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

A Deadly Friendship

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

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

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

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

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

The bill is due

During my recent trip to Amman, Jordan, I had the privilege of being able to meet with children of Iraqi refugees who were attending the Episcopal Diocese of the Middle East Bishop’s School. These children were able to attend this fine school because of scholarship support provided by the diocese and other interested patrons. These bright eyed youngsters answered questions and sat politely as a bunch of old people chatted on in a language that they did not understand. (I am not sure that my grandchildren would have done as well.) They put a human face on the Iraqi refugee crisis that is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to the developed world.
The flow of refugees out of Iraq has its roots in the First Gulf War when Iraqi Christians, previously protected by Saddaam Hussein began to be seen as agents of the US and were forced by persecution to flee. Since then nearly 2 million refugees have fled Iraq for Syria and Jordan, two of the poorest countries in the region, in order to escape the violence. Exact numbers are hard to determine as the refugees do not have legal status in either country and cannot legally hold jobs and therefore are reluctant to make their presence known.
Initially the new arrivals were what Jordanians call “Mercedes Refugees”. These were wealthy businessmen and former Baathists who drove up the price of real estate by buying large houses in new developments in West Amman. The surge in refugees following the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Sammara and the resulting outbreak of civil war included the middle and lower classes. These people are now running out of money since they are unable to support themselves. They have no viable options. They can’t go back to Iraq because of the violence; they can’t remain in Jordan because they have no way to support themselves and they can’t go else ware because, with some exceptions, no one will accept them.
The most vulnerable are those who have worked with the US occupation force and with international NGO’s. The US has promised to admit 12000 of these people this year, but to date has admitted only 1700. One small city in Norway has admitted more Iraqis than the entire US. If the rest of the US had resettled as many Iraqis per capita as my small state of Idaho, the US would have met its goal.
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, NY Times columnist Tom Friedman reminded his readers that the “china shop rule” applies; “if you break, you own it”. The US broke it. Now the bill is due and we are delinquent in our payment.

Making Lemonade from Lemons

Three years ago during a visit to Al Adiseyah, a small rural village in northern Jordan, the leader of the local social welfare committee described the problem that the area citrus farmers were having in obtaining a good price for their lemon harvest. Working with a Jordan based NGO we have attempted to assist the farmers in resolving the issues. In the process we have had several false starts because we forgot one of the lessons that we should have learned from observing economic development in Central America. The Americans would come into these countries and say you have these problems and we can come and solve them for you. The Communists, on the other hand, would come and sit in the coffee shops and say “you people shouldn’t be living like this.”A better solution was when advisors would try to motivate the local people to identify their problems and take action to solve them. Once we engaged with the local community and not just the leaders we were able to find a solution that works for them. Twelve young single women have formed a group to produce concentrate for lemonade from the lemons that can not be sold at a reasonable price in the fresh market. The young women are able to increase their family’s income by about 10%, but beyond that they feel empowered and as one said “we are not just sitting at home waiting for a husband”. In this part of the world there are many cultural barriers to full participation by women in much of community life. These barriers have the effect of marginalizing half of the brain power of the population and they place these countries at an economic disadvantage. It was amazing to see the change in the dynamic within the group once the men left the room. As an American man I was able to be an honorary woman and observe this change. These young women have been encouraged to speak up for what they want and to try to achieve it. By doing this we may have created some problems for their fathers, brothers and future husbands. We in the west tend to define a “better life” in economic terms and we are surprised that in other cultures a “better life” may be defined in other ways. We all define a “better life” and success in our own way and in our own terms. For me success in this project will be when we can call these women and ask them to come and work in a bazaar or farmer’s market to sell their product and they can say yes and come without having to ask permission from their father, brothers or husband.