Month: October 2016
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Plan B options
The Administration is considering plan B for Syria. In order to be effective, it has to somehow rebalance the military situation to enable the non-extremist Syrian opposition to resist effectively the Russian/Iranian/Syrian government/Shia militia onslaught and to fight the Islamic State.
I take as a given two limits: 1) Washington does not want to directly engage Russian forces and 2) it does not want to put significant numbers of troops on the ground in Syria. Nor do I think it will be possible for the President to gain Congressional approval for an expanded Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).
Here is a summary of options, all of which I think I have previously discussed on peacefare.net:
1. Encourage Congress to pass and sign the pending sanctions bill. This would have broad political significance, but mainly affect helicopter and airplane parts, if we are prepared to enforce third party prohibitions (i.e. threaten suspension of business with US companies if foreign companies ship parts to Syria).
2. End the impunity of the Syrian air force by destroying helicopters that drop barrel bombs on civilian targets. This can be done with stand-off weapons and does not require US aircraft over Syrian territory. It would likely have to be done as covert action in order to get around the AUMF, which covers only Al Qaeda (and via a stretch Al Qaeda-descended organizations like the Islamic State).
3. Tell the Russians and Iranians we are no longer going to turn a blind eye to Hizbollah engagement in Syria. If they don’t leave, we would need to target them (again as covert action with standoff weapons).
4. Create safe areas inside Syria we are prepared to protect from the air. The opposition, or Turkey, would have to provide ground forces in order to govern there without fear of regime and Islamic State violence. This option would also entail financial and technical assistance to the civilian opposition on a scale not yet attempted.
5. Provide (or allow others to provide) anti-aircraft and other more advanced weapons to vetted opposition groups. Possible use of these weapons against civilian aircraft either in Syria or in the region is the obvious downside. Remember Malaysia Air flight 17.
None of these ideas is a slam dunk. All could generate unintended consequences, in particular Russian and Iranian escalation. It is not clear that Washington would be willing to meet and exceed their responses. Nor is it guaranteed that the non-extremist opposition would be able to take advantage of the opportunities Washington generates.
But without something that changes the military equation, Aleppo is lost and the Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance will continue its depredations against civilians in Idlib and other opposition strongholds. This would strengthen extremist recruitment and postpone the prospect of any political settlement.
I don’t envy this president, or the next one, in facing the choice among these options, or doing nothing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The toughest nut in the Middle East
The Middle East Institute held their 7th annual conference on Turkey last week, gathering regional experts to discuss Turkey’s turbulent domestic politics and regional role. This post focuses on the regional issues discussed.
Haim Malka of the Center for Strategic and International Studies focused on Turkey-Israel relations. The reconciliation agreement following Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish flotilla headed to Gaza is being implemented. This is a mutually-beneficial, low-cost measure. Strategic cooperation is likely to remain limited.
Syria will test the renewed relationship as it is an arena where both Turkey and Israel’s interests intersect. Israel’s policy on Syria has to date been confused and vague, perhaps intentionally so, but ultimately the Israelis want to see a Syria with minimal Iranian influence. The fall of Iran’s ally Assad may be assumed beneficial to Israel, but the Israelis seem to have followed a ‘better the devil you know’ approach so far and do not appear to be supporting alternative political actors in Syria.
Bill Park of King’s College, London discussed Turkey’s relations with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, which saw marked improvement in 2009 and 2010 due to trade and energy connections, shared mistrust of Maliki’s Baghdad government, and President Barzani’s role as a potential partner in the peace process with Turkey’s own Kurds (the PKK). While these foundations for positive relations remain, Turkey’s refusal to support Syrian Kurds in the fight against IS, Turkey’s re-establishing a relationship with Baghdad following the replacement of Maliki by Abadi, and a change in perception of Barzani’s leadership record have undermined the rapprochement.
Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Karim Sadjadpour discussed Turkey-Iran relations. There are notable commonalities between the two states as they suffer both a superiority and inferiority complex – both do not see their current status in world affairs as reflecting their histories as great empires. There is also a strong shared cultural history. The Iran-Turkey border has proven stable in an otherwise turbulent region for centuries. Also important is their economic partnership, with shared gas projects and common concern with Kurdish independence.
Having suffered from terrorist attacks, Turkey is disappointed in Iran following Assad’s lead, especially in ignoring the radical Islamist threat in Syria. Upcoming events could exacerbate frictions between Turkey and Iran. These include the upcoming US presidential election, the May 2017 presidential elections in Iran, and whether the nuclear deal lasts ten years.
Presenting the complex relationship of Turkey, the US and Kurds was Amberin Zaman, Public Policy Fellow with the Wilson Center. She believes the US has an opportunity to use its leverage with the Syrian Kurds (the PYD) and Turkey to revive the Turkey-Kurdish peace process. This will require the US to abandon the fiction that the PYD and PKK are separate groups. The PYD is not seeking an independent state but rather a subnational federal unit within Syria, which the Kurds term “Rojava.”
While Turkey is unable to determine a military outcome, Ankara holds considerable soft power, especially in assisting the moderate opposition.
It was agreed among all the panelists that the US must articulate its policy for the region, and Syria in particular, as Turkey and its neighbors are looking for US leadership and unwilling to pursue their own policies without clarification from Washington. That is proving the toughest nut to crack in the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 3-7
- Charting a Way Forward in Afghanistan | Monday, October 3 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | The Brookings Institution | Click HERE to register
Fifteen years after the September 11 attacks drew the United States into Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida and their hosts, the Taliban, cooperation with the Afghan people remains key to the generational conflict against violent extremists in the region. While multiple conflicts rage across the broader Middle East, continuing to build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan is pivotal. The situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, but the country is considerably better off today than it was at the start of this conflict, and the Afghan people are an important ally. In a new paper, former ambassadors, military commanders, special representatives, and Afghanistan scholars outline a way forward for the United States and its Afghan partners, centered on the concept of enduring partnership.On October 3, the Brookings Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligencewill host an event to examine the effort in Afghanistan and the region based on the recommendations from the paper. Former Special Representative for Afghanistan/Pakistan James Dobbins and former Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, as well as former Ambassador James Cunningham will join retired General David Petraeus, who led the NATO military effort there from 2010 to 2011, as panelists. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the event. - Crossroads of the Caucusus: Implications of Georgia’s Elections for the Region and Beyond | Monday, October 3 | 2:00pm – 3:15pm | The German Marshall Fund of the US | Click HERE to Register
The instability stretching from Ukraine to Turkey to the Middle East places Georgia at the middle of regional and geopolitical developments. Though Georgia’s relationship with the Alliance is long standing, Georgia has made significant strides in greater governmental transparency and efficiency that have bolstered the country’s democracy and pulled Georgia closer to NATO and Europe. However, escalating tensions between the ruling Georgian Dream party and the opposing United National Movement, as well as controversial amendments to the country’s constitutional courts, have raised questions about the direction of internal politics. With this in mind, The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) invites you to a discussion with Ambassador Tedo Japaridze, member of the Georgian Parliament and chairman of the International Relations Committee, who will discuss the upcoming elections on October 8, Georgia’s strategic context in a rapidly changing region, and Georgia’s relationship with Europe and NATO. The discussion will be moderated by Transatlantic Academy Executive Director Stephen Szabo. - What Does Success in the Middle East Look Like for the Next President? | Wednesday, October 5 | 8:15am – 9:15am | The Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
Syria. Iraq. Iran. It’s no secret that many of the top challenges for the security and stability of the world lie in the Middle East. On day one of their administration, the next president will be forced to make major strategy decisions in the region. Will the U.S. choose to engage militarily in Syria? How will the U.S. move forward with the Iranian nuclear agreement? After four years of the next president’s first term, what would success in the Middle East really look like?
On October 5, come have breakfast at Brookings and hear an exciting conversation about how the next president can navigate these hot spots in foreign policy, and make both the U.S. and the world a safer place. As part of the Brookings Election 2016 project, this event is the first in a series of live podcast recordings.
Brookings Senior Fellow and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Robert Einhorn has released a new set of recommendationsto the next president on Iran on how the U.S. can reinforce support for the Iran nuclear deal at home and abroad and promote stability in the region. Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon recently delivered a policy recommendation on the Syrian conflict, and will speak to how the next president can balance the dual goals of U.S. security and the protection of Syrian lives.
The event will be moderated by veteran journalist Indira Lakshmanan of the Boston Globe, who will prompt each expert to deliver a recommended course of action in a concise manner, press them with alternate perspectives on the issue, and ensure a lively conversation about realistic pathways to success and the obstacles that lie in the way.
- Stronger with Allies: The Future of Europe after Brexit | Thursday, October 6 | 8:30am – 1:00pm | Atlantic Council | Click HERE To Register
As British and EU policymakers map out the UK’s exit from the European Union, Europe is already confronted with a triple threat: Russia’s aggressive posture to the East, Mideast wars and instability producing waves of migrants and extremism from the South, and centrifugal, nationalist forces tearing at the continent’s internal fabric. The UK referendum, horrific terrorist attacks, and a continually sluggish economy put the future of Europe in question. Against this backdrop of uncertainty, this conference is organized in partnership with the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic to flesh out a strategy for Europe and transatlantic cooperation following the Bratislava EU Summit in September.
The event will feature: E. Miroslav Lajčák, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, Mr. Carlos Costa, Governor, Bank of Portugal, Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling, LLP; Former US Ambassador to the European Union, Ms. Ashlee Godwin, Committee Specialist, Foreign Affairs Committee and Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, UK House of Commons, Mr. Benjamin Haddad, Research Fellow, Hudson Institute, H.E. Ratislav Kacer, Ambassador of Slovakia to Hungary, Ms. Laure Mandeville, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Future Europe Initiative, Atlantic Council, Dr. Andrea Montanino, Director, Global Business and Economics Program, Atlantic Council, H.E. Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, EU Commission, H.E. David O’Sullivan. Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, Minister Ana Palacio, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Former Prime Minister of Denmark and Secretary General of NATO, Ms. Teri Schultz, Freelance Reporter, National Public Radio and CBS Radio, Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Programs and Strategy, Atlantic Council - Pakistan’s Economic Turnaround: What Basis for Peace? | Thursday, October 6 | 9:30am – 11:00am | US Institute of Peace | Click HERE To Register
Reforms under the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif have boosted economic growth. Still, the world’s sixth most-populous country faces the economic and long-term security imperative of providing jobs, especially for young adults, who form 30 percent of the population—a demographic “youth bulge” that is one of the world’s largest. And security problems, including violent extremism, threaten economic development and risk derailing Pakistan’s efforts toward rapprochement with its neighbors, including India. Mohammad Ishaq Dar has served as finance ministry throughout the current government’s term, and is a longtime leader within the governing Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). He will speak at USIP in a visit to Washington that will include the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This event will feature Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Finance Minister of Pakistan and will be moderated by Moeed Yusuf, Associate Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace - Shifting Paradigms: The Role of Young People in Building Peace and Security | Thursday, October 6 | 2:00pm – 4:00pm | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register
The Wilson Center’s Global Sustainability and Resilience Program, in coordination with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), invites you to an expert discussion on building peace and countering violent extremism with young people.
In 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2250, which marked the emergence of a youth, peace, and security agenda. What should policymakers prioritize to support young people’s active engagement in peacebuilding processes? How can Resolution 2250 support the United States’ domestic and international efforts on peace? Panelists will explore these questions and invite questions from the audience. The event will feature Joyce Banda,Distinguished Fellow, Roger-Mark De Souza,
Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience, Benoit Kalasa,
Director, Technical Division, United Nations Population Fund Natalia Kanem, Deputy Executive Director, Programme, United Nations Population Fund, Alaa Murabit, Medical Doctor; High-Level Commissioner, Health Employment and Economic Growth, United Nations and Andy Rabens, Special Advisor, Global Youth Issues, U.S. Department of State
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump melting down
The only problem with this Saturday Night Live version of the first presidential debate is that Trump was far worse than Alec Baldwin portrayed:
Kaine/Pence is October 4. Trump/Clinton 2 October 9 and Clinton/Trump 3 on October 19. I suppose we can look forward to SNL version of those as well.
Trump continues to be himself. If you prefer the video, here is last night’s meltdown in Pennsylvania:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria divided but not partitioned
Syria Deeply Friday published What Syrians Can Expect in a Post-War Landscape. This is based in part on a longer piece that appears in the European Institute of the Mediterranean 2016 Yearbook. My summer MEI research assistants Rosemary Youhana and Katherine Preston took the lead in drafting both. The former starts this way:
Whoever leads the postwar political transition in Syria will need to take into consideration the impact of more than five years of fighting. The Syrian government, opposition forces, the Kurdish PYD, the so-called Islamic State, and the former al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS) are all governing territory they control. The postwar transition will need to take these diverse governance dynamics into account.
Finding an effective political solution to the conflict in Syria must take into account how these wartime structures maintain security, provide goods and services and earn legitimacy in the eyes of the local population.
For the rest, go to Syria Deeply or for the longer paper the Yearbook.
RSS - Posts
