Tag: Yemen
Diplomacy for drawdown
Marc Lynch, after describing well the security dilemmas and state fragility that are driving Middle East conflicts, concludes:
US hegemony in the Middle East will never be restored because the region has fundamentally changed. Moving beyond the wars and political failures that followed the Arab uprisings will not be easy. The damage is too deep.
The question is: should Americans worry about that? Marc doesn’t answer that question, but Steven Metz does.
American interests in the Middle East are usually defined along these lines:
- Countering international terrorism
- Ensuring oil and gas can flow without hindrance to world markets
- Supporting friends and allies
- Preventing nuclear proliferation
Steven essentially says the threat of international terrorism is overblown, US energy vulnerability is vastly reduced (“Petroleum will not be weaponized”), and US friends and allies can (mostly) take of themselves. He doesn’t deal with the proliferation issue, but he really doesn’t have to, because he is talking mainly about military commitments. Military action has never been a good option for dealing with nuclear proliferation, since it would provide a very strong incentive for acquiring nuclear weapons.
Steven’s conclusion: the US should withdraw its military from the Middle East and rely instead on “off-shore balancing” to ensure that no rival hegemon is able to control the region and intervene only in the event that one threatens US interests. The savings could be gigantic: RAND estimated that in 2008 12-15% of the Pentagon budget was spent to securing oil from the Persian Gulf.
Washing our hands of the Middle East is an attractive proposition. Unfortunately it is one that President Obama tried, without a great deal of success. President Trump is tempted in the same direction. But withdrawal has left the many of the vacuums that Marc describes so well, generating security dilemmas and military responses that have left Syria, Yemen, and Libya in ruins and erstwhile American friends like Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates at odds and hedging.
It is difficult to see how the United States can withdraw from the Middle East without a focused diplomatic effort to ensure that the region can restore a modicum of stability,or at least remove some of the drivers of instability. Offshore balancing won’t work if there is no balance but only chaos. The Trump Administration is said to be preparing for a Summit to restore some coherence to GCC next month. That makes sense: there will be no serious effort to counter Iran’s behavior in the region so long as Qatar is feuding with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
But the Administration also needs to end its own feuding with Turkey and restore some balance to its policy on Palestine to make it more palatable to Sunni Arab friends. And it needs to reconsider its position on the Iran deal, which threatens to seriously undermine relations with Europe.
So yes, I agree that we should draw down, if not completely out, from the the Middle East. But there is a lot of diplomatic homework required to make that possible. And a very real possibility that the Administration will focus instead on countering Iran, leading it to increase rather than decrease its military commitments in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks – July 30 – August 5
1. Where Do We Go From Here? One Year after the Rohingya Crisis | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Heritage Foundation | Register Here
On August 25, 2017 violence broke out in Rakhine State that led to the mass exodus of more than 700,000 Muslim Rohingya from Burma. Thousands of fleeing Rohingya men and boys were brutally murdered, women and girls were raped and sexually abused, and babies were killed before their family’s eyes at the hands of the notorious Burmese military. The United Nations calls the situation ethnic cleansing. And according to The Economist the refugee flow from Burma was faster than the exodus from Rwanda in the midst of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The United States has responded by providing substantial humanitarian assistance to alleviate suffering. As the protracted crisis continues, it will be critical for the U.S. to implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to address the Rohingya crisis. That may require a larger-scale shift in broader U.S. strategy toward Burma. Please join us for a conversation nearly a year after the crisis began to discuss solutions to the long-term challenges facing Rohingya.
Speakers:
Keynote: Kelley E. Currie – Representative of the United States on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and Alternate Representative of the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations
Moderator: Walter Lohman – Director, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation
Francisco Bencosme – Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager, Amnesty International
U Kyaw Min – Former Member of Parliament, Burma
Olivia Enos – Policy Analyst, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation
2. The Nuclear Future: Can There Be Order Without Trust? | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 12:30pm – 2:00 pm | Stimson Center | Register Here
Developments in relations between major powers and nuclear-armed states in tense regions render the future of arms control, nuclear confidence-building, and U.S. leadership in the global nonproliferation regime uncertain. Please join the Stimson Center for a luncheon discussion addressing trust deficits in the global nuclear order. Our featured speaker, Heather Williams, lecturer in Defence Studies, Kings College London, will offer recommendations for how the United States can rebuild trust within the global nuclear order, to include increased transparency and unilateral measures in the absence of new treaties. Justin Anderson, senior research fellow, National Defense University’s Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Rebecca Gibbons, post-doctoral fellow, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Sara Kutchesfahani, senior policy analyst, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, will offer comments. Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center, will convene our luncheon meeting, and Hannah Haegeland, a South Asia analyst at Stimson, will moderate the discussion.
3. Governing the Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance in Pakistan | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Wilson Center | Register Here
Why has Pakistan experienced an extended economic slowdown since 1990? Why has it suffered through volatile and inequitable growth over the last 25 years? In his new book, Governing the Ungovernable, Ishrat Husain, a distinguished Pakistani economist, Wilson Center global fellow, and former Wilson Center public policy fellow, argues that the answer lies in the decay of institutions of governance. At this event, Dr. Husain will discuss his new book, which proposes a selective and incremental approach for reforming key public institutions in Pakistan in order to make them perform better. This event will be moderated by Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center.
4. Yemen’s Silent Crisis: Elevating Local Perspectives | Tuesday, July 31, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | International Center for Religion and Diplomacy | 740 15th St NW #900, Washington, DC, 20005 | Register Here
As Yemen continues to unravel, discussions of the crisis in media and policy circles too often focus solely on the geopolitics, and overlook the realities on the local level. Even in the absence of resources and functioning national institutions, Yemeni community leaders are finding ways to confront dire humanitarian and security challenges. With no political resolution to the conflict in sight, it is more important than ever to examine this crisis through the eyes of those who are impacted most directly.
The International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD) will host a discussion with Yemen experts and civil society leaders from across a range of disciplines and sectors, in order to take a holistic view of what has been happening at the local level. As Yemen faces a crisis on multiple fronts – famine, civil war, terrorism, political and economic instability – it is important to bring together voices from distinct fields of work.
In this event, panelists will elevate stories of resilience and adversity from Yemeni communities, touching on issues of conflict transformation, humanitarian relief, and the role of civil society in filling the gaps left by absent governing institutions.
Speakers:
Moderator: James Patton – ICRD President & CEO
Fatima Abo Alasrar – Senior Analyst at the Arabia Foundation
Anwar Khan – President of Islamic Relief
Salwa Alssarhi – Independent Consultant – Yemen
5. The Code of Putinism | Wednesday, August 1, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
What is Vladimir Putin up to? In the new book The Code of Putinism, Brian Taylor argues that we can only understand Putin’s Russia if we understand the set of ideas, emotions, and habits that influence how Team Putin views the world. Key features of Russian politics today–such as increasing authoritarianism, Putin’s reliance on a small group of loyal friends and associates, state domination of the economy, and an assertive foreign policy–are traced to the worldview and mindset of Putin and his close associates. The Code of Putinism also shows how Putin’s choices, guided by this mindset, have led to a Russia that is misruled at home and punching above its weight abroad.
Speakers:
Moderator: Jeffrey Mankoff – Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS
Brian Taylor – Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Maxwell School, Syracuse University
Stephen Hanson – Vice Provost for International Affairs, College of William and Mary
Olga Oliker – Senior Advisor and Director, Russia and Eurasia, CSIS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Delay can be good
Yesterday’s bravado has given way to today’s hesitation. President Trump tweeted this morning:
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!
This kind of inconsistency creates confusion and uncertainty that can undermine US standing in the world and even contribute to crisis escalation. Flip-flops are no better in diplomacy than they are in domestic politics. In addition, the delay has given the Syrian government time to park its aircraft and other assets close by the Russians, whom the Americans will not want to hit.
But this particular delay could still be a good thing, if it gives Washington time to do three things:
- Assemble unequivocal evidence that Syrian President Assad was responsible for the chemical attack last week on Douma;
- Plan a serious combined military and diplomatic campaign to end at least the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if not the war itself;
- Rally domestic as well as international support for that combined campaign.
I don’t see much sign that the US is working on any of these things, but it should.* This post is about what Washington should be doing now, before any military action.
First is to gather the evidence. Intelligence doesn’t flow instantaneously. Materials often have to be translated and analyzed, not the least for veracity. Many countries may have collected against Syrian targets. To put together an unclassified version of the evidence against the Syrian government, cleared by all those agencies and governments that have contributed something, takes time and concentration.
That material should then be presented publicly, first and foremost to the Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle are nervous about allowing the President to act without at least Congressional consultation, if not approval. They fear another exclusively presidential decision, like last year’s cruise missile attack on the Syrian base that had launched a sarin attack, would set an undesirable precedent for military action against North Korea and Iran. Some in Congress are also loathe to do anything that will get the US more involved in Syria, as the President has also been. Americans are not keen on taking on more responsibility for that devastated country.
Evidence against Bashar al Assad also needs to be presented internationally, both in classified and unclassified formats. France and the UK are thought to be considering participation in military action. Others, like Germany and Saudi Arabia, have good reason to be sympathetic with the US even if they are reluctant to participate. Russia de facto controls Syrian air defenses, which have mostly stood idly by while the US and especially Israel flies at will over and near Syria. If Moscow can be convinced to continue to hold its fire, Assad will be more chastened. It is not only cruise missiles that send a message.
A one-off strike, tightly targeted on those who launched the chemical attack on Douma, will do no more this year than last year. Assad is fighting not only to hold on to power, but also for his life. Only the prospect of a broad, sustained military campaign against his capabilities will affect his calculations about using chemical weapons, which are important to him because he is short of manpower after 7 years of war. The Administration needs to be asking whether targeting the presidential palace (with or without a warning) or the Syrian Air Force intelligence facilities that plan chemical attacks would send a stronger message than targeting just runways and aircraft.
The Administration also needs to consider what happens if Russians or Iranians or their proxies are killed, intentionally or unintentionally. Does the US have the capability to respond to escalation? Would it want to do so? Is it prepared for what Russia might do in Ukraine, the Baltics or the Balkans? Does it have the capability to respond to what Iran and its proxies might do in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, or even inside the US?
The Syrian conflict has widened from non-violent protests against autocracy to a civil war and now to a geopolitical contest between some of the most powerful states on earth. It behooves the US to think carefully about the many diplomatic, political, and military consequences that may follow from military action. Once it has carefully chosen a course of action, it needs to assemble as much support as possible and move decisively, not only in Syria but also defensively worldwide.
*Curt Mills at The National Interest attributes the hesitation to domestic, rightwing pressure. I suspect he is correct.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, April 2 – April 8
- Cross-Strait Relations Under the Trump Administration | Monday, April 2 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Stimson Center | Register here |
Since the unprecedented phone call between President Trump and Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016, the Trump administration’s approach to Taiwan has fluctuated. The latest twist came on March 16 when President Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act. This law, which permits American officials to visit their counterparts in Taiwan and encourages high-level officials from Taiwan to visit the U.S., prompted a strong protest from Beijing. On the heels of the signing of the TTA, the U.S. sent two deputy assistant secretaries of state to Taiwan. Given these developments, where will relations between U.S., the PRC, and Taiwan go from here? Join us for a timely conversation between Bonnie Glaser, Director of the China Power Project at CSIS, and Yun Sun and Yuki Tatsumi, Co-Directors of Stimson’s East Asia Program. A light lunch will be served.
___________________________________________________________
- Syria and the Outside Powers: What They Want and Can They Have It? | Monday, April 2 | 1:30pm – 3:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
The Syrian civil war is many overlapping conflicts, including the competition and cooperation among outside powers vying to protect their interests, often at the expense of Syria’s sovereignty. What are Russian, Iranian, Turkish, Israeli, and American objectives in Syria, and can they achieve them? Join us as four analysts of Syria and the region address the issue of outside powers and the future of Syria. A conversation with Paul du Quenoy (Associate Professor of History at American University of Beirut), Amy Austin Holmes (Associate Professor of Sociology at American University in Cairo), David Pollock (Kaufman Fellow at the Washington Institute and Director of Project Fikra), and Robin Wright (journalist/author and USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow), with moderator Aaron David Miller (Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director at the Wilson Center). There will be a webcast of this event.
___________________________________________________________
- Iraq and Syria: Views from the U.S. Administration, Military Leaders and the Region | Tuesday, April 3 | 10:00am – 2:30pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
With ISIS driven from its urban strongholds in Iraq and Syria, the urgent task of stabilizing the region – and preventing the return of terrorists – is underway. While Iraq and Syria face many internal challenges and tensions, Iran, Turkey, Arab Gulf State, the United States and Russia are advancing competing agendas. What are the stakes for Iraq, Syria, the region and the world as the struggle for leverage, stability, and reconciliation continues after ISIS? What is the U.S. role? Please join U.S. Administration and military leaders, senior Iraqi representatives and regional experts as they explore one of the most complex and consequential conflicts of our time.
On Panel 1 (10:00am – 11:00), A Pivotal Moment for Iraq – Amb. Fareed Yasseen (Ambassador to the United States, Republic of Iraq), Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman (Kurdistan Regional Government Representative to the United States), and Sarhang Hamasaeed (Director, Middle East Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace), with Amb. Alberto Fernandez (President, Middle East Broadcasting Networks) as moderator.
On Panel 2 (11:20am – 12:30pm), Entering the Post-ISIS Era: Iraq and Its Neighbors – Dr. Elie Abouaoun (Director, Middle East and North Africa Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace), Dr. Mark N. Katz (Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University), Alireza Nader (Senior International/Defense Researcher, RAND), and Mona Yacoubian (Senior Advisor for Syria, U.S. Institute of Peace), with Kevin Baron (Founding Executive Editor, Defense One) as moderator.
On the Keynote Panel (1:30pm – 2:30pm), Fraught Terrain: Stabilizing Iraq and Syria After ISIS – Gen. Joseph L. Votel (CENTCOM Commander), Amb. Mark Green (Administrator, USAID), and Brett McGurk (Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, U.S. Department of State), with Stephen J. Hadley (Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace) as moderator.
Network lunch will be held with box lunch provided; RSVP required.
___________________________________________________________
- The Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen | Thursday, April 5 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | CSIS | Register here |
Labeled the worst humanitarian crisis in today’s world, the conflict in Yemen is entering its fourth year. To understand the impact the war is having on the Yemeni people, and the challenges it poses to policymakers, join us for a discussion with David Miliband (President and CEO, International Rescue Committee) which will be followed by a panel discussion with Barbara Bodine (Director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University), Peter Salisbury (Senior Consulting Fellow, Chatham House), and Abdulrahman Al-Eryani (International Economist and Development Specialist).
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- The Future of the JCPOA: Implications for the U.S., Its Allies, and Adversaries | Thursday, April 5 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
The future of the Iran nuclear deal may soon be clarified. President Trump has asked Congress and our European allies for revisions to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by May 12, and in the meantime will be advised about how and whether to continue American participation in that plan by a significantly reorganized foreign policy team—including new leadership at the State Department, National Security Council, and CIA. Join a panel of experts to explore near-term U.S. policy options, and their international ramifications, with respect to the JCPOA. Including New America International Security Fellow Oubai Shahbandar; Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow Michael Pregent; Heritage Foundation Policy Analyst Michaela Dodge; Foundation for Defense of Democracies Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen; and Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg.
___________________________________________________________
- Seeking Solutions for Somalia | Friday, April 6 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Despite important progress through years of international counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and state-building assistance, peace and sustainable stabilization remain elusive in Somalia. Pernicious governance processes give continual lease on life to al-Shabab and other destabilizing armed actors. Improving governance and state-building—and subjecting Somalia’s governments and powerbrokers to accountability—are fundamental for conflict reduction and eventual stabilization. On April 6, Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown will brief her December 2017 fieldwork in Somalia and review key security and political developments. Landry Signé, a David M. Rubenstein fellow in the Brookings Africa Growth Initiative, will discuss how the persistence of bad governance, corruption, marginalization, and economic mismanagement have led to state failure and insecurity in the country. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Iran’s Sunnis Resist Extremism, But for How Long? | Friday, April 6 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Iran, a predominantly Shia nation, has a substantial Sunni minority estimated at 15 million of its 80 million population. Politically and economically disadvantaged, these Sunnis receive relatively little attention compared to other minorities and are potential victims of radicalization as tensions flare between regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative invites you to a discussion of Iran’s Sunnis and the launch of a new paper, Iran’s Sunnis Resist Extremism, But for How Long?, by veteran journalist Scheherezade Faramarzi. Faramarzi, who has covered Iran and the Middle East for four decades, traveled in 2015 and 2016 to the southern Iranian province of Hormozgan on the Persian Gulf and also conducted interviews by phone and in person in the United Arab Emirates and with experts based in Europe. Also featuring expert on Middle Eastern and South Asian affairs Fatemeh Aman and Future of Iran Initiative Director Barbara Slavin as moderator.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, January 15-19
Peace picks is back, courtesy of newly arrived Middle East Institute intern Adam Friend:
- Pakistan, America, and Extremism: The Path Ahead | Tuesday, January 16 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm | Brookings Institution | Register here | As the United States intensifies its pressure on Pakistan to take action against terrorist groups, the country is facing challenges from many sides. With elections set for the country in 2018, turbulence is likely to persist. The Global Economy and Development program and the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will convene a panel of experts to discuss extremism in Pakistan and its broader implications across the region and world. Panelists include: Madiha Afzal, nonresident fellow at Brookings and adjunct assistant professor of global policy at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies, and author of the newly released “Pakistan Under Siege: Extremism, Society, and the State” (Brookings, 2018); Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at Brookings, and author of “Deadly Embrace” (Brookings, 2012); and Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, who will moderate and add his perspective as well.
________________________________________________________
- Iran Protests: Consequences for the Region and Opportunities for the Trump Administration | Tuesday, January 16 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm | Hudson Institute | Register here | Recent unrest in Iran has led to fierce confrontations between security personnel and protesters. Demonstrations have spread quickly across the country, further undermining the legitimacy of the Rouhani regime. Key upcoming policy decisions regarding U.S. sanctions and the certification of the Iran nuclear deal will set the tone for the Trump Administration’s policy towards Iran. Hudson Institute will host a discussion assessing the policy options available to contain and curtail Iran’s influence in the region and the potential consequences of inaction. The panel will consist of Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Charles Lister, Senior Fellow and Director of Counter-Extremism & Counter-Terrorism at the Middle East Institute; Omri Ceren, Managing Director of Press and Strategy at The Israel Project; and Hudson Senior Fellow Michael Pregent. The discussion will be moderated by Joyce Karam, the Washington Bureau Chief of Al-Hayat newspaper. This event will also be live streamed onHudson’s homepage.
______________________________________________________
- Religion and Countering Violent Extremism | Wednesday, January 17 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am |United States Institute of Peace | Register here | Both research and experience make clear that the spread of violent extremism is driven not by religion but by poor governance, injustices, and the radicalization of people who see no future for themselves. But extremists use religious ideas—whether from the traditions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or other faiths—as tools to encourage radicalization and violence. How can policymakers and practitioners working to counter violent extremism best ally with religions, their institutions and their people? This forum will offer recommendations from a recent USIP Special Reporton this question. With speakers Peter Mandaville (Professor of International Affairs at George Mason University), Robin Simcox (Margaret Thatcher Fellow at the Heritage Foundation), and Ann Wainscott (American Academy of Religion Senior Fellow at U.S. Institute of Peace), moderated by Melissa Nozell (Senior Program Specialist at U.S. Institute of Peace).
_______________________________________________________
- Promoting Peace During Conflict in Ukraine and Myanmar: Women’s Roles and Strategies | Wednesday, January 17 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace & Security and the Embassy of Sweden (hosted at Georgetown University) | Register here | Launching new research from the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace & Security: “Women’s Peacebuilding Strategies Amidst Conflict: Lessons from Myanmar and Ukraine.” Featuring remarks by Ambassador Karin Olofsdotter, Ambassador of Sweden, Ambassador Melanne Verveer, Director GIWPS, Ambassador William Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (2006-2009), and Ambassador Derek Mitchell, U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar (2012-2016). Refreshments provided.
_______________________________________________________
- Yemen: National Chaos, Local Order | Thursday, January 18 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm | The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington | Register here | In his latest paper, “Yemen: National Chaos, Local Order,” Peter Salisbury challenges much of the conventional wisdom regarding the Yemen civil war, including the focus of the U.N.-led mediation on two principal adversaries, namely the government of exiled President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi and the (now collapsed) alliance between the Houthis and deceased former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Instead, Salisbury offers a remapping of key local and regional stakeholders and examines the prospects for peace, offering a new long-term approach to ending the crisis and engaging in state building and economic reconstruction. AGSIW is pleased to host Peter Salisbury for a discussion of his paper and other issues impacting the continuing conflict in Yemen, with discussant Gerald M. Feierstein (Director of Gulf Affairs and Government Relations, Middle East Institute), moderated by Stephen A. Seche (Executive Vice President, AGSIW). A light lunch will be served.
_______________________________________________________
- Iranian Protests and US Policy on Iran | Thursday, January 18 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm | SETA Foundation at Washington DC | Register here | What kind of an impact can the US have on the unfolding events in Iran? How will the US-Iran relationship be defined in the Trump era given the president’s advocacy for more economic sanctions against Iran? How might regional dynamics be affected and how will regional actors adjust to the new Iran policy under President Trump? Please join the SETA Foundation at Washington DC for a discussion with a panel of distinguished experts on the regional implications of the Iranian protests, and the future of the Trump administration’s Iran policy. Featuring speakers Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, Barbara Slavin, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative, Alex Vatanka, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, and Kadir Ustun, Executive Director at the SETA Foundation at Washington DC, along with moderator Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director at the SETA Foundation at Washington DC.
_________________________________________________
- Iran Looks East | Friday, January 19 | 9:00 am – 1:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register here | The Future of Iran Initiativeand The Iran Project invite you to “Iran Looks East,” a major conference on Iran’s evolving economic and strategic relationships. As implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) marks its second anniversary, Iran is increasingly, if reluctantly, looking to Asia for trade and investment. At the same time, Iran also appears to be cementing a strategic partnership with Russia to stabilize Syria and to improve its leverage against threatened actions by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. Participants in the conference include William Luers of the Iran Project, Barbara Slavin of the Future of Iran Initiative, Sumitha Narayanan Kutty of Nanyang Technological University, Wu Bingbing of Peking University, Sachi Sakanashi of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, Theodore Karasik of the Gulf State Analytics and the Lexington Institute, Eugene Rumer of Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, and Maxim Suchkov of Al-Monitor, with panels moderated by Bharath Gopalaswamy of the Atlantic Council and Thomas Pickering, former Ambassador to Russia and former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. The Hon. Stuart Eizenstat will deliver opening remarks.
______________________________________________________
- The Syrian Opposition in 2018 | Friday, January 19 | 12:15 pm – 1:45 pm | New America | Register here | Ever since the Arab Spring protests broke out in Syria in 2011, the ensuing conflict between the government of Bashar al-Assad and Syrian opposition groups has gone through numerous shifts. With the fall of ISIS’ territorial holdings in the east of the country, advances by Syrian forces, and a new administration in the United States transforming the Syrian conflict, where does the Syrian opposition stand in 2018? New America is pleased to welcome Osama Abu Zayd, a spokesman and representative of the Free Syrian Army to discuss these issues, with the conversation moderated by Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America and Director of its International Security Program. Zayd has been a member of the Track 1 delegations at negotiations in Geneva and Astana, representing the Syrian opposition bilaterally and with transnational bodies such as the EU and UN.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A weakened America
Is America stronger after 11 months of Donald Trump or not?
It is demonstrably weaker, mainly because of his diplomatic moves and non-moves, but also because Trump has done nothing to reduce American military commitments and a good deal to expand them. Let me enumerate:
The diplomatic front:
- Trump withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) early in the game. The remaining negotiating partners have X-ed out the provisions the US wanted on labor and environmental protection and are preparing to proceed, without American participation. TPP was America’s ace in the Asia Pacific.
- He is withdrawing as well from the Paris Climate Change accord. That is also proceeding without the US, which will be unable to affect international deliberations on climate change unless and until it rejoins.
- He has withdrawn from UNESCO, which excludes the US from participation in a lot of cultural, scientific and educational endeavors.
- He hasn’t announced withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the negotiations on revising it are thought to be going very badly, mainly because of excessive US demands.
- He has refused to certify that the Iran nuclear deal is in the US interest, which is so patently obvious that the Republican-controlled Congress is making no moves to withdraw from it.
- His ill-framed appeal to the Saudis to halt financing of terrorists has precipitated a dramatic split among US allies within the Gulf Cooperation Council.
- Through his son-in-law he encouraged the Saudis to try to try to depose Lebanon’s prime minister and embargo Qatar, making the prime minister more popular than ever and shifting Doha’s allegiance to Iran.
- He has continued American support for the Saudi/Emirati war effort in Yemen, while at the same time the State Department has called for an end to the Saudi/Emirati blockade due to the humanitarian crisis there.
- His decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem heightened tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, undermined his own peace initiative, and obstructed the rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia he hoped for.
- He has done nothing to counter Iran’s growing influence in Iraq and Syria, or Russia’s position in Syria and Ukraine.
- He initially embraced Turkey’s now President Erdogan but has watched helplessly while Turkey tarnishes its democratic credentials and drifts into the Russian orbit.
- He has also embraced other autocrats: Philippine President Duterte, China’s President Xi, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to name only three.
- He has failed to carry the banner of American values and preferred instead transactional relationships that have so far produced nothing substantial for the US.
The military front:
- Use of drones is way up.
- So is deployment of US troops in Europe, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, not to mention ships and planes in the Asia Pacific.
- The Islamic State, while retreating in Syria and Iraq, is advancing in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are also holding their own.
- Allies are hesitating to pitch in, because the president is erratic. Japan, South Korea, and the Europeans are hedging because the US can no longer be relied on.
- The US continues to back the Saudi and Emirati campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, precipitating a massive humanitarian crisis.
- Cyberthreats to the US, including its elections, have increased, without any counter from the administration.
- Promises that North Korea would not be allowed to develop a missile that could strike the US have gone unfulfilled, and Trump did nothing effective once it accomplished that goal.
- Military options against North Korea, which are all that Trump seems to be interested in, will bring catastrophic results not only for Koreans but also for US forces stationed there and in the region.
- Russia continues to occupy part of Ukraine, with no effective military or diplomatic response by the US, and Moscow continues its aggressive stance near the Baltics, in the North Sea, in the Arctic, and in the Pacific.
The diplomatic record is one of almost unmitigated failure and ineffectiveness, apart from new UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea. The military record is more mixed: ISIS is defeated on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, but that is a victory well foreshadowed in the previous administration. It is also far from reassuring, since ISIS will now go underground and re-initiate its terrorist efforts. None of the other military pushes has done more than hold the line. Anyone who expected Trump to withdraw from excessive military commitments should be very disappointed. Anyone who expects him to be successful diplomatically without a fully staffed and empowered State Department is deluded.
The US is more absent diplomatically than present, and more present militarily than effective. We are punching well below our weight. This should be no surprise: the State Department is eviscerated and the Pentagon is exhausted. Allies are puzzled. Adversaries are taking advantage.
Where will we be after another three years of this?
RSS - Posts
