Month: November 2021
Stevenson’s army, November 14
-NYT deep investigation reveals DOD coverup of airstrike in Syria in 2019 with heavy civilian casualties, says strike was called by special operations unit and immediately challenged by other officers. Repeated appeals, ultimately to IG, led nowhere. SASC informed but took no known action. Sounds a lot like the Lavelle case discussed in class, but at least then SASC investigated.
– NYT also reports how Belarus enticed and equipped migrants to send to the EU border.
– WaPo says US is looking for a “third way” on Cuba policy.
– WaPo has an annotated copy of Glasgow text.
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. 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:
Stevenson’s army, November 13
– NYT’s Max Fisher explains the migrant issues exploited by Belarus.
– Biden sanctions Eritrean forces.
– NYT sees rise of menacing behaviors in GOP.
And learn from WSJ tracking of just one airplane how hard it is to meet schedules.
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. 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:
Taking political risks and settling for less than you want
Mohammad Lotfollahi of the Iranian newspaper Etemad asked questions. I replied on Thursday:
Q: Iran, the P5 + 1 and the United States will begin talks on reviving the nuclear deal in late November. What do you think is the main reason for the ineffectiveness of the previous six rounds of talks?
A: Iran has wanted firm guarantees that the US would never again leave the agreement. No US government can guarantee that, except by ratification of an agreement in the Senate, which political circumstances do not permit. The US has wanted Iran to agree to talk about regional issues, which Tehran has been unwilling to do.
Q: Many in the media have criticized Iran for delaying its return to talks, but while Biden continues to pursue of maximum pressure policy, everyone has forgotten about Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. Isn’t America to blame for the current situation?
A: Yes. I don’t think anyone doubts that Trump’s withdrawal is the cause of the difficult current situation.
Q: One of the stories often repeated by opponents of the JCPOA is that it offered “maximum concessions” and led to a “bonanza” for Iran. How do you see JCPOA? Is this still a win-win agreement for everyone?
A: Iran did get serious benefits from the deal, which were cancelled when the US withdrew. The EU, US, Russia, and China also benefited. I believe it was a win-win.
Q: The United States wants Iran to be flexible in its negotiations. But in practice, it does not show any flexibility under the pretext of democracy and separation of powers in America. Doesn’t this hurt the negotiations?
A: It may, but you can’t convince the US to give up democracy and separation of powers.
Q: Is there basically an agreement that both major US parties agree on?
A: No, not so far as I can see. The Republicans are mostly committed to maximum pressure, which hasn’t worked. The Democrats liked the original deal, which was working.
Q: How much does the element of time affect the success of future negotiations? Are the concerns about losing the JCPOA non-proliferation benefit if the negotiation process is prolonged real and serious?
A: Yes. Iran is acquiring know-how, especially for enrichment of uranium, that it will be impossible to erase. Delay is the enemy of nonproliferation.
Q: What is your proposal to get out of the current impasse? Is there a way to defuse tensions and reach an agreement?
A: Sure there is. Both sides will have to settle for less than they want and take political risks in doing so.
Q: Israel threatens to launch a military attack on Iran. Israel even has nuclear weapons and is not a member of the NPT. Isn’t the West’s attitude towards Iran and Israel an example of a double standard?
Q: The entire nonproliferation regime is based on a distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Iran chose to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapons state. Israel has not signed it. Both exercised their sovereign rights, presumably because the choices they made best served their national interests. Tehran continues to say it will never develop nuclear weapons. The main issue is ensuring verification of that commitment. Israel has no obligation to verification one way or the other.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Admire Russia’s provocative statecraft, even if its objectives are odious
Russian President Putin is feeling his oats. He is pushing against the West along a front that extends from the Baltics to Syria and possibly beyond. Here is an incomplete account of his maneuvers:
- The Baltics: Russia has concentrated troops along its border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Moscow is also conducting menacing exercises and violating Allies’ airspace.
- Belarus: Again lots of military exercises, but more inventively Putin has encouraged President Lukashenko to import Kurds from Iraq and try to push them across the border into Poland and thus the EU. This constitutes intentional weaponization of third-country nationals.
- Ukraine: Moscow has (again) concentrated military forces on the border with the apparent intention of threatening an expansion of Russian-controlled territory inside Ukraine beyond Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Moscow is also raising gas prices and shipping more gas to the West avoiding Ukraine and thus reducing its revenues.
- The Balkans: Russia is giving and selling arms to a vastly re-armed Serbia, is financing the Serb entity inside Bosnia and Herzegovina and encouraging secession talk there, and has gained vastly increased influence through proxies inside Montenegro.
- Turkey: Moscow has sold its advanced air defense system to Turkey, which as a result has lost its role in manufacturing components of the American F-35 fighter and will likely look to Russia for modernization of its fighter fleet.
- Syria: Russian air forces intervened in Syria in 2015, when rebels were seriously threatening the regime in Damascus. Russian forces have occasionally tested their mettle against the Americans and US-supported forces in the northeast.
Russian military forces have also taken on a “peacekeeping” role inside Azerbaijan after its 2020 clash with Armenian-supported secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh. Moscow’s troops were already stationed inside Armenia. Prior Russian interventions in Georgia and Moldova were explicitly aimed at preventing NATO and EU membership, respectively, and have resulted in separate governance of Russian-controlled territories within those states.
For Putin, not only NATO but also the EU is an enemy. He is right: the EU and NATO are committed to open societies, democratic governance, and the rule of law, which are anathema to Putin. He wants none of their members on Russia’s borders or even nearby. The Eurasian Economic Union is intended as the economic dimension of his fight against the West. He is also seeking to weaken the EU and NATO from within. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is Russia’s handmaiden within the EU. Montenegro risks becoming one inside NATO.
It is difficult to know how the West should respond to all this. Neither the EU nor NATO is skilled at anticipating and preventing trouble. Nor can they coordinate and focus resources as quickly as an autocrat can. But it is important to recognize that for Russia all these pieces are part of the same puzzle. Obsessed with being surrounded, Russia responds by trying to expand and establish autocratic hegemony in what it regards as its near abroad, even if that designation is no longer so commonly used. You have to admire Russia’s provocative statecraft, even if the objectives are odious.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 12
-FP reports on Taiwan’s latest military assessment, and links to the document.
– AP reports on CCP’s history resolution elevating Xi. Here’s the text.
-WSJ says US & Chinese semiconductor firms are collaborating.
– FP says China hawks are running for office.
– Jake Sullivan says US bureaucracy is too slow.
– Brookings report warns of revolving door with tech industry.
– Bloomberg reports on US CODEL to Taiwan.
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. 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:
Normalization won’t normalize, but UAE and Russia will gain
Bassam Barabandi, a former Syrian diplomat, and Venus Mohammed write:
The visit of the UAE Foreign Minister can be analyzed in two complementary ways:
- Washington’s silence reflects its disinterest in the Syrian file in general and also preparation for an upcoming strategic dialogue with Moscow in Geneva next week, which will focus on keeping the cross-border routes for humanitarian aid open. Washington is offering an initial reward to Moscow by remaining silent on the Emirati openness to Damascus and thus indirectly encouraging it tacitly. In return, Washington expects Damascus to reciprocate, with support or pressure from Moscow. This could mean a new step-by-step road map in Syria, which the US hopes will emerge in the meeting with Moscow next week.
- The visit came within the framework of coordination between Tel Aviv and the UAE to support Moscow, which coordinates extensively with Tel Aviv to target Iranian sites in Syria. Israel and Russia want to weaken Iran in Syria. Israel has three times within a week attacked storage sites for Iranian weapons, drones, and missiles in Damascus, at T-4 airport, Shayrat and Homs countryside, and even the coastal regiment In Tartous, where American reconnaissance aircraft are operating over the Syrian coast.
The Americans want to stabilize the balance of power in Syria as it is. Having lost influence Trump’s departure from the White House, the UAE wants to show itself useful to the Biden Administration. Abu Dhabi is trying in to tell Washington that it can provide services even if immoral, such as normalization with Assad. The UAE Foreign Minister had informed his American counterpart about this visit and its goals last week, which helped neuter the American position.
As Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has said, the situation in Syria is frozen. The UAE visit has some symbolic significance, but there will be no serious impact on the ground as long as Washington insists on the status quo until a ceasefire paves the way for a new political settlement. The UAE wants to be the main Arab country that has a relationship with the Assad regime so it can function as the link between Damascus and the West in general, hoping that it can influence the the Assad regime to change some of its behavior, in particular limiting the Iranian presence.
It is possible that Washington and the UAE can benefit in the short term by improving their own bilateral relations, but this does not spell the success for the Emirati efforts in achieving any results in Syria. The Iranian alliance with the Assad regime dates back four decades, when the Assad regime sided with the Iran against Iraq. Iran founded Hezbollah, which expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon. Iran also financed the construction of the Syrian nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israel in 2007. Without the Iranian presence, the Assad regime would have collapsed years ago. The UAE has nothing to give Assad to pry him away from Iran. Normalization with the regime, including Assad’s return to the Arab League or the extension of a gas pipeline, will do nothing other than strengthen Iran in Syria, as has already happened in Lebanon and Iraq.
But if the UAE’s goal is to please the Americans by offering Syria as a gift to Iran in exchange for a return to the nuclear agreement, that is a different issue. Only time will tell if Washington’s reticence is Machiavellian.
RSS - Posts
