This Week in Iran

This week’s opening of the U.N. General Assembly was not its normal boring gabfest, but a fascinating and fast moving diplomatic event. The presence of newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who arrived with a clear agenda to move the ball forward in normalizing Iranian relations with the West, made for fascinating diplomatic drama which culminated in President Obama’s phone conversation with Rouhani.

Not only were Rouhani’s diplomatic and political skills on display, but they were accompanied by a sophisticated, adept and agile Iranian public relations campaign. (Who’d have thunk it?) The blizzard of tweets, press releases and op-ed pieces orchestrated by the Iranians was amazing to watch. Gary Sick, an Iran expert with Columbia University commented, “They’re putting stuff out faster than the naysayers can keep up. They dominate the airwaves”. Even the vaunted Israeli “hasbara” public relations machine has been caught flat footed. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has come off sounding like a grumpy old warmonger. The neo-con, and normally bellicose pundits, such as Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Charles Krauthammer have struggled to find their voice.

Even the main stream media has struggled with how to react. The most egregious example came from NBC’s Brian Williams who stated, “This is all part of a new leadership effort by Iran - suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons; what they want is talks and transparency and good will. And while that would be enough to define a whole new era, skepticism is high and there's a good reason for it." This statement that this is “sudden” is patently untrue. What is seen as sudden by Williams has been the Iranian position for over a decade. When President Khatami proposed a “grand bargain” in 2003, he faced the George W. Bush administration who, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker told me, “didn’t think that it was real”. When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed something similar, Obama was faced with an Iranian President whose bellicose rhetoric on Israel and the Holocaust were too politically toxic to deal with.

Now, however, we have the happy convergence of leaders whose default position is diplomacy, increasingly shared interests and a rapidly changing political environment in the Middle East. The two predominant naysayers, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have about worn out their welcome with Obama. Israel by torpedoing every effort to resolve the Palestinian situation and Saudi Arabia by underwriting al Qaeda affiliated groups throughout the region.

The Western media has portrayed Iranian ability to make the necessary concessions as the biggest obstacle. In fact, the ability of the U.S. to deal with sanctions relief is a much bigger obstacle. Iran is not going to agree to any deal that does not, at least in some measure, provide for sanctions relief. The Iran sanctions are written into U. S, law. While the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 gives the President some limited waiver authority, the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 has no such provision. Given the fact that Congressional Republicans are in no mood to give Obama a political and diplomatic victory and the spectacle of zero concern for the country’s best interests that we are now witnessing, any action is unlikely. We may, once again, miss a golden opportunity to resolve this problem peacefully. The first rule of U.S./Iranian relations, “Never walk through an open door. Instead beat your head against the wall” still applies.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Iran,Iran Nuclear Program

Droning On: Obama’s Targeting Killing Justification

Last month, President Obama delivered a major speech at the National Defense University in which he addressed the U.S. policy on drone attacks. (The full text is here.) The tactic of targeted assassinations of individuals suspected of threatening the U.S. originated during the George W. Bush administration. This tactic has been dramatically expanded under the Obama administration and has become the primary tactic utilized in the “War on Terror”. Not only has the frequency of drone strikes increased, but the geography has also expanded from the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan to include non-war zones, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The potential target list has also expanded to include American citizens suspected of posing a threat.

In describing the source of this threat, Mr. Obama offered the “conflict of civilizations” argument saying, “Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause.” In making this argument, he neglected to mention the U.S. invasions of Muslim lands, overall U.S. Middle East policy and previous targeted killings which tend to create more enemies than they eliminate. (Before the targeted killings began in Yemen there were estimated to be less than 100 al Qaeda sympathizers; today the estimate is over 1200)

In his justification for his use of targeted assassinations Mr. Obama said, “…we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.” and “…despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed.”

These arguments, while nuanced and carefully framed, are arguments that could easily been made by Vladimir Putin when he was accused of orchestrating the assassination of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 in London or by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet after the car bomb assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. in 1976. Letelier’s American assistant, Ronnie Moffit, was simply “collateral damage”.

Right now the U.S. has a technological advantage in the production of drones, but this is unlikely to last long. Legitimizing a policy of extrajudicial execution of suspected threats in non-war zones is setting a precedent for other governments who might not be as inclined to take the precautions that Obama has outlined. As Georgetown University Professor of International Law, Rosa Brooks, pointed out in her testimony before Congress, “…the United States is effectively handing China, Russia, and every other repressive state a playbook for how to foment instability and -literally -- get away with murder."

The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Drones

After the Election:What Now?

After months of campaign wrangling, the presidential election is now behind us and we are left with the question: What will US Middle East policy look like going forward? Since the election campaign was largely devoid of any discussion or debate on policy options, pundits are left to speculate based on a combination of hope, realities and educated guesses. Some things are clear. The major winner from the election outcome was Nate Silver, the NY Times statistics blogger, (See here) who got the results exactly right. (Close, but never in doubt.) The major loser was Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who bet big time on the wrong horse. On everything else we can only speculate and wait and see what will happen. In general, not much is likely to change.

The Syrian civil war drags on with the death toll on all sides rising with each passing day. Obama has little choice but to support the rebels rhetorically and with some modest aid, while relying on the wealthy Gulf States to do the heavy lifting of arming the rebels. There is no mood in the US to get entangled in another Middle East ground conflict. Iran and its allies will continue to support the Assad regime. Any negotiated settlement would require engagement with Iran. This would acknowledge Iran’s role as a regional player and is an anathema to Washington’s foreign policy wizards. The biggest losers will be the Syrian people.

The so called “Arab Awakening” will likely continue on its own path with the US having little influence on the outcomes. The road to functioning democracies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will be bumpy with an ending that is not likely to be friendly to US ambitions for regional control. There is not much that the US can do to influence the ending except to continue to support them and hope for the best. Hopefully, Congress will not mess it up.

As the “Arab Awakening” spreads to authoritarian US allies in the Gulf region and Jordan, the US will face some uncomfortable choices. With US bases in place and the US requiring Arab support for its anti-Iran policies, the policy has been to offer soft encouragement for reform, but no direct regime criticism. As the regimes crack down more aggressively on dissidents, (See here and here) this policy may become more untenable. Again, I expect that the US will continue current policies and hope for the best.

In Israel/Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost all credibility with the Obama administration. His antics have left him on the outside looking in. However, I believe that Obama has realized that a “two state solution” is no longer possible. Given Israeli intransigence and control of Congress, and Palestinian divisions, there is not much that he can do to change the situation. Again, he will continue to be disengaged and hope for the best.

Iran probably offers the best opportunity for improvement. The Iranians have signaled their willingness to compromise by softening their rhetoric, transferring some of their 20% enriched uranium to civilian uses and offering to suspend enrichment to higher levels. (See here) If the US responds in-kind, the upcoming talks may bear some fruit. The Iranians, however, will not move without some reduction in sanctions. Given that Congress controls the sanctions regime, Obama will have little ability to negotiate in good faith on sanctions. Promising to consider reducing sanctions at some time in the future will not cut it.

All of this ignoring the problems and hoping for the best, reminds me of the Bill Clinton administration when President Clinton told a State Department official that he was not particularly interested in foreign policy issues because none of his voters were interested. The response was “Sometimes, Mr. President, foreign policy issues find you.” Usually at the most inopportune time.

 

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Election,Obama

I Quit

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

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

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

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

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

Obama in Cairo

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

The Iranian Conundrum

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

Netanyahu and Obama

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

From Neo-conservatism to Neo-liberalism

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

Balloon Festival

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.