Tag: Israel/Palestine
Pompeo is a failure
Here is Secretary of State Pompeo in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR that demonstrates unequivocally his unfitness for office:
First he defends withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal), which has led inexorably to Iran acquiring more of the materials required for nuclear weapons. In self-defense, he simply asserts “we’ll stop them,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s because there is none.
Then he declares himself happy with the Administration’s Ukraine policy, which he claims the State Department controls, and says he has defended every single State Department official. This despite the fact that he has not defended several officials who testified in Congress and that Rudy Giuliani was conducting Ukraine policy outside State Department channels.
In any event, listen to the end, since Kelly then reports on a subsequent conversation with the Secretary, in which he berates her for asking about Ukraine in ways that are simply unacceptable, even if unsurprising. No one should expect this Administration to show even minimal respect for a media professional. It prefers the hacks at Fox News who do its bidding.
Pompeo, again not surprisingly, also has bigoted views on Muslims and counts right-wing extremists among his greatest admirers. That may seem obscure or irrelevant to many Americans, but stop a moment to consider how the 1.8 billion Muslims on earth look at a country that has a bigot as Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that Pompeo is not qualified to lead American foreign policy, which is failing in the most important challenges he faces. In addition to precipitating Iran’s return to pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Administration is presiding over a stunning array of failures:
- North Korea continues to produce nuclear weapons and improve its missiles.
- Venezuela’s President Maduro continues in power.
- Russia continues to occupy a good slice of Ukraine.
- Iran and Russia are winning back control of Syria for President Assad.
- Iraqis are pushing back against the presence of US troops.
- The American “deal of the century” for Israel and Palestine stands no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians.
- The trade war with China has been suspended with few gains, in order to provide American farmers some relief before the 2020 election.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: “America First” foreign policy has failed, often because it has amounted to “America Alone.” Our major European allies (that’s now France and Germany, with the UK out of the European Union) are no longer cooperating voluntarily with the US. They can do better withholding cooperation and only giving in when they can get something in return from a transactional president. A few weaker reeds like Poland, Hungary, Italy as well as post-Brexit Britain may be more on board with this Administration, but mainly because of their own nationalist domestic politics. The sense of shared mission to make the world safer for democracy has evaporated. Its now every country for itself.
Lots of us, including me, thought Pompeo might be a relative success compared to his disastrous predecessor, Rex Tillerson. But succeeding as Secretary of State in an administration as wrong-headed about the world as this one just isn’t possible. It will take a decade or more to rebuild US influence in the world once Trump is out of office. Two decades or more if he wins a second term.
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Reconstruction in the Middle East
On January 16 the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion titled, Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East. The panel showcased the upcoming release of the World Bank’s Building for Peace in MENA: Reconstruction for Security, Sustainable Growth and Equity this coming February, the Middle East Institute’s Escaping the Conflict Trap, and Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA.
Speakers on the panel included, Steven Heydemann, nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, Luigi Narbone, Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, Francesca Recanatini Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank, and Ross Harrison, senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The panel was moderated by Paul Salem, President of the Middle East Institute.
Inaccurate assumptions
Heydemann criticized three assumptions that the international community typically uses to guide reconstruction efforts that are contextually mistaken:
- War completely destroys the pre-war economy.
- Since pre-war institutions are destroyed, the task of post-conflict is to rebuild states and use this reconstruction effort to avoid future conflict.
- The destruction of the prewar institutions generates constituencies that wholeheartedly support reconstruction.
Heydemann critically analyzed these assumptions in the context of the MENA region, proclaiming that oftentimes in MENA there is continuity in the economic norms and practices during wartime. War even amplifies and further consolidates these norms. Secondly, conflict empowers actors to reimpose institutions they can exploit, reigniting previous conflicts. In the process of power sharing negotiations, weak participants are more concerned with positions than than reconstruction efforts.
Harrison emphasized the need for the right diagnosis of the regional conflicts in order to design proper solutions. He challenged the notion that regional actors are only proxy actors, proclaiming that this model is not complex enough to reflect the actual situation. We need realignment at the international and regional levels to create a cooperative environment for reconstruction to take place in.
Competing powers
Narbone spoke about the typical Western liberal blueprint utilized in post-conflict settings, which is not the only power in the region. The MENA conflicts incorporate a plethora of leaders in the region who do not believe in this model, specifically Russia and Iran. Consensus is lacking on the drivers of conflict, with each participant blaming the others. “Reconstruction fatigue” may be appealing but it will have detrimental effects.
Local participation
Recanatini centered her rhetoric around the World Bank’s upcoming report and the importance of citizen participation. After surveying 15,000 Yemeni, Iraqi, and Libyan citizens, asking “What do you believe has been lacking in previous peacebuilding work in your country?” over 19% of Yemenis interviewed, 18% of Libyans interviewed, and 17% of Iraqis agreed that the international community is lacking a vision guiding peacebuilding. Recanatini emphasized the need for international organizations to speak with different actors to ensure that all parts of society are being incorporated and heard. She also urged thinking outside of mandates and crossing into sectors and areas traditionally unexplored by international organizations.
What now?
The panelists all agreed that while civil war conflict zones in MENA would need billions of dollars for reconstruction, smaller grants of money can be used to set examples. Without this kind of support the resulting society will be full of disparities, hierarchies of privilege, vast discrimination and marginalization, etc. All the panelists posited that there is not just one solution to reconstruction in the context of the Middle East. We must be critical of any assumptions underlying efforts in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 13-19
Is an International Financial Commission Libya’s Last Hope? | January 13, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
As the battle for Tripoli rages into its ninth month and Libya’s struggle for post-Qadhafi succession enters its ninth year, international peace-making efforts remain stymied. The root causes of the country’s malaise, its flawed economic institutions and the lack of a social contract, remain unaddressed. Thus, Libya’s economic structures will continue to impede peace building or attempts to end foreign interference unless Libya’s semi-sovereign economic institutions are forced to become more transparent. This can be achieved via a Libyan-led International Financial Commission empowered with the tools to compel transparency and reform Libya’s institutions and dysfunctional incentive structure.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a public panel featuring the UN’s Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya Stephanie Williams, former Commercial Officer at the US Embassy in Tripoli Nate Mason, and former US Special Envoy to Libya Jonathan Winer. They will be participating in a discussion launching MEI Non-Resident Fellow Jason Pack’s paper, “An International Financial Commission is Libya’s Last Hope.” The event will present research on the roots of Libya’s unique forms of dysfunction and examine how the Berlin Conference process and pending Congressional legislation (the 2019 Libya Stabilization Act) can be used as correctives and incentives to move towards an economic-based approach to peacemaking in Libya.
Speakers:
Nate Mason is currently a consultant based in Washington DC, Chief of Operations and Executive Director of Strategic Advisory Solutions International, and Partner on EyeOnISISinLibya.com.
Jason Pack is a consultant, author, and commentator with over two decades of experience living in, and working on, the Middle East.
Stephanie Williams currently serves as Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya, United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
Jonathan Winer (moderator) has been the United States Special Envoy for Libya, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, and counsel to United States Senator John Kerry.
What Do Tunisians Expect from Their New Government? | January 14, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
As Tunisia marks the ninth anniversary of its revolution, the country faces a new set of challenges. A new president and parliament, elected with the promise to fight corruption and improve the lives of the Tunisian people, must find a way to address the longstanding social and economic grievances that its predecessors have failed to remedy.
The Carnegie Middle East Program is pleased to host a discussion with three young Tunisian activists who will explain what Tunisians are expecting from their new leaders and what will happen if those expectations are not met. Fellow Sarah Yerkes will moderate the discussion. A light lunch will be served.
Speakers:
Sarah Yerkes is a fellow in the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Amir Ben Ameur is a social activist who advocates for youth development and democracy
Aymen Abderrahmen is a program coordinator in the Leadership Division in IREX.
Oumayma Ben Abdallah is a human rights researcher and Tunisia analyst.
The Future Army in Great-Power Competition | January 14, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:15 AM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council for a public conversation on “The Future Army in Great-Power Competition” with General James C. McConville, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, as part of the Atlantic Council’s Commanders Series. The event will take place on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. at the Atlantic Council’s Headquarters (1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005).
Since releasing the 2017 National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States has shifted its geopolitical focus toward renewed great-power competition with Russia and China. However, this reassessment of national security threats, while significant, is only the first step. The maintenance of robust deterrence and defense in the coming decades will demand strategic planning, critical investments, and intelligent innovations now. Moreover, the United States must continue to confront the long-term threat posed by near-peer adversaries while navigating a variety of difficult crises and scenarios, such as current tensions with Iran. Accordingly, the US Army and the other armed services have been modernizing their capabilities and adapting their operational concepts in order to define their roles in future warfare.
As the Army’s 40th chief of staff, General McConville will join us to discuss how the Army is preparing itself for the future of geostrategic competition and military conflict. This conversation will focus on the Army’s perception of the Russian and Chinese threats, its development of Multi-Domain Operations doctrine, and its modernization efforts to incorporate new technologies.
The Commanders Series is the Atlantic Council’s flagship speakers’ forum for senior military and defense leaders. The series provides a platform to discuss current strategic issues with an impressive audience drawn from across Washington’s policy community, including think tanks, media, industry, embassies, and the US government. In 2019, the Atlantic Council hosted then-Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph F. Dunford, and then-Chief of Naval Operations John M. Richardson.
Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East | January 15, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Join us on Wednesday, January 15, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a conversation with Nabeel Khoury, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and twenty-five-year member of the US Foreign Service, and Thomas L. Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times.
The past three decades have seen massive US military and diplomatic engagements in the Middle East and events that will continue to shape the world for years to come. Why has the security environment changed so drastically for the United States in the region, and what lessons should be drawn? What does US diplomacy look like on the ground in the region right now, and are we in a position to meet our foreign policy and national security goals?
Nabeel will draw on reflections from his recently published book, Bunker Diplomacy: An Arab-American in the U.S. Foreign Service: Personal Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East.
The Prospects for U.S.-Russia Arms Control | January 15, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Center for Strategic International Studies 2nd Floor Conference Room 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
With the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and an unclear future for New START, U.S.-Russian arms control is in dire condition. Some experts in both capitals question the feasibility or necessity of further bilateral arms control. However, any U.S. and Russian administration will face the task of managing its own arsenal and relations with a nuclear armed competitor, which requires some level of arms control—formal or informal. How do Moscow and Washington approach this task? What are most immediate concerns and what could be on the table in the future negotiations? How possible is trilateral arms control with China? What are the arms control mechanisms short of formal treaties? Andrey Baklitskiy, visiting fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program, will present his analysis of the different options for U.S.-Russian arms control.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers:
Andrey Baklitskiy, Visiting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Jeffrey Mankoff, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Impacts and Implications of the 2020 Taiwanese Elections | January 16, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | Brookings Institute Falk Auditorium 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington DC | Register Here
Taiwan held elections for the president and all the members of the Legislative Yuan on January 11. Although President Tsai Ing-wen had maintained a strong lead in the polls, there were questions about the reliability of some polls. Moreover, the outcome of the legislative elections was very uncertain. China, which has long made clear its dislike of the Tsai administration, had predictably intensified its pressure campaign against Tsai and Taiwan, hoping to impact these elections. In the end, Tsai Ing-wen was reelected, and the Democratic Progressive Party maintained its majority in the Legislative Yuan.
On January 16, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will host a panel of policy experts for a discussion on the results of the elections and their implications for domestic governance in Taiwan, relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, U.S.-Taiwan relations, and other policy implications.
Speakers
Jacques deLisle is the Director of the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Alexander C. Huang is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies and the Institute of American Studies
Thomas Wright is the Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and Senior Fellow in Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institute.
Yun Sun is a nonresident Fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative. She also serves as co-director of the East Asia Program, and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center.
Richard C. Bush (moderator) is the Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and holds the Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies in the Center for East Asia Policy Studies (CEAP).
Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
The civil wars in the Middle East have taken a massive humanitarian toll on Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni and Libyan societies, and have disrupted the regional political and economic order of this already tumultuous region.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to invite you to a panel discussion addressing ways for mitigating the effects of these violent and destructive conflicts. The panel will showcase the findings of the recently released book Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA, edited by former diplomat Luigi Narbone, and contributed to by Professor Steven Heydemann. The panel discussion will answer questions such as, what does it mean to exit a civil war conflict economy? What is required to restore economic and political normalcy in countries in civil war? The panel will also address how the rebuilding of hard infrastructure is necessary, but that equally important for reaching and sustaining stability is the forging of new social contracts and establishment of new political and economic norms. Another area that will be explored is how changes at the regional and international levels have influenced possibilities for post-conflict economic reconstruction, and what regional and international preconditions are necessary for a successful reconstruction and transition to peace.
The Middle East Institute has established itself as a thought leader in providing a better understanding of the causes of these conflicts. It has just launched a book “Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East“, and participated in the World Bank’s Building For Peace project. Stay tuned for announcements of future MEI sponsored events that offer important findings about both the underlying causes and possible remedies for these civil conflicts.
Speakers:
Ross Harrison is a senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and is on the faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Steven Heydemann is a nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution.
Luigi Narbone is Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.
Francesca Recanatini is a Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank
Paul Salem (moderator) is President of the Middle East Institute
Deconstructing the Soleimani Killing: Implications for the Region and Beyond | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Arab Center Washington DC, National Press Club First Amendment Lounge 529 14th St., NW Washington DC | Register Here
Speakers
Daniel Brumberg is an Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC
Abbas Kadhim is the Director of Iraq Initiative and Resident Senior Fellow of Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council
Negar Mortazavi is an Iranian-American journalist and media analyst for BBC, Al Jazeera, and CGTN
Reframing the U.S.- Pakistan Strategic Relationship: A Conversation with Foreign Minister Qureshi | January 16, 2020 | 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM | Center for Strategic International Studies 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
For the last 20 years, the relationship between Pakistan and the United States has been refracted through the prism of Afghanistan.
Pakistan and the U.S. have a shared interest in working toward peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan and the U.S. have an opportunity to reframe the bilateral relationship. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House last July is seen as a turning point for the two countries after a difficult period.
There is a good case for a broader Pakistan-U.S. partnership: Pakistan is the fifth most populous country in the world, located in a central geographic part of the world, has the largest percentage of young people globally, and is the native land of over one million affluent and politically engaged Pakistani Americans. There is tremendous investment opportunity for U.S. companies in Pakistan’s enormous energy, agriculture, and tourism sectors.
Please join us for a conversation with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi of Pakistan as he lays out his vision for the Pakistan-U.S. relationship.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers
John J. Hamre is President and CEO of CSIS
Daniel F. Runde is the Senior Vice President and Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development.
Seth G. Jones is the Director of the Transnational Threats Project and Senior Adviser to the International Security Program.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 7
– More US troops are being sent to the Middle East, but they’re not allowed to have cellphones.
– Just in case, US is preparing sanctions against Iraq.
– Mike Pompeo, who says for sure he’s not running for the Senate, is now viewed as shadow secretary of defense.
– NSA O’Brien gets touted as especially close to Trump now.
-Another risk analysis firm has a good list of 2020 issues.
– Travel to Israel tops congressional visits.
– Evan Osnos has long piece on US-China relations.
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:
Marching towards different wars
Both Iran and the United States are signaling escalation in the wake of the assassination of Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani. Tehran said it had identified 35 targets. President Trump responded with a tweet threat against 52:
Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Both have the capability, and perhaps the will. It all sounds strikingly symmetrical.
But there the parallel ends. The wars they are contemplating are different. Iran can hit 35 US targets, but only using proxy forces in other countries or cyber attacks. The US can hit 52 sites, but only with stand-off weapons like drones and cruise missiles, in addition to cyber attacks. That I suspect makes cyber attacks less likely: the Americans presumably have the greater capability in that domain, but they also have far more to lose if the Iranians prove even marginally competent. Will Tehran care much if its citizens don’t have internet access?
Neither the US nor Iran wants a traditional ground war. The Iranians because they would lose, should the Americans deploy the kind of force they did in attacking Iraq in 2003. But that isn’t happening. The American electorate is not prepared to support that kind of effort, and the Administration has done nothing to try to mobilize it. President Trump can deploy a few thousand additional troops to the Middle East to protect American embassies and other facilities, but hundreds of thousands are not in the cards.
Trump is hoping his threats of escalation will bring Iran to the negotiating table, where he hopes to get a “better” agreement than President Obama’s nuclear deal. It’s the North Korea gambit: loud threats, some action, then hugs and kisses. If that fails, he will try a stand-off and cyber attack. If he has a game plan beyond that, he has kept it a good secret. He has so far been unwilling to loosen sanctions, which is what the Iranians want.
The Iranians are fighting on different battlefields. They may threaten proxy and cyber attacks, and even indulge in some, but their better bets are forcing the US troops out of Iraq (there is an advisory vote tomorrow on that in the Iraqi parliament) and acquiring all the material and technology they need to build nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-un got respect once he had nukes. Why shouldn’t the Supreme Leader expect the same?
Nothing about American intervention in the Middle East in the past two decades has brought much more than grief to the United States. Trillions of dollars and thousands of American deaths later, we have accomplished little. Iran has gained from the removal of arch-rival Saddam Hussein, protected its ally Bashar al Assad from insurgency, strengthened its position on Israel’s northern borders, and helped the Houthis in Yemen to harass Saudi Arabia.
President Trump had it right when he ran in 2016 on avoiding new Middle East wars and bringing American troops home. But that requires a serious strategy and commitment to diplomacy and alliances that he has been unwilling to make. Now he risks getting the Americans sent home and confronting an Iran that has nuclear capabilities. You tell me who is fighting on the right battlefield.
RSS - Posts
