Tag: Bahrain
Security trumps democracy in the Middle East
Prime Minister Netanyahu is proceeding with his takeover of Israel’s judiciary branch. This is despite objections from massive protests as well as the US government. The State Department has nevertheless announced that US security assistance to Israel will continue. It is “ironclad.”
No surprise
This should surprise no one. The only real leverage the US has is security cooperation. But President Biden, like his predecessors, has deemed it vital to the US, not only to Israel. If you believe that, you don’t want to use it as leverage. Besides, how long would it take for domestic politics to overcome a decision to interrupt security cooperation with Israel?
Israel faces no immediate threat from its Arab neighbors. The Iranian threat is real, but that is another reason the Americans won’t want to interrupt security cooperation. It would significantly relieve pressure on Tehran. The rhythm of US-Israel cooperation for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities accelerated noticeably last year. The US wants to maintain military pressure on Iran, not relieve it.
Consequences
What the Americans don’t do has consequences. Netanyahu’s coup against the judiciary is going to make it easier for his right-wing ultra-nationalist coalition partners to pursue their goals. They seek permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem. With the Supreme Court now limited in when it can intervene, legislation that de facto accomplishes that end is not only possible but likely. That will deal the death blow to the already moribund two-state solution.
The Palestinian Authority may cry foul but will remain quiescent. Palestinians will not. Israel is already facing an armed rebellion on the West Bank, where this year more than 160 Palestinians have been killed. It could face attacks from Gaza and perhaps Lebanon, but none of that will change the strategic picture. Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be relegated to third class non-citizenship in a one state reality. Palestinians inside Israel proper already are relegated to second class citizenship.
The Saudi reaction
Netanyahu hopes the Saudis will ignore the Palestinian reality and make their peace with Israel, as the Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco have already done. He could be right. Mohammed bin Salman may tell the world that the Palestinians are the central issue for the Arab world, but four years ago he told American Jewish leaders that the Palestinians need to take what they can get and make their peace with Israel.
This is where the US does have some cards, but it is unlikely to play them. Netanyahu, hoping for an agreement with Saudi Arabia, is pressuring Washington to give MbS what he wants: a civilian nuclear deal and a security guarantee. Biden understandably hesitates about both. US law requires the Administration to get an agreement that its civilian nuclear technology would not be used for enrichment or reprocessing. That the Saudis aren’t likely to accept. Congress would be unlikely to approve a security guarantee. In any event, the Saudis won’t be anxious to give a rabidly nationalist Netanyahu government the satisfaction of a peace agreement. So that seems a bridge too far under current circumstances.
Security suffices
I was asked on Al Hurra last night whether security was a sufficient basis for US relations with Israel. The answer is yes. It has been the basis for American relations with other Middle Eastern countries for decades. Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Turkey know they have to listen to American lectures on democracy and human rights. But they also know those values will not interfere with security cooperation.
Where the Israeli departure from democracy will have a real impact is on American Jews, who are devotees of individual rights. A poll recently found “about three-quarters of Americans, including 80% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, would choose a democratic Israel that’s no longer Jewish, over a Jewish Israel without full citizenship and equality for non-Jews living under its authority.” But that won’t matter, because Christian evangelical support for Israel will more than compensate for any loss among America’s Jewish population. Security trumps democracy in the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Biden Middle East doctrine full of holes
Brett McGurk, the senior White House Middle East official, last month set out a “Biden doctrine” for the region. It is based on partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, integration, and values. Best you read it yourself. It is blessedly short and clear.
Jonathan Lord, formerly Iraq director at the Defense Department and now at the Center for New American Security, has taken Brett to task for ignoring both Syria and Iraq, where the US still has a few thousand troops doing counter-terrorism work. In fact, McGurk never mentions terrorism, the threat on which he worked for many years.
What else isn’t mentioned
Those are glaring omissions, but not the only ones. As Lord notes, McGurk says little about economic issues. He omits oil entirely, though he mentions freedom of navigation. It is hard to imagine the US would be concerned with the Middle East if there were no oil there. He fails to note the growing geopolitical competition in the region with Russia and China. Brett ignores the more than 18,000 deployed US troops in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
He forgets the Palestinians entirely, as well as the Kurds, with whom the US is allied in Syria. There is not a word about the disastrous state of Lebanon and Hizbollah’s role there, though he boasts about Beirut’s maritime boundary agreement with Israel. He ignores the plight of women in much of the region.
McGurk also fails to note the contradictions among his five principles. He acknowledges the main tension between values and partnerships with autocrats. But he ignores the current and growing tensions on human rights issues with Israel, as well as the more traditional ones with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. What do the five principles tell us to do about the UAE and possibly Saudi Arabia reestablishing diplomatic relations with Syria? There are also problems reconciling diplomacy and deterrence. The US has essentially abandoned the former for the latter when it comes to Iran. And there are obstacles to integration arising from human rights, like the Saudi refusal to recognize Israel without real progress on creating a Palestinian state.
Iran, Iran, Iran
Brett is clever. I imagine he would reply to this critique that it is about time we had a Middle East policy focused on partnerships rather than oil, the Palestinians, or competition with Russia and China. He might also claim that it is obvious US troops are in the Middle East for deterrence purposes, against both terrorism and Iran. He would be correct to say that any discussion of economic and social issues requires more time and space than this short presentation allowed.
But there is no excuse for many of the other omissions. They reflect prioritization, not ignorance. Brett knows the the current Israeli government is a threat to its already ethnically-limited democracy. He knows Iraq is drifting away from the US, Syria is a drug-exporting nightmare, and Lebanon is in a downward spiral. The Biden Administration has simply decided to ignore these developments and focus on whatever will help the US confront Iran. That is the real purpose of four of the five principles: partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, and integration. Values play a distinctly secondary role.
If that’s what it’s about, say so
Iran’s role in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and with Hizbollah more than justifies priority treatment. Moreover Tehran’s increasingly successful nuclear program could ignite an arms race in the region. Turkey’s President Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have explicitly stated they will not stand idly by if Iran gets nuclear weapons. That could put the US in an awkward situation, as it would increase the need for security guarantees and make criticism of human rights behavior impossible.
If it’s all about Iran, say so. Don’t hide it behind five nice principles. Then we can debate whether you’ve got the priorities right.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
US withdrawal makes everyone in the Middle East recalibrate
I have long believed the US is overcommitted in the Middle East, given its declining interests in the region, and needed to draw down. I confess I did not anticipate how clumsily we would manage to do it. I also did not fully anticipate how others would react. The American withdrawal has set off a cascade of efforts at improving relations both within the region and with external powers, mainly China and Russia. Not all the improvements are in the US interest, but several are interesting.
First example: the Abrahamic accords. The Saudis, Emiratis, and Bahrainis have understood for some time that the American commitment to their autocracies was weakening. The failure of Washington to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil infrastructure in 2019 confirmed that perception. They needed to think about replacing Washington’s security guarantees, which in any event were aimed at external enemies, while the main threat is in these three countries increasingly internal. They have turned to Israel for the technology required to guarantee that their monarchies remain stable.
But, you may object, Saudi Arabia hasn’t yet recognized Israel, as the UAE and Bahrain have. On that, I only have anecdata, but it is compelling. Sitting in a business class lounge in Riyadh some 2+years ago, I found myself surrounded by 40-something males speaking Hebrew. They carried an unusual number of hard-sided cases. When I asked the Israeli next to me why I was hearing so much Hebrew in Riyadh, he smiled coldly and said: “If I told you, I would have to kill you.” I concluded they were techies carrying lots of electronics after providing assistance to Saudi internal intelligence agencies. I suspect Israel’s improving relations with Egypt have a lot to do with internal security as well, inaddition to President Sissi’s attitude toward the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
Second I would cite the response to Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter plane in 2015. It initially caused tension in the bilateral relationship, but Turkey had a problem: the US and NATO were not backing Ankara up and instead the Americans were beginning to ally with Kurds, whom President Erdogan regards as terrorists and mortal enemies. Soon Ankara was apologizing, relations between Ankara and Moscow were improving and Turkey was participating in the Russian-sponsored Astana process for ceasefire/surrenders of the Syrian opposition to the Assad regime. Russian and Turkish troops have even patrolled together in both Idlib and northern Syria, though the relationship remains parlous.
Third are the tentative efforts by Saudi Arabia and Iran to come to some sort of modus vivendi. This has included high-level meetings in Baghdad as well as trips to Tehran and Riyadh. The Saudis and Iranians have no territorial dispute and many symmetrical interests, including not allowing an adversary to rile their respective Shia and Sunni minorities and maintaining their theologically-based and increasingly nationalist autocracies. A mutual stand-down from bilateral tensions could benefit both.
Fourth is the at least partial resolution of a conflict internal to the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Saudis and Emiratis have essentially given up on their latest effort to bring Qatar to heel. Doha weathered the embargo and other sanctions better than the Kingdom and the Emirates anticipated, with assistance from Turkey, Iran, and the US, which wasn’t (yet) interested in abandoning its largest base in the region, Al Udeid. There was no point in continuing a fruitless campaign whose only real impact was to weaken the Gulf Arabs.
Fifth example: OPEC+. After a price war in 2020, the Saudis and Russians found common cause in maintaining higher oil prices, which are essential to both their national budgets. Riyadh and Moscow would prefer prices around $100/barrel, but they can’t push much above $70 or so because that would bring on unconventional sources in the US and elsewhere, especially in a low-interest-rate environment. So they are more or less content to leave prices where they have lingered for much of the epidemic, hoping that stronger growth later will bump up both interest rates and oil prices.
There are other examples: rapprochement between Turkey and the UAE, the UAE push for reconciliation with Syria, and Turkey’s sometime courting of Iran. The point is that US withdrawal is causing everyone to recalibrate and look for alternatives to American support that seems increasingly unlikely. I might like recalibration to push Israel into a more positive attitude toward Palestine, but that seems a bridge too far. Still, US withdrawal is getting the Middle East pregnant with possibilities.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
I hope we’ve learned unilateral withdrawal is a bad idea
Judging from my inbox, a lot of people around the world are thinking the US withdrawal from Afghanistan could be prelude to withdrawal elsewhere. I think the opposite is true. The Afghanistan debacle will make it difficult to discuss withdrawal almost anywhere for at least two and likely three years.
President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan completely, thus fulfilling (four months late) the terms of President Trump’s agreement with the Taliban, has strong support across the political spectrum in Washington. But the way it was done was shambolic. Biden failed to ensure either a negotiated “decent interval” from the Taliban or a commitment of the Afghan security forces to defend the country’s government. There appears to have been no serious transition plan. The Americans literally withdrew from Bagram air base, the biggest in Afghanistan, in the dark of night, without consulting or informing the local Afghan commander.
It may well be that this was done to prevent panic, as President Biden has implied. But that was an ill-considered plan. Did anyone really think things would go more smoothly without Afghan cooperation?
The “Saigon in Kabul” scenes will inoculate the Administration against any further withdrawals, at least until a second Biden term. There will of course be force adjustments for operational reasons, some of them potentially major, like getting the American aircraft out of Al Udeid in Qatar. They are exposed to Iranian missiles and will need to be moved if there are going to be hostilities, or even the threat of hostilities, with Tehran. I wouldn’t mind seeing fewer US troops committed in autocracies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, but those would need to be carefully considered and well-executed. We may not like their style of governance, but replacements could be worse. I would expect no major drawdowns in places like Iraq, Kosovo, Cuba (Guantanamo), Japan, South Korea, or Europe, unless they are negotiated and agreed with the local authorities.
The only major US commitment under discussion in Washington these days is to Taiwan. China is growing in military strength. Taiwanese, watching Hong Kong and Xinjiang, are less interested in reunification and increasingly interested in independence. It is no longer as clear as it once was that the US has both the means and the will to defend against a Chinese attack, even if it is eminently clear the Taiwanese would make a takeover difficult for Beijing. But there are no deployed American ground forces in Taiwan, so no question of withdrawal. I assume the US Navy will continue to make its presence felt in Western Pacific and seek to improve its posture in defending the first island chain.
It has been clear for two decades that the US does not want to be the world’s policeman, patroling worldwide. I doubt Americans even want to serve as the world’s fireman, reacting to conflagrations as a first responder. The arguments for retrenchment are strong. But the consequences of withdrawal, especially when unilateral, can be catastrophic. I hope we’ve learned that much.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Arms trafficking: more breach than observance
An event at the Atlantic Council on February 4 discussed the measures and mitigation techniques for illicit transfer of arms and weaponry around the world. The event was prompted by a report published by the Atlantic Council, authored by investigative journalist Tim Michetti, which followed materiel procurement by a network of militants operating in Bahrain, specifically activities carried out by Iran. The report can be read here. The prompting questions for the discussion were based on how to prevent and disrupt the flow of international illicit weapons flows as well as strengthening arms embargos. Further topics of discussion analyzed specific examples of illicit transfers of weapons in different regions, as well as the policy implications and a road map to alleviate these weapon flows.
Speakers:
Time Michetti: Investigative Researcher on Illicit Weapon Transfers
Rachel Stohl: Vice President for Conventional Defense, Stimson Center
Jay Bahadur: Investigator, Author and Former Coordinator of the UN Panel of Experts on Somalia
David Mortlock: Nonresident Fellow, Global Energy Center
Norman Roule (Moderator): Former National Intelligence Manager for Iran, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Challenges:
Moderator Norman Roule opened the discussion noting that the major concern revolves around Iran’s transfer of illegal weaponry throughout the Middle East, while also noting the consequences for regional geopolitical relations, reaching East Africa as well. Iran has provided weapons to Syria, which provoked a sort of “forever war” with Israel, as well as provided precision weapons and missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Tim Michetti’s report on Illicit Iranian Weapon’s Transfers analyzes the mode of entry, either by land or by maritime means. The report analyzed the weapons in comparison to those that were taken from regional conflicts in order to trace the materiel back to Iran. This work established a guide for how materiel from different regions could be traced back to actors based on their characteristics, which are unique to each country that they are manufactured in. Michetti’s report on Bahrain is one of many examples of the illicit weapons flows in the Middle East and sets the stage for future investigations on how the linkages between illicit weapons and where they end up can be made.
Jay Bahadur discussed an illicit weapons seizure by the Saudi Arabian navy in the Arabian Sea in June 2020 that discovered Chinese- made assault rifles and missiles, along with other weaponry that was believed to be manufactured in Iran. This seizure was not the first of this type, as the Saudis have intercepted multiple ships in the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea since 2015, many of which have been traced back to Iran, where the weapons originated. These weapon transfers have exacerbated the conflict in Yemen, while also potentially destabilizing East African countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea.
Historically, disrupting commercial trafficking of small arms and light weapons has been a secondary priority to counterterrorism, but according to Jay Bahadur this approach ignores the overlap that often exists between arms trafficking and terrorism.
International Regulation
According to Rachel Stohl, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Firearms Protocol form the international legal framework for weapons transfers. Several voluntary groups and committees exist as well, in the United Nations and elsewhere. Synergy among these groups and treaties can improve transparency and responsibility in the global arms trade. The treaty mechanisms are only meaningful if they are implemented and signatories held accountable. In the Middle East and Horn of Africa, fewer than than 20 percent of countries are parties to the international treaties. Stohl emphasized the need to hold countries and industry actors accountable, as the consequences of illicit weapons transfers coincide with other illicit activities such as terrorism, trafficking, and illegal trading of goods.
David Mortlock noted that the international systems in place to combat illicit weapons transfers depend on member-state governments to uphold them. Sanctions should be considered to hold governments accountable. They can increase the operational costs for groups transferring weapons illicitly, but the UN and European Union have not wanted to sanction Iran to the extent the United States has. As noted by Roule, the United States, particularly the Trump Administration, had a vastly different perspective on countering Iran compared to the rest of the international community.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A warm welcome to the no swagger Secretary of State!
Newly confirmed Secretary of State Blinken appeared at a press briefing today. The difference was dramatic. Secretary’s Pompeo bragged about his “swagger.” Blinken isn’t bragging and there was no swagger, just a deliberate and careful (though not over-cautious) effort to re-assert American competence and leadership. Blinken is not going to please those who won’t settle for less than hyperbolic denunciation of the Chinese Communist Party and over-the-top admiration for Russian President Putin, but he doesn’t mince words. He was unequivocal in denouncing Beijing’s genocide of Uighurs and Moscow’s effort to murder Alexei Navalny.
He was also anxious to allay the concerns of allies and friends, most of whom have found the Trump Administration little short of a disaster. Biden and Blinken see friendly foreigners as force multipliers, not burdens. They aren’t going engage in the Europe-baiting and South Korea-slamming that Trump’s people enjoyed. There will be differences with friends and allies, but this Administration will try to handle them calmly and professionally, not provocatively and counterproductively.
That will be true for individuals and issues as well. Blinken has already asked Zal Khalilzad, who has negotiated an agreement with the Taliban for US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to stay on. The Administration is reviewing a Trump decision on declaring the Houthis in Yemen terrorists that could hinder assistance to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Blinken praises Trump’s “Abrahamic” agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain, though he stayed silent on whether the Administration will stick with Trump’s decision to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was a change in US policy offered as a quid pro quo for normalization of Morocco’s relationship with Israel.
Blinken’s strong endorsement of the free press and its role in democracy is just as welcome as his calm and professionalism. In the wake of an administration that regarded the best of the press as the “enemies of the people,” it is truly a pleasure to hear that the new administration welcomes interaction with the press and public scrutiny. A warm welcome to the no swagger Secretary of State!
RSS - Posts
