Doc's Talk: Middle East Policy Planning for a Second Obama Administration (Satloff

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Middle East Policy Planning for a Second Obama Administration (Satloff | PolicyWatch 1995)‏

Robert Satloff

******************************

On November 8, 2012, Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff addressed a Policy Forum along with Dennis Ross and James Jeffrey. The following is an edited version of Dr. Satloff's comments; video of the full event can be viewed at:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/middle-east-policy-planning-for-a-second-obama-administration-memo-from-a-f

******************************

If President Obama tasked a courageous National Security Council staff member with drafting a Middle East policy planning memo for his second administration, it might look something like this:

FOUR LESSONS FROM THE FIRST TERM

* As much as we would like to wish it so, it is a mistake to think the United States can pivot away from the Middle East and toward Asia, as though we have a fixed amount of bandwidth and the luxury of reapportioning it based on our preference. For the foreseeable future, the United States cannot avoid dealing with threats and challenges emanating from this region.

* Middle East politics revolve around two threats: the ambitions of a hegemonic Iran and the spread of violent Sunni extremism. In this framework, other issues are secondary to U.S. interests. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, is profoundly important to Israelis and Palestinians (and, for those reasons, important to the United States), but its continuation or resolution will have little impact on the larger dynamics defined by these two threats.

* There are few "happily ever afters" in the Middle East; developments that begin with remarkable hope and inspiration rarely end that way. Look at the bloodless revolution in Tunis, the spirit of Tahrir Square, and the amazing courage of the peaceful protestors in Deraa, and then look at where they are today. Of course, anyone who followed the Oslo process over the past nineteen years already knew this lesson, but every administration learns it for itself.

* As much as words matter -- whether they are the soaring words of the June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world or the line-in-the-sand words of "prevention, not deterrence" regarding Iranian nuclear weapons -- actions matter more. It is a mistake to believe that the former can substitute for the latter.

THREE MOST URGENT ISSUES ON THE MIDDLE EAST AGENDA

* Determining, once and for all, whether the strategy of diplomacy-plus-sanctions will produce a negotiated agreement to resolve the Iranian nuclear challenge, or whether alternative means of coercion, including military force, are necessary to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

* Bringing down Bashar al-Assad's regime as soon as possible in order to impose a strategic defeat on Iran, cut the axis of resistance that links Tehran to Damascus and Hizballah in Beirut, prevent regionalization of the Syrian conflict, end the suffering of the Syrian people, and prevent the worst outcomes (e.g., a jihadist takeover or a lengthy sectarian war-to-the-finish) from emerging out of the rubble of the uprising.

* Preventing the collapse of one or more of the pro-Western monarchies in Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco. Rabat seems to have figured out a recipe for survival, and Manama has big brother Saudi Arabia looking out for it. The most vulnerable of the three is Jordan, a small, resource-poor buffer state -- a keynote of U.S. interests in the Mashreq -- that is facing severe domestic and regional challenges to its stability and survival.

THREE REGIONAL LEADERS WHO DESERVE SPECIAL ATTENTION

* Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu: If he leads his party to victory in the January Knesset elections and forms another coalition government, he is likely to be in office for the balance of the Obama presidency. Given this reality, there is no advantage in having the next four years resemble the first two of Obama's previous term -- a period marked by personal animosities between the two leaders that did not do justice to the depth of the bilateral strategic relationship. U.S. and Israeli interests are consonant and complementary, and the relationship between the leaders should reflect this fact. Of course, the United States is the Great Power and Israel the Lesser Power, so a major share of the responsibility for building sound personal relations falls on the shoulders of the Israeli prime minister. But President Obama has an important role to play in this process as well.

* Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki: Iraq is the third rail of U.S. Middle East diplomacy. In public, few policymakers want to mention the word "Iraq" because it conjures up such bad memories from the past decade. But if geography is destiny, then Iraq -- a functioning, if flawed, democracy located between Iran and Syria -- is critical to U.S. interests.

* The next generation of Saudi princes: As Washington Institute fellow Simon Henderson pointed out recently (see http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-resignation-prompts-fresh-succession-debate ), the leadership transition to the grandsons of Ibn Saud may already have begun, as evidenced by the appointment of a new interior minister. The remaining relevant sons of the kingdom's founder -- including King Abdullah, who is closing in on ninety years old -- are approaching their political and actuarial demise, which could unfold quickly in the period ahead. Accordingly, there is an urgent need now for U.S. leaders to build understandings on strategy and reform with the next generation.

THREE CALAMITIES WASHINGTON NEEDS TO PREVENT

* The demise of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: See above.

* The collapse of the Palestinian Authority: While circumstances are not ripe for the president to contemplate investing the time, capital, and energy needed to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he must make an urgent effort to prevent the PA from crumbling. Such a development would dash any hope for eventual return to serious diplomatic engagement and open dangerous opportunities for the spread of Hamas influence in the West Bank. Averting this requires strengthening and expanding Israeli-PA economic and security relationships and convincing donors to fulfill outstanding pledges for PA support.

* The emergence of a jihadist enclave in Sinai: This desert wilderness was once a buffer that made peace possible; today it exports instability and terrorism to both Israel and "mainland" Egypt. Washington should help Egypt and promote cooperation between Cairo and Israel so that adequate military and civilian assets are invested in preventing the peninsula from becoming an ungoverned space in which radicals and terrorists could threaten U.S. allies and interests.

THREE POLICY INITIATIVES FOR THE SECOND TERM

* Rethinking relations with Islamist-ruled Egypt: The current U.S. approach to Cairo is a holdover from the Mubarak era plastered with a few band-aids -- Washington has not given sufficient long-term thought to the strategy, policy, tools, and implementation of a new relationship with the Islamist-governed country. This applies to all bilateral issues: economic assistance, military ties, civil society outreach, support for democratic transition, and so forth.

* Striking a U.S.-Egypt-Israel trade deal: Given America's ongoing financial problems, there is little money available for new U.S. aid to a near-bankrupt Egypt, and virtually no chance of a U.S. free-trade agreement with Cairo in the near future, despite the boost such a move would give to Egypt's economy. But if Cairo is serious about seeking sound, responsible solutions to its economic crisis, it could reap many of the benefits of an FTA through a massive expansion of its Qualifying Industrial Zone system with Israel, which would be more palatable in the United States. Israel would do the deal in a heartbeat as a way to build relations with post-Mubarak Egypt, even agreeing to lower the amount of Israeli content in Egyptian exports to the United States. But brokering the deal would require Egypt's president to embrace the concept of economic cooperation with Israel -- and, along the way, actually utter the word "Israel."

* Repairing Turkish-Israeli ties: Nearly two-and-a-half years after the Mavi Marmara incident, reconciliation between these two U.S. allies is long overdue. Repairing the relationship is certainly in the U.S. interest; many Turks and Israelis believe it is in their interest too. Although bilateral ties may never return to the days of intimacy and friendship that preceded Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rise to power, there is still much the two countries can do together to further common interests. Despite Washington's previous failed reconciliation efforts, times have changed -- Erdogan is weaker, Netanyahu (if reelected) will be stronger, and the Syria crisis has underscored the common dangers Turkey and Israel face. It is time to try again.

SIX GAME-CHANGERS THAT COULD TRANSFORM THE REGION

* "Arab Spring, the Sequel": The next wave of Arab uprisings could turn on the region's monarchies, possibly including Saudi Arabia.

* Terrorism, again: After a lull in major strikes against U.S. targets and the killing of Usama bin Laden, the United States could suffer one or more spectacular terrorist attacks, using either known methods (e.g., cataclysmic plots against homeland targets; efforts to down civilian planes; attacks on U.S. embassies, assets, and personnel) or tactics we have not yet seen.

* Sinai clash on steroids: The Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the bedrock of U.S. interests in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean, nearly crumbled in August-September 2011, when terrorists in Sinai triggered Israeli action that sparked an Egyptian response, culminating in a mob attack on the Israeli embassy and the near-lynching of Israeli diplomats. Today, under Islamist-ruled Egypt, the peace may lack the resilience to withstand another, perhaps more lethal, Sinai-based escalation.

* Weapons of mass destruction in Syria: The actual or threatened use of WMD in the Syria conflict could trigger a speedy deployment of foreign (including American) troops, thereby realizing a U.S. foreign policy nightmare -- thousands more American "boots on the ground" in a Muslim-majority country.

* Green Movement revisited: One potential opportunity for the United States would be a rejuvenated political protest movement in Iran, perhaps triggered by another rigged election. This time, Washington should find ways to embrace, encourage, and support the protestors. At the very least, this would add a new dimension to the pressure on Iran's rulers to reach a negotiated solution on the nuclear crisis. It could also spur an internally driven political transformation of the regime itself.

* Iranian nuclear breakout: This nightmare scenario must be averted at all costs, for all the reasons President Obama outlined in advocating the policy of "prevention." There is an added political dimension that deserves mention. So far, this memo has avoided using the term "legacy," so common to memos on second-term foreign policy. But it is important to remember the following: there are many potential Middle East initiatives whose failure would have no lasting repercussions and may not even be remembered at all. If, for example, the president tries and fails to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he will be the sixth president to have hit that wall in the past thirty years. But if Iran develops a nuclear weapon during his term, in the face of unambiguous U.S. commitment to prevent such an outcome, that failure will become the president's legacy in the Middle East. Indeed, despite all his other successes and achievements, his foreign policy epitaph will read "Barack Obama: On his watch, Iran got the bomb."

******************************

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
PHONE 202-452-0650
FAX 202-223-5364
www.washingtoninstitute.org
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk