Month: January 2020
The Middle East without Soleimani
Following the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, who was an IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) general and the Quds Force commander, Iran retaliated against the US by launching a missile attack on US bases in Iraq. What further impact will Soleimani’s death have? And what will it mean for US interests in the region?
On January 22, Carnegie Endowment for International Studies hosted a panel discussion on The killing of Soleimani and the future of the Middle East. The discussion included three speakers: Rasha Al Aqeedi, the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a research analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam, Dexter Filkins, a journalist for The New Yorker, and Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow for Middle East Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The panel discussion was moderated by Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Soleimani projected Iran’s power in the region
Filkins described Soleimani as a “master spy” and “a man in the shadow.” His influence was pervasive. Lebanese people didn’t decide their government, Soleimani did. Assad was not running the war, Soleimani was. Soleimani was a product of the Iran-Iraq War, during which he worked on strengthening and allying with the Shia around the Middle East.
Hokayem depicted him as one of the most influential actors in the Levant for securing Iran’s long-term interests. Soleimani turned Hezbollah from a formidable insurgent group into a conventional actor with missile forces menacing Israel. He was implicated in Hariri’s assassination in 2005, led efforts to shore up the Assad regime in 2012, and was also involved in the Battle of Kirkuk in 2017.
Al Aqeedi noted that when ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) took over Mosul in 2014, Soleimani reacted by forming security forces/militias to help Iraq, based on Iran’s interests. Since then, Soleimani had kept the US-trained Iraqi army as weak as possible, while strengthening and formalizing the Shia militias in Iraq. In 2017, Soleimani rallied the Iraqi army to forcefully retake Kirkuk and suppress the results of Kurdistan’s independence referendum.
Further retaliation?
Sadjadpour believes that the assassination has energized the radicals of the Iranian regime, who may intensify their repression, but the downing of the Ukrainian airline has constrained popular support for retaliation. Filkins doubts benefits to US interests from the assassination.
Al Aqeedi noted that if any Iranian retaliation targeted US embassies or Americans, the US may intensify its retribution against Iran. Hence, Iran and the US need to think twice before taking any further actions. Hokayem suggested Iran possesses lots of tools to retaliate, not necessarily against American targets but also against regional American proxies, such as Saudi Arabia.
Impacts
Hokayem emphasized that the assassination neither mitigates Iran’s threat to its regional rivals nor changes the ordering of the region. Iran has secured its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He also claimed that the Trump administration doesn’t care much about Iraq. The US military presence was keeping a low profile even before the Iraqi parliament urged the government to expel foreign troops from its territory.
Al Aqeedi agreed with Hokayem that the US isn’t interested in being involved in the Iraqi protests. She underlined that the US presence in Iraq is not an occupation, and there is no US military base in Iraq. Hence, she argued that the current campaign against US presence in Iraq is a distraction from the protest, which targeted the IRGC. The Iraqi protesters are reluctant to be dragged into the US-Iran confrontation and want Iraq to avoid becoming a proxy for any external actors. Al Aqeedi is deeply concerned that Iraqi protesters are likely to encounter more violence from the IRGC and forces it controls.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 23
-A trove of Cybercom documents has been declassified. They reveal interagency disputes over targeting ISIS. The National Security Archive, which gathers FOIA releases, has the documents here.
A Brookings analyst documents the unprecedented turnover of senior national security officials in the Trump administration.
No surprise, but lobbyists had a good year in 2019.
State Dept officials called as witnesses in the impeachment inquiry had staggering legal bills, only about 1/4 paid by the government.
North Korea has named a “hard-lined cantankerous” former military officer as its new foreign minister.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Optimism on Europe
With Brexit day around the corner on January 31, the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) hosted a panel titled The Future of Europe: French and German Perspectives. The panel was a discussion between German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne, moderated by Rachel Ellehuus, the Deputy Director of the Europe Program at CSIS.
Despite the looming fate of Brexit, Haber was adamant to make numerous comments about the continued strength of the European Union and proclaimed that the European cause has actually become more popular. Haber noted that the European Union has always been at the crossroads, continually changing its narrative and sense of purpose. The construction and functionality of the European Coal and Steel Community was entirely different than the European Union of today, thus the Europe Union will be able to move on and reshape after the loss of the UK.
Over the past 11 years the EU has experienced multiple crises, including the euro crisis, the migration crisis, and Brexit. Haber argued that there exists a paradox in the effects of these crises, on the one hand they have led to a loss of confidence in the EU structure (sparking populist movements), while on the other they have strengthened governance structures. Haber emphasized that these structures create a protective barrier for the citizens, and it is these governance structures that will allow the EU member countries to combat larger issues of climate change and nuclearalization, for example.
Etienne emphasized that the France-Germany alliance is the backbone of the EU and is necessary for its functionality. He added that the most important characteristic of the EU is the will of the leaders and nations to achieve constructive compromises, not the actual member states.
Ellehuus inquired about the synergies and tensions that exist within the EU and the nation states’ agendas. Haber referenced the migration crisis as an exemplification of the confusion and possible tension between citizens, their governments, and the EU institutions. Due to the EU’s open borders policy, many governments wanted to discuss and solve the issue at the EU level rather than at their national level; however, this enraged many citizens as they felt their elected officials were not properly representing their desires.
Etienne added that the EU has an entire set of institutions, laws, and diplomatic processes that often make it confusing for citizens to comprehend and grasp its role. He accentuated that despite these confusions, the purpose of the EU is to protect its citizens and provide legitimacy to decision making processes. Both Etienne and Haber emphasized the benefits that the EU brings to the US as well as to its people. Ultimately, Etienne and Haber remained positive about the fate of the EU in this upcoming transition period.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Guilty as charged
The opening of the trial proceedings in the Senate has already produced an obvious result: the President has no defense against the charge that he tried to use US government aid to gain a personal political advantage over a potential rival, then obstructed Congress in its investigation. White House lawyers are not claiming he didn’t try to extort the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, only that he was free to do it and to block witnesses and documents the House of Representatives requested.
This amounts to the inverse of nolo contendere, in which a defendant doesn’t admit guilt, but accepts punishment. Trump is admitting the facts, but the Republican-controlled Senate is protecting him from the penalty provided in the Constitution, removal from office. It has the power under the Constitution to do that and is exercising it with vigor, preventing even submission of documentary evidence and witness testimony to the wrongdoing.
The big question is how the country will react to a President who believes he can abuse power as much he wants and suffer no consequence. According to the first poll taken since the articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate, a thin majority of Americans now believes he should be removed from office, a wider margin believes the charges against him are true, and two-thirds believe the proceedings in the Senate should include testimony from witnesses.
If confirmed, those results would be a substantial deviation from the trend line in recent months, which is basically flat. The partisan divide is still wide and Republicans in the Senate continue to believe that their prospects in the November election are more threatened by Trump-allied challengers in the primaries than by Democrats at the polls. None of the supposed Republican moderates in the Senate have budged from the majority on the many Democratic proposals to bring witnesses and documents into the process.
The Republicans have an option if the going gets rough. They could decide to defenestrate Trump and put Vice President Pence in his place. More genuinely conservative than Trump on social and religious issues, Pence could be relied on to appoint judges who would please the anti-abortion, pro-Christian, Republican base as well as continue the anti-immigration crusade (double meaning intended) Trump has conducted. What Pence lacks is even a rudimentary personality, never mind charisma.
The Democrats are meanwhile still engaged in the fratricidal warfare of the presidential primaries. For now the presidential hopefuls seem mostly incapable of refocusing their attacks on Trump rather than each other. That isn’t good, but the next month or two may well sort out who the candidate will be. If that doesn’t happen, the Democrats could go to the mid-July convention in Milwaukee without a candidate. A “brokered” convention would not be a good thing.
But the biggest single factor in the next election will be the economy. Trump’s bragging at Davos this week was based on falsehoods. The Obama expansion has continued, but growth is now slowing, though not dramatically yet. The Trump tax cut did little to stimulate the economy but a great deal to balloon the government deficit. The trade deal with China failed to correct most of the structural issues that have given the US such a large bilateral deficit. The trade deal with Mexico made desirable updates. Hourly wages have begun to perk up, but inequality continues its long rise.
The picture is worse on the national security front. The fights Trump has picked with North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran have produced no good results for the US. He has nothing to show for his lovefest with Russian President Putin, who still sits on a big piece of Ukraine. The Israel/Palestine peace plan is a bust. The NATO allies despise the President and are holding their breath for him to leave office. He ignores Latin America and Africa (to their benefit more than likely) while talking tough on China but doing precious little.
If there were professor who could judge the Trump Administration on its economic, social, and national security merits, it would get an F. He is not only guilty as charged, but incompetent as well.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 21
– NYT says Treasury wants to reclaim the Secret Service from its current place in Homeland Security. I bet many of the 21 other components of DHS would like to return to their prior home.
– DOD wants to reduce Africom size and activities. The command is now touting its value, and Congress may resist the cuts
– WSJ foresees a global split over technology, US from China.
-The executive branch just isn’t filling its key jobs.
– Be sure to look at these new articles by SAIS profs: Prof. Gavin on how to understand the nature of the world order [or disorder], and Barno & Bensahel on US vulnerability to drones.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 21-24
Ground Truth Briefing: What to Make of Putin’s Power Play| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Wilson Center | Register Here
On January 15, the Russian government resigned following President Vladimir Putin’s state of the nation address in which he proposed sweeping constitutional reforms. Putin then elevated former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the role of Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and Medvedev’s replacement, Mikhail Mishustin, was approved as the new prime minister on January 16.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, our experts will assess Putin’s proposed reforms and political machinations.
Dial in phone numbers:
U.S. toll-free number:
800-369-2054;
International call number:
1-312-470-7127;
Participant passcode: 6238346
Speakers:
Mathew Rohansky is the director of the Kennan Institute.
Sergey Parkhomenko is a senior advisor and a journalist for “Echo of Moscow” Radio. He previously served as the editor-in-chief for the Russian journal Itogi and the Russian magazine Vokrug Sveta.
William E. Pomeranz is the deputy director of the Kennan Institute.
Maxim Trudolyubov is a senior advisor and an editor-in-chief for Russia File. He also serves as editor-at-large at Vedomosti Daily.
Unmaking the Presidency: A Book Discussion with Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes | January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
The extraordinary authority of the U.S. presidency has no parallel in the democratic world. Today that authority resides in the hands of one man, Donald J. Trump. But rarely, if ever, has the nature of a president clashed more profoundly with the nature of the office. From the moment of his inauguration, Trump has challenged our deepest expectations of the presidency. But what are those expectations, where did they come from, and how great is the damage? In their new book, “Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office,” Brookings Senior Fellows Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes tell the story of the confrontation between a person and the institution he almost wholly embodies.
On January 21, Hennessey and Wittes will debut their new book at Brookings and will be joined by journalist Fred Hiatt for a conversation. After the discussion, speakers will take audience questions. This event will be webcast live.
Speakers:
Fred Hiatt is an editorial page editor for the Washington Post.
Susan Hennessey is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. She currently serves as the executive editor for Lawfare.
Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. He currently serves as the editor-in-chief for Lawfare.
Disengaging from Violent Extremism Kickoff for USIP Initiative on Violent Extremist Disengagement and Reconciliation| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Governments and communities worldwide are now grappling with what to do when citizens who participated in violent extremist conflicts return home. Though the violent radicalization process is complex, it is inherently social in nature—and disengagement efforts will need to address those social factors too. Many returning persons will face prosecution, while others will reintegrate directly into local communities. But once the justice systems mete out their sentences, returnees need processes that enable them to abandon their violent attitudes and behaviors, and communities need approaches that can create social cohesion to avoid further violence, revenge, and future radicalization.
Join USIP as we kick off our VEDR initiative to progress past conventional notions of deradicalization—which generally focus on transforming a person’s beliefs about ideologies—and instead develop a systemic approach that simultaneously encourages disengagement and builds social cohesion and community resilience to prevent the reoccurrence of violence.
This panel will explore the cognitive, social, and structural factors involved in the disengagement, reintegration, and reconciliation of violent extremists within local communities. The premise of the panel is that sustained, positive, inclusive engagement with local communities is critical for building bonds, generating a sense of belonging, and fostering a cognitive opening to disengage from violent extremism.
Join the conversation on Twitter with #ReintegratingExtremists.
Speakers:
Dr. David Yang is the vice president of the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation (ACT) at the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Laura G.E. Smith is a senior lecturer at the University of Bath.
Dr. Mary Beth Altier is a clinical associate professor at the New York University.
Dr. B. Heidi Ellis is the director of the Refugee Trauma and Resilience Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Rebecca J. Wolfe is a lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Stevan M. Weine is a professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mr. Chris Bosley is a senior program officer of the Countering Violent Extremism at the US Institute of Peace.
The Killing of Soleimani and the Future of the Middle East| January 22, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM | Carneige Endowment for International Peace| Register Here
The killing of Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani has sent shockwaves through Iran and the Middle East. What impact will his death have? And what will it mean for U.S. interests in the region?
Speakers:
Rasha Al Aqeedi is the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a researcher and analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam.
Dexter Filkins is a journalist for The New Yorker.
Emile Hokayem is a senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
The Future of Europe:
French and German Perspectives
A Conversation with
German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne | January 22, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM
| Center for Strategic International Studies|
Register Here
In 2020, Europe will be
facing a unique set of political, economic, and security challenges, including
Brexit. However, the beginning of the new decade also offers an opportunity to
lay out an ambitious vision for the future of Europe and for progress in areas
of common concern.
Please join us for a timely conversation with German
Ambassador to the U.S. Emily Haber and French Ambassador to the U.S. Philippe
Etienne as they discuss their vision for Europe over the next decade, the
foreign policy challenges facing Europe in 2020, and the future of
transatlantic relations.
Speakers:
Ambassador Emmily Haber, German Ambassador to the United States
Ambassador Philippe Etienne, French Ambassador to the United States
Rachel Ellehuus, Deputy Director, Europe Program
The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications| January 23, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy| Register Here
President Trump’s announcement of a U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria, followed swiftly by the Turkish military incursion, raised urgent questions about influence and control in that critical region. While a slimmed-down U.S. contingent remains in the area, a new status quo has emerged that includes a greater role for Russia and the Assad regime and a more circumscribed role for America’s local partners, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. How will this shifting balance of power affect counterterrorism efforts, humanitarian conditions, governance, and the political/military stature of various local and international actors, including the United States? To address these questions, The Washington Institute is pleased to host a Policy Forum with Gonul Tol, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, and Dana Stroul.
Speakers:
Gonul Tol is founding
director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program and an adjunct
professor at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies.
She has written extensively on U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics,
and the Kurdish issue.
Wladimir van
Wilgenburg is coauthor of the 2019 book The Kurds of
Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts (with Harriet
Allsopp). A commentator for numerous international media outlets, he has
covered major battles against the Islamic State on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, among other regional topics.
Dana Stroul, the Kassen
Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics,
co-chaired last year’s bipartisan Syria Study Group with her
Institute colleague Michael Singh. Previously, she served as a senior
professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, covering
the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey.
Strategic Implications of Iraq’s Multiple Crises| January 23, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Gulf States Institute| Register Here
A series of seismic systemic shocks has rocked Iraq in recent months. Fragile internal cohesion was severely disrupted by a series of demonstrations in the final months of 2019, with young protesters denouncing corruption, unemployment, state dysfunction, and, increasingly, undue influence by Iran and its client militias. An ensuing crackdown by security forces and pro-Iranian elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces left hundreds of people dead and thousands injured. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned, leaving the country without a stable government or national consensus.
Perhaps even worse, Iraq has been increasingly dragged into the confrontation between the United States and Iran. A series of rocket attacks attributed to one of the largest pro-Iranian militia groups, Kataib Hezbollah, killed a U.S. contractor and two Iraqi police officers and injured four servicemen. U.S. strikes in response killed at least 24 Kataib Hezbollah militia members, prompting supporters of the group to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. Although that confrontation ended without loss of life, a U.S. drone strike on January 3 killed senior Iranian commander Major General Qassim Suleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, leading to angry vows of revenge from Iran and widespread calls in Iraq for the removal of all U.S. military forces from the country.
How can Iraq avoid being further dragged into the intensifying U.S.-Iranian confrontation? Can U.S. and other foreign forces stay in Iraq, even just in parts of the country such as the Kurdistan region, and if not, what impact would that have on Iraqi society? Will the anti-government, anti-militia, and anti-Iranian protests continue or has the national focus now shifted to the U.S. rather than Iranian role in Iraq? And how do these multiple and intersecting crises impact the strategic and foreign policy interests of Gulf Arab countries and their still-fledgling efforts to re-establish strong relations with Baghdad while limiting Iranian hegemony in Iraq?
A light lunch will be served. Unable to attend? Check back to watch live on January 23 at 12:30 pm EST.
Speakers:
Ambassador Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi, Non-Resident Fellow, AGSIW; Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University Bloomington
Ambassador Douglas A. Silliman, President, AGSIW
Randa Slim, Senior Fellow and Director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar
Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania: The Criterion Association| January 23, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Wilson Center| Register Here
In 1930s Bucharest, some of the country’s most brilliant young intellectuals converged to form the Criterion Association. Bound by friendship and the dream of a new, modern Romania, their members included historian Mircea Eliade, critic Petru Comarnescu, Jewish playwright Mihail Sebastian and a host of other philosophers and artists. Together, they built a vibrant cultural scene that flourished for a few short years, before fascism and scandal splintered their ranks. Cristina A. Bejan asks how the far-right Iron Guard came to eclipse the appeal of liberalism for so many of Romania’s intellectual elite, drawing on diaries, memoirs and other writings to examine the collision of culture and extremism in the interwar years. The first English-language study of Criterion and the most thorough to date in any language, this book grapples with the complexities of Romanian intellectual life in the moments before collapse.
Cristina A. Bejan is an Oxford DPhil and a Rhodes and Fulbright scholar. She has held fellowships at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Georgetown University and the Woodrow Wilson Center. Currently she teaches world history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. A theatre artist, Bejan has written 17 plays and directed/sound designed/produced countless shows in the US and abroad. A spoken word poet, she got her start at Washington DC’s Busboys & Poets. Her poetry collection Green Horses On the Walls (Finishing Line Press) will be released this year and grapples with the inherited trauma of communism within the Romanian diaspora. While a researcher at USHMM in 2013, she founded the arts & culture collective Bucharest Inside the Beltway (BiB), which currently promotes local and international art in Colorado. For more info please visit cristinaabejan.com.
In dialogue with the author of the book’s foreword, Vladimir Tismaneanu, Professor of Politics, University of Maryland (College Park); Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center
Speakers:
Blair A. Ruble, Distinguished Fellow; Former Wilson Center Vice President for Programs (2014-2017); Director of the Comparative Urban Studies Program/Urban Sustainability Laboratory (1992-2017); Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (1989-2012) and Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Resilience (2012-2014)
Vladimir Tismaneanu, Former Wilson Center Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, University of Maryland
Cristina Bejan, Founding Executive Director, Bucharest Inside the Beltway; Researcher, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; Former East European Studies Title VIII Scholar, Wilson Center
Non-Violent Resistance and Palestinian Self- Development| January 24, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute, in conjunction with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, the New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, and J Street, is pleased to welcome Ali Abu Awwad to Washington, DC. Abu Awwad will discuss his work to mobilize a movement of nonviolent resistance to the occupation in the Palestinian Territories, what led him to this path, his reception in Palestinian society, his engagement with Israeli civilians and military authorities and his hopes and concerns for the future.
Speaker:
Ali Abu Awwad is a leading peace activist and a leader of several peace-building initiatives, including the Taghyeer (Change) Palestinian Nonviolence Movement and the Karama Center. His life and work have been featured in two award-winning films, Encounter Point and Forbidden Childhood.
RSS - Posts
