Tag: Israel
Stevenson’s army, August 7
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes an 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, follow the instructions below:
– I agree with Dan Drezner that Trump’s trade war is likely to go out of control.
– It’s even affecting US relations with Israel.
– Lawfare writers prove right on predicting radicalization.
– Libertarian author review 2 new books on covert wars.
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:
Silly and sad
Jared Kushner’s much-hyped Peace to Prosperity economic proposal for Palestine, published over the weekend by the White House, is like a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. It can serve little purpose without two others: a Palestinian state with the sovereign authority required to implement the plan and an Israeli state ready to cooperate with its Palestinian neighbors in that process.
Both are absent from Kushner’s $50-billion proposition. He manages to discuss empowering Palestinians and Palestinian governance without mentioning Israeli checkpoints and other security controls, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli settlements and territorial control in the West Bank as well as Israel’s continuing embargo of Gaza. Kushner wishes away all the driving forces of the conflict in order to wave a shiny future that has no practical means of implementation. This is the real estate prospectus version of international politics: show them what it might look like and investors will flock.
Only they won’t, because Arabs and Jews are not dumb. Both know this is silly. No money will flow until the other two legs of the stool are put in place. Palestine needs a secure, unified, and democratic political future before it will get the public and private investment and enhanced trade of the sort Kushner imagines. I’ve been to Rawabi, the truly magnificent Palestinian showcase town built with Qatari funding. It will remain a showcase, not a prototype, so long as the Palestinian state remains weak and Israeli cooperation weaker.
Many peace negotiators try Kushner’s gimmick: a fat economic proposal to sweeten the bitter political and security pills that have to be swallowed. As a State Department official in 1995, I wrote the one-page, three-year, $3 billion proposal that Dick Holbrooke carried into Sarajevo to sweeten the pot. Admittedly it wasn’t as glossy as Kushner’s. It got precious little attention, because it didn’t address the issues that caused Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 3.5-year war. I hasten to add that it is about how much we spent, but to little avail, because the underlying causes of the conflict were not resolved in the Dayton peace agreement.
Erratic though he is, Trump is a one-trick pony. He maximizes pressure, flashes an attractive but entirely imaginary future, and then either caves himself or moves on to his next self-generated crisis. Cases in point: North Korea, Venezuela, Israel/Palestine, and now Iran. The Palestinians are not going to buy a one-legged stool. Imagining they will is silly. But it is also sad. It reduces America to the international equivalent of a real estate huckster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Reenter
President Trump has driven the United States into a cul-de-sac. Withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and re-imposition of sanctions has made it nigh on impossible for Iran to gain the economic benefits of the agreement. But rather than driving Tehran back to the negotiating table, Washington has strengthened its hardliners and given them an excuse to begin enriching uranium beyond the level permitted by the JCPOA, which they threaten to reach within the next 10 days. The Iranians may also have attacked shipping in and near the Gulf, though that is still an unverified American and British allegation.
The first law of holes applies to this situation: when you are in a hole, stop digging. Trump of course is not law-abiding, so instead he is increasing the US troop, naval, and air force presence in the Gulf. That’s simply foolish: it puts more Americans at risk. I’ll know this administration is serious about attacking Iran when it removes as much of the exposed military and civilian presence in the Gulf as possible. Much of it–including the warplanes at Al Udeid in Qatar–are within the range of Iranian missiles. They and the embassies in Muscat, Doha, Manama and likely Riyadh will need to be draw down in advance of even a limited strike.
The alternative is to reenter the JCPOA, which would have prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons before 2025 or so and arguably thereafter. Had the US stayed in the deal and ensured that the benefits flowed to Tehran, it could now be arguing for negotiations on missiles and Iran’s regional behavior with support from Europe and perhaps even Russia.
It could also have argued for a follow-on nuclear agreement. Iran has very good reasons not to go all the way to developing nuclear weapons. Well-informed Israelis have long believed that Tehran wants to develop all the enabling technology but not build nuclear weapons or deploy them, for fear of what Israel might do if it thought Iran might do so. Even the current runup of enrichment is explicitly planned to stop before the levels needed for nuclear weapons are reached.
The only way out of America’s current cul-de-sac is to back up. Tehran has made plain that it will talk with Washington only if the US reenters the JCPOA. I imagine they might even offer some sweeteners: release of some US citizens from prison, for example, or a modicum of restraint in Yemen, where their Houthi partners are not doing brilliantly anyway. President Trump has backed up in the past with an aspiring nuclear power, when he agreed to meet Kim Jong-un in Singapore. He could do it again, with his usual triumphalist bombast about how the Iranians will be his newest best friends once they see the Trump golf courses they might acquire. The Iranians understand that the North Koreans have not yet given up anything significant in exchange for Trump’s good graces. They might hope for the same treatment.
But Tehran also might figure that Pyongyang is treated with kid gloves because it does in fact have nuclear weapons. The closer Tehran gets without triggering an Israeli reaction, the better from the point of view of the Supreme Leader. So he might just prefer that Trump continue digging his hole by putting more American military and civilian assets at risk. Iran is a country of more than 80 million people. It endured an 8-year war with Iraq, suffered enormous casualties, and continues to pride itself on “resistance.” An American air attack would strengthen Iran’s hardliners further and dismay the Europeans, Russia, and China. Why not let Trump bury himself in the hole he has dug?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The last error
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, thinks out loud:
- Though nuclear proliferation is a paramount global threat, super powers fail to demonstrate sufficient competence in responding.
- World expectations based on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear weapons states will preserve global peace in accordance with their responsibilities are plainly becoming wishful thinking.
- The authority and competence of the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been downgraded by its founders and historical proponents, the nuclear weapons states.
- Denuclearization of North Korea is going nowhere. The pendulum-like rhetoric on both sides, Washington and Pyongyang, combined with the risk of miscalculation or a military error, enlarges the dangerous vicious cycle.
- Washington might seriously consider the mitigation of Pyongyang’s fears for its security, as Beijing suggests, rather than playing the military threat card. This was after all the prevailing approach in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal
- US withdrawal from JCPOA (2018) and Iran’s recent announcement of partial withdrawal from it lead to new risky situations. Tomorrow, no one should be surprised.
- At the same time, US National Security Strategy (2017) and the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review (2018) both stated that American nuclear capability will be strengthened and its nuclear arsenal modernized. Reason given: deterrence of Russia.
- On a precisely equivalent level are President Putin’s repeated statements (2018-2019): Russia needs to maintain its super power status through advanced nuclear capabilities.
- The rest of the “legal” nuclear club – China, the UK, and France – follow suit. Why not? – they might ask.
- In parallel, the de facto non-NPT nuclear weapons states, India, Pakistan, most probably Israel and now North Korea, keep developing their nuclear arsenals and ballistic capabilities.
- Moreover, more nuclear candidates, are getting ready for their geopolitical nuclear race.
- Unfortunately, nuclear issues are complex, making a sound solution of nuclear crises difficult even for strong, authoritarian, and ambitious world leaders.
- Nuclear armaments are not a financial or political game. They are the leading global threat to human civilization.
- It is time to getting serious. The speed of developments makes derailing of constraints on nuclear weapons control likely. That would be the last human error.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bluff to talk
Claiming that it is responding to Iranian attack planning, the Trump Administration has added military threat to its “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. The President has denied what I take to be intentional leaks of a plan to deploy more than 100,000 troops, saying that he would deploy many more if it comes to that. Another American official suggested that Trump might rain 500 cruise missile per day on Iran for an extended period. Non-essential US government personnel have been ordered out of Embassy Baghdad. A carrier battle group and B52s have been deployed to the Gulf.
So far, this is escalatory bluff. The B52s flew from Al Udeid airfield in Qatar, which is too close to Iran to serve as a wartime facility. The war craft are serving statecraft: sending a signal. The Iranians, if they are planning attacks, won’t limit their targets to Iraq. Al Udeid would get its share of incoming. Real war preparations would require removal of aircraft from Al Udeid as well as withdrawal of at least families and other non-essential embassy personnel from throughout the Gulf. Deployment of 100,000 troops is far too many if the plan is for cruise missile strikes and far too few to mount an invasion of even part of Iran, a country of more than 80 million people. It would require months of visible and extensive logistical preparation.
Nor is there any sign at home that Trump is preparing for war. He might try to ignore the requirement for Congressional approval, but you can be sure the Democrats would be making much more noise if they thought he would attempt that. The stock market would also be signaling concern. American public opinion will not favor war with Iran, which would be a much bigger enterprise than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President was elected because he pledged to end US over-commitment in the Middle East, not expand it.
So what is all this about? Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo have made themselves clear for months: they want Tehran back at the negotiating table. The President has even offered to send his telephone number through the Swiss, who represent US interests in Tehran. National Security Adviser Bolton prefers war, but he has lost that debate on North Korea and Venezuela. He is likely to lose again.
The Iranians are reluctant to talk with the Americans, as they want the US back in the nuclear deal before agreeing to talk with the Americans again. Their internal politics require it. I spent a couple of hours yesterday on news outlets discussing the situation with Iranian thinktankers. They are unconcerned with the American military threat an recognize it as bluff.
So what will happen?
War could happen, more by accident rather than intention of the President or the Supreme Leader. Both the Iranians and the Americans have friends who might create an incident. The Iranian-backed Houthis have allegedly launched a drone attack on a Saudi pipeline. The Saudis have responded with belligerence. The attack on four oil tankers off the coast of the UAE’s Fujairah coast elicited a softer response. The Emirates have extensive trade and financial exchanges with Iran and have not identified the perpetrators. Israel could escalate its attacks on Iranian assets in Syria or elsewhere in ways that Iran might think require a response.
It is also possible the Americans and Iranians will do what they have done in the past: talk in secret. That is how the Obama Administration began its push for the nuclear deal. Tehran might prefer it that way, since otherwise it will be seen as abandoning “resistance” and giving in to the Great Satan. Such secret talks might leak, so anyone in Tehran who conducts them should anticipate being fired if they do. But if they lead to some relief from sanctions, the Supreme Leader might be prepared to run the risk.
Trump speaks loudly and carries a little stick. He is bluffing. He wants to talk.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Yemeni quagmire
Hudson Institute held a panel discussion April 18 about the crisis in Yemen and its strategic threat to US interests and allies. The panel included Michael Doran, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute, Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst at Arabia Foundation, Bernard Haykel, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
Haykel gave an overview about the Houthis (who call themselves Ansar Allah), a group belonging to a particular caste of Yemeni society who ruled the country for a thousand years. Before rising again in 2000, They were marginalized since the late 1960s and displaced in 1992 with the revolution. Hussein El Houthi, founder of the group is influenced by Iranian ideology and draws inspiration from Ayatollah Khomeini. El Houthi and the Supreme Leader share the view that the US and Israel are enemies of Yemen, the Arabs, and Islam. This ideological connection was cemented from the middle of 1990s between the Zaydis (a Shia sect which the Houthis belong to) and Lebanese Hezbollah, which provided military, ideological and media training.
Although a small group in Yemen, the Houthis are the most disciplined, best trained and most ideologically motivated group. They are unlikely to be defeated military. Haykel urges that other ways of dealing with Houthis be conceived. Yemen, a poor country, has never been integrated into the labor market of the Gulf. A broad strategy that encompasses development and socioeconomic elements is needed. But Riyadh is not going to be easily convinced to end the war because the Saudis see the Houthis as a Hezbollah-like force on their southern border.
Alasrar argues that neither a military solution nor a political one has worked so far in Yemen. Incentives for the Houthis to come to the table are insufficient. Even when they do negotiate, they are not sincere, due in large part to the ideological alignment with Hezbollah and Iran. The Houthis are likely to remain the de facto authority on the ground given the reluctance of the international community to solve this issue military or politically. The Houthi’s core belief is legitimacy through force. Yemen’s future is therefore bleak. ,
But Alasrar also argues that many in Yemen recognize that the state marginalized the Houthis. Younger Yemenis would like to see a political reconciliation process to help the Houthis become a legitimate political actor. The Houthis did not subscribe to the national reconciliation process conducted in the aftermath of Yemen’s “Arab Spring.” They seized power easily at a vulnerable time when the transitional government after had no army. Weapons and ballistic misled smuggled to Houthis created a means for Iran to attack Saudi Arabia.
Doran stated that the US as a super power has to create a stable regional order in the Middle East. The Khashoggi murder was immoral and ugly, but the campaign to shift US policy on Saudi Arabia is wrong. Its roots lie in President Obama’s outreach to Iran, which he hoped would become a partner in establishing regional stability, which meant down-grading US relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel. There are only two American allies who are contesting Iranians on the ground: Israelis in Syria and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The argument that Mohammed bin Salman is unacceptable morally does not mean US should end its support for the Yemen war, which would weaken Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis Iran and leave a Hizbollah-like force on the Red Sea threatening shipping and hitting Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles. Ending support to Saudi Arabia is not going to improve the Yemen situation or get the Iranians out.
RSS - Posts
