Tag: Iran
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:
Stevenson’s army, September 14
Punchbowl provides several stories on Blinken testimony. Politico: “Blinken lays blame on Trump as he defends messy withdrawal from Afghanistan” … Reuters: “Blinken defends Afghan withdrawal at testy U.S. congressional hearing” … CNN: “Blinken testifies on Afghanistan before House lawmakers angry about the war’s chaotic end” … WaPo: “Blinken clashes with Republican lawmakers over Afghanistan withdrawal”
Look at the talking points the WH sent to its friends.
Here’s a link to the actual hearing. [But if you want to use it for your Hill Observation paper, be aware it’s over 5 hours long.]
– NYT says Iran almost has enough fuel for one nuclear bomb.
– WaPo says US is releasing some aid to Egypt, conditioning the rest.
– WSJ is running a series of articles on how Facebook dodges some of its own rules.
– The Brown University Costs of War project points the finger at contractors.
– What can Hill staffers do whose workplace is toxic? Leak to Buzzfeed.
– A retired USMC colonel says US doesn’t practice what it preaches about mission command.
Our brownbag guest yesterday recommends this article about changing the GOP.
Lots of new material this afternoon. Different reporters are citing bootleg copies of the new Bob Woodward book — WaPo says Milley “pulled a Schlesinger“; CNN has more about the military.
– Different emphases: Intell officials say AlQaeda could rebuild in a year, and greater terror threats are outside Afghanistan.
Congress looks at military role in evacuation. Blinken hearing “marred by politics.”
– Military aid to Guinea cut off.
– How should a Member spend his time? Tweeting about Democratic policies or helping deal with local floods?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Parsing the Afghanistan quandary: humanitarian aid now, nothing more
The UN is anticipating that virtually the entire population of Afghanistan will soon require humanitarian assistance. The country’s economy is imploding. The new Taliban government is broke. The neighbors currying favor with the new authorities in Kabul are not traditional sources of aid: Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia, not to mention Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekhistan, and Tajikistan. The UN and non-governmental relief organizations will be willing, but they depend on financing from the usual suspects: the US, the EU, Japan, and other developed countries. The one willing Gulf donor is presumably Qatar, which played a role in the negotiations between the US and the Taliban and now runs Kabul airport.
The humanitarian imperative is clear: provide the aid to those in need, no matter what the politics. Life with dignity is everyone’s right. But this is an odd situation: the Taliban just ousted the internationally recognized government, they have not fulfilled the minimal requirements the UN Security Council has levied, and the countries now expected to provide aid are those the Taliban spent twenty years fighting. American taxpayers, having just witnessed the humiliation of the US withdrawal, are now expected to ante up in ways that will make the Taliban regime sustainable?
The problem extends beyond humanitarian assistance. At least that can be done without putting cash in Taliban pockets. The Taliban will still benefit, as otherwise the burden of feeding the population would fall to them. But assistance with government expenditures, including so-called “early-recovery” and reconstruction, will directly help the Taliban to hold on to the power they gained by force, as will unfreezing of Afghanistan’s foreign currency reserves and allowing the Taliban to cash in the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights. The Taliban will be no less clever than the previous government in skimming off some percentage.
American interests in this situation need to be parsed. Collapse of Taliban rule and the likely subsequent civil war would be awful from Washington’s perspective. An Islamic State (Khorasan) takeover would be worse. The Americans want what the UNSC resolution specified: exit of those US citizens and supporters who want to leave, access for humanitarian relief, respect for human rights (especially those of women and girls), and an inclusive transitional government. The Taliban have already disappointed by naming a government of their own militants, including people linked to Al Qaeda. While it is early days, they have not demonstrated respect for human rights. Nor have they allowed the exit of more than a minimal number of people.
So do we discount the Taliban failures so far and go ahead with humanitarian relief? I’m afraid we don’t have a lot of choice, both as a matter of principle and pragmatic policy. Humanitarian relief may not save the Taliban government from collapse, but it is the right thing to do and could help to stave off civil war or an IS takeover. We should provide the funds with eyes wide open, trying to verify that access is unhindered and that food and other assistance flows to those in need and is not monetized or otherwise pocketed by Taliban-connected warlords.
There is an argument for at least partially unfreezing reconstruction assistance and Afghanistan’s hard currency assets, because that too could help prevent civil war or worse. Certainly the Taliban will try to extract hard currency with promises to fight the Islamic State. The Pentagon may be sympathetic to this argument. Here I would be far more cautious. The Islamic State is a rival of the Taliban: a jihadi group that wants to govern Afghanistan (and more). The Taliban have their own reasons for wanting to crush IS (Khorasan). I’d prefer to see them doing it for their own good reasons.
As for Al Qaeda, it is clear from inclusion of the Haqqani network, an Al Qaeda affiliate, in their government that the Taliban are not prepared to treat it as an enemy. There is still a question whether a government that includes Sirajuddin Haqqani as “interim” Interior Minister will allow the use of Afghan territory to plot or organize attacks on the US. It is arguable that it is better to have Al Qaeda in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. I wouldn’t buy it though: it really doesn’t matter that much where Al Qaeda plots its next attack against the US–9/11 may have been conceived while Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but most of the plot was organized and conducted elsewhere. Wherever the Haqqani network helps Al Qaeda, the US interest is clear: weaken both.
Bottom line: Humanitarian assistance yes, but nothing more until it is clearer how the Taliban will govern and whether they will cooperate with those who target, or allow others to target, the United States. Hoisting their flag over the presidential palace in Kabul on 9/11 was not a good omen.
PS: What Ahmed Rashid has to say is always interesting:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 8
-WSJ says Iran blocks access to nuclear sites.
-US News says China may take over Bagram.
-NYT profiles Taliban cabinet.
– Analyst assesses moving Israel into Centcom.
-FP says Lithuania backs Taiwan.
-Ex-CIA analyst hits post 9/11 reforms.
– Biden packages disaster relief with refugee aid.
– WaPo’s John Kelly cites some historically wrong predictions — and includes the link. read & enjoy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 30-September 3, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Grim Prospects for Women and Girls in Afghanistan | Aug 31, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Heritage Foundation| Register Here
As the world watched Afghanistan fall to the Taliban in a matter of weeks, one point was clear: the lives of Afghan women and girls would forever be changed. Over the last twenty years, women and girls made tremendous gains by going to school, holding political office, and entering the working world. Hard-won freedoms became a part of everyday life, and Afghan women were actively enjoying them.
With the Taliban back in power, many of these gains will likely be lost. So, what can be done now to safeguard the rights of Afghan women and girls? Join the Heritage Foundation as a distinguished panel of experts tackles the scale of the problem and realistic actions that the United States and the international community can take to mitigate the damage.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis
Senior Fellow and Director, Indo-Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Heela Najibullah
Conflict and Peace Researcher
Author of “Reconciliation and Social Healing in Afghanistan”
Amb. Roya Rahmani
Former Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States
Nicole Robinson (moderator)
Research Associate, Allison Center for Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation
2. #GermanyVotes – One month to go: The 2021 German elections and their implications | Sep 1, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
This event kicks off the Europe Center’s #GermanyVotes: The Superwahljahr Series, a collection of virtual and hybrid events focusing on Germany’s upcoming federal elections. Germans head to the polls on September 26 to pick a new government at a crucial moment in German politics. The elections will mark more than the usual electoral turnover as Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down after sixteen years at the helm of Europe’s largest political and economic power.
The panel will discuss what changes a new government and leadership in Berlin will bring about for Germany, Europe, and the transatlantic alliance. Against the backdrop of a still-new US administration, global crises including the impact of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the COVID-19 pandemic, and new challenges to the country’s economic model, what new vision will a future German government and chancellor forge for Germany and its place in the world?
Speakers:
Tyson Barker
Head, Technology and Global Affairs Program, German Council on Foreign Relations
Constanze Stelzenmüller
Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe; Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations, Brookings Institution
Ines Pohl (moderator)
Washington Bureau Chief, Deutsche Welle
- The 9/11 Attacks from a Historical Perspective | Sep 2, 2021 | 7:45 AM EST | Royal United Services Institute | Register Here
The attacks by the Al Qaeda terrorist organisation on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon, on 11 September 2001 were cataclysmic in totally changing the global strategic environment. This event will commemorate the 20th anniversary.
Speakers:
Prof. Peter Neumann
Professor of Security Studies, Department of War Studies, King’s College London; Senior Associate Fellow, RUSI
Suzanne Raine
Trustee, RUSI
Sir John Scarlett KCMG OBE
Distinguished Fellow, RUSI; Former Chief, MI6
- Tunisia – What Now? | Sep 2, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | CSIS | Register Here
Tunisia, the lone democracy remaining from the Arab Spring, is at a crossroads. The Covid-19 pandemic devastated an already struggling economy, while the political system has grown increasingly ineffectual. Last month, Tunisia’s president Kais Saied suspended the parliament, sacked the prime minister, and significantly increased his own power for 30 days, and on August 23 he extended those moves indefinitely.
What does the future hold for Tunisia? What can the United States and its allies, who together have invested billions of dollars in the Tunisian democratic experiment, do to support Tunisia in its crisis?
Speakers:
Congressman David Price (D-NC)
Chairman, House Democracy Partnership; Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Bowman Cutter
Chairman, the Tunisian Enterprise Fund
Mohamed Malouche
Chairman, Tunisian American Young Professionals
Lobna Jeribi
Founder and President, Solidar Tunisia
Shawna Bader-Blau
Executive Director, Solidarity Center
Jon B. Alterman
Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Marti Flacks
Director and Senior Fellow, Human Rights Initiative, CSIS
5. Climate Change: Entry Point for Regional Peace in the Middle East | Sep 2, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Clingendael Institute | Register Here
Climate change is hitting the Middle East region hard with unbearable temperatures, water scarcity, desertification and saltwater intrusion undermining local food production. After the recent eruption of violence the need to address underlying stresses of grievances of people living in the region is mentioned as a factor that deserves extra attention. Whereas conflicts over identity and history are hard to overcome, it may still be possible to enter into renewed dialogues over how to build resilience against climate change and use renewables to enhance the level of energy security that could be used for air conditioning and water desalination. In a region prone to tensions, climate change is a common enemy that people in the region are facing.
By using practical examples, this online event will consider how a focus on climate adaptation and mitigation could be used as an entry point for bringing together people that otherwise might hardly talk to each other. What can they gain from entering into a dialogue over better management and distribution of scarce natural resources, and may this also foster a more general spirit of mutual understanding?
Speakers:
Yana Abu Taleb
Director, EcoPeace Middle East – Jordan
Rene van Nes
Head, Division of Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support, European External Action Service
Prof. Alon Tal
Member, Knesset
Dr. Shaddad Attili
Advisor ranking Minister, Negotiations Support Department, PLO
Louise van Schaik (moderator)
Head, EU & Global Affairs Unit, the Clingendael Institute
Tobias von Lossow (Q&A)
Research Fellow, the Clingendael Institute
6. Syria Today: How Assad “Won” beyond the Military | Sep 2, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to announce a panel discussion featuring contributors to The Middle East Journal’s 2021 Spring and Summer Issues. As the civil war in Syria endures after a decade of conflict, Bashar al-Assad continues to pursue his consolidation of authority and regime legitimization. Aside from military tactics, Assad has diversified his approach to this pursuit through a number of tactics, including swaying influential social and religious leaders to support state security measures and depending on foreign aid to support the reconstruction of the country. A panel of journal contributors will join to discuss these broader themes featured in their articles and delve deeper into the internal workings of the Syrian regime.
Speakers:
Rahaf Aldoughli
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Lecturer, Middle East and North African Studies, Lancaster University
Guy Burton
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Visiting Fellow, LSE Middle East Centre
Eric Lob
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, Florida International University
Emma Beals (moderator)
Non-resident scholar, MEI
7. Prospects for US-Iran Relations under Raisi | Sep 2, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
The Iranian Studies Unit of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and Arab Center Washington DC invite you to a lecture by Dr. Vali Nasr on the prospects for US-Iran relations under the Ebrahim Raisi and Joe Biden Administrations. Dr. Nasr is the Majid Khadduri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.
Speakers:
Vali Nasr (speaker)
Majid Khadduri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Khalil E. Jahshan (moderator)
Executive Director, Arab Center Washington DC
Mehran Kamrava (moderator)
Chair, Iranian Studies Unit, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
8. Learning the Lessons of Afghanistan | Sep 2, 2021 | 7:00 PM EST | Institute for Policy Studies | Register Here
IPS’ Fellow, Phyllis Bennis will be featured in a webinar series, presented by Massachusetts Peace Action. A forum of three deeply knowledgeable speakers who will give their response to these themes and their suggested lessons.
Speakers:
Kathy Kelly
Nonviolent activist
Phyllis Bennis
Middle East Politics Specialist, Institute for Policy Studies
Chris Velazquez
Afghanistan War veteran; Digital Director, Veterans for Peace
Will Hopkins (moderator)
New Hampshire Peace Action
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 19
– WSJ says Afghan pilots flew to Uzbekistan.
– GOP divided on Afghan refugees.
– Sarah Chayes says US civilians made key mistakes over the years in Afghanistan.
– MIT study says Chinese hackers disguised as Iranian to hack Israel.
PS: Charlie has added the following:
– CJR discusses the Taliban’s “spin machine.”
– A former Air Force intelligence guy tells what the Taliban talked about.
– Facebook tells what gets the most views.
– I do agree with this AEI analyst’s arguments against a separate Cyber Force.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
