Tag: Oman
No real deal
President Trump’s much-vaunted “deal of the century” landed with a thud today. Conceived and developed without input from the Palestinians, it gives Israel the territory it has sought in Golan, the West Bank, and Jerusalem in exchange for a $50 billion aid package and a supposedly contiguous Palestinian state.
There are lots of ambiguities, which I suppose will be resolved only once we study the 80-page text (not yet on the White House website):
- The President claimed in his announcement that Jerusalem will be undivided but also said there would be a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. That doesn’t make sense.
- He also said Palestinian territory would be “doubled,” which by my calculation suggests that at least 10% of the West Bank (and possibly much more) would be taken by Israel without land swaps.
- There would be a four-year period during which Israel would not encroach further on the West Bank, but it is not clear whether this would require prior Palestinian acceptance of the plan, which is not forthcoming.
- The President did not mention the Jordan River valley, but given his claim that Israel’s security would not be even marginally compromised it is likely the idea is for Israel to hold on to it.
- The plan is said to be “conceptual” and will now be elaborated further in a joint committee, which isn’t going to happen as the Palestinians won’t go along.
What happens now? Nothing much. Most of the Arab world seems to have shunned the announcement–the President mentioned only that the Omani, Bahraini, and Emirati (he said Emiratris) were present. That would mean most of the political heavy hitters, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, stayed away.
The main destinations for this peace plan are the political campaigns of President Trump–whose impeachment trial was ongoing while he made the announcement–and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who today was indicted on corruption charges (specifically fraud, breach of trust, and bribery). They are both hoping to get a bit of political boost out of the White House peace plan, which will likely be forgotten within days.
There is however a broader significance: the playing field has tilted against the West Bank Palestinians in recent years, in part because they have mostly abandoned violence against Israelis and internationals. It would be surprising if no one noticed how their cause has suffered from resorting to nonviolence.
Trump and Netanyahu are trying to supplant the “land for peace” formula that has prevailed in negotiations since 1967. They want “money for peace” instead. It should be no surprise that Trump views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as requiring a real estate deal for its resolution. But then remember: Trump was no good at real estate and made most of his money franchising his name. Like so many of his deals, this one is a sales gimmick. There is no real deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Escalation as distraction
Whatever doubt there might be about the origin of recent attacks on shipping in and near the Gulf, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has claimed responsibility for yesterday’s shoot-down of a large American Navy drone. The Iranians say it violated their airspace. The Americans say it was shot down over international waters.
Both could be true, but it doesn’t matter. The significance of the Iranian move is to confirm that we are on an escalatory ladder. President Trump has so far declined, at least in public, to retaliate for the attacks on ships. We don’t really know what Washington has done covertly. Tehran is now testing Trump further with the shoot-down of the drone. The Iranians will likely continue to take steps that either they can claim publicly are in self-defense or interfere covertly with shipping oil and oil products by other Gulf countries.
The Iranian actions demand a response, one way or another. Even doing nothing is a response, as it is likely to encourage continued Iranian attacks. Tit for tat is also a possibility: certainly the US could shoot down an Iranian drone, one of which is said to have been responsible for last night’s success. Some argue the escalatory ladder could reach the point of taking out Iran’s shore-based missiles. It might in fact go much further.
The response could also be at least partially diplomatic rather than wholly military. The Iranians are claiming to be guarantors of Gulf security. They should be challenged to prove it. Once it has done, covertly or publicly, its proportional retaliation, the US should consider easing up on sanctions and allowing , Oman, Iraq, or some other relative neutral to convene a multilateral meeting on Gulf maritime security, to include Iran and the US as well as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Even a meeting at which the parties shout at each other could serve to clear the air and begin the process of climbing down from a ladder that all too predictably leads to a catastrophic new war in the Middle East.
The current situation stems inexorably from the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. The aim should be to return to the status quo ante, which was surely better than what we are facing today. Trump will need some sort of face-saving process, but he is certainly capable of 180 degree policy and rhetorical reversal, a trick he successfully performed with North Korea. The US should also establish rapid military-to-military communications with Iran, since that could help to avoid unintentional provocations and support a diplomatic effort.
Congress needs to weigh in decisively at this point. The effort of the Administration to sell the existing Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) as the basis for war with Iran is not just a stretch. It relies on a claim of active Iranian support for Al Qaeda that is as dubious as Iranian claims that the US and its allies actively support Al Qaeda (the Iranians are particularly fond of quoting a dreadful interview with former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn to that effect).
The simple fact is that the US is not ready to go to war with Iran. Doing so would be a blatant effort by the Administration to distract attention from its all too serious domestic challenges. The Iranians might like war for the same reason: their economy is in a shambles, not only due to sanctions but also due to mismanagement. This is a perilous situation. Military strength has a role to play, but the way out is diplomatic.
PS: In case you don’t believe that Flynn bit, here it is:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, April 29 – May 6
- Venezuela’s Humanitarian Crisis: Searching for Relief | Monday, April 30 | 9:00am – 10:30am | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center for a critical discussion on the multiple dimensions of the humanitarian crisis, how it has evolved through time, and what can be done to alleviate the suffering. Featuring speakers Diego Beltrand, Regional Director for South America at the International Organization for Migration; Chiara Cardoletti, Deputy Regional Representative to the United States of America and the Caribbean with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR); Julio Castro, Professor in the Infectious Diseases Unit at the Universidad Central de Venezuela; Michael Fitzpatrick, Deputy Assistant Secretary with the United States State Department; José Manuel Olivares, Representative from the National Assembly of Venezuela; and Susana Raffalli, Venezuelanh humanitarian expert. Moderated by , U.S. News Director for NTN24 Gustau Alegret, with remarks by Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center Director Jason Marczak.
___________________________________________________________
- Oman’s Role in a Turbulent Region | Monday, April 30 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
In the midst of a series of diplomatic crises in the Gulf region, Oman stands out as a widely-respected regional mediator and has also led working groups in China and India on bilateral economic ties as well as maintained cordial relations with Iran. What is Oman’s role in promoting diplomacy, security and stability in the Gulf, and the prospects for Oman’s growing economic ties in the region and around the world? The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Oman, to address these pressing questions about Oman’s future. Amb. (ret.) Gerald Feierstein, MEI’s director for Gulf affairs and government relations, will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Behind the Scenes of Russian Opposition Campaigns | Monday, April 30 | 3:30pm – 5:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
How do you run an election campaign when you know that your candidate will not win? What lessons do the latest campaigns offer for the future? The managers of Alexei Navalny’s and Ksenia Sobchak’s 2018 Russian presidential campaigns will discuss their experience and the future of opposition campaigning in Russia. Featuring Leonid Volkov, Chief of Staff for Alexey Navalny, and Vitali Shkliarov, Senior Adviser to Ksenia Sobchak.
There will be a webcast of this event.
___________________________________________________________
- Denuclearizing North Korea: Practicalities and Politics | Tuesday, May 1 | 9:00am – 12:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
In the aftermath of the inter-Korean summit on April 27, and ahead of planned U.S.-North Korea talks, please join Carnegie for a deep dive on the practicalities and politics of denuclearizing North Korea. With two sessions: Denuclearization Roadmaps at 9:10am – 10:30am, featuring Corey Hinderstein (vice president of international fuel cycle strategies at the Nuclear Threat Initiative), Eli Levite (nonresident senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment), Li Bin (senior fellow working jointly with the Nucelar Policy Program and the Carnegie Endowment), and Toby Dalton (co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment); and Regional, Political, and Diplomatic Dimensions from 10:45am – 12:00pm, featuring Choi Kang (vice president for research and director of the Center for Foreign Policy and National Security at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies), Douglas H. Paal (vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment), Jung H. Pak (senior fellow and the SK-Korea Foundation chair in Korea studies at Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies), and James L. Schoff (senior fellow in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment). Opening remarks by George Perkovich (vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment).
___________________________________________________________
- Iraq After ISIS: What to Do Now | Tuesday, May 1 | 12:15pm – 1:45pm | New America | Register here |
In 2017, the United States dealt ISIS a devastating blow eliminating its territorial holdings in Iraq and Syria. Iraq, which will hold national elections on May 12th, emerged out of the war against ISIS strong and in an increasingly positive mood. Yet as Iraq looks ahead to a post-ISIS future, numerous challenges lie ahead. In a new policy report, Iraq After ISIS: What to Do Now, Bartle Bull, author and founder of Northern Gulf Partners, an Iraq-focused merchant banking firm, and Douglas Ollivant, (ASU Senior Future of War Fellow with New America and former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council, propose the contours of a positive, forward-looking U.S.-Iraqi relationship. In discussion moderated by Peter Bergen, Vice President and Director of the International Security Program at New America.
___________________________________________________________
- Eurasia and Afghanistan – A New Era of Regional Cooperation | Wednesday, May 2 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies (Johns Hopkins University) | Register here |
Despite present challenges to global security and the international liberal order, the South/Central Asian region remains a dynamic and fast-changing region and over the past couple of decades and has shown that increased regional cooperation is indispensable to achieving development goals and stability in the region. Four experts on the region – Afghanistan Ambassador to the United States Hamdullah Mohib, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Earl Anthony Wayne, former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphel – will analyze the recent progress in regional cooperation, peace process, and the economic integration in broader Eurasian context impacting Afghanistan and Central Asian countries. The discussion will be moderated by Dr. Kent Calder, with introductions by Rohullah Osmani, Visiting Scholar of the Reischauer Center.
___________________________________________________________
- Japan’s Security Strategy: A Political Update from Nagatacho | Thursday, May 3 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register here |
Please join CSIS for an exchange with Japanese thought leaders on the security policy debate in Nagatacho (a district in central Tokyo where the national parliament, or Diet, is located) and priorities for the U.S.-Japan alliance. Featuring Gen Nakatani (Liberal Democratic Party; Former Minister of Defense), Akihisa Nagashima (Party of Hope; Former Vice Minister of Defense), and Satoshi Morimoto (Takushoku University; Former Minister of Defense), with Sheila Smith (Senior Fellow for Japan Studies, Council on Foreign Relations) and Michael J. Green (Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS).
This event will be webcast live from this page. No registration necessary.
___________________________________________________________
- Cyber Risk Thursday: Building a Defensible Cyberspace | Thursday, May 3 | 4:00pm – 5:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
This Cyber Risk Thursday, join the Cyber Statecraft Initiative as we engage key experts and stakeholders for a progressive and solutions-oriented discussion on the defensive innovations and methodologies that can helps secure cyberspace and its underlying infrastructure. A conversation with panelists Gus Hunt (Managing Director and Cyber Lead, Accenture Federal Services) and Jason Healey (Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council). With welcoming remarks by Frederick Kempe (President and CEO, Atlantic Council), opening remarks by John Goodman (CEO, Accenture Federal Services), and introductory remarks by Dr. Joseph Nye (University Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government).
___________________________________________________________
- Time for Action in the Western Balkans: Policy Prescriptions for American Diplomacy | Friday, May 4 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
The Western Balkans — Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, and Serbia — are re-emerging as a region of stagnation and instability due to poor governance, the influence of outside forces and tense relations between ethnic groups and neighboring states. A forthcoming report by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy and the EastWest Institute highlights the need for immediate, decisive action by the U.S. and the European Union to head off instability and possible violent strife. Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace to hear from the authors of the report — Amb. Frank G. Wisner (International Affairs Advisor, Squire Patton Boggs and former U.S. ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines and India), Jonathan Levitsky (Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton, and former Counselor to Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations), Amb. Cameron Munter (CEO and President, the EastWest Institute and former U.S. Ambassador to Serbia and Pakistan), and Tom Graham (Senior Fellow and Managing Director, Kissinger Associates, Inc.) — as they present a strategy for the United States and Europe, working in a revitalized partnership, to forestall a downward spiral in the Western Balkans, which could potentially lead to fractured states and widespread instability on Europe’s borders. In conversation with moderator Amb. Sarah Mendelson (Distinguished Service Professor of Public Policy and Head of Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, and former U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks December 18 – 22
- The Middle East Through Gulf Eyes: Trip Report from Riyadh, Muscat, and Abu Dhabi | Monday, December 18 | 10:00 – 11:30 am | Washington Institute for Near East Policy (event is available to the public through livestream) | Watch Here | During an eventful week for U.S. Middle East policy—highlighted by President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—a fifty-person delegation from The Washington Institute traveled to the capitals of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates to meet with senior leaders, engage with a broad range of local society, and learn about important changes under way in each country. To share their findings and impressions from the trip, the Institute is pleased to host a special midmorning Policy Forum discussion with four of its experts: executive director Robert Satloff, managing director Michael Singh, and fellows Katherine Bauer and Lori Plotkin Boghardt.
- The Jerusalem Decision: The View from Washington, Tel Aviv, and Ankara (THO Teleconference) | Tuesday, December 19 | 10:00 – 11:00 am | Turkish Heritage Organization (event will take place over the phone) | Register Here | Please tune in to THO’s latest teleconference to hear from Prof. Dr. Cagri Erhan (Rector of Altinbas University), Dr. Raphael Danziger (Senior Research Advisor, Policy & Government Affairs and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, Near East Report American Israel Public Affairs Committee), and Moran Stern of the Center for Jewish Civilization, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, as they discuss the ramifications of this decision. Prof. Dr. Mark Meirowitz (Assistant Professor of Humanities at SUNY Maritime College and Chair of THO’s Advisory Board Chair) will moderate the teleconference.
- Making Peace in Donbas? The Role of a Peacekeeping Mission | Tuesday, December 19 | 9:00 am | Atlantic Council | Register Here | For years, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has proposed a peacekeeping mission in eastern Ukraine as an important instrument to achieving a peace settlement. This fall, Russian President Vladimir Putin also suggested a limited peacekeeping mission as one element towards a settlement. Are international peacekeepers or peace enforcers instrumental or even necessary for ending the war in Donbas? The Atlantic Council and the Razumkov Centre are assembling a panel of experts to discuss Russia’s war in Donbas and the prospect of a peacekeeping operation. Speakers will include Ambassador Kurt Volker of the US Department of State, Dr. Sarah Mendelson of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Dr. Evelyn Farkas of the Atlantic Council, Ambassador Alexander Vershbow of the Atlantic Council, and Mr. Oleksiy Melnyk of the Razumkov Centre. The Council’s Ambassador John Herbst will moderate the event and deliver welcoming remarks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A nervous region wary of the nuclear deal
On Wednesday, the Conflict Management Program at SAIS and MEI hosted a talk entitled After the Deal: A Veteran Journalist’s View from Tehran. Speakers included Roy Gutman, McClatchy Middle East bureau chief, and Joyce Karam, Washington bureau chief for Al-Hayat. Daniel Serwer of both SAIS and MEI moderated. Both speakers emphasized the dynamics that caused regional players to be wary of Iran.
Early last Spring, Gutman traveled to Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey.
In Israel, he observed that the major national security concern wasn’t the Iranian nuclear program, but rather Iran’s conventional threat through the buildup of Hezbollah forces. Israelis were disappointed that the US was leaving a security vacuum in Syria for Iran to fill. The Israeli position on the Iran deal is difficult to understand; Israeli politicians oppose it, but Israel’s foreign policy elite considers Iranian conventional forces a larger threat.
Jordanian officials also worried about regional chaos and Iranian influence. They were baffled by the half-hearted US response to Assad, as well as its airstrike-only response to ISIS.
Egypt is preoccupied by terrorism and the upheaval in Libya, but Egyptian officials are also concerned about Iran’s growing influence and US inaction.
Officials in every government (aside from Turkey’s) spoke of collusion between Turkey and extremists. The Turks think the Iranians know that the US is not a determined counterpart. They believe the US is appeasing Iran.
Gutman then traveled to Tehran to gauge the mood there. Iran has come in from the cold after 36 years, but Tehran resents the last 36 years of US policy. Change in Iran won’t happen fast. Khamenei has said that Iran’s policy towards the “arrogant” US government won’t change and that Iran will keep supporting its regional allies.
Israel views Hezbollah’s buildup as a direct threat, but Iranian officials told Gutman that the Tehran holds the trigger on Hezbollah’s weapons and won’t pull it unless Israel threatens Lebanon or Iran. However, a former Iranian diplomat admitted that Iran has no vital interest in Lebanon or the Palestinians. Iran also appears to have no vital interest in Yemen, but likes seeing Saudi Arabia embroiled in an unwinnable war. Iran is unalterably opposed to the breakup of Iraq into three states.
Iranian officials don’t think the deal is perfect, but still see it as a win-win for both sides. They view themselves as MENA’s most powerful and stable state. They are glad that US has accepted them as a regional player and negotiating partner.
After the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Iran filled the vacuum. The Iraqi Army collapsed on Iran’s watch. Iran does not acknowledge its responsibility for this and ascribes the rise of ISIS to others. They also believe that foreign forces fought in Deraa and refused to acknowledge Assad’s role in fomenting terrorism by releasing terrorists from prison. Iranian officials also stated that all sectors of Lebanese society back Hezbollah’s deployment in Syria. Iran needs a reality check.
Iran opposes the creation of a safe zone/no-fly zone in Iraq and has threatened to send basijis into Syria if this happens. Iranians don’t understand the scope of Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe or Iran’s role in it. There are too many disagreements between the US and Iran to form a regional security agreement now. The US needs a policy for Syria; if we don’t have a policy, others will fill the vacuum. The US also needs an official version of what happened in Syria to counter the Iranian invented view of history.
Karam noted that the Arab response to the deal is less monolithic than Israel’s, but the GCC and Israel view Iran’s regional behavior similarly. The UAE, Oman, and Turkey quickly welcomed the deal because they have good trade relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar were more cautious. The Saudis don’t view the deal as US abandonment, but they fear increased Iranian regional meddling. Arab public opinion has shifted drastically since 2008, when 80% of Arabs viewed Iran positively. Now only 12% do. The Arab street is suspicious of the deal. The US explained the deal to Arab governments, but not to their people. The Arab street wonders whether the money Iran will gain from sanctions relief will go to funding Iranian students, or to Qassem Suleimani and more chlorine gas, barrel bombs, and Hezbollah fighters for Assad. Assad is a costly budget item for Iran. When will Iran realize that Assad can’t win? Nevertheless, Hezbollah keeps getting more involved in Syria.
Karam stated that the Gulf countries obtain commitments from the US at talks like Camp David, but then nothing gets done. The US is four years behind on Syria and needs an official policy.
Serwer noted in conclusion that the regional issues would be far worse if Iran had, or were about to get, nuclear weapons.
RSS - Posts
