An article former SAIS student James Mina and I wrote on ‘Circumventing Hormuz’ appears in the February–March 2014 issue of Survival. The International Institute for Strategic Studies today published this related post:
Tag: United States
Diversifying Hormuz protection
While my career in recent years has focused on politics, especially in the Balkans and Middle East, I have a long history with energy issues. They were already big in 1972, when I was on the secretariat for the first UN Conference on the Human Environment. Even then global warming was on the agenda. I worked in the mid-1970s at the National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory and in the late 1970s and early 1980s, handled energy issues as Science Counselor of the US Embassies in Rome and Brasilia.
In 1984 I became director of ‘energy consuming country affairs’ at the State Department, a role that included representing the United States at the International Energy Agency’s Standing Committee on Emergency Questions.
It was while oil prices were low in the mid-1980s that we convinced our IEA partners to put in place the ‘coordinated early stock draw’ procedures that are today an important part of the global response to an oil supply disruption.
But proud as I am of that achievement, I’ve come to believe that we missed opportunities to go much further in building up civilian responses to the problem James Mina and I discuss in my Survival article, ‘Circumventing Hormuz’. Over-reliance on military instruments has been costly and counter-productive. We should long ago have pressed non-IEA oil importers (especially China and India) to increase stocks (and coordinate their drawdown) and oil exporters to ensure supply by building pipelines and using them to their maximum capacity.
The current increase in US oil and gas production, while it does not insulate us from the economic harm due to an oil-supply disruption and the resulting price spike, provides an opportunity to beef up these civilian responses, redistribute burdens and lower American military costs. It also provides an opportunity to make protection of oil flow through Hormuz a multinational responsibility, with contributions from major Asian oil importers. This would relieve some of the burden on the US Navy and make it less likely Iran will ever disrupt Gulf oil supplies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : China, Gulf states, India, United States
We are not there yet
Word from Geneva this morning suggests that the Syria peace talks are deadlocked over the issue of forming a transitional government with full executive powers, which is the key goal set in a June 2012 UN communique’. This is no surprise. Bashar al Asad shows no sign of stepping down, aside or out. His Iranian and Russian supporters, while claiming they are not wedded to him, are still not prepared to compel him, or even provide incentives. They continue to provide ample military and financial support.
The opposition is no readier to make peace. Its negotiators went to Geneva 2, as these talks are known, in parlous shape. The regime has been pressing its military advantages near Damascus and in Homs. The opposition military forces are fragmented and fighting each other. The negotiators representing the opposition in Geneva have precious little control over the armed revolutionaries, who are fragmented and fighting with each other. There was also a significant political minority within the Syrian Opposition Coalition, which leads the delegation in Geneva, that opposed going to the talks.
Given these disadvantages, it is remarkable that things have gone pretty well for the opposition in Geneva. Unforced regime errors are part of the explanation. Its chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Moallem, came out of his corner overly aggressive, not only against the opposition but also against UN Secretary General Ban. Beating on the referee is not a good way to win a boxing match. Moallem essentially rejected the notion that the talks aim at forming a transitional government. The regime prefers to forge ahead with spring elections at which Bashar al Asad is guaranteed victory. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Iran, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States
Obama will need to decide
My piece on the Egyptian constitutional referendum was published on Al Jazeera America yesterday. Bottom line: the 98% “yes” vote was real, but just as real was government intimidation of those who might have voted no, a boycott by the Muslim Brotherhood and some more secularist political forces, and “couch party” indifference. Still, about twice as many voters approved this constitution as the one President Morsi put before the voters in June 2012, when turnout was lower and “no” voting higher.
The sincerity and enthusiasm of the “yes” voters should not be doubted. Judging from my admittedly brief conversations with them while observing the referendum for Democracy International, they had no interest in the substance of the constitution but were anxious to vote for stability and an improved economy. The “revolution” has acquired a bad name. It stands for disorder and strife. Many Egyptians want to restore law and order so that they can return to earning a living, albeit a paltry one for most of the population.
The “yes” voters were also enthusiastic about the Egyptian army and General Sisi in particular. In the land of the pharaohs, leaders are deified. Sisi is more than a general or politician to his fans. He is the epitome of all that is good and clean in an Egypt that has seen a lot of nastiness and dirt. His picture and name are proudly displayed and chanted at international election observers, apparently in an effort to impress them with his support and send a message back to Washington. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Egypt, United States
The merits don’t count
The UN invitation to Iran now withdrawn because it failed to acknowledge the June 2012 Geneva 1 communique call for a transitional governing body with full executive powers, the Geneva 2 peace conference began today in Montreux with “bitter speeches.” While the acidity is unusually high in this instance, most peace conferences begin with this kind of venting. The Syrian government representative was anxious to establish Bashar al Asad’s legitimacy while the opposition focused on his atrocities, newly documented in a frightening graphic report purporting to include official photographs of torture victims.
Can anything good come of this Montreux opening and the next few days of meetings? The primary candidates are a prisoner exchange and humanitarian access. The former is much more likely to come off well than the latter.
Holding prisoners is not easy or rewarding. Their usefulness as sources of information declines rapidly after their capture. In addition, warring parties face strong pressure from families and fighters on their own side to get at least an accounting for prisoners, if not also their freedom. It is hard to maintain morale if your people know you can’t even get their comrades and relatives back from the opponent. Supervision of such prisoner exchanges, usually by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is a well practiced art. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Iran, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States
Shambolic
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s invitation today to Iran to attend threw the scheduled opening of peace talks on Syria Wednesday in Montreux into doubt. The United States says it wants Iran to accept publicly as the purpose of the conference creation of a transitional governing body with full executive powers (TGBFEP), as provided for in the June 2012 “Geneva 1” communique. Iran has said it won’t do that, but the Secretary General says Tehran understands what the meeting is about. The Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC), which Saturday voted to attend in Montreux and the subsequent “Geneva 2” meeting, says it won’t come if Iran does without withdrawing its troops from Syria and its support from Bashar al Asad. That won’t happen.
This is a mess. The merits of an invitation to Iran are clear. Tehran’s direct military engagement with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its sponsorship of Hizbollah to fight on behalf of Bashar al Asad makes it indispensable to any substantial progress in the talks. But it is hard for the SOC to attend if Iran does. Going to Montreux to sit at the table with Iran could further discredit its relative moderates and lead to resignations, thus reducing further its already minimal usefulness as a negotiating partner. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Iran, Syria, United Nations, United States
Inside Iran
Two experienced Iran hands debriefed recent trips there Thursday: David Ignatius of the Washington Post and Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the US Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center. USIP’s Bill Taylor moderated.
Iran is entering a new era spearheaded by realists, Robin Wright pointed out. They are not out to transform Iran, but are willing to work within the system to initiate reforms. The tenor has changed, with realistic goals being set. Iran is also recalibrating its strategy, responding to events in the region like the rise of Al Qaeda franchises and the withdrawal of US from Iraq. Iran sees itself surrounded by Salafis and Sunnis. The US is no longer the enemy it once was. Followers of events in Iran too often forget about other factors, aside from US sanctions, that affect Iran’s decision-making. Rouhani is arguably more popular today than the day he was elected. In addition, he has hired savvy technocrats to solve the economic problems facing the country.
Observing that there is an appearance of political debate going on within Iran, David Ignatius said the US sanctions are often called “crippling.” Yet when one travels to Iran, it does not look like a country on its knees. Iranians are resourceful people. More than damage the current Iranian economy, US sanctions have crippled Iran’s future. This is an enormous opportunity cost that will prevent Iran from becoming a successful state until the sanctions are lifted. It will be very difficult to close a deal with Iran, but the best strategic move now would be to give Iran a taste of what the future might look like if there is a permanent nuclear agreement.
Wright agreed Iran seems to be thriving and is not crippled. It is important to be wary of assumptions about the effects of the US sanctions are on Iran. Wright described her visit to the former US embassy and how she met with one of the masterminds behind the 1979 takeover. He expressed support for reopening the embassy and a nuclear deal between the US and Iran. Realists would then be allowed to run for office more frequently and women’s rights would increase. Without gaining credibility by forging a successful deal with the US first, however, Rouhani will be unable to address other problems in Iran. There is a real sense of public support for nuclear deal.
Ignatius believes Iranian society is waiting to jump into the future and onto the world stage. He interpreted Kissinger’s famous quote “Is Iran a nation or a cause?” as meaning “Has Iran moved on from its revolution?” It seems not, at least for top-level officials. Iran is still carrying out destabilizing activities in the region. Wright concurred. Iran is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world. Iranians will continue to do whatever it takes to protect and further their national interests. However, there is a sense that Syria may not hold together while Assad is in power. Off the record, an Iranian official told her that Iran would be willing to chop off the head (Assad) in order to preserve the body (the Syrian Baath party) Iranian concern about Al Qaeda gains in Syria is real.
Ignatius believes that it is in the US interest to demonstrate how Iran could be a big player in the region if it curbs its nuclear program as well as its covert action in neighboring countries. Iran is adept at riding several horses at once. It can juggle relations with the US, Hezbollah, and Syria at the same time, demonstrating political mastery. The US would be wise to learn the same trick.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Iran, Nuclear weapons, United States
RSS - Posts
