Tag: United Arab Emirates
Stevenson’s army, October 30
I want to stop reading election news. There’s nothing new under the sun. The polls have been consistent for weeks, so now the news is in outliers. What if they are true? Now reporters are hedging their bets by discovering little facts that point the other way. If the polls are “wrong,” I don’t think it will be methodological error but turnout problems because of postal and voting logistics and suppression efforts.
Meanwhile, it does look like NSA O’Brien is looking for a bigger job. SecDef?
Defense News jumps on the post-election bandwagon by profiling the possible new SASC chairman. Congress has been formally notified of F35 sale to UAE.
Former APSA Congressional Fellow Paul Musgrave has a clever piece on the problems of moving to Canada.
Just Security has been running a series of articles on legal issues in foreign policy. Today, I’d urge reading the pieces on War Powers Reform and Treaty Withdrawals.
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:
Trouble in the Gulf will require more than arms
Here are the speaking notes I used yesterday at the Third Annual Conference of the Gulf International Forum:
- The Gulf today is engulfed with multiple dimensions of conflict and instability.
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still at odds with Qatar as well as with Turkey and Iran about leadership in the region and the role of political Islam in the Muslim world.
- The US is pursuing a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran that has repercussions throughout the Gulf and the Levant, especially Iran and Iraq.
- Iran is responding with “maximum resistance,” which includes continued support for the wars on their own people by Bashar al Assad and the Houthis as well as shifting Iranian foreign policy in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
- Global warming, declining oil prices, youth bulges, sectarian resentments, and COVID-19 are challenging the ability of Gulf states to maintain their social contract: authoritarian stability and material prosperity in exchange for political quiescence.
US Interests and Disinterest in the Region - US priorities in the Gulf have shifted. Oil is far less important economically and politically than it once was, and America’s main terrorism threat is domestic, not international.
- Higher priority in Washington now goes to countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and limiting the influence of rival powers in the Middle East.
- The problem for the United States is that none of its interests in the Gulf are well-served by coercion, but neither are they well-served by withdrawal, which hurts partners and allies, even giving them incentives to develop nuclear weapons, while opening new opportunities for rivals.
- Whoever is elected President next month, the US interest in reducing its commitment to the Gulf will continue, but it needs to be done without endangering friends and encouraging adversaries or unleashing a regional arms race.
- Biden and Trump should be expected to behave differently in pursuing US goals.
- President Trump is impatient and transactional. He will likely pull the plug on US troops in places not prepared to protect or pay for them (Iraq and Syria). The “Abrahamic” agreements are transactional: Israel gets recognition in exchange for its help in sustaining Gulf autocracies.
- Biden did not invent this idea, but he isn’t opposed to it.
- Where the candidates differ is on Palestine and on governance in the Arab world. Biden continues to favor a two-state outcome for Israel and Palestine, whereas Trump and his Israeli partners seek to eliminate any possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state.
- While safeguarding Israel’s security, Biden would push for a better deal for the Palestinians than the one Trump has offered. He would also be less tolerant of Gulf human rights abuses.
- Biden and Trump also differ on the value of the Iran nuclear deal, but it is important to recognize that they share the same goal: to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Trump’s approach is “maximum pressure,” mainly through unilateral sanctions but also including the threat of kinetic action. He aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate a “better deal” that would include regional issues, missiles, and extending and expanding the nuclear agreement.
- Biden wants to negotiate with Iran on the same issues but is prepared to lift some sanctions to incentivize a return to the status quo ante: Iranian and US compliance with the nuclear deal. Whichever candidate wins, Iran is unlikely to change course before its June election, if then.
A Much-Needed Regional Security Framework
- Neither Trump nor Biden rules out war with Iran, which would be catastrophic for the Gulf states. Doha has the most to lose.
- But war is not an attractive proposition for Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama either. Israel and the Gulf states don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and will cooperate to prevent it, but the Arabs will not want to risk joining Israel and the US in an overt conventional war with Iran whose winner may be predictable but whose consequences could be catastrophic for the Gulf.
- President Trump has been a welcome figure in the Arab Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia. He has shielded the Kingdom and its Crown Prince from accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and continued the Obama Administration’s support for the Yemen war, despite growing bipartisan discomfort in the US.
- Because of his human rights commitments, Biden will be less favored in the Gulf. He will not be sword dancing in Riyadh or cheering the war in Yemen.
- But the differences should not obscure the similarities. The two candidates share the desire to reduce US commitments in the Gulf and the interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Several of their predecessors also had these goals and failed to achieve them.
- The reason is all too clear: the Americans have relied too heavily on coercion and too little on diplomacy.
- The United States has enormous destructive military, political, and economic power. But that alone cannot build what is needed: a regional security network that will reduce threat perceptions in all the Gulf states, Iran included, decrease incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent encroachments by rival powers.
- This framework will require a stronger diplomatic nexus of mutual understanding, restraint, and respect. Continued low-intensity and gray zone conflict, or a real war, will make that much more difficult to achieve. The Gulf is not a military challenge, but rather a diplomatic one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 25
The panel set up to recommend modernization measures for Congress has approved a bunch of suggestions.
SFRC had hearing on aspects of F35 sale to UAE.
Washingtonian notes DC statehood would require a Constitutional amendment
WOTR has article on US relations with Taiwan.
Next week we talk about the budget. It looks as if the president is trying to to turn limited pilot program/test authority into a nearly $7 billion giveaway of $200 cash cards for prescription drugs.
There’s a lot of discussion about Atlantic article warning of election disruption. Scary.
CFR has new report on what to do about Venezuela.
Many sites –Politico, Axios, FP and others — have good weekly posts on China. Politico’s is especially interesting this week.
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:
Stevenson’s army, September 16
Pew survey finds falling world views of US
Jeffrey Goldberg lists winners and losers in new Israel-UAE-Bahrain agreements.
Here’s another F-35 to UAE report.
WSJ says US is using Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions on Chinese companies helping to build overseas bases.
Politico sees a toxic feud between DNI & intelligence committees.
As you know, I worked for Joe Biden many years ago [1981-5]. FP’s James Traub has a very good analysis of how Biden thinks about foreign policy.
Just before the Jewish High Holy Days, there’s a discouraging report on the levels of ignorance about the Holocaust among younger Americans.
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:
No Nobel Prize
Amy Hawthorne, who knows more about the Middle East than Jared Kushner will ever learn, tweeted yesterday:
Amy W. Hawthorne@awhawthTo state the obvious, the “peace in the Middle East” theme touted by Trump and Kushner re UAE-Israel agreement is disconnected from reality given that the 2 countries never fought a war and the agreement does nothing to end today’s actual Middle East wars
just details I guess
But maybe a bit more explication is required, especially in response to the right-wing hoopla about getting a Nobel Prize for their dear leader.
As Amy suggests, the agreement between Israel and the Emirates has nothing to do directly with any past or current conflict in the Middle East. There is no history between them of bombardment, invasion, expulsion, displacement, or occupation.* The UAE has participated directly or through proxies in wars in Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but those have little or nothing to do with Israel.
Kushner, who designed Trump’s still-born proposal for peace with the Palestinians, likes to pretend that the agreement with the UAE will advance that prospect. It is more likely to dim it. It weakens and divides Palestinian support in the Arab world at a time when Israel is already so strong it feels no real pressure to negotiate. While the UAE extracted suspension of Israel’s plans to annex Palestinian land, that provision is temporary. Kushner, a strong supporter of Israelis settlements in the West Bank intended to block formation of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state, is interested in Palestinian surrender to a one-state solution with unequal rights. That won’t do anything for Middle East peace.
Trump’s presidency has significantly worsened prospects not only for peace between Israelis and Palestinians but also between Arab states and Iran. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to enrich much more uranium, putting it within far less than a year of having the fissile materials required to build a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia is likewise moving towards nuclear weapons, as is Turkey. We face the real prospect of a nuclear arms race among the three most powerful countries in the Middle East, unleashed by a President who thought he could bring the Iranians to heel with sanctions. That effort has failed.
We could review a few more non-contributions to peace in the Middle East:
- arms sold to both the Emirates and Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen,
- withdrawal of US troops from eastern Syria that undermined America’s Kurdish allies,
- greenlighting of Turkey’s expansion across its southern border to create a buffer zone in northern Syria,
- support for the most brutal military dictatorship Egypt has ever seen,
- flirting with would-be autocrat General Haftar in Libya and providing only erratic rhetorical support to the internationally recognized government.
President Trump’s best bid for contributing to peace is in Afghanistan, which I suppose is “greater” Middle East. Unable to defeat the Taliban, the Trump Administration gave Special Envoy Khalilzad the job of getting the US out. He reached an agreement with the Taliban for US withdrawal as well as a commitment to intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and the Kabul government. Trump may well boast about the US withdrawal, but he has to be careful not to draw attention to the fact that it is only vaguely conditions-based and constitutes a retreat from America’s longest war without anything like victory. Zal has made lemonade from lemons, but there is not much sweetener available and the intra-Afghan talks, as well as the fighting, are likely to go on for a long time.
President Obama left the Middle East in bad shape. President Trump has managed to make things worse. As of a year ago, he had actually increased the number of US troops deployed in the region. It is certainly arguable that the former didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize he got. The latter would deserve it far less. Of course the Norwegian prize committee knows that and won’t be tempted. Trump’s egotistical neediness to match the achievements of the black president is pitiful, not praiseworthy.
*PS: the same goes for Bahrain.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 31 – September 4, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal | September 1, 2020 – September 2, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
On August 13th, President Trump announced that Israel and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to “finalize a historical [sic] peace agreement” that would involve full normalization of relations between the two nations. Trump stated: “Not since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was signed more than 25 years ago has so much progress been made towards peace in the Middle East.”
In this context, the Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invite you to join a two-part webinar series: The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal. These two webinars, co-moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy and FMEP’s Lara Friedman, will explore what the Israel-UAE does (and doesn’t) mean, the political context that led to its achievement, and its implications for the future.
Speakers:
Part 1: Israeli & Palestinian Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-Based Business Consultant, Applied Information Management
Marwa Fatafta: Policy Analyst, Al Shabaka
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Research Fellow, Forum for Regional Thinking
Part 2: U.S. Expert Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Steven Cook: Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Annelle Sheline: Research Fellow, Quincy Institute
James Zogby: Director, Zogby Research Services
Japan After Abe: Legacy & Next Moves | September 1, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
On August 28, 2020, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would resign due to a recurring illness. Please join us for an online panel discussion where CSIS experts will assess his legacy across a range of policy areas including security, diplomacy, and economics, as well as Japan’s political and strategic trajectory.
Speakers:
John J. Hamre (Introduction): President & CEO, Langone Chair in American Leadership, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Michael J. Green (Moderator): Senior Vice President for Asia & Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Victor Cha: Senior Adviser & Korea Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Matthew P. Goodman: Senior Vice President for Economics & Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Yuko Nakano: Associate Director, US-Japan Strategic Leadership Program, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Nicholas Szechenyi: Senior Fellow & Deputy Director, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Iran, Israel, and the Changing Geopolitics of the Middle East | September 3, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The defenders of President Donald Trump’s Iran policy maintain that the “maximum pressure” campaign is working. They argue that not only is an Iran under pressure less able to undermine the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East, but that this strategy is resulting in new geopolitical realities. They point to the recent Israel-UAE agreement as evidence. Critics of the “maximum pressure” campaign disagree and claim there is little evidence that Washington has been able to reshape Iran’s regional ambitions. This panel will look at these topics and examine where Iran and Israel stand vis-à-vis each other and specifically consider ways the US and allies can seek to address Tehran’s rejection of Israel as a fellow UN member state.
Speakers:
Alex Vantanka (Moderator): Director, Iran Program, Middle East Institute
Mark Dubowitz: Chief Executive, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Meir Javedanfar: Senior Research Fellow, Meir Ezri Center for Iran & Persian Gulf Studies
Ksenia Svetlova: Senior Research Analyst, Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy
The Scramble for a Vaccine: Putin’s Sputnik V –– “Trust Me!” | September 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security on Wednesday, September 2, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EDT for a discussion with Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Europe Program; Judyth Twigg, Senior Associate with the CSIS Global Health Policy Center and Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University; and Vasily Vlassov, Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Global Health Policy Center, will introduce and moderate the event discussion on Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine and its geo-strategic implications.
On August 11, Russia announced that it had approved the first Covid-19 vaccine for human use: Sputnik V. This announcement immediately stirred question and controversy within Russia and around the world, because the vaccine is unproven – it has not undergone large scale phase III clinical trials for safety and efficacy. Launching a vaccination campaign in Russia – and potentially elsewhere – without adequate safety and efficacy data could have global ramifications.
This event will feature a diverse panel of experts that will examine the implications of this announcement and what may lie ahead in the future. How might this play out within Russia – what resistance is Putin facing domestically, and what assets have been mobilized to support the campaign? Is there a success scenario for Putin? What might this mean for Russia’s distribution partnerships with other countries? What has the reception been in Europe, the United States, China, and at the World Health Organization? Does this development signal the degradation of international norms around vaccine development?
This discussion is part of a series of events hosted by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security examining the global scramble for a Covid-19 vaccine. The first event, The Scramble for Vaccines and the COVAX Facility, focused on COVAX, a nascent international initiative to develop and equitably distribute Covid-19 vaccines to benefit all countries, rich and poor.
Speakers:
Vasily Vlassov: Professor & Senior Research Fellow, National Research University Higher School of Economics
J. Stephen Morrison: Senior Vice President & Director, Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Heather A. Conley: Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director, Europe Program, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Judyth Twigg: Non-Resident Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program & Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Sanctions-Busting in the DRC | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Sentry released a new report, “Overt Affairs,” documenting how two North Korean businessmen openly busted international sanctions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). International sanctions programs on North Korea focus heavily on disrupting access to the international financial system due to the danger that revenue generated overseas could ultimately be used to fund the country’s nuclear weapons program. Private and public sector institutions in the DRC should have stopped this activity in its tracks, and the fact that they did not is more than a simple lapse. These frailties not only put the DRC’s banking sector and broader economy in significant danger, but they can also have global implications by undermining the effectiveness of international sanctions programs and the integrity of the international financial system.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center in partnership with The Sentry on Thursday, September 3, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT) for a virtual conversation on North Korean sanctions-busting in the DRC. The conversation will feature a panel with counter-proliferation finance analyst Ms. Darya Dolzikova and DRC expert Dr. Pierre Englebert, with moderation by Africa Center Director of Programs and Studies Ms. Bronwyn Bruton and an introduction to the report by The Sentry’s Senior Investigator Mr. John Dell’Osso. Additional speakers will be added to this page once confirmed.
Speakers:
John Dell’Osso (Introduction): Senior Investigator, The Sentry
Bronwyn Bruton (Moderator): Director of Programs & Studies, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
Darya Dolzikova: Research Analyst, Proliferation & Nuclear Policy Programme, Royal United Services Institute
Dr. Pierre Englebert: H. Russell Smith Professor of International Relations, Pomona College; Senior Fellow, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
The Violence Inside Us | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
In many ways, the United States sets the pace for other nations to follow. Yet on the most important human concern—the need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from physical harm—America isn’t a leader. In his new book, “The Violence Inside Us: A Brief History of an Ongoing American Tragedy,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) explores the origins of our violent impulses, the roots of our obsession with firearms, and the mythologies that prevent us from confronting our national crisis. Senator Murphy comes to the conclusion that while America’s relationship to violence is indeed unique, America is not inescapably violent. Even as he details the reasons we’ve tolerated so much bloodshed for so long, he explains that we have the power to change.
On September 3, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar with David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray and Senator Murphy on his new book. The pair will discuss the history of violence in America and its long-term impacts, as well as the concrete steps that must be taken to change the nation’s narrative.
Speakers:
Rashawn Ray: David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Hon. Chris Murphy: Senator (D-Conn.), United States Senate
RSS - Posts
