Can the U.S. Deal With a Middle East Earthquake?

Over the last month the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has been jolted and fractured by the earthquake of the EU3+3 nuclear agreement with Iran and the numerous aftershocks that have followed. The players who are wedded to the status quo are struggling to navigate this new landscape. Western and regional diplomats have been jetting around the region in an effort to figure out how to deal with the changes. This turmoil within traditional alliances has come at an inconvenient time for the Obama administration as it struggles to implement its announced pivot or rebalancing to the Pacific. As National Security Advisor Susan Rice told the NY Times in October, “We can’t just be consumed 24/7 by one region, important as it is.”

Ever since Richard Nixon was forced to “pivot to the Pacific” by the Vietnam War, the U.S. has, at various times, relied on strong regional allies to protect its interests around the globe. Initially in the Middle East, the allies were Iran and Saudi Arabia. Following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the U.S. relied on Israel, Saudi Arabia and at times Egypt. Under George W. Bush this “twin pillars” strategy was abandoned for a policy of direct unilateral intervention to protect U.S. interests. Now, just when Obama would like to again rely on regional allies, the whole alliance structure is shifting and breaking down.

The Egyptian Revolution has taken Egypt completely out of the picture. Saudi Arabia’s divided and dysfunctional foreign policy team has been sorely tested by its desire to maintain relations with the U.S. while at the same time supporting sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Its vehement anti-Iran position and its leadership within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are being challenged by Iran’s diplomatic blitz. Iran was invited to the Manama Dialogue, a security conference in Bahrain, a Saudi client state. Ignoring Saudi objections, the GCC has responded positively to Iranian overtures to improve relations among Persian Gulf littoral states. GCC member Oman, a valuable U.S. intermediary with Iran, has rejected unequivocally a Saudi effort to unite the GCC as a single entity under Saudi leadership. Lebanon has rebuffed Saudi suggestions that the Lebanese Army turn its guns on Iran’s ally Hezbollah. The possibility of Iran dramatically increasing its oil production threatens the Saudi role as the swing producer in OPEC. Faced with the declining power of a key ally, the U.S. has relied on its default response of selling the Saudis billions of dollars of high tech weaponry.

America’s other pillar in the region, Israel, has its own struggles. The death of anti-apartheid hero, Nelson Mandala, came at a particularly bad time for Israel as it focused attention on Israel’s treatment of its non-Jewish population and resulted in growing international criticism Even the vaunted lobbying power of AIPAC is being called into question by its failure to prevent the Geneva Nuclear Agreement with Iran and, thus far, its inability to torpedo the Geneva agreement with new Congressional sanctions. As Obama’s threat to veto new Iran sanctions shows, Israel’s intransigence with respect to settlements seems to be wearing out its welcome at the White House. While the frustration with Israeli political pressure hasn’t reached the level of George Bush ’41 when his Secretary of State James Baker infamously said “F**k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway”, the frustration is certainly increasing. With a second term President, who isn’t facing an election, Israel has a problem.

While Saudi Arabia and Israel are discussing an alliance to counter Iranian influence, it appears to be a marriage of convenience. As the U.S. attempts to back away from direct commitments in Syria and Afghanistan, it will leave a power vacuum. It is not clear who will be able to fill this vacuum. Russia and China have ambitions in the region, but they have neither the will nor the way fill the U.S. role. As Beirut based Alistair Crooke said his recent post on Conflicts Forum, “Winding-down the US commitment in the region does not mean that all the area’s problems will be solved, but it does imply that the US will no longer be expected to resolve them all. “

Technorati Tags: AIPAC,Iran Nuclear Program,Middle East,Saydi Arabia,U.S. Foreign Policy

The State of Play in Syria

Since the diplomatic agreement, orchestrated by Russia, to destroy the Syrian chemical stockpiles has moved forward, the bloody civil war in Syria has receded from the front pages of western media. Despite this lack of media coverage, the war and the killing have proceeded apace. With the hysteria surrounding chemical weapons gone, now might be a good time to examine the state of affairs in this unfortunate country.

Observers on the ground in Syria are reporting a dramatic change in the capability of the Syrian armed forces. When Hezbollah and the Iranian al Quds forces arrived on the scene a year or so ago, they were appalled at the state of the Syrian Army. They found a Syrian Army that was poorly led, undisciplined and more designed to repress the ordinary Syrian citizens than to fight an organized, well-armed rebel force. Today the army is well led and motivated and has made significant progress toward recovering territory lost to the rebels in the early days of the rebellion.

While some of their supply lines from Jordan and Lebanon have been cut by the Syrian Army, the rebel armies are being resupplied through Turkey with arms, ammunition and reinforcements by Saudi Arabia and its western allies. The reinforcements consist of Sunni jihadists recruited around the globe including in the U.S. and the U.K. Many of these militants have been trained in Jordanian training camps financed by Saudi Arabia. The fact that there have been mergers and alliances between opposition groups reflects, not unity, but division into competing camps with some of them allied with al Qaeda. The al Qaeda connection, combined with the fact that some of the fighters are British and American citizens with the ability to travel to and from their native countries. is worrisome to policy makers.

With this worry in mind, international politics is moving more in the direction of the Assad regime. Western powers are beginning to see Assad as the lesser of two evils. European countries are exploring the possibility of reopening ties to the Syrian government. Since Russia saved President Obama from himself by negotiating a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons issue and taken military action off the table, the U.S. has gone from a policy of “regime change” to “no policy”. The U.S. appears to have outsourced its Syrian policy to Russia. Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Putin are taking the lead in the thankless job of resolving the Syrian mess.

With territory moving back forth between the rebel forces and the Syrian Army, Damascus being relatively normal, except for the occasional terrorist attack and the divisions within the rebel groups, the situation appears to be in stalemate. Civil wars generally end in one of three ways. One side wins and the war is over. There is a negotiated agreement to allow power or territory sharing. The war goes on until everybody is tired of the bloodshed and the fighting stops. With the outside interventions, the possibility of one side winning appears remote. With the divisions within the rebel forces the idea of a successful peace conference is unlikely. The killing will probably go one for a long time, until both sides are exhausted.

Technorati Tags: Syria,Middle East

America East of Suez

Last week President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, unveiled, what the media is calling “a more modest strategy for the Mideast”. (See here) Ms. Rice said that the administration would focus its efforts on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. The strategy also acknowledged that there are limits to what the U.S. can accomplish in nurturing democracy in the region. While I might argue with some of the specifics, the new strategy appears to be an effort to rectify some of the problems that have plagued U.S. policy in the Middle East for decades.

As U.S. involvement in the Middle East has deepened since the end of WW II, U.S. efforts to project power in the region have clashed with the desire of Middle Easterners for self-determination and political independence. The U.S. has also failed to identify its vital national interests and to focus its policies and power on addressing those interests. This lack of focus has led to policies and objectives that are not only conflicting, but in many cases mutually exclusive. These policy disconnects have led to a failure to accomplish foreign policy objectives. Those it has accomplished have been more in spite of rather than because of the policies.

My definition of a “vital national interest” is one that deals with an existential threat to the U.S. and one for which the U.S. is willing to spill its blood and to spend its treasure in order to accomplish its objectives. By this definition, the U.S. has no vital national interest in events in the Middle East. Since WW II access to the energy resources of the Middle East at a reasonable price has been a vital national interest. With the advent of “fracking” and shale, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a net energy exporter and this has fundamentally changed energy geopolitics. U.S. interests are now more associated with non-proliferation of WMD and controlling and defeating the Sunni jihadist threat. While U.S. blind support for Israel will remain a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it attempts to deal with Middle Easterners, the larger Israel/Palestinian conflict, with the death of the two state solution, has morphed into an internal Israeli problem. The Israelis themselves will have to decide what kind of a country they want to be.

The Obama administration seems to have realized that, in order to successfully deal with the jihadist and WMD issues, they will need to deal with Iran. Iranian cooperation is crucial for the attainment of U.S. policy objectives. Success in dealing with Iran will require taking into account Iran’s requirement for sovereignty over its energy policy and autonomy in designing and implementing its foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has become marginalized on the energy issue and on the jihadist issue. It is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Saudi realization that the U.S. may be looking after its own national interest rather than following the lead of the most undemocratic regimes in the region has led to what only can be described as a “temper tantrum”. Turning down a seat on the UN Security Council (See here) to send a message to the U.S. may be the ultimate tantrum.

The U.S. may be experiencing its own “East of Suez” moment as it accepts that it has diminished influence in the global arena. (See here) This transition will be difficult for Americans to accept, particularly the empire-building neo-cons, but at the end of the day both America and the Middle East may be better for it.

 

Technorati Tags: Iran,U.S. Foreign Policy,Iran Nuclear Program,Middle East

The Landscape Changes Again

The rise of the Arab Awakening which began with so much promise and its subsequent decent into chaos has drastically changed the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and North Africa. Libya and Tunisia are mired in political turmoil. Egypt is tittering on the brink of civil conflict. Syria is deeply engaged in a full scale civil war with no end in sight. Yemen’s civil unrest is not yet a civil war, but with its separationist history, civil conflict is certainly possible. Iraq is experiencing as much sectarian violence as during the dark days of the “surge”. Lebanon is threatened by collapse as outside forces play out their geopolitical goals. Only Hezbollah’s balancing efforts and refusal to play the sectarian card, are keeping Lebanon stable. Jordan is trying desperately to avoid spillover from its unstable neighbors.

In all these countries that experienced transition from decades long authoritarian rule to some form of democracy, neither the leaders nor the international community realized that the people didn’t necessarily want democracy. What they wanted was a better life and to be treated better by their government. None of the leaders that succeeded the authoritarian rules, whether they were Islamist or secular, had any vision about how to move their countries ahead.

The result of all this is that the region has become a playground for jihadists who hold an al Qaeda like worldview. Trained in Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi tradition, they have arrived from around the world, including Europe and the U.S., in order to fight for their vision of an Islamic caliphate. While the bulk of the Arab world does not want to be ruled by jihadists and other hardline Islamists, the hardliners are slowly gaining the upper hand. Their success in the region as well as the threat that they pose when they bring their worldview and fighting skills back to their countries of origin, makes these Sunni jihadists the biggest national security threat to the U.S. and other western countries.

This threat has drastically changed the geopolitical calculus in the region. The biggest threat to Israel is no longer attack by its Arab neighbors, who have bigger problems of their own and have largely lost interest in the Palestinian issue. The Palestinian issue is now an internal Israeli problem. Having established their rule over all of historical Palestine, they now have the problem of how to deal with a minority population ruling over the majority, in many cases brutally. History has shown that this is not a recipe for stability.

As the Sunni jihadists have become the major security threat, Saudi Arabia’s support and funding of these characters has made Saudi Arabia part of the problem and not part of the solution. Can the U.S. maintain its close relationship with Saudi Arabia while trying to deal with the mounting jihadist treat?

The Sunni jihadist threat also has implications for U.S. and western relations with Iran. Iran, a predominately Shia country, has the same concerns about the Sunni jihadists as do the western countries. This makes Iran a natural ally in combating this threat. Combine this fact with the charm offensive initiated by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and we may have an opening for rapprochement between Iran and the west. Israel and Saudi Arabia would not be happy, but occasionally western countries have acted in their own national interest. Openings have been there before and have been rebuffed. This time may be different.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Middle East

Questions and Answers on Syria

 

When the Obama administration began its march toward war with Syria last month, there were numerous questions that were begging for answers. During the weeks of debate, posturing and political maneuvering that have followed, some answers have become more clear and some remain obscured. The initial question for me was what is the evidence that the chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus was perpetrated by the Assad government? Secretary of State John Kerry has tried to make the case that the links to Assad are undeniable, but no evidence has been produced to substantiate this claim. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the carefully worded unclassified Intelligence Estimate often cited in support of the war, which seems more designed to obscure the facts than to elucidate them. (See here) We are being asked to accept the administration’s judgment on faith. After the Iraq fiasco, this is hard for me. Acceptance is especially difficult since administration officials have told media outlets that the evidence is not a “slam dunk”. (See here)

A second question is what are the strategic outcomes that the administration intends to achieve? This question has had many answers depending on who is answering, when and to whom they are speaking. The answers cover a broad ground; limited strikes to punish the regime, targeted strikes to degrade the regime’s capabilities, strikes intended to shift the military balance and bring the parties to the negotiating table, regime change, send a message to Iran, weaken Iran and Hezbollah in order to protect Israel, uphold U.S. credibility (whatever that means) and prevent a political defeat for Obama. The list grows longer by the day. It is, therefore, not surprising that, in a rare moment of candor, when asked by Senator Bob Corker about the administration’s strategic objectives, Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey replied “I can’t answer that question”.

The answer to the question, how has the U.S. prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of war with Syria, is even less clear. These consequences are numerous. Al Akbar reports, “Informed insiders have confirmed that Syria and Hezbollah plan to retaliate against Israel in the event of an American-led military attack on Syria. Says one, ‘If even one US missile hits Syria, we will take this battle to Israel’.” (See here) If the attacks turn the tide of the civil war will Iran intervene to aid Assad? If the rebels carry the day and begin a raft of revenge killings, how will the U.S respond? Russia has moved warships to the eastern Mediterranean. How will they respond? U.S. intelligence has claimed that, in the event of an attack, Iran has instructed its allies in Iraq and Lebanon to strike at U.S. targets. If the Assad regime loses control of chemical and biological weapons to the al Qaeda linked rebels, how will the U.S. respond? There is no mood in Russia, China or Iran to give the U.S. an easy win. It is instructive of the administration position, that, again in a rare moment of candor, Secretary of State John Kerry responding to a question about the usefulness of a ban on the use of ground troops in the Senate war resolution, said "I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country”.

As former British intelligence officer Alistair Crooke points out in his always insightful commentary, “The precise consequences from lobbing cruise missiles can never be foreseen, and although always, before the event, such interventions are assumed to be quick and painless, it seldom turns out that way in practice”.

Photo by White House

Technorati Tags: Syria,Obama,Middle East

The Death of Sykes-Picot

Following WW I (the “war to end all wars”) British Diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and his French counterpart François Georges-Picot negotiated the now infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was intended to divide up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into British and French spheres of influence. The resulting hodgepodge of artificial entities controlled by London and Paris was a recipe for conflict from the start. The borders and installed governments largely ignored tribal, ethnic, sectarian and geographic realities in establishing the entities. As David Fromkin points out in his seminal book “A Peace to End All Peace”, “It (the agreement) showed that Sir Mark Sykes and his colleagues had adopted policies for the Middle East without first considering whether, in existing conditions, they could feasibly be implemented…and suggested the extent to which the British government did not know what it was getting into when it decided to supersede the Ottoman Empire in Asia…” Now, after almost 100 years of ongoing turmoil, we are witnessing the violent collapse of the ill-conceived political structure in the region.

Of the entities that remained after Sykes – Picot, only Egypt and Iran had any semblance of the characteristics of a nation-state. While Iran is home to numerous ethnic groups, it is united by its overwhelming Shia Muslim character. As the recent Iranian election of Hassan Rowhani with high voter turnout demonstrates, Iran’s system of integrating Islamic governance and participatory politics continues to have the support of most Iranians living in the country. Iran is emerging as a more confident and cohesive state. Egypt on the other hand is falling apart before our eyes.

The overthrow of the democratically elected, Muslim Brotherhood led government by the Egyptian military and its co-conspirators in the Egyptian deep state seems to herald the end of the brief Egyptian experiment with democracy. As a result the Muslim Brotherhood’s mode of coming to power by nonviolently, incrementally invading the centers of governance has been discredited. The al Qaeda “idea” of creating an atmosphere of strife and civil disorder as a vehicle for allowing local Islamic groups to come to power through the collapse of the nation-state has gained more credibility. As western democracies tire of the ongoing strife, the resulting “emirates” will be able to throw off the remnants of western hegemony. Al Qaeda can now plausibly say “I told you so”.

The Syrian civil war is likely to result in the breakup of the Syrian state which will spill over into Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. The ethnic Kurds whose nation-state aspirations were ignored by Sykes – Picot will probably reassert themselves in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and possibly Iran. The autocratic Gulf Monarchies of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia and their partner in Jordan are torn between the need to support their Sunni “takfiri” co-religionists among the Syrian rebels with the possibility of jihadist blowback among their own dissidents and their hatred for Shia Iran. They seem to have decided to double down in Syria while repressing dissent at home.

Whatever the final outcome, it seems certain that the Sykes-Picot construct, which never evolved into a social contract between governments and governed, is doomed to collapse. U.S. policy makers have no good options and little influence. Intervention will likely make a bad situation worse. It won’t be pretty.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt,Syria

Egypt’s Political Collapse

Following the ouster of Egypt’s democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi by the Egyptian Army and the arrest of many Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders and the shuttering of pro-MB media outlets, the Obama administration has struggled to decide how to react to the fast moving events on the ground. Obama’s advisors differ on whether to support the democratically elected government or to back the Egyptian military that has a history of being supportive of U.S. policies in the Middle East. The end result has been a series of bland statements calling for peaceful resolution.

In its effort to formulate a coherent policy, the administration has had no shortage of free advice. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an opinion piece (See here) in which he supported the military’s action essentially arguing that a military coup is justified if it overthrows a government that he doesn’t like.
I received an email from an Egyptian friend who supported the military’s action saying:
“Please explain to all your families and friends and deliver to the media that the Egyptian army is protecting the will of the Egyptians to get rid of the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, 33 million Egyptians went out in the streets, our army is protecting us Morsy is calling for a civil war, we are asking for an early presidential elections to stop the deterioration of our country and economy. This man and his group are traitors”.
Others have argued that the removal of a democratically elected Islamist government by the military echoes events in Algeria which led to a bloody civil war. (See here and here) The message to political Islam is that you cannot trust democracy. You won’t be allowed to win. The message from the Arab Awakening was that al Qaeda was wrong; an Islamic government can be established through a democratic process. After Egypt, al Qaeda will say, “I told you so.”
I come down on the side that the road to political change in a democracy is through the ballot box and not through confrontation in the street. Sometimes in a democracy, the guy you don’t like wins. Get over it. Change it in the next election. As an Arab friend once said to me, “We can forgive you for electing George W. Bush the first time. Everybody makes mistakes. But the second time, what were you thinking?”
Following today’s massacre of over 40 MB supporters by security forces and the defense of it by Egypt’s so called “liberals”, it is hard to see how this can end happily for Egypt. The choices are stark. Either the military has to cave in and restore Morsi to power (an unlikely event) or the MB has to quietly go away. (Also an unlikely event) Even quick elections that are free, fair and open are unlikely to heal the huge political divisions in Egypt The MB would probably win free and fair elections as the opposition is a fractious coalition of Salafists, liberals, and remnants of the Mubarak regime that is already falling apart and probably would not survive the political process. We are then back to square one. This is a sad time for Egypt and its people.
Photo by Getty Images

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Muslim Brotherhood

Is there a Syrian Strategy?

Last week, after much debate and hand ringing, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. would begin to directly arm the Syrian rebel forces. The announcement was made in such a manner that it obscured more that clarified U.S. policy with respect to this bloody two year conflict. It remains vague what sort of weapons will be supplied, who will receive them, how they will be supplied and what is the expected outcome of this step. It appears that the announcement is mostly a political move by the administration to counter the barrage of criticism that it has received from friend and foe for failing to be more aggressive in supporting the rebels. The announcement focused exclusively on tactics and did nothing to clarify U.S. strategy.

The Assad regime and its supporters, however, appear to have a clear strategy. It is evident that Hezbollah and Iran see the collapse of the Assad government and its replacement by an unfriendly government dominated by radical Sunni fundamentalists as an existential threat. Iran relies on Hezbollah to provide a deterrent force to prevent an Israeli attack and Hezbollah relies on a continuing flow of arms from Iran through Syria to enable them to prevent an Israeli attack on Lebanon. They, therefore, appear committed to doing everything possible to prevent the fall of Assad. Iran is providing arms and advisors and Hezbollah is providing leadership and well trained and effective urban fighters. Their strategy is to recapture critical roads, junctions and population centers in order to prevent the flow of arms and fighters to the rebel armies. In this they have been quite successful.

In the face of this progress by the Assad forces, it unclear how the U.S. arms policy can have much effect. The fundamentalist Gulf monarchies, led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have been supplying arms and fighters for months with little to show for it. Assad and his allies have succeeded in cutting supply routes from Jordan and Lebanon. The only remaining route is through Turkey and Turkey is facing own political upheaval and the AKP government’s support for the rebels is increasing unpopular as the fighting spills over into Turkish territory. The rebel’s efforts have been reduced to conducting terrorist attacks in Syrian cities.

If this modest step by Obama has little or no effect, the pressure will increase to “do more”. If the strategy is to overthrow Assad, success will require increasing military intervention, which will risk entering a quagmire or a potential confrontation with Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Russia. If the strategy is to bleed Iran and Hezbollah until they are too weak to resist the U.S./Israel, we need to be prepared for more stories of bloodshed and refugees over a long period of time. If we are looking for a negotiated settlement, we will need to include Iran in the negotiations and be prepared for a settlement that leaves a government acceptable to Iran in power. Whatever the strategy, the American people deserve to know what it is and the consequences of that choice.

Photo by ibtimes.co.uk

Technorati Tags: Syria Civil War,U.S. Foreign Policy,Middle East

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

Gaza: Winners and Losers

As of today the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, negotiated by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, appears to be holding. (The only violation has been the killing of a Gazan farmer by an Israeli soldier. Hamas reaction was relatively muted. They seem to want to give peace a chance.) As in any armed conflict, it is difficult to say that anybody won when almost 200 people were killed on both sides. That said, it is possible to point out some winners and losers.
Winners:
Hamas: In any conflict such as this in which the power equation is so unbalanced, the weaker side wins by not losing and the stronger side loses by not winning. Hamas in Gaza was able to absorb over 1500 airstrikes and live to fight another day. Hamas’ popularity, both in Gaza and the West Bank has soared. Their strategic objectives of stopping the bombing raids, stopping the targeted killings and easing the blockade of Gaza have been agreed to in the cease fire agreement. It remains to be seen whether or not Israel will implement the agreement. If not, we may be back in the same mess a few weeks from now. Hamas’ political capital in the region has also been enhanced by statements of support and by numerous visits by ranking Arab officials.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi: Morsi’s key role in brokering the ceasefire agreement has raised his personal status and as well as that of Egypt.
Iran: Iran’s game changing supply of longer range weapons and missile technology to Hamas has helped to cement this relationship. In addition, Iran had a chance to watch the much vaunted Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system in action and to better assess its strengths and weaknesses. In the event of an Iran-Israel conflict, this information will certainly be helpful to the Iranian military.
Losers:
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu: The last thing that Netanyahu needed two months before an election was to have his arm twisted into agreeing to a ceasefire agreement that is enormously unpopular with the Israeli population. A snap poll conducted shortly after the cease fire was announced showed that 70% of the respondents disagreed with the decision to sign the cease fire agreement and supported a ground war in Gaza.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: The U.S. supported Abbas was completely sidelined during whole process. His standing among Palestinians, already low has plummeted.
To be determined:
President Obama and Hilary Clinton: While this is based on speculation on my part, it is hard for me to imagine that Netanyahu would have agreed to this ceasefire without some serious pressure from the U.S. Obama’s adroit handling of the relationship with Morsi and Clinton’s persuasion of Netanyahu (I would love to know what she said.) may bode well for U.S. relationships in the Middle East. Time will tell.

Technorati Tags: Gaza Conflict,Middle East

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

Wave of Change II

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

Freezing a Conflict in August

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

Shifting Sands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is anything happening

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


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



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



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



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



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

Whither the wall

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

A changing Middle East landscape

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

Engaging Iran II

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

Where is Dennis Ross?

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