Memos from the Mountains

The Syrian Dilemma Part 2

2012-01-23T20:19:00.001-07:00

After months of opposition demonstrations, counter demonstrations by regime supporters, attacks on opposition demonstrators by government forces, terrorist bombings of government facilities, various efforts at international intervention, charges and counter charges, the situation in Syria is in word a “mess”. Currently we have three wars going on in this strategically located, but fragile state. There is a low grade civil war between government and opposition forces. Overlaying this war is a proxy war between the US and its Gulf State and European allies and Iran and its allies. A third war has now emerged, a war of perceptions. As in many such wars, the facts are usually the first casualty.

The U.S. and its supporters in the conservative Sunni Gulf States, particularly Qatar and the UAE would like to see regime change in Syria and Iran and a weakening of the Shia resistance group Hezbollah. Under Secretary of State for the Near East Jeffery Feltman in describing US regime change policy in Syria said that the U.S. would “relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the regime until that outcome is achieved”. (See here)

The Arab League has dispatched a monitoring team to Syria in order to attempt to reach a mediated solution. Qatar and the Istanbul based opposition Syrian National Council (SNC), on the other hand have criticized the Arab League mission and have pushed for western military intervention rather than a mediated solution that would reform the regime, but leave Assad in power.

The western media have portrayed the Syrian situation as one in which a peaceful opposition, representing the overwhelming majority of Syrians is faced off against a brutal, intransigent regime. However, a recent poll conducted by the Qatar based Doha Debates points out that while 81% of Arabs want President Assad to step down, 55% of Syrians are supportive of Assad and do not want Assad to resign. (See here) The respondents said that without Assad, they feared for the future of their country.

The appalling statistics of massacres, rapes of Sunni women and girls and torture by regime supporters that have been reported by the western media with the disclaimer “we were unable to confirm the accuracy of these figures” have been largely provided by the British based Syrian National Observatory. (SNO) The SNO is an arm of the SNC and is funded by a Dubai based pooled fund of western and Gulf money and thus the accuracy of these figures is suspect. Somehow the media has not managed to receive reports of casualties among regime supporters and military forces.

The U.S. based private intelligence group Stratfor has advised caution on the accuracy of the mainstream narrative on Syria saying “with two sides to every war … the war of perceptions in Syria is no exception”.

Technorati Tags: Syria,Arab League,Middle East

A New Threat to the Israeli Occupation

2012-01-04T13:27:00.002-07:00

Three years ago in Damascus, when I met with Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas’ political wing, he acknowledged that Hamas was committed to violent resistance to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While emphasizing that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders the resistance would end, he said that violent resistance was the only effective means of ending Israeli occupation. He used examples of Hezbollah ending the Israeli occupation in Lebanon, of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and of the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai.
Many observers of the situation in Israel/Palestine (this one included) have felt that, given the overwhelming power of the Israeli occupation force, the biggest threat to the occupation would be mass non-violent protests by the Palestinians on both sides of the green line separating Israel from the West Bank. The effectiveness of Dr. Martin Luther King’s demonstrations for African American civil rights and the Arab Awakening uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia demonstrate this. While there have been demonstrations against the Separation Barrier in the West Bank towns of Biliin, Ni’lin and Qalqilya, they have never been large enough to attract much international media attention despite the violent response by the Israeli Army (IDF).
Waging a mass non-violent campaign requires a lot of education and organization. The Fatah led PLO has never had the organizational ability to achieve an effective campaign of mass non-violent resistance. Hamas, on the other hand, through its extensive network in the mosques, has had the ability, but not the will.
The winds of change, however, may be blowing. In the past month, Hamas and Fatah have agreed to move forward with a unity government and to move toward a posture of mass non-violent resistance. (This story is here, here and here.) If this transition comes about it will pose a significant threat to Israel’s ongoing occupation and settlement building. Images of Israeli forces and settlers attacking unarmed demonstrators marching on Jewish only roads on the West Bank and chanting silmiya, silmiya (peaceful, peaceful) will not play well in the international media.
Only time will tell if the Palestinian leadership can pull off this change in tactics. There will certainly be resistance from those groups committed to violence. However, if mass non-violent protests can be effectively implemented, they have the potential to be a game changer.
A regional war with Iran would also be a game changer, but that is another story.
(Photo from Hamas Press Office)

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Hamas

America’s War with Iran Escalates

2011-12-16T15:46:00.001-07:00

The U.S. campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran has a long history dating back to the founding of the Islamic Republic when the Carter administration imposed unilateral sanctions following the hostage crisis in 1979. Over time the sanctions regime has expanded as the U.S.has attempted to deal with what it saw as Iranian challenges to U.S. interests in the region. The U.S. overthrow of the regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq enhanced the Iranian position and in response President George W. Bush, in 2007, initiated a program of covert military action against the Islamic Republic.

President Obama, after campaigning on a policy of dialogue, has enhanced the sanctions regime and lobbied and coerced other countries to enhance their sanctions. The practical effect of the sanctions has been modest. The World Bank estimates that the Iranian economy grew at a rate of 3% in 2010. This is not to say that the Iranian economy doesn’t have its problems. Years of inconsistent and incompetent management by the theocratic regime have resulted in sub-par economic performance. Sanctions have negatively impacted privately owned enterprises leaving more of the economy in the hands of government enterprises.

Dissatisfaction with economic performance has led to political conflict within the regime. The Iranian system of government is similar to the U.S. system with separation of powers and checks and balances. As in the U.S., this leads to political power struggles and gridlock. There is one thing that could unite the squabbling leadership and that is the rise of an existential outside threat. This appears to be on the horizon.

President Obama has not only enhanced sanctions, but has escalated the covert military campaign. Over the last year, several Iranian nuclear and electronic warfare scientists have been assassinated. The Stuxnet virus has been unleashed against Iranian nuclear facilities. Deadly explosions have occurred at military and other facilities near the major cities of Tehran and Isfahan. Support for ethnic terrorist groups such as MEK, PJAK and Jundallah has continued. Some analysts claim that there have been attempts to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (See here).

In reaction, Iran appears to have escalated its own responses. In past months, Iran, in conjunction with Hezbollah, has unraveled a CIA spy ring in Lebanon and Iran, arresting over thirty operatives. In October, U.S. authorities accused Iran of orchestrating a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in a popular Washington, DC restaurant. If true, this represents a major escalation on the part of the Iranian regime and a major shift in their tolerance for risk. Two weeks ago Iran displayed an American drone aircraft, claiming that they had hacked into its GPS guidance system and guided it to an intact landing. (An interesting account of how they did it is here.) Iranian officials have also claimed that they will soon display other U.S. and Israeli drones that they have shot down or hijacked.

This week, Iran announced that they will soon conduct a “military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz” through which 17% of the world’s oil flows. This announcement alone caused oil prices to jump $3 a barrel. As we continue down this path of confrontation with no vehicle to prevent or defuse miscalculation, the danger of unintended conflict increases.

(Photo from Iran Revolutionary Guard website)

Technorati Tags: Iran,Drones,CIA

Middle East Policy Newt Gingrich Style

2011-12-10T16:14:00.002-07:00

This week Republican Presidential candidates (except for Ron Paul who was not invited because of his “misguided and extreme views”) paraded before a conference of the Republican Jewish Coalition to express their undying loyalty to the State of Israel. Newt Gingrich, the current front runner for the Republican nomination, stood out from the crowd by signaling his intention to overturn long standing US policies on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Among other things he promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that has long been opposed by almost all of the international community. However, his most interesting comments occurred in an interview with The Jewish Channel which was posted on-line on Friday.
In this interview he said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” This statement has been interpreted by many as questioning long standing US policy supporting a two state solution to the situation. The two state solution has been sustained since the early 1990’s by both Republican and Democratic administrations despite growing evidence that facts on the ground make it no longer viable.
Many historians trace the concept of Palestinian national identity to the 1800’s when the Palestinians revolted against their Ottoman Turkish overlords. Clearly there is now a strong sense of Palestinian national identity created by the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. The whole debate harkens back to a 1969 statement by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian”.
It is, however, the implications for the two state solution policy that make this discussion interesting. If there is “no such thing as a Palestinian”, is there any need for a Palestinian state? If there is no Palestinian State, will there be a bi-national state for all residents of historical Palestine? If Palestinians can “go many places”, should they be forced out of a Jewish State in Palestine? Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Director of the pro-Israel think tank, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, recognized the consequences of these positions when he said if Mr. Gingrich believes the positions “as implied in his language, then he's not pro-Israel at all."
While being a “front runner” in the Republican primary race is a precarious position, if Mr. Gingrich can maintain this position, it should provoke an interesting, and much needed debate about U.S. Middle East policy.
(Photo from Al Jazeera English)

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,Israel,Palestine

The Syrian Dilemma

2011-11-22T11:20:00.001-07:00

One question I am frequently asked these days is what is the U.S. policy in Syria and why are we acting differently in Syria than we did in Libya. In considering these questions I am reminded of the words of a Middle East expert who when asked about U.S. Middle East policy responded, “We don't have a policy in the Middle East, but that's just as well because, if we did, it would be the wrong one”. Before discussing Syria, it would be useful to examine the Libyan situation.

The Brotherly Leader of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi was an easy target for international military support for a revolution. In addition to his eccentric antics, he had managed, through his words and policies over the years, to make enemies of nearly everybody, the western powers, fellow Arab leaders (especially in the wealthy, autocratic Gulf States) and his own people. When, following the approval of UN Resolution 1973 authorizing “all necessary actions to protect civilians”, the western powers, interpreting the resolution very liberally, embarked on a policy of regime change, no one came to Qaddafi’s defense. The situation in Syria is quite different.

While Libya was isolated politically, diplomatically and geographically, Syria sits in the middle of the volatile Levant region bordering Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It is a major player in the so-called axis of resistance along with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Any western intervention in Syria would likely bring its allies into the conflict with serious regional consequences.

The divisions in Libyan society are largely tribal in nature. On the other hand, in Syria, tribal rivalries are overlaid with sectarian divisions. The Christian and Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) minorities are generally part of and supportive of the regime, whereas the majority Sunni Muslims see themselves as oppressed.

Faced with these complicating factors and an overriding concern about the rise of Iran and a possible threat to Israel, the U.S. is attempting to create its own version of the Great Game between Russia and Britain in Central Asia in the 19^th Century. The U.S. is attempting to mobilize and co-opt regional players such as Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to confront the resistance axis and orchestrate regime change in Syria. This effort, well financed by the wealthy Gulf States, appears to be turning the uprising against the Assad regime into a low grade civil war.

The conservative Gulf monarchies have long despised the secular Assad regime in Syria. Among their Sunni proxies in Syria are a large number of Salafist groups including many jihadist fighters who were kicked out of Iraq and who have set up shop in Syria. Orchestrating a Syria/Iran game as part the effort to remake the New Middle East, utilizing allies with different agendas, is risky business and may come back to haunt the U.S. and its allies.

Technorati Tags: Libya,Syria,Axis of Resistance,Middle East

The U.S.–Iran Standoff

2011-11-09T16:52:00.001-07:00

This week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its much ballyhooed report on Iran’s nuclear program. The release of the report has been accompanied by a great deal of hype and alarmist rhetoric by western governments and media. Upon close inspection, however, the document appears to be “much ado about nothing”. Almost all of the information on Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the report is historical, dating to 2002, and has been known by most observers for some time. In its summary, the IAEA concludes that it “continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement”. The report complains that Iran has failed to live up to its obligations under the Additional Protocol, neglecting to mention that Iran signed, but never ratified this protocol.

The new material on weaponization efforts sites as its source undisclosed intelligence information from Member States, presumably U.S, Israel and other western intelligence agencies. This information primarily alleges that Iran is conducting research on weapons systems that could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. The report gives no hard evidence supporting this allegation. Even if all of the allegations are true, the report neglects to point out that, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran has obligated itself not to “manufacture or acquire” nuclear weapons {there is no mention of weapons research) and, therefore, is not in violation of the NPT.

There are, however, some useful understandings in this report. First, the IAEA has become much more political under its current head, Yukiya Amano, than it was under his predecessor, Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei. Most of the intelligence information included in this report was available to ElBaradei, but he did not deem it credible enough to include in previous reports. Amano, who owes his position to strong U.S. lobbying, has taken the agency in a new direction and, as described in a State Dept. cable released by Wikileaks, is “solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision”.

The second understanding is that U.S. policies toward the Islamic Republic are a complete failure. Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, albeit more slowly than it might have hoped. The so called crippling sanctions have done nothing to affect Iranian policy. Iran has been able to maintain its oil production at about 4 mm bpd and with a budget based on an oil price of $65 and current prices hovering around $100 they are not in financial straits. They have been able to get around many financial restrictions by taking payments from India and China in local currency and leaving the currency in place to pay for imports. They have also been forced to put their currency reserves in gold. (Not a bad investment.)

The U.S. has finally been forced to back down and to acknowledge that stricter sanctions or military conflict would have very serious negative consequences for the struggling western economies. Now might be a good time to reconsider the policies. Unfortunately, this is not a likely occurrence.

Technorati Tags: Iran. IAEA

America’s Declining Influence

2011-11-01T19:05:00.001-07:00

This week Palestine was admitted as a full member of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Despite strong U.S. and Israeli lobbying against the resolution the vote in favor was overwhelmingly positive: 107 for, 14 against and 52 abstentions. It appears that, besides the U.S. and Israel, only 12 states support the Zionist enterprise. As can be seen from this video, the result was enormously popular among conference members and was enthusiastically received despite the potential financial problems that will be created for the organization. The larger implication is for U.S, global influence.

Immediately after the UNESCO result was announced, the U.S. announced that it was withholding its payment of its $80mm contribution to UNESCO which amounts to 22% of the agency’s budget. Should the U.S. continue in arrears for two years, it will lose its voting membership and join such luminaries as Somalia and Libya in being in arrears on its UNESCO dues. While the funding deficit is serious, it could easily be made up by countries such as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia who voted yes and for whom $80mm is pocket change. A similar outcome can be expected if Palestine continues to take its statehood case to other UN agencies such as IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), WHO (World Health Organization) and 12 other agencies who have similar rules. This will have important implications for U.S. national interest in issues such as Iran’s nuclear program and global health among others.

This is only the latest in a series of events which have highlighted U.S. declining influence in the Middle East. When the U.S demanded that Israel halt construction of settlements in occupied Palestine, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was completely comfortable in ignoring the wishes of his strongest ally and continuing construction. Despite U.S. threats to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority and to veto the statehood resolution at the UN, President Abbas ignored the U.S. threats and proceeded to the UN Security Council.

The decline in U.S. influence in the region and the concurrent rise in Iranian influence began with the U.S invasion of Iraq. This has had significant consequences for U.S. regional policy. In Iraq, Iran’s political allies have been able to prevent the U.S. from retaining a significant military force on the ground. In Bahrain, the U.S. has had to back away from its support of the democracy movements for fear of Iranian influence among Bahrain’s Shia majority. When I recently asked a senior State Department official about this, his reply was, “This is an extremely difficult problem”.

Absent a significant change in policy approach, it is likely that America’s influence with friend and foe alike will continue to decline. The decline will have major implications for America’s foreign policy objectives. Other countries will certainly fill the vacuum. Whether this will be positive or negative remains to be seen.

That said this quote from Amb. Charles Freeman at the recent NCUSAR (National Council on U.S. Arab Relations) Conference is applicable, “I want to close by affirming my faith in the adaptability and resilience of the United States. With all the problems we have made for ourselves and our friends in the Middle East, we have just about run out of alternatives to doing the right things. Now we may get around to actually doing them.”

Iran-A Land of Limited Options

2011-10-16T11:39:00.001-07:00

Last week U.S. government officials announced the indictment of a former used car salesman in Corpus Christi, Texas on charges of being the coordinator between the Iranian government and a Mexican drug cartel in a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., blow up Jewish synagogues and cause other attacks. As information on the alleged plot begins to trickle out, the whole event begins to sound more like an episode from the 1960’s spy genre spoof Get Smart than a serious threat. Unfortunately Manssor Arbabsiar, the alleged perpetrator, does not appear to have had his own Agent 99 to keep him organized. It looks to me as though this is another one of those “dangerous plots” that is announced with great fanfare and then gradually fades from media coverage and is dismissed for lack of credible evidence.

Whatever the outcome of this case, let’s assume that all of the allegations are true and this was a serious effort, controlled at the very top of the Iranian government, designed to result in a major attack on the U.S. and provoke a regional war with the western powers. What are the options for a U.S. response? To me, they appear pretty limited. President Obama has threatened additional sanctions. However, because of the U.S. led sanctions regime currently in place, Iran is already among the most isolated countries in the world. This state of affairs suits the hardliners in the Iranian government just fine as they have no interest in engaging with the west. The isolation also tends to insulate Iran from the financial contagion that is plaguing countries linked to the western financial system.

The hardline hawks, both within and outside of the U.S. government, who advocate military action have escalated their saber rattling, “all options are on the table” rhetoric following the announcement of the indictment. It is my view, however, that the Iranian strategy of asymmetrical deterrence is fairly effective. Rather than relying on conventional military capability for deterrence, Iran has engaged regional allies including political parties/militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas to threaten Israel and American troops deployed to the region They have succeeded in arming Hezbollah and Hamas to the extent that they pose a significant threat to Israel’s population centers. Pressure from Iran’s allies in Iraq has forced the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Iran’s relationship with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance poses a similar threat to U.S forces in Afghanistan. The Quds Force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, “responsible for extraterritorial activities” is also deployed around the world.

President Obama is now in campaign mode and it is very unlikely that he will want to instigate another disastrous Middle East conflict just as he is trying to focus attention on domestic economic issues. That said, in this part of the world, anything is possible.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Manssor Arbabsiar

The Palestinian’s Desperate UN Gamble

2011-09-28T15:32:00.001-07:00

Last week the Palestinian Authority’s nominal president Mahmoud Abbas defied U.S. and Israeli pressure and submitted an application to the United Nations to become a Member State of the international organization. Many people on both sides of the Israel/Palestine situation have questioned why Abbas has chosen to make this move.

The 1993 Oslo Accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) and initiated the peace process which was envisioned to lead to a Palestinian state within five years. Instead the Oslo process has led to two decades of alternating negotiations and violence. Instead of a Palestinian state, the Oslo process has led to continued Israeli occupation, construction of a wall that divides families and confiscates land, increased blockades and road closures, more Jewish settlements on the West Bank and further Israeli land annexation

In 2008, faced with an interminable process that was going nowhere, Abbas and his nominal prime minister, Salam Fayyad, embarked on a new strategy which included the building of state institutions before sovereignty. This approach assumed that, once state institutions were in place, international pressure would force Israel to recognize Palestinian rights. This has proved to be a false hope.

Abbas and Fayyad have realized that the U.S. and Israel are satisfied with the status quo and that Obama is now in full campaign mode and unlikely to do anything that would have domestic political consequences. With the Arab Awakening going on all around him, Abbas has become desperate to change the political landscape. The move to the UN was the outcome. It is a desperate gamble with uncertain consequences

With the U.S. certain to veto the Member State application in the Security Council, the recognition of Palestine as a non-member state in the General Assembly is the most likely result. Unless the PA leadership has a strategy (strategic thinking is not their strong suit) to follow up with actions at the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and to capitalize on the United States’ weakened and isolated position to break the U.S. stranglehold on the peace process, they may end up with the provisional state that Netanyahu has frequently broached. This outcome will have little effect in improving the situation on the ground for ordinary Palestinians.

In the end, the outcome may rest in the hands of the Palestinian people themselves. The Arab Awakening which started in Tunisia and Egypt and has spread across the region has demonstrated the ability of the people to rise up and say “enough is enough” and overthrow their unelected leaders and demand their rights. The Arab Spring may eventually arrive in Palestine.

{Photo by UN News Center)

Technorati Tags: Palestinian Authority,UN,Palestinian State

Mission Accomplished in Libya?

2011-09-16T09:16:00.001-07:00

As British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy take a victory lap in Libya, it may be premature to declare victory. The number of nations that that have formally recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate government of Libya grows every day. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the TNC presents a moderate face to the world which plays well in the western media. Behind the scenes of moderation and unity there are many unresolved issues that will be difficult for even the best intentioned leaders to address.

In contrast with Tunisia and Egypt where the revolutions were largely peaceful and where institutions such as political parties, NGO’s, labor unions, etc. were in place, Libya’s revolution was protracted and violent and civil society institutions had been destroyed by Qaddafi and his cronies. There are, therefore, few building blocks upon which to construct a new government structure.

We are already seeing all the societal divisions, which had been suppressed under Qaddafi, reappear even within the TNC. The most visible division is between the Islamists and the secularists. Under Qaddafi the secular elites have been the most prominent both within Libya and in the exile community. However, during the revolution, the Islamists have commanded the bulk of the fighters and the weapons. The Islamist forces are the most experienced fighters who fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and the Balkans. They, therefore, have assumed leadership positions. Abdul Jalil of the TNC has attempted to bridge these divides by calling for a moderate Islamic regime with a legal system based on Sharia. Within the TNC there is also rivalry between the Benghazi and Tripoli factions.

The TNC, however, is not completely in charge. Qaddafi is gone, but where is unclear. Many of his supporters have fled across the southern deserts to Niger and Chad. Will they now become the insurgents? Most of the focus has been on the populous coastal region. The huge sparsely populated desert regions of the south have long been havens for bandits and militias. It will now be an ideal place from which an insurgency of Qaddafi loyalists can operate.

Tribal factions are also competing for power and influence. Many cities were a captured from Qaddafi’s forces by local tribal militias with no allegiance to the TNC. These armed groups will need to be integrated into the new government structure.

Many of Qaddafi’s weapons stockpiles have disappeared. These included not only light weapons and machine guns, but also surface to air missiles. With al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) right across the porous border with Algeria, this raises the threat of attacks on passenger planes.

President Obama was wise to allow the British and French to be the face of the NATO operations and to avoid a premature “mission accomplished moment”. Obama said at the onset of hostilities, “Libya is not Iraq.” It does, however, look a lot like Afghanistan. It ain’t over til it’s over.

(Photo by John Moore/AP)

Technorati Tags: Libya,Qadaffi,al Qaeda,NATO

America’s Covert War with Iran

2011-09-10T12:14:00.001-07:00

After several years of “no options are off the table” saber rattling against Iran, U.S./Israel appear to have decided that another major war in the Middle East is not politically or financially sustainable. Faced with Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program U.S./Israel have reverted to a covert program of assassination, cyber-attacks and support of terrorist insurgent groups.

Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist at Malek Ashtar University, an institution affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, was kidnapped in June 2009 and transferred to the US. In January 2010, Massoud Ali- Mohammadi, a particle physicist, was killed by a remote-controlled bomb. Recently, Majid Jamali-Fashi confessed to having been trained by the Mossad in Israel and paid $120,000 to carry out this and five other terrorist attacks. In November 2010 Majid Sahriyari, a nuclear scientist, was killed and Fereidoun Abbasi-Davini, Iran’s current nuclear chief, and his wife were wounded in similar attacks. (These stories are here and here)

In 2010 centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear program were attacked by a malware program, the so-called Stuxnet Virus. This attack damaged the centrifuges and undoubtedly delayed Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Most experts believe that this kind of sophisticated attack could only have been accomplished with “nation state support”. In interviews with media organizations, the U.S. and Israel have tacitly acknowledged their involvement. Now that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor is operating, one wonders whether the US/Israel are willing to risk a nuclear disaster by attacking this facility.

For a number of years, under a program initiated in the George W. Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, the U.S. has supported The Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), a Kurdish separatist group, Jundallah, a Sunni fundamentalist insurgent group in Baluchistan in Pakistan and southern Iran and The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a Iranian group, now based in Iraq. These groups have been designated as terrorist groups by most western countries, including the U.S. (This story is here)

It is unclear what effect these covert efforts are having in achieving U.S. objectives in the Middle East, but one thing is clear: they are not helping relations with the Islamic Republic. When I have talked with Iranians about U.S. – Iran relations they immediately bring up the U.S overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, in 1953. It is plain that Iranians have a long memory. They also have a history of not getting mad, but getting even.

Even weak countries have a limited tolerance for ongoing U.S. efforts to assassinate their leaders and to overthrow their governments. At some point the “chickens come home to roost” and they respond. One only needs to think back to conspiracy theories of involvement of Castro’s Cuba in the assassination of John F. Kennedy to see an example. (The latest version is here

Technorati Tags: Iran Nuclear Program

)

Israel’s Masada Syndrome

2011-07-12T15:23:00.001-07:00

In 72 AD the Jewish rebels of Israel, besieged by the Roman legions in their fortress refuge at Masada, determined to commit suicide rather than submit to defeat and Roman rule. This siege mentality seems to be reappearing in the Israel of today.

Last year, when a flotilla of ships carrying international activists attempted to enter Gaza to deliver relief supplies to the blockaded territory, Israel attacked the flotilla. The attack resulted in the deaths of nine activists including one American and was a public relations nightmare for Israel. The response of the Israeli government was to launch a massive propaganda campaign and to attack any action that they saw as an attempt to delegitimize Israel.

This response has reached a new level in recent weeks. Israel’s reaction to an attempt to organize a new Gaza flotilla was to mount a diplomatic blitzkrieg which persuaded an economically weakened Greek government, which was in no position to resist the pressure, to prevent the flotilla from sailing. The activists also allege that Israeli forces sabotaged some of the ships.

This week a so-called flytilla, in which over 200, primarily European, activists, attempted to fly to Tel Aviv and travel to the West Bank in support of Palestinian rights, was met with a massive security presence at Ben-Gurion airport. Some people were immediately deported and others were detained under what they claim were poor conditions including being crammed into roach invested prison vans for up to five hours.

Also this week the Israeli Knesset passed a law making any call for boycotting Israel economically, culturally or academically a crime. Any NGO calling for a boycott can lose its operating license. This questionable law follows the passage of the so-called Nakba law, which forbids any commemoration of the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians during the founding of Israel.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, who grew up in the former Soviet Union, has long claimed that he did not believe that democracy was the most appropriate form of government for a country in the Middle East. This point of view in many ways merely reflects the current political reality in Israel. Recent polls show that a significant majority of Israeli young people prefer a strong leader to the rule of law and in cases where state security and democratic values conflict, security should come first.

As Arab countries move toward democracy, Israel increasingly is hunkering down behind diplomatic, legal and physical walls. The Israeli claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East may soon be called into question.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Gaza,Gaza Flotilla

The Politics of Afghanistan

2011-06-24T13:19:00.001-07:00

When I was visiting the Persian Gulf region a few months ago, I had a conversation with a senior Middle East analyst at the State Department. I asked him why it is that when the professionals in the State Department understand the realities on the ground that United States policy in the region is so disconnected from reality. He replied that the job of the professionals was to provide analysis of the situation and policy recommendations, however, the policy makers are political appointees and therefore, policy decisions are generally based on domestic political considerations rather than reality on the ground. We have seen this dynamic play out in this week’s announcement of US policy in Afghanistan.

President Obama in his policy speech described the success of American counter-terrorism efforts and said that he planned to continue them. He said, “al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11”, “al Qaeda is under enormous strain”, and “we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat and we will not relent…” Prior to the speech a senior administration official said that the government had not seen a “terrorist threat” from Afghanistan in seven or eight years. He also said that only 50 to 75 al Qaeda members remain in Afghanistan.

Obama also disavowed a counter- insurgency and nation building strategy saying, “We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains…That is the responsibility of the Afghan government…”

Given his counter-terrorism strategy, the extended withdrawal timeframe (extending at least through 2014) makes little sense tactically. A counter-terrorism approach could be implemented with drones and Special Forces, allowing an immediate large scale withdrawal. Politically, however, it makes a lot of sense. A significant withdrawal will occur right before the 2012 elections and the remaining withdrawals are extended over years. By walking the middle ground, as is his penchant, Obama inoculates himself against attacks by the doves who want a quick withdrawal and the hawks who want a continuation of a major military presence.

It remains to be seen how the Taliban will react. They operate on a long time horizon. I once heard author Greg Mortenson describe a Taliban plan to recruit the best and brightest young children from Afghan villages, indoctrinate them in Pakistani madrassas, send them back to the villages to marry four wives and have as many children as they can. That is a really long range plan. The Taliban use a saying, “You have the watch. We have the time.”

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,al Qaeda,Taliban,Obama speech

Memos from the Mountans: The Book

2011-05-30T18:31:00.000-07:00

My new book of essays is available here:

A Palestinian Plan B

2011-05-30T14:58:00.001-07:00

The ongoing uprisings throughout the Arab world during the last six months have largely removed the Arab/Israeli conflict from the pages of the western media. This changed last week when Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu came to Washington to meet with President Obama, speak to AIPAC and speak to a joint session of the US Congress. The depth of the stalemate in place in the so called “peace process” was vividly on display throughout the week as Netanyahu and Obama each struggled to set the agenda. The Palestinian leadership watching from afar as Netanyahu articulated the three “no’s”: no 1967 borders, no refugees and no Jerusalem, concluded that the negotiation process was completely dead. As they watched the US Congress jump up and down like puppets on AIPAC strings during Netanyahu’s speech, they also realized that Obama has no ability to influence events.

Shortly after watching this circus in Washington, Palestinian President Abbas announced that they would proceed, despite US warnings to the contrary, with their effort to obtain recognition by the UN in September. The Arab League quickly endorsed this effort and so it is unlikely that Abbas will back down regardless of strong US pressure.

This week Netanyahu told an Israeli audience that there was no way that Israel could prevent UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine, but he was comfortable that a resolution would never be approved by the Security Council. Read here “the US will veto any resolution and that will be the end of it”.

However, it may not be the end of it after all. In 1950, when the Soviet Union was vetoing everything in sight and stalemating the Security Council, the US orchestrated the passage of UN General Assembly resolution 377. In this so called “Uniting for Peace” resolution the General Assembly:

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Under this resolution the General Assembly essentially acts as a Security Council of the whole with the power to approve Palestinian membership and impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying power of a UN member. If 377 is invoked, the game may not be over until it is over.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Netanyahu

The Changing Face of the GCC

2011-05-18T11:48:00.002-07:00

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was founded in 1981 as a cultural and economic union of six Persian Gulf states: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. The founding purposes of the group, economic integration and cooperation, defense cooperation, and strengthened private sector cooperation were similar to those of the European Economic Community and its successor the European Union. The founding countries have much in common culturally, governmentally and economically. They are all Persian Gulf states with small, predominately Sunni Muslim, Bedouin indigenous populations. All are relatively wealthy with large petroleum resources. They are governed by Sunni Muslim absolute monarchs.
The pro-democracy uprisings that have spread across North Africa and the Middle East have completely changed the political landscape in this area. The GCC countries have not been able to completely immunize themselves from the spreading democracy virus. Oil wealth has allowed leaders the economic flexibility to “buy off” the protestors. (Sultan Qaboos of Oman responded to protests by doubling the minimum wage and creating 50,000 new jobs.) The Sunni al Khalifa ruling family in Bahrain, faced with uprisings led by the majority Shia population, was not as successful in co-opting the demonstrations and the GCC was forced to deploy its joint armed forces (The Peninsula Shield Force) to brutally suppress the pro-democracy movement.
The ruling families in these oil rich sheikdoms are now looking over their shoulders and have started to take action to protect their privileged positions. The GCC has invited Jordan and Morocco to become members. Neither of these countries have oil wealth or geography in common with the founding members. What they do have in common is Sunni absolute monarchies and they have strong western trained military establishments. The GCC is morphing into an association of western oriented Sunni autocrats positioning themselves to confront the so called “Shia crescent”, Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The varying outcomes of the pro-democracy uprisings have shown that just having a strong military is not enough to suppress determined demonstrators. In order to succeed the military must be willing to shoot its own citizens. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak fell because the military would not shoot their fellow Egyptians. In Bahrain and Libya the non-violent protests failed because the military, largely composed of foreign mercenaries, was willing to shoot. Learning this lesson, the UAE has hired the founder of the American private security firm, Blackwater Worldwide, and other Americans to set up an internal security battalion of foreign troops. Although Blackwater, a major US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a well-deserved reputation for brutality, the US has supported this project. We may be in for some ugly times in the future.

The “Arab Spring” brings policy challenges for the US.

2011-05-03T14:00:00.001-07:00

As the pro-democracy uprisings have spread across the Middle East and North Africa sweeping from power US supported authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and threatening other regimes, US policy makers are facing a number of new challenges. The new governments that are coming to power and reflecting the views of their citizens are not going to be as supportive of US policies as the previous regimes.

For several years the US has expressed tepid support for efforts by Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to achieve reconciliation between the rival Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions. This effort was never successful because Egypt was never an “honest broker” and never genuinely wanted reconciliation. Mubarak was afraid of a successful Palestinian government in which Hamas (an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) participated would inspire his own Muslim Brotherhood opposition. The US and Israel were perfectly happy with the status quo that divided the Palestinians.

It didn’t take long for the new Egyptian government to change the landscape. Last week, after several weeks of secret negotiations, the parties announced a reconciliation agreement which is to be signed on Wednesday. Most observers, myself included, felt that the new Egyptian government, in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, would change the negotiating dynamic. What did surprise me, however, is how fast the agreement happened. While it is still possible that the agreement will fall apart over details of implementation, so far it appears to be on track.

A Palestinian unity government with Hamas as a participant creates big policy dilemmas for the US and Israel. Israel has immediately condemned the agreement, called on Fatah to back out and stopped transfer of tax revenues which they collect for the Palestinian Authority (PA). The US has issued its pro-forma statement calling Hamas a terrorist organization and repeating well-worn preconditions.

There are several possible outcomes to this state of affairs. One is that the US and Israel will succeed in pressuring the PA and Egypt to abandon the deal. While possible, it seems unlikely as Egypt has already announced that it will completely open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Another, although unlikely, outcome is that the US will recognize that Hamas is an essential player in any agreement and deal with the unity government. The most likely outcome is that Israel and the US Congress will cut off all tax and aid payments to the PA. The result of the cutoff of aid will either be a collapse of the PA or someone else filling the gap.

The collapse of the PA would not be all bad as it would throw the whole mess back on the Israelis, further straining their resources. Iran is a good candidate for filling the breach as it would further enhance their influence. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would allow Iran to accomplish this and, therefore, they will be forced to back the PA. Whatever the outcome, the US influence in the region will decline further.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Israel,Palestine,Arab Spring,Egypt

Al Qaeda’s Plans Realized?

2011-04-27T11:55:00.001-07:00

In October of 2006, I wrote an article about Al Qaeda’s seven step plan documenting their strategy designed to create an Islamic caliphate by 2020. (The whole article is here) This strategy as outlined in an article by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in the German periodical Der Speigel, was first implemented on September 11, 2001 with the attack on the World Trade Center. Mr. Hussein in known for his contacts with senior Al Qaeda leaders and his ability to have them be open with him. Therefore, he has some credibility on this subject.

Although, events have not played out exactly as Al Qaeda leaders predicted, the plan is reasonably on schedule. We have now arrived at the fourth phase. Mr. Hussein writes that, between 2010 and 2013, Al Qaeda will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaeda."

As I have pointed out previously, the 9/11attack was a Saudi civil war being fought on American soil. The 9/11attack was designed to punish the US for its support of the hated Saudi regime and to draw the US into a prolonged Middle East war where they could be defeated. As one watches the events of the “Arab Spring” unfold, one can see Al Qaeda’s goal of the collapse of US supported Middle East authoritarian regimes being realized. While these regime changes are being accomplished by largely peaceful and secular uprisings and not through the leadership of Al Qaeda, the results are still the same.

Of the countries experiencing uprisings against authoritarian governments, Libya and Yemen have the greatest possibility of ending up in the chaos of failed states which will leave space for the strengthening of Al Qaeda. US administration leaders have expressed this concern. Senator John McCain also expressed concern following his visit to Libya in support of the rebel forces. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQM) are two of the strongest Al Qaeda “franchises”. Any outcome that provides them space to operate cannot be good news.

The US policy of supporting corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the name of regional stability may have short term appeal, but it has helped to create a vacuum in civil society. Now that these regimes are suddenly collapsing, Al Qaeda may be in a position to be more dangerous.

Technorati Tags: Al Qaeda,Libya,Yemen.Middle East

The Al Jazeera Effect

2011-04-14T17:37:00.001-07:00

As the wave of unrest which has pitted pro-democracy demonstrators against the entrenched autocrats that are common in the Middle East has spread across the region, the role of Al Jazeera in facilitating the uprisings is hard to overstate. Al Jazeera first appeared on the scene in 1996 when the Emir of Qatar founded a 24hr Arabic language news network to compete with the state controlled media. Until Al Jazeera arrived, citizens of countries in the Middle East received their news through state controlled media who restricted their coverage to talking heads who presented nothing controversial. Al Jazeera changed the game and rapidly became the most watched network in the region. In 2006 Al Jazeera English began broadcasting and is now widely available around the world except in the US. (US availability is restricted to Toledo, Ohio, Burlington, Vermont and Washington, DC.)

When the initial uprisings began in Tunisia, Al Jazeera was a little slow on the uptake, but once they realized the significance of the story they grabbed it and ran. Their impact was particularly important in Egypt where ordinary Egyptians were able to follow the demonstrations in real time and were inspired to join. The Mubarak regime rapidly realized that unfettered information was their worst enemy and attempted to shut Al Jazeera down. Al Jazeera responded by broadcasting satellite coordinates showing where to train your satellite in order to continue to receive the channel.

As the uprisings spread, the autocratic regimes severely restricted Al Jazeera’s coverage by shutting down it’s bureaus and arresting it’s correspondents. In Libya, Al Jazeera responded by asking ordinary citizens to send their pictures and stories which were then posted. They, thereby, created thousands of freelance amateur journalists. Since Al Jazeera was the only news agency with images, they took the unusual step of offering their images to other news agencies free of charge with the caveat that Al Jazeera received credit. (CNN declined the offer. They would rather have no images than Al Jazeera images.)

Their effective coverage of, not only the Middle East, but also of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, has produced demand for increased availability in the US. (President Obama used Al Jazeera to follow events in Egypt.) Al Jazeera is now in carriage discussions with Comcast Cable. The idea that Americans would have access to a network whose motto is “If it is newsworthy, it airs; whether it is Bush or bin Laden.” seems to have frightened some on the political right. At a recent conference at the National Press Club Cliff Kincaid of American Survival called for hearings by the Homeland Security Committee on the security risk of Al Jazeera’s expansion into American cable markets. Right wing blogger Pamela Geller called for Al Jazeera to be designated a terrorist organization.

When Al Jazeera English began broadcasting, Comcast, Dish Network and DirecTV had plans to carry the network. They changed their minds, however, when the Bush administration applied pressure. It is one thing for the US to support these undemocratic regimes, but is another thing altogether to imitate them.

(If would like to have access to Al Jazeera English go here.)

Technorati Tags: Al Jazeera,Middle East

Mission Creep

2011-04-02T12:44:00.002-07:00

As the Libyan uprising against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi enters its sixth week and the military intervention by the US and its allies enters its third week, the inevitable “mission creep” that is so typical of this kind of operation is becoming more and more evident. What started out as a peaceful uprising by the oppressed people of Libya has deteriorated into a brutal civil war between ragtag groups of armed young rebels against the largely mercenary army loyal to Qaddafi.
Responding to Qaddafi’s rants about massacring all who opposed him, the UN Security Council passed resolutions 1970 and 1973 authorizing, among other things, an arms embargo and a “no fly zone” and military action as necessary to enforce it. The language is pretty clear.
The UNSC “decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians”.
The UNSC “authorizes Member States…to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights”.
The “coalition of the willing”, however quickly realized that a “no fly zone” was not going to protect civilians and unilaterally declared a “no drive zone” that allowed them to attack Qaddafi’s tanks and vehicles. This step has also become problematic. Today a coalition aircraft mistakenly attacked rebel vehicles killing at least 7 rebel fighters. (All white pickup trucks look the same from the air) It is becoming clear that for coalition aircraft to effectively provide close air support to the rebels, ground observers are required. Although President Obama has said that he has no intention of putting “American boots on the ground”, he has already deployed CIA operatives to coordinate with the rebels and provide targeting information for allied aircraft. (Perhaps they are wearing Chinese sandals.)
Discussion has now begun about the wisdom of arming and resupplying the rebel forces. The language of UNSC Res. 1970 clearly bans such action. The language here is also straight forward.
The UNSC “decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types…”
Any violation of this prohibition by the US and its allies would fracture the alliance and make the military mission a US and European action.
What few have acknowledged is that in order to protect civilians Qaddafi must go. President Obama has specifically ruled out regime change and overthrowing the regime by force. The only way out of this morass is a political solution in which Qaddafi and his cronies choose to leave. Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

Technorati Tags: Libya,Qaddafi

The Libya Mess

2011-03-22T10:24:00.002-07:00

As the military intervention in Libya by the “coalition of the willing” led by Britain, France and the US moves towards its second week, all of the divisive issues inherent in such an adventure are starting to appear. The support (however tepid) from the Arab League and the UN Security Council, which was garnered through diplomatic groundwork by the US and its western allies, is starting to splinter. This was eminently predictable as no amount of war planning survives the first contact with the enemy.
The Obama administration was clearly reluctant to resort to military intervention in support of the rebel factions allied against Muammar Qaddafi and his nasty regime. They were wrestling with legitimate and difficult questions about the availability of resources, the reaction of the Arab and Islamic world to another western attack on an Arab/Muslim country, the effectiveness of a “no fly zone” and the possibility that even a successful military campaign would result in a positive political outcome. In Washington the political pressure to “do something” (In this case fanned by the same neo-conservative hawks who got us into the Iraq mess.) is intense. Faced with this growing pressure Obama decided to move forward with the military option.
As the initial “shock and awe” campaign rapidly devolves into a stalemate, these questions, so far unanswered, still remain. The US is attempting to resolve the resource problem by rapidly turning the lead responsibility over to Britain and France. They, however, have grown used to the US bailing them out and are quickly getting cold feet. As civilian casualties (real and manufactured) are mounting, the Arab and Muslim support is fading.
The “no fly zone” appears to have hampered Qaddafi’s military capability and reenergized the rebels allowing them to make up some lost ground. There is no sign, however, that they will be able to defeat Qaddafi’s forces and drive him from power if he is determined to remain. Absent the coalition committing substantial ground forces to the conflict, it appears that we are in for a long ugly mess.
One possibility for resolving this is to persuade Qaddafi that he has stolen enough money from the Libyan people and can go off to a comfortable retirement. He could even take his female bodyguards, his five star Bedouin tent and his personnel masseuse with him. Even this outcome is problematic as Qaddafi has destroyed all Libyan civil society and will leave behind no institutions capable of filling the power vacuum. As a result, all of the tribal, sectarian and ethnic rivalries will come to the surface.
As the Obama administration considered their policy options they forgot, or chose to ignore, the fact that these interventions are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.

Photo by Al Jazeera English

Technorati Tags: Libya,Middle East

Wave of Change II

2011-03-13T14:18:00.002-07:00

As the democracy movement moves like a tsunami wave across the Middle East and North Africa, observers of the regional dynamics are asking themselves “Where next”. While I was traveling through the Arabian Gulf region over the past 2 ½ weeks, this question was particularly relevant. The answers impacted our travel plans as stops in Bahrain and Salalah, Oman were canceled as a result of unrest and pirate activity.
To understand the dynamics influencing these dramatic changes, it is helpful to look at the common factors that are driving the uprising and they are many. The most identifiable factors are:
· Large youthful populations
· High unemployment – particularly among the youth
· Corrupt, autocratic governments
· Controlled press with no freedom of expression
· Harassment of opposition leaders and fraudulent elections.
As these youthful populations have finally said “enough is enough” and risen up to demand change, the autocrats have reacted in similar ways to the challenges to their entrenched regimes.
Step one – Ignore the protests
Step two – Send in thugs
Step three – Crack down on media
Step four – Make ridiculous concessions
Step five - Blame outside forces
Step six – Leave
In an effort to balance support for democracy (which will lead to governments unfriendly to US policy) with support of so called “moderate” Arab autocratic governments, the US has also reacted in similar ways to the uprisings.
Step one – Call for both sides to be peaceful
Step two – Call for dialogue
Step three – Call for reform
Step four – Call for peaceful transition
Step five – The dictator must leave
This balancing act has succeeded in making everybody mad. There have been two early indicators of this change in attitude toward US policies in the region. Shortly after the military government took power in Egypt and attempted to respond to the demands of the protesters, Iran asked for permission for warships to transit the Suez Canal. Under the Mubarak regime, Egypt would have responded to US/Israel labeling this request “provocative” by denying permission. The new government promptly approved it. A week later, the Palestinian Authority submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement building. In the past the US would have asked its friendly autocrats to quietly withdraw the resolution and not force the US to be embarrassed by vetoing its own policy. The Arabs refused and the US was forced to veto the resolution in a 14-1 vote. These indicators show that, whatever the outcome of the uprisings, life will be more difficult for US policy makers.
(Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera)

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt

Traveling to the Middle East

2011-02-07T19:17:00.001-07:00

I will be leaving next week for a three week trip to the Persian Gulf region. When a number of my friends heard about this trip, their responses were, “How can you go there now? It’s too dangerous.” This response is not unusual when one is preparing for a trip to the Middle East. However, the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have spread to other countries in the region and have raised the level of concern.

These popular uprisings started as economic based movements, but quickly changed into political movements demanding radical regime change. There has been a rise of a cultural sense of empowerment among the youth. The wall of fear of the repressive regimes has fallen and the movements have been transformed into formidable forces threatening previously entrenched governments.

This is particularly true in the case of Egypt which is a cornerstone of US Middle East foreign policy. Regardless of whether a true democracy, representative of all Egyptians, emerges or whether the US and its Western allies are able to orchestrate a “faux democracy” controlled by the army and regime loyalists, the risk reward calculations of authoritarian regimes in the region have changed dramatically. Over past decades regimes trying to decide whether to anger their citizens by supporting unpopular US policies or to anger their western patrons, have chosen to anger their citizens. This choice will now be much more difficult.

The situation in the oil rich Persian Gulf countries that I will be visiting, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, is considerably different from that in their neighbors in North Africa and the Levant. Oil revenues have allowed their small indigenous populations to be relatively wealthy. The working class is largely made up of migrant workers from places such as India and the Philippines who, if they are upset with their economic circumstances don’t take to the street, but merely go home.

Of these states Oman and Bahrain are most exposed to catching the “Tunisian virus”. Oman is ruled by 71 year old Sultan Qaboos bin Said who came to power in 1970 in a “palace coup” which overthrew his father. He has been an effective leader resolving decade’s long violence between nomadic desert tribes and coastal merchants and bringing economic prosperity. He is, however, unmarried with no children and no obvious successor. Whether or not tribal leaders will be able to peacefully orchestrate succession remains to be seen.

The situation in Bahrain, home to a large US Navy base, is more similar to that in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia than to the other Gulf States. Although the Muslim population of Bahrain is 2/3 Shia, the country is ruled by the Sunni al Khalifa royal family. Recent elections have been marred by violence and repression. Bahrain’s proximity to Iran gives the Iranians significant influence in the Shia community.

It will be a fascinating time to be in the region. For those who are interested, as internet access and circumstances permit, I will be posting my observations and thoughts here and here.

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Oman,Bahrain,Middle East

A Wave of Change in the Middle East

2011-01-29T11:55:00.001-07:00

As the Middle East, literally, goes up in flames the Obama administration is struggling with how to react to the inevitable outcome of decades of failed Middle East policies. Nowhere was this struggle more evident than during an embarrassing performance by VP Joe Biden throughout an interview on the PBS Newshour. (The whole interview is here) The normally voluble Biden, who rarely has his brain engaged when he opens his mouth, was parsing every word and trying his best not to say anything quotable. This effort failed when he declared that Hosni Mubarak, who, with US backing, has ruled Egypt as the sole center of power for over 30 years, was not a dictator.

The demonstrations against undemocratic authoritarian regimes, that have been propped up by billions of dollars of US aid have spread across North Africa and the Middle East. Starting in Tunisia, the uprisings have spread to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen. The decades long policy of supporting these unpopular regimes as a buffer against resistance groups who oppose US/Israeli dominance in the region and as an ally in the “global war on terror”, has made the US extremely unpopular with the man on the street. 85% of respondents to a recent poll had an unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the US and over 60% see US policy toward Israel/Palestine as the most disappointing.

It is, therefore, inevitable that any representative government in the region is going to oppose US policy of unquestioned support for Israel. Egypt and Jordan are the key players here as they have peace treaties with Israel and have aided the US/Israel blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank. If the current regimes are replaced by representative governments, this game is over. Trying to defend the indefensible is recipe for disaster for US strategic interests in the region.

It is long past time for the US to seek new approaches and new partners. The US needs to listen to Turkey with its policy of “zero problems with its neighbors”, reverse its policy of confrontation with Iran and engage with non-state players like Hamas and Hezbollah. Creative, out of the box thinking is required by administration officials. Unfortunately, long careers inside the beltway are not conducive to this kind of thinking. We will probably defend these regimes to the bitter end, just as we did with the Shah of Iran, with similar outcomes.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt,Biden

A US Foreign Policy Success?

2011-01-18T20:11:00.001-07:00

As the referendum on the separation of South Sudan from the north appears to be reaching a relatively peaceful conclusion after years of unrest and civil war, we may be witnessing a rare US foreign policy success. The conflict between the central government of Sudan and the tribal regions in the south and west is long standing and dates to British colonial rule. The British colonial authorities concentrated power in Khartoum and disadvantaged the outlying areas. This pattern continued after independence.

Shortly after taking office in 2009, President Obama appointed, with much fanfare, a number of “special envoys” with responsibility for managing specific foreign policy issues. These included the late Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Pakistan, George Mitchell in Israel/Palestine and Dennis Ross in Iran. Without much fanfare he also appointed General J. Scott Gratian as special envoy to Sudan.

At the time, some of us asked the question, what circumstances and qualities need to be in place for a special envoy to be successful? I concluded that in order to have any possibility of success there needs to be the right situation, the right envoy and support at the top. None of these were in place for Holbrooke, Mitchell and Ross. However, in the case of General Gratian we had a low key envoy who was willing to work with all parties to find a solution. The situation in Sudan was relatively isolated from outside influences and General Gratian appears to have had the support of both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.

As Gratian and his fellow diplomats assigned to this issue, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson and special envoy Princeton Lyman, worked to forge compromises among the Sudanese and to persuade the influential Chinese that it was in their interest to have a peaceful and stable outcome, Clinton and Obama had his back. This allowed him to fend off attacks by UN Ambassador Susan Rice and the Save Darfur activists who seemed to want to blow up the whole deal by attacking Sudan.

While there seems to be good will emerging on all sides, a peaceful outcome is clearly not a done deal. The Abyei border region between north and south is a volatile mixture of oil, long standing tribal animosities and nomadic versus settled lifestyle. Finding a peaceful, workable solution in an area in which everybody has a weapon will be a difficult task. If Gratian and his team can accomplish this, I would nominate them for the Nobel Prize. As opposed to most recent prize winners, they will have actually accomplished something for the cause of peace.

Technorati Tags: Sudan

Have we been “snookered”.

2011-01-03T20:33:00.001-07:00

As I began to read the recently released book, Washington Rules – America’s Path to Permanent War, I became immediately engaged. The author Andrew Bacevich, a retired US Army Colonel and professor of history and international relations at Boston University, had taken the same journey of discovery that I had taken. Although his journey started in a different place and at a different time we ended up at the same destination.

We both can define specifically when this journey began. Professor Bacevich started his journey in 1990 when, as an active duty Army officer, he visited the German Democratic Republic and observed a Soviet military exercise. He noted that the trucks were 1950’s vintage and one of their battle tanks suddenly belched smoke and burst into flames. My journey began in 1994 in St. Petersburg, Russia when I consulted with a Russian grocery store chain. During a meeting with the VP of distribution about his vehicle acquisition practices, he told me that he could buy a Russian made truck for 15,000 USD or a Volvo or Mercedes Benz (MB) for 45,000 USD. He bought the Volvo or MB every time because it “would actually run and not break down every week”.

Like Professor Bacevich I had been indoctrinated during my military career that we were faced off against the vaunted Soviet military which posed an existential threat to the US and its allies and required enormous expenditures for personnel, armaments and foreign bases. I asked myself; how did I miss the fact that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger? Was I not paying attention or had I been “snookered”?

In the last 15 years as I have traveled to countries that are classified by the US government as existential threats and met with militant groups that are said to require invasion and occupation of countries around the world, I have concluded that we have been “snookered”. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government continues to try and persuade us the “world’s only superpower” has an obligation to project power around the globe in order to make the world a safer and more peaceful place.

As we consider our policies in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and North Korea it would be well to remember some of the wise remarks of Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas during the Vietnam War that were quoted by Bacevich.

“What I do question is the ability of the United States …to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos…democracy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.”

“Any people setting out upon self-appointed missions to police the world, to defeat all tyranny, to make their fellow man rich, happy and free were less likely to advance the cause of world peace than to bring misery to their beneficiaries and destruction upon themselves.”

“I think that the world has endured about all it can of high-minded men bent on the regeneration of the human race.”

What now Barack?

2010-12-13T20:10:00.001-07:00

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

2010-11-29T20:09:00.001-07:00

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

2010-11-16T14:47:00.001-07:00

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

2010-11-08T20:39:00.001-07:00

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

2010-10-20T11:57:00.002-07:00

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

2010-09-18T12:35:00.001-07:00

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

2010-09-13T16:06:00.001-07:00

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

2010-09-01T15:15:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-22T15:47:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-11T16:12:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-04T19:12:00.001-07:00

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?

2010-04-18T13:22:00.001-07:00

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

2010-04-02T13:47:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-25T09:13:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-16T09:03:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-10T15:13:00.001-07:00

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

2010-02-27T10:51:00.001-07:00

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

2010-02-11T18:57:00.004-07:00

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.

83% believe the election was free and fair
81% believe Ahmadinejad is the legitimate President
85% are very or somewhat satisfied with the current Islamic Republic system of government
77% have an unfavorable view of the US government
Over 60% believe that there should be unconditional negotiations with the US and restoration of diplomatic ties. (Not currently Iranian government policy)
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

2010-02-02T20:10:00.001-07:00

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

2010-01-28T19:24:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-18T11:28:00.001-07:00

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

2010-01-12T09:16:00.003-07:00

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?

2010-01-02T18:58:00.002-07:00

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.

Happy Holidays

2009-12-21T16:21:00.001-07:00

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?

2009-12-15T11:22:00.002-07:00

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

2009-12-08T13:32:00.001-07:00

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

2009-11-17T11:22:00.002-07:00

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

2009-11-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-26T10:38:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-19T14:47:00.003-07:00

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

2009-09-26T14:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-17T16:06:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-04T13:39:00.001-07:00

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

2009-07-25T13:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-09T14:07:00.003-07:00

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?

2009-07-01T09:39:00.002-07:00

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

2009-06-23T19:39:00.005-07:00

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

2009-06-10T21:03:00.003-07:00

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

2009-06-05T12:18:00.003-07:00

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

2009-05-29T17:55:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-21T19:17:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-07T20:10:00.002-07:00

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

2009-04-29T17:35:00.006-07:00

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

2009-04-22T07:01:00.005-07:00

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

2009-04-15T07:49:00.002-07:00

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

2009-04-07T14:44:00.002-07:00

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

2009-03-27T12:28:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-22T13:58:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-12T12:55:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-07T07:27:00.002-07:00

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?

2009-02-25T13:03:00.002-07:00

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?

2009-02-20T11:16:00.001-07:00

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

2009-02-11T16:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-06T11:11:00.003-07:00

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

2009-01-28T10:45:00.002-07:00

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

2009-01-23T12:31:00.003-07:00

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

2009-01-15T14:46:00.001-07:00

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

2009-01-08T14:47:00.001-07:00

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

2009-01-03T11:08:00.003-07:00

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)

Lowering Expectations II

2008-12-28T16:56:00.002-07:00

On the day after Christmas, the imprisoned residents of Gaza were greeted with the sounds of bombs and rockets falling on Gaza City as Israel began a major attack on this small, heavily populated area which, thus far, has killed close to 300 people. The attack had been widely expected since the end of a six month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas controlled territory.
It was almost inevitable that the Israelis were going to feel the need to attack Gaza. Sooner or later one of the widely inaccurate rockets fired from Gaza was going to hit a school or synagogue causing significant casualties which would require the Israelis to respond. This attack, however, was more the result of the upcoming Israeli elections and Israeli politics than anything else. As the Israeli political spectrum has moved further to the right, the Labor party of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Kadima party of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni have found themselves outflanked by the growing strength of the rightist Likud party. They have felt the need to show how tough they are, first with rhetoric and then with action.
The devastating attack is a disaster not only for Gaza, but also for the region and the peace process which was already on life support. Everybody’s finger is on the trigger and slightest miscalculation could result in a regional conflict. The authoritarian governments of US allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are under pressure from Islamist opposition groups to respond more aggressively. The large anti US/Israel demonstrations, currently peaceful, could turn violent, destabilizing these regimes. Once again the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men” will be put away with the Christmas decorations.
The only one to benefit from this mess may be President Elect Obama. He has been burdened with high expectations that he would take the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and help move them forward toward some sort of agreement. Hamas and other Islamist groups will be strengthened by the conflict and in no mood to negotiate. The high expectations for peace and stability are now gone. Obama will now have plenty of time to deal with the other messes that he has inherited. In the Middle East he will become a fire fighter.

Changing Landscape

2008-12-17T16:52:00.003-07:00

One of the trends that became apparent during my recent visit to the Middle East was the changing political landscape. During discussions with Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups isolated by the western powers as terrorist organizations, the words that I heard most frequently were respect, dialogue and the need to solve the Israeli/Palestinian situation in order to have peace and stability in the region.

What I saw in Hamas and Hezbollah spokesmen were reasonable people who, although they remain committed to resistance to the occupation, were open and desirous of dialogue on the basis of mutual respect to solve the regions problems. They certainly did not come across to me as the fanatical terrorists that are portrayed in the west. One of the Hezbollah spokesmen that I talked to was married to an American woman who insisted that her first child be born in NYC. His daughter, therefore, is an American citizen.

Hesham Youssef, the Chief of Staff of the Arab League, talked about their efforts to bring Hamas and Hezbollah to the mainstream.

At the time that Arab politics is moving towards moderation, Israeli politics is moving sharply to the right. It appears that Likud, the hard right Israeli party, will win the February elections and Bibi Netanyahu will be asked to form a government. He is being pulled further to the right by members of his own party such as Moshe Feiglin (His manifesto is here) and other right wing parties such as Yisreal Beiteinu whose leader Avigdor Lieberman advocates expelling Israeli Arabs to the West Bank. Even Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, who portrays herself as a moderate, has advocated transferring Israeli Arabs to the Palestinian territories. (Her comments are here)

I met with Ephraim Sneh, former general and Labor party member of the Knesset, who has formed his own party, Strong Israel, which he describes as center-left. His comments left members of our group in shock.

This is not a recipe for peace and stability.

Balloon Festival

2008-12-11T10:40:00.002-07:00

Impatience on the part of commentators to put the Bush administration and its policies behind us and to get on with “change you can believe in” has led them to bemoan the long transition period between elections in early November and inauguration in late January. They have pointed out that the extended power vacuum with a lame duck President and an incoming President Elect with no power but promising changed policies is dangerous. This, they say, is particularly true in a time of global conflict and economic crisis.

The transition period is, however, an opportunity, not only to assemble the new team, but also to float policy trial balloons in order to ascertain public and government reaction. The Obama team has made good use of the transition period for this purpose. They have floated trial policy options on healthcare, climate change and the economic crisis.

This week they have launched balloons with respect to the Middle East. Obama discussed an Iran policy that included economic carrots and potential increases in sanctions. This balloon was greeted in the region with yawns and comments of “so what’s new”.

A more interesting balloon was the suggestion that the US might negotiate a formal nuclear umbrella agreement with Israel to provide deterrence against a nuclear attack on Israel. This was first mentioned by Hilary Clinton during the primary race, but in the context of a threat to “obliterate Iran”.

The idea was greeted in Israel with uniform opposition. Their rational was that this would indicate that the US accepts a nuclear armed Iran and it would not give Israel complete control over their nuclear response options. They could, however, have another problem with this suggestion. It may indicate that the US might sign on to the concept of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

The potential usefulness of this concept can be seen in the negotiations that are currently going on in the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (OPCW) The OPCW is the only arena where the US is currently engaged in direct negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One of the objections that Iran has expressed to eliminating chemical weapons is that the “chemical and nuclear weapons” of the “Zionist regime” is the “most dangerous threat to regional and international peace.” Egypt and Syria, who along with Israel are not signatories to the current Chemical Weapons Convention, have said that they cannot join until the Middle East is free of WMD.

Iran has, in the past, indicated that they are open to any US proposal for a WMD free Middle East. This scares the h___ out if Israel. Former Israeli MK Ephraim Sneh told me “no way, no way” would Israel agree to this.

Trail balloons are generally hot air balloons and float with the political winds. We will have to wait and see which way the wind blows this one.

Lessons learned

2008-12-05T13:40:00.001-07:00

It has been interesting to observe the US government reaction to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and the apparent counsel that they have given to the Indian government concerning their reaction to these attacks. The US appears to have learned some lessons from its own reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
As one considers how to react to attacks such as these there are several points worth remembering. Despite the fact that attacks like these are terrible tragedies for those killed and wounded and their families and friends, they are not existential threats to either the US or India. In terms of a threat to the existence of major powers like the US or India, they are better classified as a nuisance.
It is also important to ask not only who perpetrated the attacks, but why they did it and what did they intend to accomplish. “They hate us for our values” is not a particularly useful answer.
In the case of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qua’da was very up front about its goals and objectives; it published them on all of its web sites.
Osama bin Laden had learned some lessons from his experience as an American ally in the Afghanistan war against the USSR, the “godless Communists”. If one can lure them into an un-winnable war in Afghanistan, one can bleed them until they collapse. A major attack on the “godless Americans” would lure them into un-winnable war in Afghanistan. In the case of 9/11, he got a “two for”. He lured us into Iraq as well and came close to getting us into Iran.
Although he didn’t succeed in bleeding the US to collapse, he certainly inflicted a lot of pain, emotional, physical and economic.
In Mumbai, we seem to be asking not only who did it, but why. The answers to these questions are not yet clear, but we seem to be counseling a measured response and seem to be determined to insure that we don’t play into the hands of the terrorists.
One can only hope that the incoming Obama administration will not have to relearn these lessons in the “school of hard knocks”.

Lowering expectations

2008-12-02T11:40:00.003-07:00

One of the issues that President Elect Obama will have to deal with in the Middle East is that of high expectations. Except in Israel, the election of a black man with the middle name Hussein, with a background that included Kenya and Indonesia to the most powerful office in the world has been greeted with great happiness and high hopes for significant changes to American policy in the region. In Syria the headlines blared “Abu Hussein wins” and a countdown to the end of the Bush administration began on the front pages. In Egypt we were told by a member of the Egyptian Institute on Foreign Policy “Obama is a rock star”.
Political leaders certainly recognize that there are limitations on the ability of any President to make changes to American foreign policy. He does not operate in a vacuum. Advisors, Congress, lobbying groups and corporations will all have input. He will face many competing priorities, a crisis in the American and worldwide economies, unpopular and messy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reform of the healthcare system, etc. The Chief of Staff of the Arab League told us that “Our biggest challenge is to lower expectations.”
Obama has helped to lower expectations with some of his early appointments. The appointment of ardent Zionist Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff was greeted with uniform disappointment and comments of “more of the same”. A shepherd in the South Hebron hills on the West Bank, who lives with his extended family in tents after having been evicted several times from his land by Jewish settlers and the IDF, when asked about his expectations for change said, “Not great. He has surrounded himself with Zionist Jews”. (How he even knew that, much less its implications, was not clear to anyone.)
The news that Hilary Clinton would be Secretary of State was greeted with a rolling of eyes and shaking of heads.
Despite these disappointments, the news is not all bad. (One has to be a perpetual optimist in this region.) Although the Bush policies have been a complete disaster for the region, he has managed to leave the incoming Obama administration in a better position than he inherited from the Clinton administration. Bush inherited a 2nd Intifada and failed Israeli/Palestinian talks at Camp David and Taba whereas the Obama administration inherits ongoing Israel-Palestinian talks (albeit with no results) and a fragile cease fire in Gaza.
All is not bad on the appointments front. Hilary Clinton is a very bright person who certainly understands the failures of her husband’s policies. National Security Advisor designate General Jim Jones has been engaged as an envoy in the region and certainly understands what is happening, what is not and why.
Whether they will be willing and able to translate this knowledge into policies that better reflect US national interest is uncertain. The mantra of many in the Middle East is probably applicable. “We are hopeful, but we will have to wait and see.”

Whose side is time on?

2008-11-21T00:46:00.001-07:00

Jerusalem, Israel – I came to this part of the world with some preconceived notions about where the discussions about an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians stood. Following the Annapolis conference of a year ago, parties agreed to freeze settlements, upgrade Palestinian security capability and engage in discussions regarding a final status agreement.
In the last year Jewish settlement building has continued apace, some progress has been made on security (much more needs to be done) and discussions have been ongoing between the parties. Secretary of State Rice has been to the region eight times in the interim period and has pronounced that much progress is being made on an agreement and that she expected one before the end of the year. I had asked myself, “Does she know something that I don’t know or is she being a complete Pollyanna?” I had concluded she was a complete Pollyanna.
However, as we traveled through the region, we were told by senior political leaders in Syria, Jordan and Ramallah, including Saeb Erakat, the lead negotiator for the Palestinian authority, that “The deal is 95% done. All that remains are details and the political will to implement the deal.”
Then we talked to the technocrats responsible for the actual negotiating teams. They gave a dose of reality. Nothing is done. For the most part nothing has happened in the past year. The political leaders are making optimistic statements only to prevent complete despair from setting in.
The Israelis believe that time is on their side (which may or may not be true) and therefore are just fighting a delaying action. Time, however, is certainly not on the side of peace. Saeb Erakat said to me, “If we reach an agreement soon, Hamas is gone. If we don’t reach an agreement soon, I am gone”. How do you spell “intifada”?

Signals

2008-11-13T09:03:00.004-07:00

Amman, Jordan: One thing that is evident in this part of the world is that there are completely unrealistic expectations for an Obama presidency. Following the election, the Cairo weekly English language paper had a banner headline, “A Dream Come True”.
The US embassy personnel have told us that they are making an effort to reduce expectations. They are explaining that US policy is not made solely by the President. Many people and organizations influence the process. Lobbying groups, corporations, advisors, the State Department and others will have a say and even if a new policy is put in place it will take time to implement it.
Nevertheless, in the wake of the wave of hope for a new US policy approach in the Middle East there has been much signaling of a willingness to engage in dialogue.
On the Iranian front, President Ahmadinajad sent is congratulations to President Elect Obama. This is the first time that has happened since the Iranian revolution. The Iranian President is under domestic criticism and pressure for his bellicose rhetoric and the poor performance of the economy and a thawing of relations with the US might help him in the upcoming elections. Obama did not respond and gave the party line on Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama, but it didn’t seem to have the same passion.
For the American part a US military officer was quoted as saying “The US needs an interlocutor in Afghanistan. We need to take the views of the Iranians into account. They don’t want a radical Sunni regime in Afghanistan any more than we do.”

In our meeting with Hezbollah Foreign Affairs Director Nawef Mousawi, he responded to a suggestion that they might make a gesture that would assist President Obama in implementing a change in policy by saying “That is interesting to me. I would be open to suggestions.”
The next day this Hezbollah release appeared in the Beirut media:

Mousawi says Hezbollah is ready for dialogue with US if it is recognized and respected

Hezbollah foreign relations officer Nawaf Mousawi said the "Resistance had forced a change in the American behavior in the region."Following a meeting with a delegation from the US Council for the National Interest, headed by former ambassador Edward Peck, Mousawi said that Hezbollah looks forward to setting up relations with all people on the basis of mutual recognition and respect.On the new American policy in the region, he said, "We know that wrong policies which were adopted in the past have been reviewed.""We have shown our desire for dialogue if Hezbollah is considered a resistance movement against Israeli occupation and aggression and a Lebanese political party”. He added, “The Washington based fair minded American delegation we met with yesterday joined us in dialogue on the facts as we see them and Hezbollah is grateful for that. We welcome more dialogue and frank discussions with such Americans”.
Although it is never clear that there can be a positive outcome from dialogue, one can only hope that the US is not “tone deaf” to the signals.

Our man in Washington

2008-11-08T22:59:00.001-07:00

Beirut, Lebanon: One of the questions that I have been asking the Lebanese that I have encountered is “What is your reaction to the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States?” People tell me that the initial reaction of most Lebanese and the thousands of American ex-pats who live and work in Lebanon was one of ecstasy.
American ambassador to Lebanon Michelle Sison told us that on Election Day they had a party for the ex-pat community at which they had two jars of buttons, one for McCain and one for Obama. At the end of the night all of the Obama buttons were gone, but they had plenty of McCain buttons left over.
As time has passed, reality has set in that not much may change in US policy toward the region. They now say “We will wait and see”.
This reality was reinforced by the Obama announcement that he would appoint Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanual as his Chief of Staff. While the western media has focused on his partisan political stance, his abrasive personality and his colorful language, the media in the region has been more concerned with his background and history.
Emmanual is an ardent Zionist and supporter of AIPAC’s hard right views. He is the son on a Chicago doctor who was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist guerilla/terrorist organization who fought the British during the founding of Israel. Arab concerns were not assuaged when Dr. Emmanual said, when asked about the Jewish community’s view of Chief of Staff Emmanual, “He is our man in Washington”.
We asked General Michel Aoun, former Prime Minister and the leader of a Lebanese Christian party allied with Hezbollah, what he hoped for from the early days of an Obama administration. He said “stop aggression, stop interfering in Lebanon, and stop Israeli settlements”. He and we will have to wait and see.

The Road Ahead

2008-11-04T21:44:00.000-07:00

During my upcoming trip to the Middle East, it will be interesting to hear the reaction to Barak Obama’s election victory and his assumption of the role of President Elect. Although most Middle Easterners have favored an Obama victory, they have not held out much hope that a change in US administration will result in a serious change in policy.
Predicting the policies and actions of elected politicians is always a risky venture. Campaign rhetoric is probably the least reliable vehicle for understanding the views of a politician. A politician friend of mine once said that “Promises made in the heat of the campaign are retrievable”.
I learned this the hard way when I believed George W. Bush in 2000 when he was critical of Clinton administration efforts at nation building in the Balkans by using military force and advocated for “a more humble foreign policy”.
One way to get a feel for the policies of a President is to look at the advisors and staff people that are part of his team. Presidents cannot be experts in all of the complicated issues that they will face and therefore must surround themselves with people that they trust, listen to and weigh their advice before making a decision.
In an Obama administration, if Middle East advisors are architects of the Clinton administration policies such as Martin Indyck and Dennis Ross, the policies will likely look a lot like the failed Clinton policies. If the advisors are Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrook and Kenneth Pollack, the policies will likely look a lot like Bush administration policies. In either event, not much positive will happen.
On the other hand, if senior advisors include people like Susan Rice, an articulate young black woman, (Obama people like to say “Our Dr. Rice is smarter that their Dr. Rice”.) policies may be more even handed and moderate. Ms Rice is a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton administration and thus brings a different perspective to the issues. She is more likely to relate to the plight of the oppressed and disadvantaged.
The next few weeks will be interesting. Stay tuned.

Middle East Journey

2008-10-28T07:47:00.000-07:00

Next week my wife and I will be embarking on a political pilgrimage of the Middle East, touring Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Syria and Lebanon with former Ambassador Edward Peck and the Council for the National Interest Foundation.

Previous delegations have interviewed those involved in Middle East politics from across the entire political spectrum. Interviews are set up in every country with officials from U.S. embassies, UN representatives, respected government officials and opposition leaders. I expect our visit to the region to be no different.

For example, last year in Egypt one group interviewed the current Prime Minister Ahmed M. Nazif, Essam el-Erian, spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, as well as the Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa. The most recent delegation in May 2008, crossed from Egypt into the Gaza Strip through the Rafah Crossing. They became the first international group to enter Gaza through Egypt since May 2007, when the international boycott of the Hamas government began. While in Gaza, the delegation met with and interviewed Ismail Haniyeh, the current Prime Minister of the Hamas-led government. Every visit to Israel includes meetings with members of the Knesset and various government officials, as well as journalists.

I will be posting in this space throughout the trip with my reactions to the opinions of political leaders as well as ordinary people.

It should be interesting to be in this part of the world right after the US elections and hear the reactions of Middle Easterners to the outcome. Since the only country where this race is even close is the US, should Senator Obama hold on to his apparent lead, Americans will probably be a lot more popular than we have been in the past few years.

Disappearing from the pages of history

2008-10-15T19:59:00.001-07:00

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been regularly castigated for saying that “Israel will be wiped off the face of the map”. A better translation from the Farsi of what he said is “The Zionist regime in Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of history”.
His point was that a country that is based on religion cannot long survive. He seems to have missed the irony that he is the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He may, however, have a point.
It may not be a large problem in Iran which is 99% Shia Muslim, but Israel’s population, on the other hand, is 20% Arab, Christians and Muslims.
During my trips to the region, I have seen a growing sense of anger and frustration among the Israeli Arab population. This anger and frustration stems not only from the treatment of their Arab brothers and sisters in the West Bank and Gaza under the Israeli occupation, but also from the discrimination that they experience within Israel in housing, education and jobs. They are, in effect, second class citizens in their own country.
After years of festering just under the surface, the frustration boiled to the surface in the last week in the Israeli northern port city of Acre. Acre is a gritty lower middle class city of mixed Jews and Arabs who live together, sometimes in separate communities and sometimes next to each other.
On the eve of the Jewish holy day, Yom Kippur, during which many observant Jews do not drive, a young Arab drove through a Jewish neighborhood on his way home from work. A group of Jewish youth, incensed by this affront to their observance, attacked the Arab. When word of the attack spread to the Arab community, a riot ensued. Over the next four days and nights the violence resulted in the destruction of cars, the burning of tires and the arrest of a number of Jews and Arabs. The houses of two Arab residents were burned.
Israeli political leaders have expressed shock that such a thing could happen in Israel. While some on the far right have advocated expelling Arabs from Acre, most leaders have tried to restore coexistence. Feelings are running so high, however, that the Jewish leaders have refused to meet with their Arab neighbors.
All this misses the larger question. What is the role of Muslims and Christians in a state defined as a “Jewish state”? Unless a satisfactory answer is found to this question, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may well be right. The Jewish state may disappear from the pages of history.

Engaging Iran

2008-09-29T14:11:00.001-07:00

During last week’s Presidential debate, one of the clear differences between the candidates was their approach to Iran. Senator McCain was a forceful advocate of continuing the policy of confrontation that was the policy in place during President Bush’s first term. Senator Obama, on the other hand, advocated for a policy of engagement to help resolve the disputes between the countries.
A policy of engagement has begun to emerge during Bush’s second term as the neo-conservatives in the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney’s office have begun to lose influence. This change has manifested itself in such things as the direct participation of senior diplomat Nicholas Burns in nuclear talks with Iran and the floating of an initiative to establish a US Interest Section in Tehran.
The Interest Section is a small, but important, step as it will bring American diplomats to Iran to begin to better understand the complex dynamics of Iran and will make it easier for Iranians and Americans to get visas and encourage interaction among ordinary citizens.
This week, in an extended interview with Iranian English language paper, Iran Daily (The article is here.), Gary Sick, a member of the Security Council under President Clinton and currently Professor of International Affairs at Columbia, raised the possibility that President Bush would take advantage of the window of opportunity between the elections and the inauguration of the new president to open the Interest Section.
This time period is a “window of opportunity” for three reasons.
Number one, the elections are over (unless we are still counting ballots in Florida) and therefore campaign politics will not come into play. Doing it before the elections would give Obama a chance to say; “I told you so. Even President Bush agrees that we should engage Iran”.
Number two, Congress will most likely be out of town for the holidays. This is important because the MEK (Mujahedin e’ Khalq), the violent Iranian opposition group advocating for a hard-line policy of regime change in Iran, has the best Congressmen money can buy on their side. They would try to prevent engagement.
Number three, doing it before the new President takes office would create “facts on the ground” which would be hard for a new President to reverse even if he wanted to.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

Spinning the news

2008-09-20T18:52:00.001-07:00

This week the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency released its report on the “Implementation of NPT Safeguards in The Islamic Republic of Iran”. When I read about this report in the news media, I thought that there must have been two reports. The western and Israeli news media articles had headlines such as “IAEA Report: Iran blocks weapons probe”. (An example is here.) The Iranian media articles were headlined “Verifications on track”. (The article is here)
It turns out that they were both right. If one takes the time to read the actual report (If you want it, it is here.) the IAEA is talking about two different issues. With respect to Iranian nuclear enrichment activities the IAEA says such things as “All nuclear material at FEP (Fuel Enrichment Plant) … remain under Agency containment and surveillance” and all records “indicate that the plants have been operating as declared (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment)”. (The level needed for peaceful uses of nuclear energy.)
The issue of the “weapons probe” relates to an intelligence report supplied by the US to the IAEA which alleges that Iran has a program to modify missile warheads to accommodate nuclear warheads. Iran has said that this report is a fabrication and if the IAEA will provide them with a copy of the documentation they will be able to prove that it is false. As indicated in the IAEA report the US has refused to allow that to happen.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq the US media was criticized for taking the intelligence claims of the US government at face value and contributing to the government effort to mobilize public support for the invasion. Are we headed down the same road again?

Watch out for the elephants

2008-09-09T11:47:00.000-07:00

Since the end of the brief war between Russia and Georgia there has been a worrying escalation in confrontation between the US and Russia.
This whole mess occurred because Georgian President Mikeil Saakashvili did not understand his role in big power geopolitics. He made the mistake of believing the public rhetoric coming from Washington and thought that he was an ally of the US. He didn’t realize that Georgia was a client state of the US and he did not understand the role of a client state.
In the client - patron relationship, the patron provides political, diplomatic and economic support to the client and in return the client is supportive of the patron’s interests in the region. However, the client has the obligation not to embarrass or put the patron in a difficult position. His ill conceived and impulsive attack on the breakaway province of South Ossetia which triggered a disproportionate response by Russia certainly put the US in an embarrassing and difficult position. The US had few if any realistic options for response and the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world was exposed as a “paper tiger”.
Since the cease fire there have been a series of “tit for tat” verbal and military escalations. The escalations began following the refusal by Russia to immediately remove all of its troops from Georgia proper as agreed to under the ceasefire agreement negotiated by France. This led to an increase in belligerent rhetoric from Washington and the delivery of “humanitarian aid” to Georgia using US Navy warships. This generated belligerent rhetoric from Moscow and a threat about their ability to destroy the NATO ships in the Black Sea. Following the entry of US warships into the Black Sea, Venezuela has invited the Russian fleet to visit and Russia has said that it will send warships to the Caribbean before the end of the year.
These increasing confrontations between two nuclear armed powers with the risk of miscalculation are very dangerous. Rational leaders (if there are any) need to “cool it”. The little guys, (Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela) need to remember that when elephants start stomping around it is usually the mouse that gets squashed.

A bi-national state in Israel/Palestine

2008-09-05T10:11:00.002-07:00

One of the recent developments in the seemingly protracted and endless conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the movement of the concept of a bi-national state in Israel/Palestine from the realm of intellectuals, like the late Edward Said, and fringe groups, like The Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, to the political mainstream. Two years ago, when I first started to write about my view that facts on the ground had made the idea of a two state solution impossible, I felt the need to title the articles “A completely absurd idea”. (For more than you wanted to know about the issue, click here, here and here.)

At that time those of us proposing a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine were generally attacked as “anti-Semitic” and advocating a second Jewish Holocaust. Today the discussion is becoming a mainstream dialogue.

Leading Palestinian Authority negotiators Saeb Erekat and Ahmed Qurei have said that the PA is considering changing their negotiating position from insisting on a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital to a single democratic state for all its citizens. This was the original PLO position prior to the Oslo agreements.

An in depth article appeared this week in the NY Times (The article is here.) describing the debate going on among Palestinians about how to deal with the fact that expanding Israeli settlements, construction of bypass roads and construction of the separation barrier have made as agreement on a separate viable Palestinian state nearly impossible.

Even the Israeli media has weighed in. The chief US correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote an article entitled “One state solution? Let the debate begin” (This article is here.) The major points of debate will be “Should there be a single state?” and “What will be the nature of that state?” Unfortunately most of those commenting on this article advocated for a single state for Jews only and ethnically cleansed of Arab Palestinians. Some would say that this has already started. (See this article in The Guardian: “Ethnic cleansing by stealth”.) Human rights groups will have their work cut out for them.