peacefare.net

Syria and Iran in the next administration

Election day is just a month away, but neither Mr. Trump nor Secretary Clinton have offered a detailed vision for the Middle East. With problems in the Middle East likely to grow in the next four years, it is important to consider what we should expect from the next administration regarding US foreign policy in the region.

The Brookings Institution tackled this question earlier today by asking two of its scholars what they hope to see from the next administration. Politico’s Indira Lakshmanan moderated a discussion between Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, and Robert Einhorn, also a senior fellow at Brookings and former negotiator of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal).

O’Hanlon spoke primarily on Syria and how the US should begin to pursue a solution there. He said most Syrians despise Assad, especially the Sunni Muslims of the opposition, and therefore Assad cannot serve as a unifying force. O’Hanlon advocates a confederal model for Syria that is ruled by independent autonomous zones rather than a strong central government. The moderate opposition would need to be strengthened, trained, and armed by the US and its allies as a part of this plan, though we must make it clear to Assad and Putin that we are not doing so with the intention of creating an army to march on Damascus. While it is imperative that we create safe havens and no-fly zones, we need to be careful how we defend these zones, since the American public has no interest in seeing American boots on the ground in Syria.

Einhorn focused on the fate of the JCPOA under the next administration. He says that although the deal is not perfect, its effectiveness in curbing Iranian nuclear capabilities has been substantial. However, its longevity isn’t guaranteed—it has many opponents both in the US and in Iran, and if Rouhani loses the election next March or if Trump wins the presidency, the deal could be scrapped. The next administration should insist on strict compliance from Iran and continue to condemn Iranian actions not covered by the JCPOA, such as launching ballistic missiles and throwing its weight around in the region.

When asked who he thinks would be best suited to carry out his vision in Syria, O’Hanlon responded that neither candidate has fully thought out what to do in Syria. Obama’s plan for Syria has not worked. The next president will need to completely reevaluate the situation there. O’Hanlon also readily admits that his own vision for confederalism in Syria is ambitious and will take time to implement. But Assad cannot wage this war forever, and it is not the Russia’s interest to remain the enemy of the Sunni Muslim world—both parties will eventually need to compromise.

Einhorn said that Clinton would be the better president for our relationship with Iran. During his time as a JCPOA negotiator, Einhorn found Clinton to have a realistic view of Iran. She knew that this deal would not moderate Iran and that the US would need to continue to oppose Iranian aggression. Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t have a realistic view of the Iran deal. He says that he will renegotiate the deal, but in reality, he wouldn’t have the international support required to make a new deal, nor would he be able to get Iran to the negotiating table.