Tag: Iraq
The fracturing Levant
As events in Syria continue to unfold, it is essential to understand the nature of the conflict. On Tuesday, Emile Hokayem, a Senior Fellow for Regional Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, delivered a presentation based on his recent book, Syria’s Uprising and the Fracturing of the Levant. Based on repeated visits to Syria after the uprising, the book relies on a range of primary sources such as fieldwork and interviews with all sides of the conflict. Steven Simon, the executive director of IISS-US, moderated the event.
Before the uprising, analysts had often exaggerated the power of the Syrian state, Hokayem proclaimed. While the Syrian state was not particularly weak, its resources, industrial base, alliances, and human capital pale in comparison to regional countries that had similar ambitions, namely Iraq and Egypt. However, Hafez al-Assad’s genius lay in his statecraft. While this made Syria a stronger state, the uprising has brought Syria down. It is now a weak state marked by divisions and internal rivalries. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hezbollah in Syria is at risk
Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria has captured media attention and expert analysis around the world. On Tuesday, the Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR) at Johns Hopkins SAIS and the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS) organized Hezbollah After Assad, featuring Bilal Saab, executive director and head of research at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) North America and Jean-Luc Marret, a Senior Fellow at FRS and CTR and associate professor and senior lecturer in multiple French universities. Ambassador Andras Simonyi, the Managing Director of CTR, facilitated the discussion.
Bilal Saab reminded that a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East is something that Hezbollah has warned against since its own founding. Such a conflict would not only distract Hezbollah from fighting Israel, but could also alienate the Shiite support base for the organization. Despite knowing this, Hezbollah has acted in a way that increases the likelihood of such a conflict. What explains Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Wolf in sheep’s clothing?
As the Arab uprisings continue to unfold, it is unclear how countries in the Middle East will act on issues of plurality and human rights. On Monday, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a talk on the Future of Religious Minorities in the Middle East. Congressman Frank Wolf, co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, delivered a presentation on religious minorities in the region, based on a series of visits to the Middle East.
Wolf reminded that oppression of religious minorities is not new in the region. The Iranian government repressed its Baha’i minority since 1979, killing hundreds of its leaders and dismissing tens of thousands from jobs. The recent uprisings in the region have exacerbated the situation. The Arab Spring “devolved into Winter for many of the most vulnerable in these societies—foremost among them the ancient Christian communities,” according to the Congressman.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria options
With Washington still undecided what to do about Syria, it is time to look again at military options. The regime is doing well enough on the battlefield that it won’t be much interested in a serious negotiated solution. The opposition won’t want one on the terms the regime would accept.
I see three basic military options at this point:
- Arm the rebels. It takes time. It will kill more people. The arms may fall into the wrong hands and be used for the wrong purposes. But it makes the Syrians responsible for their own fate and may strengthen relative moderates, if we can get weapons into the right hands. Some might prefer it be done covertly, though it is unlikely to stay secret for long. Nothing does these days.
- Safe haven/humanitarian corridor/no-fly zone. These are all to a first approximation the same thing. If successfully instituted, they would presumably save lives and enable the opposition to begin governing, as the Kurds did in northern Iraq under Saddam Hussein. But they require patrolling by US (or allied) aircraft, which means the Syrian air defenses have to be taken down first. That is an act of war that would provide invaluable intelligence to the Syrians (and therefore also the Iranians) on our operating capabilities and signatures. Safe havens did not work well in Bosnia–it was their failure that led to the bombing that turned the tide of war, not their success.
- Nail the Syrian air force, Scuds and communication nodes. This too would be an act of war, but one that does not require continued patrolling. It might even be possible without taking down the Syrian air defenses (the Israelis don’t seem to have bothered with that in nailing missile shipments to Hizbollah or Syria’s clandestine nuclear reactor). But we won’t get everything. The Syrians will bunker their more precious items under ground and park their tanks and artillery next to schools and mosques, fearing they will be the next targets. If the Bosnian war is to be taken as a guide, it would be best also to go after military communication nodes. The regime’s ability to coordinate its forces, which depends on communications, is a big advantage over the fragmented opposition.
Options 2 and 3 require the use of US forces, which needs to be justified on the basis of vital American interests. Two are most in evidence right now:
- A regime victory in Syria would be a major regional triumph for Iran, ensuring its link to Hizbollah in Lebanon, putting pressure on Iraq to toe ever more Tehran’s line, and endangering Israel.
- Continued fighting will weaken state structures in the Levant, including Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. The resulting chaos could create a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.
The use of force, presumably without UN Security Council approval, would infuriate Russia and China. Their cooperation is still important to the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Russia’s cooperation in maintaining the Northern Distribution Network is important to the drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan.
Then there are the American people. War weary and budget fatigued, they are not anxious for another Middle East war, especially since domestic oil production is up dramatically and dependence on Middle Eastern producers declining.
Not a pretty set of options, but if we do nothing at this point we’ll have to live not only with our consciences but also with the results.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
We all have problems
I tweeted this morning about my weekend in Doha:
Hard to imagine a more telling indictment of US energy policy the past 40 years!
Why did I say that? Because it’s true: the extraordinary construction, wealth and obesity that characterize the tiny emirate of Qatar are the result of the almost 40 years since Richard Nixon’s declaration of intent to make the United States energy independent. Qatar is per capita the highest GDP country in the world today. It has a tiny population of citizens (I’m told the official number is secret, but fewer than 250,000 citizens seems to be the consensus) out of a total population of 1.9 million. The country’s wealth is due almost entirely to its exports of oil and natural gas.
A weekend there is a strange experience, especially if you are attending a conference on US/Islamic World relations. Very few Qataris were present, not least because the Emir is once again suggesting that he will retire soon, making the big thobes jockey for advantage and worried about musical chairs. So I spent three days couped up (not exactly imprisoned) in a very fine hotel kept at frigid temperatures and learned a lot of interesting things, few of them about Qatar. But even a short drive through town is enough to understand that there is an enormous amount of money, and sometimes even good taste, behind the extensive building projects. I’m also told there is a fine Islamic art museum. Maybe I’ll get there next time. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Energy interdependence is increasing
As the political and social dynamics in the Middle East continue to evolve as a result of the Arab Spring, attention has been devoted to China’s growing economic role in the region. China now imports nearly 1.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil each day. On Tuesday, NDN, a DC-based think tank, hosted a discussion with Dr. Gawdat Bahgat and I-wei Jennifer Chang to explore shifting energy realities and how they will affect the political landscape of the Middle East.
Bahgat, a professor at the National Defense University and an expert on Middle East energy policy, set out to debunk several prevalent myths concerning US policy in the Middle East. He rejected the “oil for security” tradeoff between the US and its Middle Eastern allies. As the argument goes, Middle Eastern exporters provide the US with oil at reasonable prices and in return the US provides military assistance and aids in those countries’ stability. Taking a more realist approach, Bahgat instead believes that each actor is simply acting in their own best interest. A decrease of Middle Eastern oil will not cause the US to recede from its other commitments in the region. Instead, the US presence in the Middle East will not significantly change in the foreseeable future. Read more
RSS - Posts
