Tag: Yemen
Trouble in the Gulf will require more than arms
Here are the speaking notes I used yesterday at the Third Annual Conference of the Gulf International Forum:
- The Gulf today is engulfed with multiple dimensions of conflict and instability.
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still at odds with Qatar as well as with Turkey and Iran about leadership in the region and the role of political Islam in the Muslim world.
- The US is pursuing a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran that has repercussions throughout the Gulf and the Levant, especially Iran and Iraq.
- Iran is responding with “maximum resistance,” which includes continued support for the wars on their own people by Bashar al Assad and the Houthis as well as shifting Iranian foreign policy in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
- Global warming, declining oil prices, youth bulges, sectarian resentments, and COVID-19 are challenging the ability of Gulf states to maintain their social contract: authoritarian stability and material prosperity in exchange for political quiescence.
US Interests and Disinterest in the Region - US priorities in the Gulf have shifted. Oil is far less important economically and politically than it once was, and America’s main terrorism threat is domestic, not international.
- Higher priority in Washington now goes to countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and limiting the influence of rival powers in the Middle East.
- The problem for the United States is that none of its interests in the Gulf are well-served by coercion, but neither are they well-served by withdrawal, which hurts partners and allies, even giving them incentives to develop nuclear weapons, while opening new opportunities for rivals.
- Whoever is elected President next month, the US interest in reducing its commitment to the Gulf will continue, but it needs to be done without endangering friends and encouraging adversaries or unleashing a regional arms race.
- Biden and Trump should be expected to behave differently in pursuing US goals.
- President Trump is impatient and transactional. He will likely pull the plug on US troops in places not prepared to protect or pay for them (Iraq and Syria). The “Abrahamic” agreements are transactional: Israel gets recognition in exchange for its help in sustaining Gulf autocracies.
- Biden did not invent this idea, but he isn’t opposed to it.
- Where the candidates differ is on Palestine and on governance in the Arab world. Biden continues to favor a two-state outcome for Israel and Palestine, whereas Trump and his Israeli partners seek to eliminate any possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state.
- While safeguarding Israel’s security, Biden would push for a better deal for the Palestinians than the one Trump has offered. He would also be less tolerant of Gulf human rights abuses.
- Biden and Trump also differ on the value of the Iran nuclear deal, but it is important to recognize that they share the same goal: to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Trump’s approach is “maximum pressure,” mainly through unilateral sanctions but also including the threat of kinetic action. He aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate a “better deal” that would include regional issues, missiles, and extending and expanding the nuclear agreement.
- Biden wants to negotiate with Iran on the same issues but is prepared to lift some sanctions to incentivize a return to the status quo ante: Iranian and US compliance with the nuclear deal. Whichever candidate wins, Iran is unlikely to change course before its June election, if then.
A Much-Needed Regional Security Framework
- Neither Trump nor Biden rules out war with Iran, which would be catastrophic for the Gulf states. Doha has the most to lose.
- But war is not an attractive proposition for Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama either. Israel and the Gulf states don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and will cooperate to prevent it, but the Arabs will not want to risk joining Israel and the US in an overt conventional war with Iran whose winner may be predictable but whose consequences could be catastrophic for the Gulf.
- President Trump has been a welcome figure in the Arab Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia. He has shielded the Kingdom and its Crown Prince from accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and continued the Obama Administration’s support for the Yemen war, despite growing bipartisan discomfort in the US.
- Because of his human rights commitments, Biden will be less favored in the Gulf. He will not be sword dancing in Riyadh or cheering the war in Yemen.
- But the differences should not obscure the similarities. The two candidates share the desire to reduce US commitments in the Gulf and the interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Several of their predecessors also had these goals and failed to achieve them.
- The reason is all too clear: the Americans have relied too heavily on coercion and too little on diplomacy.
- The United States has enormous destructive military, political, and economic power. But that alone cannot build what is needed: a regional security network that will reduce threat perceptions in all the Gulf states, Iran included, decrease incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent encroachments by rival powers.
- This framework will require a stronger diplomatic nexus of mutual understanding, restraint, and respect. Continued low-intensity and gray zone conflict, or a real war, will make that much more difficult to achieve. The Gulf is not a military challenge, but rather a diplomatic one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Any functioning adult would be better
We can never know exactly what Hillary Clinton would have done had she won 3.5 years ago, but let us count the ways the United States could have been better off if just about any normal functioning adult–Republican or Democratic–had become president:
- Well over 150,000 Americans would not have succumbed to Covid19, the epidemic would have receded faster, the economy would have reopened months faster and far safer, the US would be leading the world’s economic recovery instead of dragging it down, and the US debt would be trillions less.
- Millions of now unemployed people would have jobs, and no one would risk losing the health insurance and coverage for preexisting conditions available under Obamacare.
- The Paris Climate Accord would be more effective in limiting greenhouse gases that have contributed to this summer’s record number and intensity of storms in the Atlantic and the unprecedented wildfires in California, causing many billions of dollars of losses.
- The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership might have been concluded, with real advantages for US producers rather than the marginal replacement for NAFTA and the trade war with China that has damaged US agriculture, manufacturers, and consumers.
- Iran would still be a year from having enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon and negotiation of the follow-on to the nuclear deal would be in progress, including on missiles and regional issues.
- The Voting Rights Act might have been revived in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, along with legislation curbing police abuse, and there would be no discussion of imaginary anarchy in American cities or use of the military against peaceful protests.
- The US would still have the confidence and support of its European allies and China would still be observing the agreement it reached with the Obama administration on commercial hacking.
- Russia would be showing some respect instead of owning the President of the United States, whom it only needs to quote to make its points.
- There would still be hope for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and a possibility of curbing the North Korean nuclear program, which has instead inaugurated a missile possibly capable of hitting the US with multiple nuclear warheads.
Of course lots of things would not likely be different: we might still be outside the Trans Pacific Partnership looking in, Maduro might still be president of Argentina, Syria, Yemen, and Libya would still be catastrophic, and the Saudi Crown Prince might still have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, though MbS would not have been shielded from accountability by the US President.
The United States would be in a far stronger position under any functioning adult, Democratic or Republican, than it is under the false flag of “Make America Great Again.” For anyone interested in foreign policy, that is all you really need to know while filling out your ballot at home and popping it into the mail, provided the US Postal Service doesn’t follow President Trump’s instructions to ensure it doesn’t arrive on time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 27
– Politico lists the obstructive tactics open to Senate Democrats fighting the Barrett nomination.
– Politico also details how the GOP has lawyered up for election fights.
– WaPo says administration is divided over how to deal with Houthis.
– NYT notes lots of talk, little action using the Defense Production Act.
A White House report released last month claimed that Mr. Trump has wielded the act nearly 80 times to alleviate shortages of masks and other medical supplies. Yet all but six of the examples cited in the report were either executive orders unrelated to the production of medical equipment or Defense Department expenditures that do not address the nation’s supply shortages. Article links to WH report and to CRS study.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No Nobel Prize
Amy Hawthorne, who knows more about the Middle East than Jared Kushner will ever learn, tweeted yesterday:
Amy W. Hawthorne@awhawthTo state the obvious, the “peace in the Middle East” theme touted by Trump and Kushner re UAE-Israel agreement is disconnected from reality given that the 2 countries never fought a war and the agreement does nothing to end today’s actual Middle East wars
just details I guess
But maybe a bit more explication is required, especially in response to the right-wing hoopla about getting a Nobel Prize for their dear leader.
As Amy suggests, the agreement between Israel and the Emirates has nothing to do directly with any past or current conflict in the Middle East. There is no history between them of bombardment, invasion, expulsion, displacement, or occupation.* The UAE has participated directly or through proxies in wars in Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but those have little or nothing to do with Israel.
Kushner, who designed Trump’s still-born proposal for peace with the Palestinians, likes to pretend that the agreement with the UAE will advance that prospect. It is more likely to dim it. It weakens and divides Palestinian support in the Arab world at a time when Israel is already so strong it feels no real pressure to negotiate. While the UAE extracted suspension of Israel’s plans to annex Palestinian land, that provision is temporary. Kushner, a strong supporter of Israelis settlements in the West Bank intended to block formation of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state, is interested in Palestinian surrender to a one-state solution with unequal rights. That won’t do anything for Middle East peace.
Trump’s presidency has significantly worsened prospects not only for peace between Israelis and Palestinians but also between Arab states and Iran. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to enrich much more uranium, putting it within far less than a year of having the fissile materials required to build a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia is likewise moving towards nuclear weapons, as is Turkey. We face the real prospect of a nuclear arms race among the three most powerful countries in the Middle East, unleashed by a President who thought he could bring the Iranians to heel with sanctions. That effort has failed.
We could review a few more non-contributions to peace in the Middle East:
- arms sold to both the Emirates and Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen,
- withdrawal of US troops from eastern Syria that undermined America’s Kurdish allies,
- greenlighting of Turkey’s expansion across its southern border to create a buffer zone in northern Syria,
- support for the most brutal military dictatorship Egypt has ever seen,
- flirting with would-be autocrat General Haftar in Libya and providing only erratic rhetorical support to the internationally recognized government.
President Trump’s best bid for contributing to peace is in Afghanistan, which I suppose is “greater” Middle East. Unable to defeat the Taliban, the Trump Administration gave Special Envoy Khalilzad the job of getting the US out. He reached an agreement with the Taliban for US withdrawal as well as a commitment to intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and the Kabul government. Trump may well boast about the US withdrawal, but he has to be careful not to draw attention to the fact that it is only vaguely conditions-based and constitutes a retreat from America’s longest war without anything like victory. Zal has made lemonade from lemons, but there is not much sweetener available and the intra-Afghan talks, as well as the fighting, are likely to go on for a long time.
President Obama left the Middle East in bad shape. President Trump has managed to make things worse. As of a year ago, he had actually increased the number of US troops deployed in the region. It is certainly arguable that the former didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize he got. The latter would deserve it far less. Of course the Norwegian prize committee knows that and won’t be tempted. Trump’s egotistical neediness to match the achievements of the black president is pitiful, not praiseworthy.
*PS: the same goes for Bahrain.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | June 1 – 5
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live-streaming.
- Webinar: How COVID-19 and the oil shock will reshape the Middle East | June 1, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM | Brookings | Register Here
COVID–19 and the recent plunge in oil prices have shaken the Middle East to its core. Middle East economies rely heavily on oil, remittances, and tourism, all three of which have been decimated by the second-order effects of the pandemic. The simultaneous shocks will challenge states across the region, particularly those that are already struggling or are otherwise fragile. With added pressure on governments to slow the spread of the virus, the pandemic will ultimately change both domestic and regional politics and economies in the Middle East.
Speakers:
Hady Amr (Moderator): Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy
Jihad Azour: Director, Middle East and Central Asia Department – International Monetary Fund; Lebanon’s Finance Minister 2005 – 2008
Samatha Gross: Fellow, Foreign Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative
Rola Dashti: Undersecretary General and Executive Secretary – United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia; Former Minister of Planning and Development for Kuwait
- Egypt’s Diplomacy in War, Peace, and Transition | June 1, 2020 | 10:30 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a virtual panel with the American University in Cairo (AUC) to launch Egypt’s Diplomacy in War, Peace and Transition, a book by AUC’s dean of the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy (GAPP), Nabil Fahmy. The book examines the transformation of Egyptian diplomacy within the region and globe, covering a wide range of issues including the Arab-Israeli peace process, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and relations with major international and regional players. Fahmy offers unique insights sharing his experiences as the country’s Foreign Minister and Ambassador to Japan and the United States.
Given Egypt’s myriad economic and geopolitical challenges, what role might it play in the regional de-escalation efforts? Egypt’s Diplomacy in War, Peace and Transition offers a series of potential trajectories for the future of Egypt and its relations within the region and the world. The panelists will discuss the development of Egypt’s foreign policy as well as the past and ongoing regional processes.
Speakers:
Lisa Anderson: Former President, The American University in Cairo
Amb. Nabil Fahmy: Former Foreign Affairs Minister of Egypt, Founding Dean of GAPP and Distinguished University Professor of Practice in International Diplomacy, The American University in Cairo
Paul Salem: President, Middle East Institute
Tarek Masoud (Moderator): Professor of Public Policy and Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman, Professor of International Relations, Harvard University
- Navigating the Future of South Yemen | June 2, 2020 | 11:00 AM | Middle East Institute |Register Here
South Yemen today faces many turbulent converging challenges, from the spread of COVID-19 to floods, electricity cuts, and The Southern Transitional Council’s (STC) self-rule decision. The April 25th self-rule decision by the STC drew international concern about the potential for escalation in the South and implications for the Riyadh agreement, which the Saudis brokered between the internationally recognized government of Abed Rabbeh Mansour Hadi and the STC last year. Meanwhile, military confrontations in Abyan threatens a new conflict south of the country.
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a virtual panel of Yemeni experts to explore the various current dynamics impacting South Yemen and how they view the path forward. What are the hurdles facing the implementation of the Riyadh agreement? How will the STC’s self-rule decision impact future peace negotiations? How has the Hadi government responded to the flooding and electricity cuts and COVID19? Is the STC capable of dealing with the security and economic challenges and delivering good governance?
Speakers:
Dr. Saadaldeen Ali Talib: Former Minister of Industry and Trade, Yemen
Dr. Abdelqader al-Junaid: Physician and well-known political activist in Ta’iz
Yasmin Al-Nadheri: Executive Director, Peace Track Initiative
Amr Al-Beidth: Member of the Presidential Council, the Southern Transitional Council
Fatima Abo Alasrar (Moderator): Non-resident Scholar, Middle East Institute
- Breaking Bread: Food in Times of COVID-19 | June 2, 2020| 9:30 AM| Middle East Institute | Register Here
In this period of global lockdown and anxiety, food has emerged as a central player – a source of comfort and community-building for some, for others a reminder of growing economic uncertainty and inequality.
In the Middle East, with its strong culinary culture, the pandemic has led to a revival of traditional food practices and recipes that have long been advocated by many, as well as to questions about how to advance small scale farming and more sustainable agriculture, in response to growing economic challenges.
The panel “Breaking Bread: Food in Times of COVID-19″ will explore the role that food has played during this unprecedented pandemic with a focus on Middle Eastern communities. Bringing together voices from the Arab world, whose contributions have shaped this conversation, panelists will also explore how this pandemic might change our relationship to what we eat and how we grow it.
Speakers:
Aisha Al Fadhalah: Co-Founder, MERA Kitchen
Mirna Bamieh: Artist, cook and Founder of Palestine Hosting Society
Kamal Mouzawak: Founder of Lebanon’s first farmer’s market, Souk El Tayeb, restauranteur, and food entrepreneur
Antonio Tahhan (Moderator): Syrian-Venezuelan food writer, researcher and storyteller
- The Threat of Israeli Annexation: Regional and International Implications | June 3, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
Arab Center Washington DC and the Institute for Palestine Studies are organizing a webinar to discuss the implications of the Israeli plan to annex vast areas of Palestinian land and extend Israeli sovereignty over illegal settlements in the West Bank. The discussion will also explore the implications of the recent announcement by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas that the PA will end all agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the United States.
Speakers:
Noura Erakat: Human Rights Attorney, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
Leila Farsakh: Associate Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, University of Massachusetts Boston
Khalil E. Jahshan: Executive Director, Arab Center Washington DC
Rashid Khalidi: Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, Co-Editor, Journal of Palestine Studies, President, Institute for Palestine Studies-USA
Nasser Al-Kidwa: Chairman of the Board of Directors, Yasser Arafat Foundation, Former Palestinian Representative to the United Nations
Raef Zreik: Associate Professor of Law, Ono Academic College, Co-Director of Minerva Center for the Humanities, Tel Aviv University
Tamara Kharroub (Moderator) : Assistant Executive Director and Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
- East Asia in the Post-COVID-19 World: China and Beyond | June 3, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:30PM | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Register Here
This webinar will discuss the Reischauer Center’s new COVID-19 Policy Research Task Force report, examining how East Asia’s successful COVID-19 response is accelerating the region’s geopolitical rise. While considering the changing role of China in regional and global affairs, the seminar will also examine in detail the heightened evaluation of other nations, including Korea, Japan, and Singapore, due to their effective pandemic responses and dynamic medical diplomacy. The webinar will also consider emerging patterns of conflict, and how East Asia’s centrality in the world medical supply chain may be reconfigured as Europe and the United States legislate medical supply reforms.
- Turkish-Russian Cooperation and Implications for Black Sea Security | June 4, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Defying warnings and threats of sanctions from its NATO allies, Turkey went ahead with its purchase of the Russian S400 missile defense system. The first elements of the system arrived in Turkey last summer. Subsequently, the US has removed Turkey from the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Turkey will not be able to import any F-35s, and its aerospace industry will lose out on billions of dollars in F-35 contract work and the associated technology transfer. But Turkey still needs fighter jets. The Middle East Institute (MEI) Frontier Europe Initiative is pleased to host a panel of experts to discuss the future of Turkey’s defense posture.
What are Turkey’s options? Can Russia fill the gap? Where does Turkey’s S400 decision and the US decision to kick Turkey out of the F35 program leave NATO? Will this lead to a fundamental shift in Turkey’s geostrategic outlook?
Speakers:
Caglar Kurc: Adjunct Instructor, Department of International Relations, Bilkent University
Aaron Stein: Director, Middle East Program, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Maxim Suchkov: Senior Fellow and Associate Professor, Moscow State Institute of International Relations
Gonul Tol (Moderator): Director of Turkey Program and Senior Fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative, Middle East Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 17
– NYT has long story revealing that WH aide Peter Navarro, in addition to being a hawk on China trade and conduit for companies seeking coronavirus contracts, has regularly pushed government agencies in favor of arms sales, notably to Saudi Arabia.
After the Yemen war began in 2015 and the Obama administration made a hasty decision to back the Saudis, Raytheon booked more than $3 billion in new bomb sales, according to an analysis of available U.S. government records.
Intent on pushing the deals through, Raytheon followed the industry playbook: It took advantage of federal loopholes by sending former State Department officials, who were not required to be registered as lobbyists, to press their former colleagues to approve the sales.
And though the company was already embedded in Washington — its chief lobbyist, Mark Esper, would become Army secretary and then defense secretary under Mr. Trump — Raytheon executives sought even closer ties.
They assiduously courted Mr. Navarro, who intervened with White House officials on Raytheon’s behalf and successfully pressured the State Department, diminished under Mr. Trump, to process the most contentious deals.
They also enlisted the help of David J. Urban, a lobbyist whose close ties to Mr. Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo go back to the 1980s, when all three men were at West Point.
As the nation turned against the war, a range of American officials — Democratic and Republican — tried three times to halt the killing by blocking arms sales to the Saudis. Their efforts were undone by the White House, largely at the urging of Raytheon.
– Dan Balz at WaPo details how the administration has “hollowed out” the federal government, weakening its ability to respond to the pandemic.
– WaPo Fact Checker discredits claim that Trump shipped 17 Tons of medical equipment to China.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
