Droning on won’t do
On May 21 New America held a panel discussion on violence prevention in South Somalia and possible opportunities going forward featuring Isse Abdullahi, Director of the Social-Life and Agricultural Development Organization (SADO), Pauline Muchina, Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee’s Africa region, and Brittany Brown, Chief of Staff for the International Crisis Group.
The focus was on the drivers of violence: poverty, lack of education, and weak governance. Security initiatives in Somalia can only go so far without addressing these. The speakers critiqued the Somali President, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed “Farmaajo,” for putting too much focus on security efforts and not enough on building up civil society and improving governance.
The main issue the government of Somalia faces is its lack of territorial control outside the capital, Mogadishu, and its lack of funding. Many of the militias, such as the Al-Shabaab, are better funded than the government, and thus can afford not only to sustain their operations and arm themselves, but also to pay locals to join them. Many of the locals, Muchina points out, join not out of commitment to the Al-Shabaab ideology, but rather out of poverty.
Ideology is another big issue in the fight against Al-Shabaab. Abdullahi stressed that Al-Shabaab is not only a militia movement, it is also an ideology that cannot be defeated purely through drone strikes, outside intervention, and military initiatives. He points to US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of how hard it is to defeat an ideology militarily.
Rather than using drone strikes, which both Abdullahi and Muchina say do little to defeat Al-Shabaab and even help their recruiting efforts, it would be wise to work more with local experts on the ground. They say initiatives focused youth, who make up 70% of the population, are effective in preventing violence and convincing the population to put aside rivalries and grievances and work together towards a united Somalia.
By contrast, Brown said that in her experience people on the ground in Somalia favor US airstrikes. What happens after airstrikes is especially important. Once Al-Shabaab is forced out of an area, it is of utmost importance to start rebuilding infrastructure and helping both government and civil society take root and grow.
Brown points out that the policy of drone strikes started under the Obama administration because of the lower cost and lessened risk to US personnel. Drone strikes have increased under President Trump and the strike policy has changed, allowing for longer strike durations and strikes in areas previously off-limits. In 2019 so far there have been 40 drone strikes in Somalia, close to the 45 all year in 2018 and more than the 35 in 2017. She asks why the US only has counter-terrorism missions in Africa instead of the more peaceful and cooperative missions seen elsewhere. The Executive Branch should be held more accountable.
Abdullahi recommends looking more into the effects of drone strikes and evaluating if they continue to be the best measure for fighting Al-Shabaab. He suggests looking at other options and working more with individuals on the ground. Most important is looking at the bigger picture of who is fighting whom in Somalia and who could possibly broker peace between rival factions.
Muchina agrees. She stresses the importance, and thus far unused opportunity, of using the women within the traditional Somali clan structure to help broker peace and promote talks between rival clans. Even though they are widely discriminated against, at the family level they carry a lot of influence and thus could be effective in engaging people .
The panelists agree the best way to move forward in preventing violence in Somalia is by reevaluating current foreign intervention methods and working with locals on the ground to broker peace talks. “Even if Al-Shabaab were gone tomorrow Somalia wouldn’t have peace” says Brown, highlighting the need for peacemaking efforts which go beyond just bombing militants.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pelosi and Iran
President Trump sandbagged Speak Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Schumer Wednesday. That’s when someone hits you from an unexpected direction. Trump invited the Democrats to the White House to discuss infrastructure, then stormed out in a premeditated fury to denounce her at a podium set up in advance for the purpose. He criticized Pelosi for claiming he was engaged in a “coverup” and then confirmed her claim by insisting the House couldn’t continue to investigate him and legislate at the same time.
That of course is not true. Congressional oversight does not get suspended in order to allow for legislation. Even during the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Nixon and Clinton legislation got passed and sent to them for signature. Trump, in his signature style, is denying what is evident to all: he is desperate to keep his tax returns and business affairs out of the public eye. It is hard to imagine he would go to the lengths he has if there weren’t something incriminating to hide.
We already know that in the 1990s he lost fabulous quantities of money in ill-conceived projects. We also know he paid little or no income taxes for many years. And we know that he lied about the value of his assets to banks and regulatory authorities and violated campaign finance laws by paying off mistresses. Whatever he is trying to hide, it is worse than all those things. My guess is that a) he is not as rich as he claims, b) he is a tax cheat on a grand scale, and c) he has laundered money for Russian oligarchs.
Whether any of this will make any difference to his supporters, who include virtually all Republican members of Congress and 90% of their loyal voters, is unclear. That’s why Pelosi, who only too clearly thinks Trump should be drummed out of office as soon as possible, wants to be sure before moving in that direction that it won’t hurt the Democrats’ chances in the 2020 election. The best guarantee of that would be a bipartisan impeachment proceeding, like the one against Nixon and unlike the one against Clinton. Failing Republican support for impeachment in the Senate, the election is crucial to getting Trump out of the White House.
Two Federal judges have now ordered that Trump financial records be turned over to Congressional committees. They rejected the Trump Administration’s arguments to the contrary as specious. That likely made the President even more anxious to end the Congressional investigations, which will now have red meat to pick on. Pelosi’s accusation of a “cover-up” was nowhere near provocative enough to rouse the President to the ire he demonstrated Wednesday.
Sandbagging is a cardinal sin in Washington. I remember when Pelosi excoriated former Secretary of State Baker and former Congressman Hamilton during a meeting to discuss the Iraq Study Group, which had been funded outside “regular order” and therefore without her knowledge. They were in no way responsible–the group had been funded many months before in a last-minute budget maneuver by former Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf. But she felt sandbagged and let them know it in no uncertain terms.
Trump is depending on being able to escalate the conflict with Pelosi more than she can. That is doubtful. Yesterday he said she is “a mess” and doesn’t know what she is doing. She suggested his staff and family mount “an intervention.” Today Trump tweeted a fake video of Pelosi slurring words. She will not respond in kind but will have a few choice words. She may not favor impeachment proceedings yet, but she is not going to back down on pursuing oversight that the Democrats think will prove even to Republicans that this president is a fraudster flim-flam man.
What does all this have to do with foreign policy? I hope nothing, but the temptation of a president under siege domestically to lash out against foreign adversaries is well-documented. Trump is no doubt looking for whatever will rally at least his base behind him and chase the Congressional investigations from the front pages. He has alread revved up an investigation of the court-authorized surveillance of some of his campaign workers and is charging Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange with espionage, a move intended to inhibit all media from publishing leaked material.
War with Iran could also help Trump protect himself . He has been more hat than cattle when it comes to military action, but even a small military incident could serve his current purposes well. There are certainly enough hot heads in Iran to provide Trump with just what he needs.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The last error
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, thinks out loud:
- Though nuclear proliferation is a paramount global threat, super powers fail to demonstrate sufficient competence in responding.
- World expectations based on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear weapons states will preserve global peace in accordance with their responsibilities are plainly becoming wishful thinking.
- The authority and competence of the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been downgraded by its founders and historical proponents, the nuclear weapons states.
- Denuclearization of North Korea is going nowhere. The pendulum-like rhetoric on both sides, Washington and Pyongyang, combined with the risk of miscalculation or a military error, enlarges the dangerous vicious cycle.
- Washington might seriously consider the mitigation of Pyongyang’s fears for its security, as Beijing suggests, rather than playing the military threat card. This was after all the prevailing approach in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal
- US withdrawal from JCPOA (2018) and Iran’s recent announcement of partial withdrawal from it lead to new risky situations. Tomorrow, no one should be surprised.
- At the same time, US National Security Strategy (2017) and the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (2018) both stated that American nuclear capability will be strengthened and its nuclear arsenal modernized. Reason given: deterrence of Russia.
- On a precisely equivalent level are President Putin’s repeated statements (2018-2019): Russia needs to maintain its super power status through advanced nuclear capabilities.
- The rest of the “legal” nuclear club – China, the UK, and France – follow suit. Why not? – they might ask.
- In parallel, the de facto non-NPT nuclear weapons states, India, Pakistan, most probably Israel and now North Korea, keep developing their nuclear arsenals and ballistic capabilities.
- Moreover, more nuclear candidates, are getting ready for their geopolitical nuclear race.
- Unfortunately, nuclear issues are complex, making a sound solution of nuclear crises difficult even for strong, authoritarian, and ambitious world leaders.
- Nuclear armaments are not a financial or political game. They are the leading global threat to human civilization.
- It is time to getting serious. The speed of developments makes derailing of constraints on nuclear weapons control likely. That would be the last human error.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks May 20-24
1. #CyberspaceIRL: Rule of Law Approaches to Virtual Threats|Tuesday, May 21st|9am-5:30pm|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here
A $600 billion black market, cybercrime has transformed the digital world into a sophisticated platform to steal and profit from personal data, undermine civil rights, manipulate elections, disseminate anti-democratic propaganda, and steal intelligence. Yet, cyberspaces remain largely unregulated. This lack of governance is a major challenge and concern for legal practitioners, human rights champions, and policymakers. To properly address the complex world of cybercrimes, these key players must work together to prioritize targeted strategies encompassing cross-jurisdictional cooperation, both locally and globally.
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace as we co-host the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s 2019 Annual Conference. Bringing together representatives from academia, national security, and the private and public sectors, this conference will identify rule of law strategies to more effectively address this ever-changing landscape.
#CyberspaceIRL will assess whether current approaches are sufficient in addressing the complexity of issues such as money laundering, trafficking, election security, and internet freedom, and identify the breadth of actors who must be part of devising and implementing effective strategies and solutions.
Agenda:
8:30am – 9:00am – Registration (coffee/pastries)
9:00 – 9:15 – Welcome and Introductions
David Yang, Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation, U.S. Institute of Peace
Alberto Mora, Director, American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative
Judge Margaret McKeown, Board Chair, American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative
9:20am – 9:50am – Keynote: “Setting the Stage for the Clash of Norms in Cyberspace”
Sujit Raman, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
10:00am – 11:15am – Breakout Sessions
Legal Frameworks and Regional Initiatives
Rob Leventhal, moderator, Deputy Office Director, Office of Anticrime Programs, U.S. Department of State
Manuel de Almeida Pereira, Senior Legal Officer, Programme Manager, Council of Europe
Kenn Kern, Chief Information Officer, Special Assistant, International Relations, New York County District Attorney’s Office
Election Security and the Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions
Jonas Claes, moderator, Preventing Election Violence Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
Katherine Ellena, Legal Advisor, International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Harvey Rishikof, Visiting Professor, Temple Law, former senior policy advisor to the director of national counterintelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Saleela Salahuddin, Cybersecurity Policy Lead, Facebook
11:25am – 12:15pm – Plenary: The Tipping Point: When is Cyber Incitement Responsible for Violence? (the case of Burma/Myanmar)
Lata Nott, moderator, Executive Director of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum
Molly Land, Associate Director of the University of Connecticut’s Human Rights Institute and Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law
Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, Finance and Economics Expert Panel of Experts Established pursuant to UNSCR 1874
Richard Ashby Wilson, Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology, University of Connecticut School of Law
12:15pm – 1:00pm – Lunch
1:00pm – 2:15pm – Breakout Sessions
Cybercrime Enforcement: Deterring State and Non-State Actors through Criminal Prosecutions
Steven M. Kelly, moderator, Chief of Cyber Policy of the Cyber Division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Luke Dembosky, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton
Michael J. Stawasz, Deputy Chief for Computer Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
Sean Newell, Deputy Chief for Cyber, U.S. Department of Justice, Counterintelligence and Export Control Section
William Lyne, Liaison Officer, National Crime Agency, British Embassy to the United States
When Bitcoin Goes Bad: How Virtual Currencies Challenge the Rule of Law
Adam Zarazinski, moderator, CEO, Inca Digital Securities
Elisabeth Poteat, Attorney, Department of Justice, National Security Division
Michael Sachs, Chief, Investigative Division, New York County District Attorney’s Office
Yaya J. Fanusie, Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
2:30pm – 3:45pm – Breakout Sessions
Internet Freedom: Protecting the Good Guys while Catching the Bad Guys
Heather West, moderator, Senior Policy Manager at Mozilla
Andrea Little Limbago, Chief Social Scientist of Virtru
Bill Marczak, Research Fellow at Citizen Lab, and a Postdoctoral Researcher at UC Berkeley
Robyn Greene, Privacy Policy Manager, Facebook
Trafficking in the Digital Age
Jessie Tannenbaum, moderator, Legal Advisor, Research, Evaluation, and Learning Division, ABA ROLI
Danielle Kessler, Senior Policy and Outreach Manager, International Fund for Animal Welfare
Evan Ratliff, Journalist and author of The Mastermind: Drugs, Empire, Murder, Betrayal
Robert E. Bornstein, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Division, Branch 1 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office
3:45pm – 4:30pm – Closing Keynote Session: “Shaping the Future of the Cyber Landscape”
Glenn S. Gerstell, General Counsel, National Security Agency
Judge James E. Baker, ROLI Board & Syracuse University
4:30pm – 5:30pm – Reception
2. Visegrad Countries in the Transatlantic Alliance – Common Security, Shared Challenges|Tuesday, May 21st|10:30pm-12:00pm|Heritage Foundation|Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002| Register Here
The event cohosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Antall József Knowledge Center in Budapest, Hungary, will explore the diplomatic, economic, military and political importance of the V4. A special focus of the event will be relations between the Visegrád and the United States, how the region can one day develop into an anchor of U.S. engagement in Europe and continue contributing to robust transatlantic cooperation.
Panel:
Dušan Fischer, Project Manager, Air Force and Counter-Air Defense Projects Unit, Modernization Department, Ministry of Defence, Slovak Republic
Dominik P. Jankowski, Political Advisor & Head of the Political Section at the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Poland to NATO
Hynek Kmoníček, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to the United States
László Szabó, Ambassador of Hungary to the United States
Moderated by:
Péter Stepper, Research Fellow, Editor, Antall József Knowledge Center
Hosted by:
James Carafano, Ph.D., Vice President and E.W. Richardson Fellow, Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
Veronika Antall-Horváth, Deputy Director Antall József Knowledge Center
3. Violence Prevention in Southern Somalia|Tuesday, May 21st| 1pm-2:30pm|New America|740 15thSt NW #900, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
New America’s International Security Program and Peace Direct invite you to join them for a lunchtime panel discussion on violence prevention in southern Somalia. In March 2019, the capital city of Mogadishu saw seven terrorist attacks by Al-Shabaab in a single week. That, coupled with a recent uptick in counterterrorism ground, air, and drone strikes by the United States in cooperation with the government of Somalia, has called into question what it will take to establish peace in the southern part of the country.Peace Direct’s partner organization in Somalia, Social-Life and Agricultural Development Organization(SADO), has been working in the region for over two decades, looking at sustainable, people and community-centered development.
Topics that will be covered during the session include:
- What are the current obstacles and opportunities for peace in Somalia?
- Perspectives and recommendations from local peacebuilders on advancing peace in Somalia.
- What does practical violence prevention work in Somalia look like?
- What is the role of women in violence prevention?
- What is the role of U.S. policy in Somalia and what are recommendations for improving U.S. engagement?
Introductory Remarks:
Bridget Moix, U.S. Senior Representative and Head of Advocacy, Peace Direct
Panelists:
Isse Abdullahi, Director, Social-Life and Agricultural Development Organization (SADO)
Pauline Muchina, Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee’s Africa region
Moderator:
Melissa Salyk-Virk, Policy Analyst, New America’s International Security Program
4. Is the Venezuela Crisis Becoming a Proxy Conflict?|Tuesday, May 21st|3:30pm-5pm|Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Ave NW|Register Here
Join Carnegie and the Inter-American Dialogue for a timely conversation about the geopolitical implications of the Venezuela crisis. Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly criticized Cuban, Russian, and Chinese backing for the Maduro regime, but they are struggling to change the situation on the ground. What is the strategic calculus propelling outside powers’ involvement in Venezuela? What risks does deeper foreign intervention in the crisis pose for the fate of the Venezuelan opposition led by interim President Juan Guaidó and the region as a whole?
Speakers:
Rebecca Bill Chavez, nonresident senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs
Alexander Gabuev, senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center
Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue
Francisco Toro, founder of Caracas Chronicles and opinion columnist for the Washington Post
5. Europe after the European Election|Wednesday, May 22nd|1pm-2:30pm|American Enterprise Institute|Auditorium, 1789 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
While populism continues to be a dominant factor shaping Europe’s politics, the simplistic overuse of the label often obfuscates Europe’s actual political dynamics. Rather than populism, what makes the 2019 European election so significant is the degree of political fragmentation that will likely characterize the results. In all likelihood, power will continue to shift away from the once-dominant political families on the center right and the center left. How will that affect the composition of the future European Commission? Will it make the EU more difficult to govern? And why should Americans care?
Join Amb. Santiago Cabanas, Ben Judah, and Yascha Mounk— alongside AEI’s Dalibor Rohac and Stan Veuger— as they discuss Europe’s challenges and the way forward.
Agenda:
12:45 PM
Registration
1:00 PM
Welcome:
Dalibor Rohac, AEI
1:05 PM
Panel discussion
Panelists:
Santiago Cabanas, Ambassador of Spain
Ben Judah, Hudson Institute
Yascha Mounk, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Dalibor Rohac, AEI
Moderator:
Stan Veuger, AEI
2:10 PM
Q&A
2:30 PM
Adjournment
6. Managing Forced Displacement in Africa: How Collective Efforts Can More Effectively Address the Surge of Refugees and Displaced Persons|Thursday, May 23rd|9am-11am|United States Institute for Peace|2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here
Africa hosts more than one-third of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). This growing phenomenon impacts not only those fleeing conflict, but also the host communities and countries who now face complex logistical and humanitarian challenges. A comprehensive response to this problem must seek to address root causes, thereby preventing further displacement, and also find durable solutions for the many millions already displaced.
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace, the African Ambassadors Group, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for a discussion on forced displacement in Africa. The panel conversation will highlight African policy responses to displacement at the national, regional, and continental level, discuss current and anticipated challenges, and brainstorm innovative approaches. Follow the conversation with #AfricaDayUSIP.
Light refreshments will be provided.
Speakers:
H.E. Soorooj Phokeer, opening and closing remarks, Ambassador of the Republic of Mauritius
Carol Thompson O’Connell, opening remarks, Acting Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State
Ger Duany, Regional Goodwill Ambassador for the East and Horn of Africa, UNHCR
H.E. Wilson Mutagaywa Kajumula Masilingi , Ambassador of the United Republic of Tanzania
H.E Mull Ssebujja Katende, Ambassador of the Republic of Uganda
Nancy Lindborg, moderator, President, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. Powering the US-Japan Alliance| Thursday, May 23rd|11:30-1pm|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, and the Global Energy Center for a discussion of how energy dependence on the Middle East is shaping Japan’s quest for energy security, prospects for US-Japan strategic cooperation, and the future of energy security in Asia.
Japan’s newest strategic energy plan promises to address domestic structural energy issues in the context of broader shifts in global energy trends. If successful, the new strategy will deliver significant improvements in efficiency, emissions, cost, and self-sufficiency by 2030, and again by 2050. At the same time, Japan, like much of Asia, continues to depend heavily on the Middle East for hydrocarbon imports. How is energy dependence on the Middle East shaping Asian geopolitics and strategic prospects for the US-Japan alliance? How feasible are Japan’s efforts to reduce its dependence on energy imports, and what does it mean for Japan’s relationships with the Middle East? How are infrastructure projects under China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy re-shaping energy geopolitics between both regions? Ultimately, what can the US-Japan alliance do to ensure energy security in a rapidly changing Indo-Pacific?
Lunch will be provided.
Featuring:
Prof. Koichiro Tanaka, Keio University and President of the Japanese Institute of Middle Eastern Economies
Ms. Jane Nakano, Senior Fellow Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Mikkal E. Herberg, Senior Advisor National Bureau of Asian Research
Dr. Miyeon Oh, Director and Senior Fellow of the Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
8. Negotiating with China during Peacetime, Crisis and Conflict|Thursday, May 23rd|2:30pm-4pm|American Enterprise Institute|Auditorium, 1789 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
While there is no shortage of discussion about how war between the US and China could break out, few have asked how such a war might end. During crisis or conflict, how can we draw China to the negotiating table? How has China historically ended its wars, and how might this inform how the US approaches China diplomatically in peacetime, crisis, and war?
In her new book, “The Costs of Conversation: Obstacles to Peace Talks in Wartime” (Cornell University Press, 2019), Oriana Skylar Mastro asks: How can we get from fighting to talking? Join Dr. Mastro, Susan Thornton and Tom as they discuss US diplomacy with China in an era of great-power competition.
Agenda:
2:15 PM
Registration
2:30 PM
Welcome and summary of the book:
Oriana Skylar Mastro, AEI
2:45 PM
Panel discussion
Participants:
Thomas J. Christensen, Columbia University
Susan A. Thornton, Yale University
Moderator:
Oriana Skylar Mastro, AEI
3:30 PM
Q&A
4:00 PM
Adjournment
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What most American Jews think
I received this note from J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami yesterday. It may be important to note that American Jews on the whole favor Democrats and support a two-state solution as well as the Iran nuclear deal.
Since our founding over ten years ago, J Street has battled to overturn the false “conventional wisdom” that American voters want their leaders to take a conservative, right-leaning approach to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This old school playbook argued that candidates for president should not in any way criticize Israeli government policies, sympathize with the legitimate needs of Palestinians alongside those of Israel or talk about the need to end the occupation.
For years, our election day polling of Jewish voters has demonstrated that this way of thinking is completely out of touch with the reality in our community.
Now a new, first-of-its-kind nationwide poll that we’ve commissioned of likely Democratic primary voters across the country shows that the outdated conventional wisdom doesn’t apply to them either.
While there’s been a great deal of media hype about a major Democratic division on Israel, our poll demonstrates that there is actually a clear consensus among the large majority in support of pro-Israel, pro-peace positions and a proactive, even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here are some of the key takeaways:
- Democratic voters are supportive of Israel — but not its current leadership; and these two positions aren’t mutually exclusive. While Israel had a strong +25 percent favorability rating, Prime Minister Netanyahu is underwater at -27 percent. An overwhelming 81 percent believe that “someone can be critical of Israeli government policies and still be pro-Israel.”
- They reject the false dichotomy between “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian.” In addition to their positive views of Israel, voters are mostly favorable towards Palestinians as well (+13 percent). The vast majority (75 percent) said they would be most likely to vote for a candidate who supported both Israelis and Palestinians, rather than one who sided exclusively with either.
- Voters want the US to act as a fair and impartial broker to achieve peace — and push both sides to make compromises and stop harmful actions. 74 percent said they want the US to act as a fair and impartial broker for peace negotiations. 61 percent said they were less likely to support a candidate who believes that the US “must stand behind all of [PM] Netanyahu’s policies.”
- The Iran deal remains very popular. While the Trump administration continues to dangerously increase the prospects for a new war of choice, 72 percent of Democratic voters support the US re-entering the JCPOA nuclear agreement.
- Most voters have never even heard of BDS — but they oppose legislation designed to penalize BDS supporters. While the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has received a ton of media attention, only 36 percent of voters have even heard of it, and only 12 percent support. Voters are also clearly against heavy-handed attempts to pass legislation that punishes BDS supporters and infringes on free speech rights — 54 percent oppose, while just 22 percent support.
…These results are invaluable for J Street as we work to shape our national foreign policy conversation for the better and permanently bring an end to the old, outdated playbook.
We’re sending a message to 2020 hopefuls: Pro-Israel, pro-peace, diplomacy-first positions are very popular politically. Democratic voters want to see their next president embrace constructive, diplomatic solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear threat.
If candidates can make clear that they respect the legitimate rights and needs of both Israelis and Palestinians, that they support Israel but not Netanyahu and that they won’t give a free pass to destructive actions by leaders on either side, they can unite their party behind them and help chart a bold and effective new course for American leadership in the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
“Maximum pressure”
Mohammed Ataie published this interview with me in the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA):
- Today, President Rouhani declared that the remaining signatories to the nuclear agreement–the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia –had 60 days to implement their promises to protect Iran’s oil and banking sectors from US sanctions. How do you see Rouhani’s carful statement which reiterated Tehran’s continued commitment to the JCPOA and NPT?
A: Rouhani is trying hard to avoid taking the blame for the collapse of the JCPOA and to project an image of reasonableness, in particular to Europe, Russia, and China.
2. President Rouhani said that if the Europeans fail to compensate for the unilateral American sanctions, in 60 days Iran will end the limits on the enrichment of uranium. Do you think that within this period the European signatories to the nuclear agreement would take practical steps to counter Trump administration’s unilateral sanctions?
A: I doubt there is much the Europeans can do. Their companies are not willing to buck the US sanctions, because there is so much more business for them to do in the US than in Iran.
3. The European Union has vowed to counter Trump’s renewed sanctions on Iran, including by means of a new law to shield European companies from punitive measures. Do you think that France, Germany and Britain have done enough in the past 12 months to save the agreement?
A: They’ve done what they can, but more slowly than required. It is virtually impossible to shield the European companies from punitive US measures if those companies want to do business with and in the US.Reuters has quoted French officials that the EU would impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran announces actions concerning the JCPOA.
4. How do you see this French position in the context of the EU powers’ inaction to protect Iran’s economic interests against the US unilateral sanctions?
A: The French are warning that Tehran could drive the Europeans back into the arms of the US. Iran is trying to signal moderation in its response to the sanctions, while insisting on getting the benefits promised in the deal. It is not an easy road to go down, not least because of criticism from those inside Iran who would be happy to restart the nuclear program.
5. President Trump claims that the JCPOA is not able to prevent Iran from developing a military nuclear program. Do you think that his maximum pressure policy would prevent Iran from developing a military nuclear program?
A: The maximum pressure policy is far more likely to give Iran incentives to restart the nuclear program and proceed as rapidly as possible to acquire all the technology needed for building nuclear weapons. Of course the sanctions limit the availability of financial resources to Tehran, but top priority programs will always get the resources they need. The result will be further weakening of the Iranian economy, but little impact on the nuclear and missile programs or Iran’s interventions in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Those programs will get priority, not least because the sanctions strengthen the political position of hardliners in Tehran.
I would add that the Trump Administration is begging for talks with Iran. So far, Tehran is signalling that it is unwilling unless and until the US rejoins the JCPOA. I don’t really see that happening, as Trump has boxed himself in, but some kind of secret communication is possible, and perhaps even likely.
RSS - Posts
