of the International Solidarity Movement, a non-violent international activist group. She saw and experienced terrible destruction and violence inflicted on Palestinian residents of Gaza and she was killed, intentionally or unintentionally, by an Israeli bulldozer attempting to destroy a Palestinian home.

Some of the issues arise from transporting the events of 2003 into today’s Middle East context. In 2003 neither Gaza nor the West Bank were governed by Hamas. Gaza was occupied by Israel with 8000 settlers living there protected by thousands of Israeli soldiers. In order to protect these settlers, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was creating “no man’s” areas, check points and barriers around Gaza’s borders and the Jewish colonies. It was into the resulting maelstrom that Rachel walked.

Most people can agree on the basic facts. The disagreement becomes a question of values. Some people know exactly what is happening in Palestine and think that it is right. Others know what is happening and think that it is wrong. Some justify what is happening by citing Israel’s security needs. Certainly all Israelis, Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists, are entitled to security. The question is “Can Israel achieve its security needs by doing what it is doing or does it have to find another way?” Does anything go in the name of security? I would argue that it has to find another way. (Maybe the US needs to ask the same question.)

In many ways the political issues are easier than the moral issues. The larger question that Rachel raises is “How are we called to respond to injustice in the world?” This question is hard to deal with in our affluent comfortable life in the US. Rachel answered the call in her way and paid with her life.

Technorati Tags: Rachel Corrie,Gaza,Israel,Palestine

Crossing the Red Line

Last fall while I was attending a conference in Washington D.C., I took the opportunity to visit the newly opened Newseum, which chronicles news media from the First Amendment to Twitter and YouTube. At one of the exhibits, I was a little surprised to note that Israel’s press had been downgraded by Freedom House from free to partly free, now ranking 71^st in the world. (The U.S. ranks 24^th.) Israel, similar to other countries in the region such as Iran and Jordan, has long had some degree of overt government censorship, but the downgrade was a result of an increase in self censorship.

In a self censorship environment, media outlets respond to pressure and establish red lines that cannot be crossed without serious consequences. The US has been home to this practice as well, particularly with respect to Middle East issues. The phenomenon does, however, appear to be on the increase.

Helen Thomas, Dean of White House Correspondents, was forced to resign from Hearst News as a result of comments questioning the whole premise behind the Zionist project. Last week CNN Senior Middle East Editor, Octavia Nasr, was forced to resign for expressing her respect for Lebanese cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fadlallah and sadness at his death (See here) after the pro Israel bloggers went into full attack mode. (See here)

When I met with Ayatollah Fadlallah two years ago he revealed himself to be a complex character who defies labeling. In his role as a “source of emulation” for Shias and leader of one of the largest social services organizations in Lebanon and Syria, he was extremely influential, ranking with Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq.

A fierce critic of US Middle East policy, he issued “fatwas” (Legal opinions under Islamic Law) supporting resistance against the US/Israeli occupation of Lebanon. These opinions may have led to the bombing of the US Marine Barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut and certainly led to Hezbollah’s successful campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanon. On the other hand, he promptly condemned the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror.

As a result of his outspoken opinions, he has enemies as well as friends. One of his enemies was the CIA who in 1985, with assistance from Saudi Arabia, attempted to kill him with a massive car bomb which failed in its goal, but did kill 80 innocent civilians and wounded 256. (This story is here.)

Whatever one thinks about Fadlallah, it is disturbing that expressing respect for him should be a red line that if a member of the press crosses it, she will lose her job. It is also disturbing that the main stream media has been largely silent on the issue. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Constitution are only words on paper unless citizens are willing to defend them. Without this we start a slide down the same slope as Israel.

Technorati Tags: Ayatollah Fadlallah,Octavia Nasr,Helen Thomas

Whose National Interest

While I was traveling around China a few weeks ago, a number of events took place related to the situation in the Middle East and its neighbors. These included the Israeli attack on the Gaza bound aid flotilla which resulted in the deaths of 9 people including one American, the startup of so called “proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the US full court press for sanctions on Iran.

These stories were available in China, but were not front page news. The Chinese press was more focused on floods and labor unrest. The Chinese government’s squabble with Google made it inconvenient to access Google related web sites to post comments so I’m going to rehash some old news here.

The US high pressure effort to get the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council on board for a new sanctions resolution on Iran was successful and the new resolution passed with only Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining.

It is reasonably clear why China and Russia might support sanctions. The Chinese government is not going to do anything that is against Chinese national interest. In the case of Iran, China values its economic ties with the West and the sanctions have been so watered down that they will not affect China’s economic relations with Iran. Russia also values its economic ties with the West and any action that might disrupt Iran’s natural gas industry would enhance Russia’s monopoly position on gas supplies to Europe.

What is less clear is why Europe and the US would support sanctions. As noted above, one possible outcome is that Europe will be even more dependent on Russian natural gas and will be more exposed to being held hostage to supply cutoffs resulting from Russian pricing disagreements with Ukraine or Belarus.

The US is engaged in two intractable conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why the US would want to escalate its confrontation with Iran at a time when it needs Iranian cooperation in order to stabilize these situations, is unclear to me. The stated purpose is to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. However, CIA Director Leon Panetta recently said on ABC "Will it (sanctions) deter them (Iran) from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not.”

China’s policy is to defend its own national interest, whereas the US seems to persist in taking actions in the Middle East that are not in its national interest. It seems to me that China will be more successful.

What part of “yes” don’t you understand?

As the US government and media continues to ratchet up the rhetoric about “crippling sanctions” and the “military option” concerning the Iranian nuclear enrichment program (See here), one can only wonder if anyone in power in the west is listening to what is going on in Iran.

Following the brief dialogue between US and Iranian officials last year, the Iranian regime agreed to a swap of Iranian produced low enriched uranium (LEU) for more highly enriched fuel rods to be used in the medical Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This action by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attacked by both the political left and right in Iran for giving up Iran’s rights to enrich uranium and getting nothing in return.

Since this discussion took place during a period of political unrest in Iran, Ahmadinejad did not feel politically secure enough to move forward and backed away from the proposal. It now appears that, having been able to control the opposition movement, he is more confident.

This week Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu confirmed the Iranian position as outlined by Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization in previous statements.

“If we had 116 kilograms [of finished fuel for the TRR] today, I assure you that tomorrow I will get you 1,200 [kilograms of LEU] from Iran”.

“The mere fact that we’ve offered not to enrich uranium to 20 percent, this was a big message sent to the West.  But unfortunately they did not receive the message.  I remember in many interviews I said, ‘Please.  Please listen.  This is a big offer…We keep our promise of [only enriching up to] 5 percent, although it is our right to enrich to whatever level we want.  But we keep our promise to 5 percent.  And please enrich for us the 20 percent.’  But they didn’t.  They started putting conditions after conditions after conditions.  And then we had to start 20 percent enrichment.  And now I am saying we are ready if they—today—say ‘OK, we will supply you the fuel’, we will stop the 20 percent enrichment process.  What else do you want?”

“the only difference between us is that the swap has to be made in Iran.  And they say, ‘No, first you have to deliver your uranium to us, and then wait another one year to receive your 20 percent enriched uranium.’  But there is lack of confidence, unfortunately.”

It seems to me that if your adversary says “yes” to your proposal, you should take them up on it rather than continually threatening conflict and attacks.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Middle East,Iran Nucear Program

Playing Games in Washington

All of the threats, counter threats and other rhetorical bombast that have characterized US/Israeli relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past few months have led to a number of war games or simulations of a conflict between US/Israel and Iran. These exercises have been conducted both within and outside of government circles. While these are only artificial simulations which attempt to replicate real world events, they can be useful in understanding the potential dynamics of an actual conflict.

One of the more interesting of these is a simulation of an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program conducted by The Brookings Institution in Washington. (A summary of the full report is here.)

The organizers began the simulation with a successful Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without telling the US. While the US and Israeli teams initially complained that this was unlikely, they soon reached the conclusion that such an event is very probable. The US team was very angry at Israel for the unilateral attack, but they would have been even angrier if they had told the Israelis not to attack and they had done so anyway.

Another interesting dynamic was that the Israeli team felt that they had created an opportunity for the US to change the Middle East political landscape. To the contrary, the US told the Israelis “that they had made a mess and should go sit in the corner and not do anything else while the United States cleaned it up”. The US called for restraint by all parties and unsuccessfully attempted to open dialogue with Iran.

The Iran team interpreted the US restraint as a sign of weakness and having already lost their nuclear facilities had little to lose by escalating their response and testing the limits of US resolve. While the Iran team demonstrated some restraint, they responded with ballistic missile attacks on Israel and asked Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel with missiles and suicide bombings. These attacks caused few casualties, but brought the Israeli economy to its knees. “A third of our population is living in shelters 24/7.”

The Israeli team pleaded with the US team for permission to retaliate against Lebanon and Gaza and, eventually, the US relented. When Iran stepped over the US redline by mining the Straits of Hormuz and attacking Saudi oil facilities, the US began a massive military buildup in the region. It was clear by the end of the simulation that the US and Iran were headed for a major military conflict.

Such war games have their limitations. In this case one major limitation is a general lack of understanding of the opaque decision making process of the Iranian regime. Their response in the real world could be more or less aggressive. What is clear is that once Pandora’s Box is open, it is very difficult to shut it again.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Israel,Iran War

Deciphering the White House Family Feud

In the past two weeks we have witnessed a great deal of press coverage of the escalating diplomatic row between Israel and the US over Israeli illegal

settlement construction in occupied Palestinian territory.

During my trip through the Middle East following the 2008 Presidential elections, I saw and heard a great deal of hope that the US would now play an evenhanded role in helping to resolve the regional conflicts. Following Obama’s Cairo and Istanbul speeches and his Nowruz (New Year) message to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, hope continued to rise.

Since then, however, the hopefulness has declined precipitously as conflict has continued unabated with no effective US response. Loss of hope is a likely precursor to violence, particularly if it follows increased expectations.

Given this dynamic, I am confused as to why the Obama administration has chosen this time and this issue to instigate a diplomatic confrontation. Last year the US lost a lot of credibility when, after demanding a complete settlement freeze and having Prime Minister Netanyahu refuse and publicly stonewall, the US backed away. Secretary of State Clinton called Israel’s partial slow down of settlement construction “unprecedented”.

The US administration has since ignored such Israeli actions as its murder of a Hamas official in Dubai, its passport identity theft of British, French, German, Italian, and Australian citizens, its use of US financial institutions to produce fraudulent charge cards, its killing of Palestinian protesters and its continued settlement construction. Why pick the announcement of 1600 new settlement units while VP Joe Biden was visiting Israel to instigate a major diplomatic crisis?

Perhaps the former senior Senator from Delaware was embarrassed. I know US senators have big egos, “but really”.

Perhaps the US was upset that Israel created a distraction just as the US was trying to mobilize international support for a confrontation with Iran.

Whatever the reason, now that the crisis with Israel has occurred, Obama had better be prepared to “win”. Backing down again will destroy any remaining credibility that the US has in the region and eliminate any chance for the US to be a force for a peaceful solution.

Never start a conflict that you can’t win. We should have learned that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Obama,Biden,Netanyahu

My Name is Rachel Corrie

Today is the 7^th anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie, a 23 year old American activist who was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer while attempting to prevent the destruction of a Palestinian home in Rafah, Gaza. Last week our local community theater presented a dramatic reading of the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie”, which uses the diaries and writings of this young woman to tell the story of her efforts to stand up for the oppressed.

For any organization to present this work in the US requires a great deal of courage. When the work was first produced in New York City in 2005, pressure by some in the pro-Israel community resulted in the cancellation of the production. The same kind of pressure manifested itself here. The theater company was publicly attacked for providing a venue for anti-Israel propaganda and, while acknowledging the criticism, chose to go forward and defended their right and obligation to provide a venue for works that promote dialogue on controversial subjects.

The one woman play, while set in the context of Israel/Palestine, could have been as easily set in any country where the government is attacking its population with the goal of destroying their livelihoods, homes and lives. No two situations are completely analogous, but Darfur, Sudan comes to mind.

At a time when the US is extremely unpopular in the Arab and Muslim worlds, Rachel Corrie is held up as an American hero. I have seen her image in a mosaic in a Catholic Church in an Arab town in Israel alongside martyrs of the early church. When asked about how he felt about Rachel being singled out as a heroine when so many Palestinians had died in the same cause, a Palestinian friend said that he thought it was right. “We are stuck in this situation and have no choice. She made a choice to stand with us.” In a recent interview, Khaled Nasrullah, who lived in the home Rachel was defending said, “Rachel really changed our fundamental ideas. Sometimes we believed that Western people were fully supporting the Israeli side and did not have feelings for us ...”

Shortly before she died Rachel told her Gaza story in this interview

I had read the play before seeing it last week, but it didn’t come alive for me until I saw the performance. If it is “coming to a theater near you”, I strongly recommend it.

Technorati Tags: Rachel Corrie,Israel,Palestine,Gaza

Good News from Israel/Palestine

Last week I attended a conference sponsored by the Arthur B. Schultz Foundation Social Micro-enterprise Initiative (SMI). This organization (Their web site is here) provides loans to small and medium sized businesses in Kenya, Vietnam, Ghana, Nicaragua and Palestine. These businesses are too big for micro-credit and too small to access the private credit markets. The loans are paid forward through charitable donations rather that paid back to SMI.

Zeina, the young Palestinian woman who was responsible for selecting and monitoring the participating businesses on the West Bank, described the difficulties that these business men and women have in building their businesses. For these companies an export market is the neighboring town and, because of Israeli checkpoints, they have more difficulty accessing these markets than most companies have exporting to China.

During the discussion, I commented that, despite the difficulties, these projects were important for improving the lives of ordinary Palestinians as the idea of viable independent Palestinian state should be “consigned to the dust bin of history”. I have long ago concluded that given the “facts on the ground” created by Israeli roads and settlements a contiguous, viable Palestinian state is impossible. (See the map of the West Bank)

That evening at dinner, I asked Zeina if she agreed with me. She said “A Palestinian state went down the drain a long time ago.” She also said that most Palestinians agree and that the only reason that the Palestinian Authority doesn’t acknowledge this fact is that they want to hang on to power with all of the accompanying perks.

The good news is that, this week, we moved closer to the inevitable reality of a bi-national state in Israel/Palestine. During VP Joe Biden’s visit to the region, the Israeli government greeted him with announcements of the construction of 1600 housing units in Arab East Jerusalem and over 400 units on the West Bank. Eventually the rapid growth of Jewish settlements and infrastructure will force even the US and other western governments to conclude that a Palestinian state is impossible.

As former Israeli government official Uri Dromi points out in this NY Times op-ed piece, all the Palestinians need to do is to wait patiently until they are in the majority and the international community forces Israel to dismantle its apartheid regime. With a majority in the Knesset, they will be able to allow return of Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and Israel will cease to be a Jewish state.

If construction continues at the rate that it has in the last year, it may actually happen in my lifetime. Short term pain for long term gain.

Technorati Tags: Israel. Palestine,Joe Biden,Israeli Settlements,Middle East

An all to familiar path

It has been two years since I have been in Iran, but I still recall a moving meeting with a young Iranian woman in Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Persian Empire in the time of Cyrus and Xerxes. Her tears accented her words and exposed her patriotism. “Our country used to be so strong and now we are nothing.” I often wonder how she feels today as we watch the US and its allies walk down the same path to war as we traveled in Iraq.

Once again we are seeing accusations followed by escalating rhetoric and increasing confrontation. The Obama administration began its Iran “engagement” with a brief meeting with Iranian officials which resulted in a proposal for an exchange of nuclear material. When Iran rejected some of the terms, the engagement was over. In recent weeks Secretary of State Clinton has been in the Middle East to rally support for “crippling sanctions” on Iran and for Saudi Arabian oil supply increases in event that supplies are disrupted by a regional conflict.

Movement down this path is not surprising since a number of Obama advisors, particularly Dennis Ross, have advocated these steps for some time. Ross outlined his recommendations in a policy paper issued by the Bipartisan Policy Center in October 2008. (The whole report is here) Among the findings of the study group were:

• Iran is the “most significant strategic threat to the United States”.
• Iran could be “nuclear weapons capable within four weeks”.
• Any US-Iranian talks should be limited to a “predetermined period of time”.
• Should diplomatic engagement not achieve its objectives the “…President must turn to more intensive sanctions”.
• Sanctions would be “difficult to enforce fully without a blockade”.
• “The Islamic Republic would most certainly claim such blockades were acts of war and would likely respond…” (Blockades are acts of war under International Law)
• These actions would “significantly impact the supply and price of oil”
• “Any military action would run the risk of significant US and allied losses, triggering wide scale Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and producing unrest in a number of Persian Gulf states”.
• “We believe that a military strike is a feasible option”.

This report was endorsed by Independent Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman and Republican John Kyl. There is little evidence of bipartisanship in Washington these days. About the only thing that Republicans and Democrats seem to be able to agree on is war.

Light on Iran

In the past two weeks events have occurred that have helped shed some light on the state of politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Observers such as myself have felt that events on February 11, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, would demonstrate the breadth and depth of the opposition (green) movement as well as the level of confidence that the regime has in dealing with the opposition and its level of concern about the threatening language and actions of the US, Europe and Israel.

The relatively low key response to the Feb 11 demonstrations and the ability of the security forces to control the demonstrations without “tanks in the street” revealed that the regime does not, at this time, see the opposition as an existential threat and it can now turn its attention to the larger issues that it faces such as a collapsing economy and military threats from US/Israel.

Last week a report was released by WorldPublicOpinion.org (The whole report is here) which analyzed multiple polls conducted by both Iranian and western polling organizations. The poll results indicate that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have legitimately won the election. The reaction of the regime to the election, by manipulating poll results and fiercely resisting all calls for a recount, may have been unnecessary and needlessly inflamed opposition parties. The regime acted as though it had rigged the vote. Recognition that Ahmadinejad actually have won may account for the fact that opposition leaders have turned their attention from the election to civil rights.

There are other interesting outcomes from the polls in addition to the fact that 60% of respondents said that they voted for Ahmadinejad.

1. 83% believe the election was free and fair
2. 81% believe Ahmadinejad is the legitimate President
3. 85% are very or somewhat satisfied with the current Islamic Republic system of government
4. 77% have an unfavorable view of the US government
5. Over 60% believe that there should be unconditional negotiations with the US and restoration of diplomatic ties. (Not currently Iranian government policy)
6. 97% are in favor of Iran’s nuclear program including 38% who favor the development of nuclear weapons.

These results are relatively uniform over regime and opposition supporters.

The Obama administration would be wise to take these facts into consideration as they pursue their Iran policies. Refusing to deal with Ahmadinejad government and expecting that the regime will fall any time soon is wishful thinking. Any expectation that an opposition government will come to power (an extremely unlikely event at best) and accede to western demands is a complete fantasy. As Henry Kissinger once said, “Diplomacy is a game that is played with the pieces that are on the table.” The US needs to forget the saber rattling and seriously engage with the Islamic Republic.

Technorati Tags: Iran Election,Iran

Changing Landscape

When I was at a conference on US – Arab relations last fall in Washington, DC, one of the panel members reminded me that when thinking about the Middle East, one should wake up every morning and question everything that you think you know. For several years, when people have asked me whether I thought that the US/Israel would attack Iran, I always answered “No”. My rational was that the Iranian strategy of “asymmetrical deterrence” by arming Hezbollah and Hamas as a deterrent to an Israeli attack had worked pretty well and at a minimum we would have advance warning as Israel would have to attack Lebanon in order to neutralize Hezbollah before attacking Iran.

I woke up this week to news that the US was installing Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE, upgrading the current systems in Israel and Saudi Arabia and deploying BMD equipped warships in the Persian Gulf. If effectively deployed, these systems change the balance of power landscape in the region and free up Israel to attack Iran. While spun by the US as defensive deployment, when combined with Obama’s “axis of evil lite” State of the Union speech (Iran and North Korea face “severe consequences” if they fail to meet western demands) and Hilary Clinton’s threat that China faces “diplomatic isolation” if it fails to support sanctions on Iran (How this would be accomplished is unclear. Perhaps we could refuse to sell them our trillions of dollars of debt.), the deployments must have the Iranian regime rethinking their strategic posture.

The initial Iranian reaction has been muted, calling the US missile shield a “puppet show”. (There may be truth in this conjecture as this week’s test of the upgraded BMD system failed.) On the other hand the Iranian leadership, controlled by hardliners associated with the Revolutionary Guard, must be asking themselves, is war with the US/Israel inevitable and if so how do we respond.

We will get a clue to their thinking on February 11, the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. The opposition (green) movement is planning further demonstrations against the regime and how the regime reacts may tell us whether they think war is inevitable. Up until now the regime has intimidated demonstrators with beatings, arrests, torture and executions. If the regime fears outside aggression, they will move to crush the opposition and that will mean tanks in the street.

If the Iranian regime concludes that war is inevitable, they may also conclude that the most viable strategy is a preemptive strike before the systems are operational. In any war, if you going to throw the first stone, it had better be a big one.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Israel

I Quit

It appears as though President Obama has largely given up on making any progress towards resolving the difficult issues in Israel/Palestine. After a much publicized start which included the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy and Obama’s Cairo speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds, the whole situation has deteriorated into a stalemate.

In a recent Time magazine interview Obama acknowledged that he had overestimated his ability to get the Israelis and Palestinians to move the peace process forward. He should have realized that to achieve any results, he was going to have to spend a lot of political capital to take on the Israel lobby in the US.

Once Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu realized that he had the upper hand, he stonewalled Obama on every initiative. When it was rumored that Obama would send a letter to the parties outlining a framework for a settlement, Netanyahu immediately preempted it by declaring that Jerusalem would eternally be part of Israel and that Israel would retain control over the border between any Palestinian state and Jordan. Last week’s last ditch effort by George Mitchell to rescue the situation was rebuffed by all parties.

It has long been clear to many observers, this one included, that a two state solution is no longer possible and a single state in Palestine for all its citizens will be the only way out. As Israeli activist Jeff Halper recently pointed out to me, “You and I can say a single state is the best solution, but only the Palestinians can decide that it is what they want”. Until they decide, there is little that the international community can do to help.

Israel is more being seen, not as the only democracy in the Middle East, but as the only apartheid state in the world. In response to this, the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to change is growing, particularly in Europe. The US, as it was in South Africa, will be late to the party. The fact that only 9 minutes of a 70 minute State of the Union address was devoted to foreign relations shows that the US is turning inward. Someone else will have to take the lead.

An Inconvenient Question

Helen Thomas, the 90 year old dean of the Washington press corps, has been a thorn in the side of US administrations for the 50 years since the administration of John F. Kennedy. Her penetrating questions and aggressive follow-up have been something that officials have wished that they could avoid. Avoiding her is just not possible. As the “Dean”, she sits in the front row and by protocol officials must call on her.

Her latest confrontation was with Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan at a press briefing about the Christmas attack on a Detroit bound airliner. (A clip is here.) Ms Thomas wanted to know, “What is the administration’s conclusion about the motivation of those who want to attack us?” Mr. Brennan tried twice to answer a different question and then ignored the question altogether.

One doesn’t have to speculate about the answer. Those have been involved in the attacks have been very public about their motivation. Everyone from Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood attacker, to Human al Balawi, the attacker of the CIA in Afghanistan, to the young Virginian men apprehended in Pakistan on their way to fight NATO in Afghanistan, to the young Minnesota men fighting the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia have said the same thing.

They have said that they were motivated by western occupation of Muslim countries in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, by the torture and degradation of Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and by western attacks on Muslims in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza. They heard George Bush say that this a “Crusade” and Bernard Lewis say that this is a “clash of civilizations” and they believe them.

When John Brennan was in the private sector, he likened terrorism to pollution with the terrorists being “particles in the air”. When you want to stop pollution you don’t deal with the “particles in the air”, you deal with the smoke stack. If the administration were to answer Helen Thomas’ question honestly, the answer would raise at lot of inconvenient issues concerning US policies in the Middle East and around the world that would be politically difficult to deal with. Better for them to chase the particles, but not better for American security.

A Deadly Friendship

News coverage of the failed attempt by a Nigerian born man to detonate an explosive device on a Detroit bound aircraft has overshadowed a perhaps more significant event in Afghanistan. On December 30^th a Jordanian al Qaeda operative, who was recruited by Jordanian intelligence to penetrate al Qaeda, detonated a bomb at a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan. This attack killed 7 CIA officers and the Jordanian intelligence officer assigned to the case, the deadliest single attack in CIA history.

The Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda all took credit for this attack. It is possible that the claims of joint responsibility are a result of the fact that the attack was successful. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. It, however, is also possible that these three organizations are now beginning to cooperate.

Ever since 2002 when NATO forces with the assistance of Iran and the non-Pashtun Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban Pashtun led government and drove al Qaeda and Taliban leadership into Pakistan, the three groups have largely operated separately with different agendas. Until the US persuaded the Pakistani government to confront the Pakistani Taliban, this group had an agenda of establishing a Islamic mini-state within the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. They now have more aggressively challenged the weak Pakistan government. The Afghan Taliban was conducting an insurgency against the NATO occupation and the Karzai government. Al Qaeda is focused on attacking “western imperialists” and their allied Arab governments.

If these three groups begin to see the “enemy of my enemy as my friend” it will greatly complicate the regional situation. Not only will it expand the recruiting pool of militant fighters, but it will also facilitate the exchange of tactical information and intelligence resources. US Arab allies, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be more exposed as their own Islamist populations become more militant and oppose their governments’ policies.

The most exposed is Jordan. The direct involvement of Jordanian forces in Afghanistan fighting other Muslims has been vehemently attacked by the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. (A story on this is here) King Abdullah is no where near as politically astute as his father or as adept at balancing competing forces. His government will be under increased stress. In this region it is dangerous to be an enemy of the US, but to be a friend can be deadly.

Middle East war number three?

Following the Christmas Day attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 which appears to have been orchestrated by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula based in Yemen, the Obama administration’s response has come under attack by hardliners in the Republican Party. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that Obama’s reaction was “low key” and that he did not “want to admit we’re at war”. Always sensitive to the charge that he is soft on security issues, Obama responded by announcing a “partnership with the Yemeni government – training and equipping their security forces, sharing intelligence and working with them to strike al Qaeda terrorists”.

This expansion of the “war on terror” more deeply involves the US in a long standing, complicated and intractable conflict. The $67 million spent last year in Yemen to assist the corrupt and unpopular government in confronting a number of insurgencies is sure to be increased next year.

The biggest threat to the central government is the al Houthi rebellion in the North. The Houthi complaints range from government corruption to the influence of the Saudi influenced Wahabi Sunni Muslims. The Houthis are Zaydi Shias who would like to return the caliphate which ruled Yemen for 1000 years. This will involve the US in a civil war which has the potential to become a Saudi – Iranian proxy war. Signs of this have already appeared with the recent Saudi attack on Houthi positions near the Yemen border and the appearance of Iranian sourced weapons in Yemen.

While a priority for the Yemen government, the Houthi rebellion has little to do with the al Qaeda threat to the US. Al Qaeda’s bases are in the south where sympathetic tribes such as al Fadhli are also fighting an insurgency against the central government. Al Fadhli fighters are veterans of the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and have been funded by Osama bin Laden.

Increasing US involvement in a complicated civil conflict in which most of the funding will go to fight groups other than those threatening the US, will be siphoned off to line the pockets of corrupt politicians or will help smuggle weapons to rebel groups in neighboring Somalia, seems like a recipe for a quagmire that will do little to make the US safer while risking escalating sectarian conflict in the region.