Month: May 2018
From bad to worse
The Middle East strategic landscape is rapidly changing. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, brewing hostilities between Iran and Israel over Syria, and elections in Iraq and Lebanon continue to jolt regional stability. On May 23, 2018, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW), hosted a panel titled “Shake-Up in the Middle East: How Will Regional Powers Respond” to discuss current developments and their implications. The panel included:
1. Gregory Gause, Head of International Affairs Department, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
2. Feisal Istrabadi, Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University
3. Gönül Tol, Founding Director, Center for Turkish Studies, Middle East Institute
4. Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar, AGSIW (Moderator)
Gause suggested that after one year, two Secretaries of State, and three national security advisors, Washington seems to finally have a strategy for the region, though some may label it a wish-list. Secretary Pompeo’s list includes demands that ranged from disarming and demobilizing Shia militias, to Iran’s withdrawal throughout the entirety of Syria.
Increased pressure on Iran will require increased cooperation with the Gulf Allies. The United States will want Saudi Arabia to send troops to Syria or perhaps to deflate oil prices so as to further squeeze Iran economically. Such demands will likely not be met with cooperation. The Saudis have spent the last two years trying to push oil prices up for internal reasons. The idea that the Saudis will do the opposite to enhance a US-led effort to pressure Iran is far-fetched if not entirely unreasonable.
Istrabadi sketched the geostrategic landscape of Iraq, which shows signs that it is emerging from the shadows and reasserting itself in a positive way. The current Prime Minister has managed to recalibrate the country’s relations with its neighbors by cooling tensions with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Gulf States; a goal that his predecessor failed to achieve. Iraq’s moment may however prove transient as the US is ratcheting up tensions in the region.
The Gulf States’ northern neighbor, Turkey, has not remained unaffected by geopolitical tremors in the MENA region. Tol, stressed that Turkey’s foreign policy fulcrum has become the Kurdish issue. Turkish-US relations have previously been tested; first in 1964 with Cyprus and the famous Johnson letter, then in 1974 when the US congress imposed sanctions and an arms embargo, and third in 2001 when Turkey decided not to allow US troops into its military bases. But ties remained unbroken due to the ruling center right parties and the military’s commitment to a pro-american Turkish foreign policy.
Today, Turkey-US relations are vastly different. The military, opposition, and the government are all on the same anti-American page. Problems today between the two countries are no longer contextual but structural. Democratic backsliding remains a concern, especially for the EU, while Turkish-Russian bilateral relations have warmed.
Bottom line: Saudi Arabia and Turkey are drifting away from the US, while Iraq will find it hard to fill the gap. Things are going from bad to worse for the Americans.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Make America worthy
Memorial Day is never easy. It’s a holiday, but not a celebration. It commemorates the sacrifices of many generations, beginning arguably with the black community in Charleston even before the Civil War ended. It acknowledges the risks that have been run and those that we still face. It offers respect and dignity to those who have too often died without both.
Memorial Day merits particular attention this year. America has a president who has spent more than 16 months in office without visiting service members deployed in an active conflict zone. He lied Friday in a commencement address at the Naval Academy about military pay raises and the number of US Navy ships, subjects on which the cadets are presumably well-versed. They also know what to think of liars. Bone spurs gave Trump deferments during the Vietnam war, but they don’t appear to limit his golfing. He has visited a golf club on 22% of his days in office, but has found no time for the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.
Our civilians who serve abroad get even less attention from this administration than those in uniform. It has sought to drastically cut the foreign affairs budget and limit US diplomatic and development commitments. Secretary Pompeo is sounding a lot friendlier to the Foreign Service than Trump or his predecessor, but it remains to be seen what he will actually do.
The most important diplomatic initiatives of this administration are disastrous: withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership strengthened China, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is stalled, withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal threatens to splinter NATO and free Iran from its obligation to remain forever non-nuclear, and the much-vaunted Dotard/Rocket Man Summit is well on its way to being a case study in how not to conduct diplomacy.
So it is more important than ever that we distinguish our leadership from our institutions, the president from the flag. Trump and his campaign sought foreign assistance, contravening American law. His campaign also clearly received Russian help. The only question left unanswered now is whether he or his minions actively colluded with Moscow.
That is really of little interest to me. He has already demonstrated the kind of disloyalty I would regard as disqualifying for the presidency. That is why he is so determined to undermine the Mueller investigation: only by doing so can he distract attention from his own illegitimacy, which is not due only to the loss of the popular vote. It is also due to his consistent failure to be loyal to anything but his material personal and family interests.
All that stands against him is our institutions. They need our support. That means voting. It means speaking out to dissent and criticize. It means giving to causes that will insist on transparency and hold the government accountable. It means defending those whom Trump targets and targeting those who abuse power. It means broadening the tent of those who resist to include people with whom you don’t agree. It means standing up for ideals even when they seem hopelessly tattered.
Americans need to make America worthy of those whose graves we lay flowers on at Memorial Day.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Get serious
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA inspector and nuclear security consultant, writes:
President Trump’s sudden decision, two months ago, to meet the DPRK’s Kim Jong-un was enigmatic in its cause and ambiguous to its goal. Some observers regarded it as opportunity while others as trap. Then through a polite letter to his counterpart few days ago, the President announced his decision to cancel their summit. Yet, preparations are still currently in process.
Would the swinging between ‘’summit,’’ “no summit,’’ and again “summit” result in new disappointments or in relief? As long as question-marks are hanging over the summit, uncertainty grows, as does danger.
What is the summit’s attainable goal? Do both sides have the same understanding of “denuclearization”? What is the “no summit” follow-up plan? What is this pendulum’s driving force? Is there inability to comprehend the complex nature of a nuclear crisis? It is worth recalling Obama’s confession to Bob Woodward on his thoughts during a sensitive nuclear briefing he was given at a secure facility in Chicago: “It’s good that there are bars on the windows here because if there weren’t, I might be jumping out.”
Summit or no summit, proper consideration of some key facts is paramount for the peaceful solution of DPRK’s nuclear crisis:
- Pursuing denuclearization by force is impossible. A nuclear holocaust would be the result.
- The DPRK giving up its nukes completely and effectively, within a reasonable time and in an agreed, verifiable and irreversible manner, would be an improbable expectation. As the most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment says:“ Pyongyang’s commitment to possessing nuclear weapons …. while repeatedly stating that nuclear weapons are the basis for its survival, suggests that the regime does not intend to negotiate them away.”
- States who acquired nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), like India, Pakistan and allegedly Israel, never abandoned them. They were and remain their strongest deterrence. The exception of South Africa in 1991 was forced by the end of apartheid.
- Nuclear weapons outside the international legal frame constitute a well-defined global threat. The global nuclear security architecture would be severely undermined by accepting new nuclear weapons owners.
- Mitigation of risks related to nuclear threat is a top priority task, according to IAEA’s nuclear security guidelines and to any serious national security response plan.
Political determination is the precondition for a successful agreement. Erratic decisions detached from comprehensive planning and expert advice would not engage the DPRK nuclear crisis at the level of its complexity and with the importance it deserves.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, May 28 – June 3
- The Malaysian Election Tsunami: What Happens Next? | Wednesday, May 30 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program is pleased to present ‘The Malaysian Election Tsunami: What Happens Next?’ a panel discussion featuring Dr. Meredith Weiss (Professor and Director of International Programs, University of Albany’s Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy) and Ambassador Joseph Y. Yun (US ambassador to Malaysia, 2013-2016). They will discuss the outcomes of 14th Malaysian general election, and what the election means for the state of democracy in Malaysia and the region.
- Asserting Taiwan’s International Space: The Challenges Ahead for Taipei’s Leadership | Wednesday, May 30 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Wilson Center | Register Here
Taiwan’s unique status in the world has come under greater pressure in recent months as China steps up efforts to challenge Taipei’s global standing. Taiwan remains a leading Asian economy and a vibrant democracy. Yet strained cross-Strait relations have made it increasingly difficult for Taipei to ensure its standing in the international arena. Join us for a discussion on the political, security, and social challenges ahead for Taiwan, and how Taiwan may be able to overcome some of its vulnerabilities to ensure a stable and prosperous future. Panel includes Irene Wu (Fellow, Wilson Center), Ian Reston (Research Fellow, Project 2049 Institute) and Gerrit van der Wees (Editor, Taiwan Communique and Lecturer, George Mason University).
- Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments | Wednesday, May 30 | 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
In the past two years, the world has witnessed multiple crises in regions where nuclear weapons are present: the Korean peninsula saw heightened tensions throughout 2017; China and India were involved in a major border crisis; violence between India and Pakistan on the Line of Control in Kashmir has been the highest in 15 years and the U.S. and its partners in the Middle East now face a highly uncertain future vis-à-vis Iran.
The U.S. has an innate interest in preventing nuclear war around the world. Along with other strong powers, the United States has been proactive in managing crises in nuclearized regions, most notably in South Asia, which has seen repeated bouts of escalated tensions since the end of the Cold War. Yet, as great power competition resurges and U.S. interests in Asia pit it against actors like Iran, Pakistan, and increasingly China, the U.S. role in crises in nuclearized regions may become more complicated. What implications could this have for the probability of conflict and for U.S. influence as other strong powers compete more aggressively with Washington in these theaters, including possibly using crises as opportunities to overshadow the traditional U.S. role as crisis manager?
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 30 for a discussion on the opportunities, challenges, and risks of crises in regional nuclear contexts and policy options for U.S. diplomacy. Panel includes Amb. Joseph Yun (Senior Advisor to the Asia Center, US Institute of Peace), Lora Saalman (Vice President, East-West Institute), Feroz Khan (Research Professor, Naval Postgraduate School), Moeed Yusuf (Associate Vice President, Asia Center at US Institute of Peace), and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today Editorial Board).
- Turkey’s Snap Elections and the Impact on U.S. – Turkey Relations | Thursday, May 31 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | Register Here
On June 24, Turkey will go to the polls for snap presidential and parliamentary elections that will mark the country’s transition to the new presidential system that was approved in an April 2017 referendum.
These elections come at a time when Turkey’s relationship with the U.S. – its NATO ally and foremost security partner – is facing numerous challenges. Turkey and the U.S. remain at odds over the latter’s support of the YPG in Syria, which Ankara considers to be a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, various pieces of recent Congressional legislation have proposed bans on weapons sales to Turkey in response to Ankara’s purchase of Russian military equipment and the continued imprisonment of American citizens in Turkey.
How will this critical turning point in Turkey’s domestic governance affect its vital relationship with the U.S.?
Join THO on May 31 for a discussion with Turkish and American experts on how developments surrounding these snap elections and Turkey’s transition to a presidential system could impact the U.S.-Turkey bilateral relationship. Panel includes Richard Leiby (Editor and Writer, The Washington Post), Ragip Soylu (Washington Correspondent, Daily Sabah), Shawn Turner (CNN National Security Analyst and Director of Communication, Center for a New American Security), Yusuf Erim (Turkey Analyst, TRT World) and Guy Taylor (National Security Team Leader, The Washington Times). Moderated by Prof. Herbert Reginbogin (Advisory Board Member, Turkish Heritage Organization).
- Military Challenges in the Asia Pacific: US Responses to Regional Competition | Friday, June 1 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The Asia Pacific security environment is more contested today than at any time since World War II. China’s increased assertiveness and North Korea’s unpredictability are not symptomatic of America’s decline, nor do they necessarily signal great power conflict. Rather, recent developments demand a close look at the changing terms of regional competition and America’s responses to it. In this hypercompetitive environment, how will the US and its allies and partners ensure regional stability?
Join AEI as a panel of security experts discuss how the US can keep its competitive edge in the Asia Pacific. Panel includes Roger Cliff (Center for Naval Analyses), Thomas Donnelly (American Enterprise Institute), Nathan Freier (United States Army War College) and Lt. Gen. Wallace (Fmr. Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs). Moderated by Philip Lohaus (American Enterprise Institute).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Played
The Iran nuclear deal was an exchange: relief from sanctions in exchange for a halt and partial reversal of Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium capabilities. While President Obama made it clear the US would no longer actively seek overthrow of the Islamic Republic, there was no guarantee of that policy’s continuity. Nor was there a deal on Iran’s regional behavior, though Obama clearly hoped that would moderate as Iran’s economy recovered from sanctions and its people stopped rallying around the flag and instead sought rising living standards and more foreign contact.
That process had barely begun–with economic protests and criticism of Iran’s foreign adventures–when President Trump withdrew the US from the deal earlier this month. The protests are petering out as Iran seeks some way of continuing the nuclear deal with Europe, Russia, and China.That will be difficult because US “secondary” sanctions will force most major European companies to abandon business with Iran. But so far at least the EU seems determined to find a way. There is no reason to believe that Moscow, Beijing, and importantly New Delhi (India is a major importer of Iranian hydrocarbons) will not find a way of continuing to do business with Tehran.
Secretary Pompeo has announced the US list of demands to renew negotiations, with the aim of full diplomatic recognition, which is code for no more efforts to overthrow the regime. No one thinks Iran will even begin thinking about meeting those conditions. The US tried for decades to torpedo the Islamic Republic. There is no reason to believe the Trump Administration’s efforts in that regard will strike fear into the hearts of the ayatollahs. Quite to the contrary: the Supreme Leader thrives on American hostility. Trump is doomed to failure in dealing with Iran: either the nuclear deal will be maintained because the Europeans find a way to defy US sanctions, or Tehran will return to pursuing all the technology it needs to build and launch nuclear weapons.
He is heading in the same direction with North Korea. Once again, he is offering guarantees of regime survival and economic prosperity in exchange for “denuclearization.” The trouble is both National Security Adviser Bolton and Vice President Pence have hinted that without an agreement the US will pursue a Libya option, which the North Koreans interpret not unreasonably as Kim Jung-un meeting the same fate as Muammar Qaddafi, who was slaughtered after giving up his rudimentary nuclear program by Libyan rebels who had Western support. Not to mention one other difficulty: Kim is one of the most brutal dictators on earth. Does the US really want to be guaranteeing his permanence in power? Trump obviously doesn’t mind, any more than he minds offering the Islamic Republic the same deal.
Of course Kim would have no reason to believe any US guarantees, even with an American ambassador in Pyongyang. The change in US approaches to Iran and North Korea between Obama and Trump as well as the Trump Administration’s incoherence and inconsistency would make even a fool hesitate to rely on Washington. Kim is no fool. He will do nothing irreversible to his nuclear and missile programs, knowing full well that Trump can guarantee nothing. So when he yesterday blew up at least part of his country’s nuclear testing facilities in front of Western TV crews, you can be sure whatever was destroyed was now worthless to him.
Kim will propose a phased approach to “denuclearization.” If the phases include giving up his existing nuclear weapons, that will only be at the end of a long process, which he can ensure will never be reached. In the meanwhile, Kim will achieve many of his objectives. He has already put himself on a par with the President of the United States. Any early meeting, next month or thereafter, will confirm his equal status and legitimacy, both internationally and domestically.
While mumbling about a possible postponement, Trump appears desperate for a meeting to give him a chance to claim his first foreign policy success. Hence his touting rumors of a Nobel Prize that the Norwegians will not be interested in giving him. The North Koreans know a sucker when they see him. Kim is playing Trump, successfully.
PS: Somebody got Trump smart. Less than an hour after I published this, he withdrew from the Dotard/Rocket Man Summit. That was the best he could do: he was in way over his head.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next year in Jerusalem?
A SETA Foundation panel on Tuesday discussed the impact of the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. The SETA Foundation’s Kilic B. Kanat moderated a panel comprised of Geoffrey Aronson (The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Washington Institute), and Kadir Ustun (SETA Foundation) to analyze this historic development and its impact on the Middle East.
Aronson connected the embassy move to the Balfour Declaration. In both cases, the world’s pre-eminent power of the time lined up behind the Jews. It also acknowledges reality: in the case of the Balfour Declaration, it was the staying power of the Zionist movement and in the case of the embassy move, the staying power of the settlements. Both the declaration and the embassy move claimed it would not offend other parties, yet this has been shown to be untrue. Aronson believes that, at least in theory, Israel could pay a price later for the embassy move. However, at the moment, Arab leaders see the costs and benefits of not obstructing the embassy move as acceptable for the sake of focusing on Iran. The reality is Arab states are at one of their weakest points in history with few assets to bring to the diplomatic table. Arab states are forced to accept these shifts.
Friedman believes the embassy move confirms the end of the Oslo Era and that we must take Trump at his word. His policies may be reckless, but they are in fact coherent. Trump’s advisors see US and Israeli interests as identical. With Jerusalem off the table, chaos has been injected to reframe the concept of Middle East peace and stability based on a US-Israeli version. Expect Kushner’s plan to be utterly unacceptable to Palestinians and to lay out new US positions on permanent status issues. With Israel’s religious right emboldened, there will be real or perceived threat to sacred space in Jerusalem. This will lead to instability and force Arab leaders and people to take action.
Al-Omari focused on how, at an official level, the embassy move has forced Arab leaders to take hardline stances and limit their diplomatic maneuvering. Although the Palestine issue has become dormant among many Arab publics, no Arab leader wants to cast aside the issue for fear it could re-emerge. The move also shows limits to the anti-Iran coalition, the unspoken alliance between the US, Israel, and several Arab states about confronting Iran. Some lines, like the Jerusalem issue, cannot be crossed. If the Arab states try and cross that line, the Palestinians, with a strong sense of nationhood, will call them out and force them to focus on the issue.
Ustun took a different approach from Al-Omari. He argues that the unspoken anti-Iran alliance is a strong regional dynamic and Arab states are in practice more focused on confronting Iran as opposed to Israel-Palestine issues. Any statements or public lines they take on recent Palestine developments are therefore hollow and meaningless. Countries outside this anti-Iran grouping are putting more serious effort into the Israel-Palestine issue and the issue matters more in countries with some type of electoral process (like Turkey) than countries without one (like Saudi Arabia). In the long-term, Ustun believes lack of attention on this issue could undermine the legitimacy of the states that do not focus on it.
The US decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem has negated its ability to act as an honest, objective peace-broker. It is up to other countries such as European ones to continue the push for a negotiated, acceptable two-state solution and to continue to uphold international law, organizations, and norms. American Jews, led by increasingly vocal and progressive youth, are troubled by Trump’s stances and actions on the Israel-Palestine issue, especially in context of his other reckless decisions. It remains to be seen how the increasing anger of the American Jewish community can be used to promote positive change.
RSS - Posts
