Tag: Jordan
Stevenson’s army, January 29
– WSJ says the drone attack at Tower 22 succeeded because it was confused with a returning US drone.
– NYT reports on possible retaliatory options.
– Politico sees GOP split.
– Eliot Cohen says go to war with Iran. [FYI, I strongly disagree]
Best list I’ve seen is from MEI’s Lister, as in the ever-valuable D Brief:
What are some options for a U.S. response that are not inside Iran? One target might include the “general cargo” (and likely surveillance) ship Behshad, which has been hanging around the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden during virtually every Houthi naval attack off the Yemeni coast.
MEI’s Lister had four suggestions:
- The “Glasshouse” at the airport in Damascus;
- The Imam Ali Base in eastern Syria, which features “hardened missile tunnels,” according to Lister;
- The Dimas Airbase, which is a “major drone facility” west of Damascus;
- And the Mayadin special forces training camp in eastern Syria.
– Keep an eye on Ecuador — will be part of week 4 exercise. FT today.
– CFR’s Steve Biddle analyzes Russia’s defensive strategy
—
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
The cacophony is deafening but unnecessary
It is hard to make good sense of the varying perspectives on the Gaza war. Let me try to suggest they need not be so cacophonous.
Israel and the United States are diverging
The dissonance between Israel and the United States is get louder. They agree on the war objective of destroying Hamas in Gaza, whatever that means. But President Biden is pressing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid, protect civilians, ease the crackdown on the West Bank, and agree to turn over Gaza eventually to a renewed Palestinian Authority. Biden is also worrying out loud about declining international support for Israel and about the extreme nationalists in Israel’s right-wing government.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will have none of it. He wants Israel to be responsible for Gaza security after the war and to conduct a deradicalization operation, whatever that is. The Prime Minister claims Israel is already doing everything reasonable to allow humanitarian assistance and to protect civilians. He is uninterested in bringing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza and is continuing the crackdown in the West Bank. He hopes to stay in power, at least so long as the war lasts. That will make it last longer.
Arab disharmony
This is not the only disharmony evident around Gaza issues. Arab countries are anxious to signal support for a ceasefire in particular and Palestinians in general. But they in fact have done little to pressure Israel or Hamas for one. The Abrahamic accords remain in place and the Arab signatories (and possible future signatories) are not doing anything to limit Israeli economic and military capabilities. Nor is there any sign they are helping to block Hamas from resupplying.
Gaza has split the Arab world. Syria, Hizbollah-conditioned Lebanon, and Houthi-ruled parts of Yemen are trying to aggravate Israel’s challenges. Iran is supplying and cheering them on, thus prolonging the agony of the Gazas the “resistance axis” claims to support.
Others would be happy to see the destruction of Hamas, which is especially non grata in Egypt and the UAE. Those two countries loathe Islamist politics, especially the Muslim Brotherhood version from which Hamas descends. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Qatar don’t want to see Hamas win and thereby seize the banner of Palestinian liberation.
Even within Israel and in the West Bank, there are conflicting Arab views. Some Palestinians within Israel came to the aid of Jews on October 7. In the West Bank, however, Hamas has gained support.
American Muslims, Christians, and Jews
Inside the United States, there is growing discomfort among the majority of Jews, who lean heavily Democratic, with Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. That contrasts with the Christian right solid support for Israel. Liberal American Jews largely agree with American Muslims on a ceasefire and on a two-state solution. The vast majority of American Jews differ from more radical Muslims and supporters who are pro-Hamas or oppose the idea of a Jewish state.
Harmonizing
The cacophony is unnecessary. Here are a few propositions that many would support:
- Hamas has proven itself devoted to mass murder of civilians. Disempowering it is vital, though its Islamist ideology will survive.
- The current conduct of the war is not the only way to disempower Hamas and does not appear to be succeeding. It is killing a disproportionate number of civilians relative to modest military accomplishments.
- Israel should end the military attacks and hunt Hamasees responsible for the October 7 murder and mayhem individually. Many Arab states would be prepared to cooperate, quietly, in that effort.
- A massive relief operation is already needed for Gaza. The requirements will increase once the war stops. The US, Europe, the Gulf, and Israel need to prepare to meet those requirements.
- American and Israeli Muslims, Christians, and Jews should unite in supporting humanitarian assistance and reconstruction.
- Governance of Gaza after the war will be an enormous challenge. If it is not met, guys with guns, many of them former Hamas, will run local protection rackets, trade in drugs and other contraband, and continue to attack Israel when the opportunity arises.
- Chaos of that sort on Israel’s border is in no one’s interest, especially Egypt and Jordan (because of the likely infection of the West Bank) but also the Gulf.
- A clear roadmap to a two-state solution would offer a political outcome most Palestinians would find attractive and most countries, other than Iran’s proxies, could support.
- This would need to start with renewal of the Palestinian Authority, through presidential and parliamentary elections as well as convening the Palestinian Legislative Council.
- It will also require replacement of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing coalition in Israel with politicians prepared to deal with the Palestinian Authority once renewed.
Not everyone will agree with these propositions. But they are a start in building a consensus among today’s dissonant voices.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Biden Middle East doctrine full of holes
Brett McGurk, the senior White House Middle East official, last month set out a “Biden doctrine” for the region. It is based on partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, integration, and values. Best you read it yourself. It is blessedly short and clear.
Jonathan Lord, formerly Iraq director at the Defense Department and now at the Center for New American Security, has taken Brett to task for ignoring both Syria and Iraq, where the US still has a few thousand troops doing counter-terrorism work. In fact, McGurk never mentions terrorism, the threat on which he worked for many years.
What else isn’t mentioned
Those are glaring omissions, but not the only ones. As Lord notes, McGurk says little about economic issues. He omits oil entirely, though he mentions freedom of navigation. It is hard to imagine the US would be concerned with the Middle East if there were no oil there. He fails to note the growing geopolitical competition in the region with Russia and China. Brett ignores the more than 18,000 deployed US troops in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
He forgets the Palestinians entirely, as well as the Kurds, with whom the US is allied in Syria. There is not a word about the disastrous state of Lebanon and Hizbollah’s role there, though he boasts about Beirut’s maritime boundary agreement with Israel. He ignores the plight of women in much of the region.
McGurk also fails to note the contradictions among his five principles. He acknowledges the main tension between values and partnerships with autocrats. But he ignores the current and growing tensions on human rights issues with Israel, as well as the more traditional ones with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. What do the five principles tell us to do about the UAE and possibly Saudi Arabia reestablishing diplomatic relations with Syria? There are also problems reconciling diplomacy and deterrence. The US has essentially abandoned the former for the latter when it comes to Iran. And there are obstacles to integration arising from human rights, like the Saudi refusal to recognize Israel without real progress on creating a Palestinian state.
Iran, Iran, Iran
Brett is clever. I imagine he would reply to this critique that it is about time we had a Middle East policy focused on partnerships rather than oil, the Palestinians, or competition with Russia and China. He might also claim that it is obvious US troops are in the Middle East for deterrence purposes, against both terrorism and Iran. He would be correct to say that any discussion of economic and social issues requires more time and space than this short presentation allowed.
But there is no excuse for many of the other omissions. They reflect prioritization, not ignorance. Brett knows the the current Israeli government is a threat to its already ethnically-limited democracy. He knows Iraq is drifting away from the US, Syria is a drug-exporting nightmare, and Lebanon is in a downward spiral. The Biden Administration has simply decided to ignore these developments and focus on whatever will help the US confront Iran. That is the real purpose of four of the five principles: partnerships, deterrence, diplomacy, and integration. Values play a distinctly secondary role.
If that’s what it’s about, say so
Iran’s role in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and with Hizbollah more than justifies priority treatment. Moreover Tehran’s increasingly successful nuclear program could ignite an arms race in the region. Turkey’s President Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have explicitly stated they will not stand idly by if Iran gets nuclear weapons. That could put the US in an awkward situation, as it would increase the need for security guarantees and make criticism of human rights behavior impossible.
If it’s all about Iran, say so. Don’t hide it behind five nice principles. Then we can debate whether you’ve got the priorities right.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: no attractive propositions, so Biden is staying the course
Secretary of State Blinken at a press conference with the Israeli and UAE foreign ministers today said more about Syria than I remember since the beginning of the Biden Administration, in response to a question about normalization that other countries are indulging in:
…let me talk about Syria first and then come to the second part of the – the first part of the question second.
First, to put this in focus, these initial nine months of the administration we have been focused on a few things when it comes to Syria: Expanding humanitarian access for people who desperately need that assistance, and we had some success, as you know, with renewing the critical corridor in northwestern Syria to do that; sustaining the campaign that we have with the coalition against ISIS and al-Qaida in Syria; making clear our commitment, our ongoing commitment to demand accountability from the Assad regime and the preservation of basic international norms like promoting human rights and nonproliferation through the imposition of targeted sanctions; and sustaining local ceasefires, which are in place in different parts of the country. So this has been the focus of our action for these last nine months.
As we’re moving forward, in the time ahead, keeping violence down; increasing humanitarian assistance and focusing our military efforts on any terrorist groups that pose a threat to us or to our partners, with the intent and capacity to do that. These are going to be the critical areas of focus for us, and they’re also, I think, important to advancing a broader political settlement to the Syrian conflict consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
What we have not done and what we do not intend to do is to express any support for efforts to normalize relations or rehabilitate Mr. Assad, or lifted [sic] a single sanction on Syria or changed [sic] our position to oppose the reconstruction of Syria until there is irreversible progress toward a political solution, which we believe is necessary and vital.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-israeli-alternate-prime-minister-and-foreign-minister-yair-lapid-and-united-arab-emirates-foreign-minister-sheikh-abdullah-bin-zayed-al-nahyan-at-a-joint-press-availab/
This is a restatement of well-established US priorities: humanitarian assistance, reduction in violence, counter-terrorism, and irreversible progress toward a political solution before reconstruction or normalization.
So nothing new. What’s missing? should always be the next question.
Tony fails to deal with the threat of a serious military clash between NATO ally Turkey and the Kurdish-led forces that are conducting the campaign against both terrorists and the regime in northeastern Syria, with American support. He is silent on concerns about Iran using Syrian territory to threaten Israel. Nor does he indicate that the United States opposes normalization by others, in particular Jordan and the UAE. And he is silent on brutality-laced Russian and Iranian support for the Syrian regime, which in due course may become capable of challenging the Kurdish presence in the northeast and the Turkish presence inside Syria’s northern border. So yes, continuity of a policy that is silent on important issues and has so far failed to produce substantial results.
Is there a better approach? We could certainly tighten sanctions so that jet-setting scions of the Syrian elite don’t roam Los Angeles in Ferraris, but that won’t change anything in Syria. We could help the Germans mount a “universal jurisdiction” case against President Assad himself, in absentia, but that would set a legal precedent that might boomerang on prominent Americans. We could try harder to mediate some sort of accommodation between the Syrian Kurds and Turkey, as we did once with a modicum of success between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. Or we could try to negotiate autonomous status for the Kurds within Syria in return for US withdrawal, though the regime would be no more likely than the Taliban to stick to the terms of a withdrawal agreement. The Kurds would likely revert to attacking inside Turkey as well as Turkish-controlled Syria in order to curry favor with Assad. It suits the Kurds and Turkey to have the Americans remain in Syria.
I won’t even bother with military options against the Russians or the regime. The Americans take some shots against the Iranians and their proxies in Syria, but they aren’t going to risk war with Russia or the civilian casualties that taking on the regime would entail.
So no, there are not a lot of attractive propositions in Syria. Especially after the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Administration can ill afford a comparable mess in Syria, never mind an influx into the US of tens of thousands Syrian Kurds and Arabs who helped the US during the past decade and have legitimate claims to asylum. No wonder Biden is staying the course.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iraq’s election: a mixed bag is better than a mess
My Middle East Institute colleagues have already elegantly parsed the October 10 Iraqi election results and their implications. It’s a mixed bag: Moqtada al Sadr, who already controls more seats than anyone else in parliament gained, as did former Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki; Shia militia politicians, more moderate Shia, and Sunni Islamists weakened; Sunni secularists, independents, regional advocates, and both the leading Kurdish party and a newish one gained. Turnout was low, due in part to a boycott encouraged by activists who had previously campaigned for the early poll. What it all means for election of the President, Parliament speaker, and Prime Minister won’t be known for weeks if not months.
Just as interesting to me is the process: it came off pretty well, with little violence and intimidation by Iraqi standards. Almost two decades after the American invasion, Iraqis have grown accustomed to something like a democratic regime, albeit more than a little tainted with lack of voter enthusiasm, corruption, patronage, sectarianism, and armed groups only nominally under state control. Politics is a rough sport in Iraq, but not now a deadly one, unless you are a demonstrator fired on by sectarian militias.
The main issues are now economic. The American presence, down to a couple of thousand troops plus contractors, is no more discussed than Iranian influence, exercised in part through the Popular Mobilization Forces and their politicians. Kurdistan’s independence aspirations have faded but still simmer. Even with oil prices at a 7-year peak, the new government will face big challenges in maintaining and growing oil and gas production while steering the economy towards non-hydrocarbon development and adjusting to global warming, which threatens to make parts of the country uninhabitable.
If the next government can even begin to meet those challenges, Iraq could play an important role in a Middle East that is adjusting to the prospect of reduced American attention. As a Shia and Arab majority country with a large Kurdish population and many other smaller minorities, a prosperous Iraq could be a multivalent force for stability and coexistence, helping to bridge divides among Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. The current Prime Minister has made some good but still tentative steps in that direction. It is no secret that the Americans and Europeans will hope he is able again to form a government, unlikely as that may seem in a volatile political environment. They also liked his two predecessors, both of whom are, at least for now, down and out.
It is hard to be optimistic about the prospect of serious economic reform in Iraq, which has so far failed to turn its oil wealth into benefits–or even electricity and water–for ordinary citizens. Moqtada’s minions have not governed in the past in transparent and accountable ways. The country lacks an independent judiciary and much of its press is under the control of major politicians. But if law and order prevail, the next government will have an enormous opportunity both domestically and internationally to enable Iraq to benefit both its own citizens and the region. A mixed bag is better than a mess.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 4
– Hungary burnished its image with lobbying campaign.
– Foreign leaders like King Abdullah of Jordan bought prime Malibu real estate.
– Where the money won’t go, because of the CR.
– In speech today USTR will show little thaw in trade war with China.
– Paul Pillar says Afghanistan isn’t good real estate for terrorists.
– Punchbowl News says parliamentarian tells Senators debt limit can be changed using reconciliation without jeopardizing Biden program.
– My former colleague and Mint Director Philip Diehl makes the case for the platinum coin.
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).
RSS - Posts
