Day: May 24, 2013

Obama’s speech was about us, not them

Posted in Uncategorized - May 24, 2013 - 0 Comment

I admit it:  I liked the President’s long speechon drones and Guantanamo, plus his impromptu remarks on respect for the views of a Code Pink heckler.  I particularly liked this:

For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

That’s a lot better in my book than the nation-building at home line that he generally uses, which suggests that foreign policy really has no utility to the American taxpayer.  This is perhaps his strongest statement ever on the national security role of civilian foreign policy instruments, which naturally interests me as I just completed a book manuscript on the subject.
But the speech was about far more than that.  The core of his message seemed to be this:  we went to war against Al Qaeda justly and struck devastating blows against our enemies, but we overdid the torture and the indefinite detentions.  We need now to figure out how to end the war on terror and get back to more business as usual, ratcheting down the drone wars and even ending or limiting in due course the Congressional authorization to use military force.  Jane Mayer is right:  the contrast of style and substance with the Manichean approach of George W. Bush couldn’t be starker.
Only a second-term president without fear of retribution at the polls could wonder whether the war on terror is doing more undermine our values than it is doing to harm our enemies.  Senator Saxby Chambliss reacted with his usual sharp intelligence and declared the speech a win for the terrorists. He continues to think Guantanamo houses our most dangerous enemies and wants to use drones without any accountability in public.  I guess I have no doubt what Fox News is saying.
But the president in fact made a strong argument for using drones against those who are planning attacks on the United States or American citizens.  He clearly intends to reduce the frequency of drone strikes (in fact, he has already done that), especially outside active war zones like Afghanistan.  But he just as clearly wants to continue to hold the authority to kill people who are preparing to strike us.  It is impossible to argue that he should not do what he can to prevent attacks on the United States.  The question is what procedures and safeguards will be in place to ensure that he–and eventually future presidents who may not be as thoughtful–is not making serious errors.
Guantanamo should be viewed in this context.  The question is whether the people there pose a serious threat to the United States.  It is likely some do:  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example.  But more than half of the 166 still there have been approved for release or transfer.  The President regards the Guantanamo issue, which he inherited, as one he does not want to pass on.  He said yesterday:
Imagine a future – 10 years from now, or 20 years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country.
The toughest cases are likely to be those in which the detainees have been tortured or their cases otherwise compromised in ways that make prosecution in the United States difficult or impossible.   Those who thought torture a good idea should take responsibility for the quandary, but they won’t.  That’s also about us, not them.
Tags : , ,

The Supreme Leader leads supremely

Posted in Uncategorized - May 24, 2013 - 0 Comment

The bleak outlook for the June 14 Iranian elections was discussed yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  Panelists Ali Vaez, Barbara Slavin and Meir Javendafar weighed in on the likely front runners.  A second discussion at Brookings was not for attribution.

The bottom line is clear.  The Guardian Council has exercised its authority to eliminate the more interesting candidates and limit competition.  There is little likelihood of fundamental change. The disputed the 2009 presidential election has made the Supreme Leader extra cautious.  He thinks it is better to prevent dissent by controlling the selection of candidates, rather than deal with an angry population after the votes have been counted. Nothing will be left to chance.

The election will exclude President Ahmedinejad and his friends from positions of power and strengthen the position of Supreme Leader Khamenei.  But Ahmedinejad may remain influential after the election by using his knowledge of corruption and electoral fraud to challenge the establishment.

All remaining eight candidates make up in loyalty to the Supreme Leader what they lack in charisma.  Possible front runners include:

  • Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, is uncontroversial and willing to work with other political factions.  His election would help the Supreme Leader, to whom he is notably loyal, to marginalize the presidency.
  • Hassan Rowhani, another former nuclear negotiator, and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the current mayor of Tehran, are popular, centrist candidates, but both likely more independent than the Supreme Leader wants.

Six of the eight candidates were appointed by the Supreme Leader at some point in their careers. Khamanei wants a president who will stay loyal to him and to his vision as he gets older and weaker.

The Iranian leadership plans to keep the election lackluster in an attempt to prevent the growing undercurrent of dissent from spilling over. Candidates will not even be participating in televised debates. Voter turnout is expected to be historically low, though the state media may report record high turnout. Slavin quipped about the 2009 elections:

80% of the population sat a home and watched the news report that 70% of the population had turned out to vote.

From the US perspective, election of Rowhani might seem the best outcome, as he is the closest thing left in the race to someone interested in reform.  But he would also likely be the one most at odds with the Supreme Leader.  On the nuclear issue in particular, any division in the Iranian regime, as occurred under Ahmedinejad, could cause paralysis rather than generate progress.

The odds of success in the nuclear negotiation are in any case slim.  The Iranians see the US as having taken its best shot with sanctions whose impact has been absorbed and is now declining.  With time, they figure the sanctions will fray.  The aging and ossified Khamenei is extraordinarily suspicious and cautious.  For him to decide in his dotage that what Iran really needs is an agreement with the United States to limit Iran’s nuclear program would be out of character.

Revival of the Green opposition, defeat in Syria or a sharp drop in oil prices are all possible “black swans” that could dramatically affect the situation, before or after the election.  But all seem unlikely this year.

Tags : , ,
Tweet