Middle East

Levy: On U.S Middle East Policy and Amateurism

Prospects for Peace — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:15:00 -0500

This piece also appears in The Washington Note

This was not a good week for the Obama administration's Middle East peace efforts. Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem last Saturday, Secretary Clinton seemed to be praising the distinctively partial limitations that Israel was willing to implement on settlement non-expansion. During the following days in Morocco and Cairo, she walked those remarks back, but the damage had been done...

Obama in Cairo: No Terror, Mubarak, or Condescension to Palestinians

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:04:00 -0400

By Daniel Levy

President Obama almost certainly has emerged from the Cairo speech with new global leverage, accumulating additional capital rather than expending it.

The president's speech literally in one fell swoop will have much of the Muslim world and certainly elites, opinion leaders, and activists scratching their heads and recalibrating their stance toward America. Yes, for everyone the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, what comes next and whether policy changes on specific issues. The immediate effect though is to buy America space and time. It gives those who share an affinity with American values a new lease of life, causes the majority who are not hostile to the US but deeply skeptical of its intentions to reconsider and suspend judgment, and it will induce in America's enemies a splitting headache.

At a most basic level, the president managed to connect. He spoke humbly and touched on buzz words for this audience, discussing dignity, justice and even the legacy of colonialism and hostility.

It's also about what he didn't say. The word terror, so baggage-laden after the Bush years as to be unhelpful, was dropped-GWOT: R.I.P. There was also none of the obsequious genuflection to Egypt's non-democratic leader, Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian President's name was not even mentioned.

This is also a president who can finally talk to Palestinians. The advocacy of a two-state solution, mentioning of Palestine, or opposition to the settlements was neither new nor remarkable. What he did was to acknowledge a Palestinian narrative that went beyond economics, governance and security, or statehood as a technical fix. Instead, Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to, recalling the 60-year "pain of dislocation", the "wait in refugee camps", humiliation, occupation, and yes, dignity that will be achieved via statehood.

In Cairo, Obama also began a conversation with political Islam. By narrowly focusing on al-Qaeda as the enemy and apparently articulating an understanding of the non-al-Qaeda Islamist narratives, the president seemed to extend a tentative but visibly unclenched fist to mainstream political Islam. Gone was the lumping together of Hamas and al-Qaeda. The president's message to al-Qaeda (we will defeat you if you threaten us) contrasted with his message to Hamas (whom he addressed directly as having a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations and unifying the Palestinian people, albeit without familiar strings attached). Watching the political Islamist movements respond in the weeks and months ahead will be interesting. This may have been the first unclenching of some fingers in the U.S.-Hamas fist.

And in his uniquely Obamaesque way, he presented perhaps the most compelling justification and explanation of Israel's rights and its existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has done a better job-he is a true friend. While the government of Benjamin Netanyahu may be squirming in discomfort at Obama's reasoned and repeated calls for a settlement freeze, the Israeli public will, I think, be reassured and even keen to embrace a vision of a peaceful future that includes normalization with the Arab world. One imagines, too, that the day is not so far off for an honest, empathetic, and home-truths Obama speech to Israel and the Jewish world.

The speech was light on specific policy details-but that was not the intention. There was though a powerful endorsement of a more meaningful democratization and values agenda in contrast to the purple-finger, election-centric simplicity of the Bush administration, and an answer to the whining of the neocon right that the president was selling democracy down the river.

Obama articulated a broader set of rights and freedoms, including religious pluralism and women's rights, placing them in harmony with, rather than in contrast to, Muslim tradition and values. There was also a promise to "welcome all elected peaceful governments."

Finally, he was of course addressing Americans and the years of attempted fear-mongering on the right. Obama affirmed the contribution of Muslims not only to America, but also to the world.

For more on President Obama's speech in Cairo, see Daniel Levy's extended analysis ‘10 Comments on Obama in Cairo' at TPMCafe

Border Crossings: Expanding the Conversation

Troy K. Schneider — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:21:00 -0400

Today marks the debut of Border Crossings -- a New America Foundation/BloggingHeads.tv collaboration to bring experts from throughout the Middle East together for extended, substantive conversations via video. This first installment features Daniel Levy,director of New America's Middle East Task Force, and the SETA Foundation's Nuh Yilmaz discussing President Obama's trip to Turkey and that nation's pivotal role in the region.

BloggingHeads, which is a project of New America Senior Fellow Robert Wright, has long provided interesting pairings from the media, academia and the blogosphere. The divides normally bridged, however, are more ideological than national or geographical. Border Crossings aims to use the technology of remote, web-video "diavlogs" to bring true experts from across the Middle East together for conversations that geography and politics make all but impossible to conduct face to face.

We're very excited at New America to help encourage these discussions, and look forward to those that will follow in the coming weeks. If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please be sure to let us know.

Border Crossing is one of several new-media projects made possible by New America "seed grants" in recent months. Others include the State of State Health site, and "Vop-Eds" on various domestic policy issues; other innovations are in the pipeline and will debut later in 2009.

Oil Income Soars

Sam Sherraden — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:02:00 -0400

Oil revenues of OPEC countries were nearly as much in the first half of 2008 as in the entire year of 2007. Oil revenue for January through June 2008 totaled $645bn and this year's total transfer from oil importers to exporters is forecast to be $1.5 trillion. Despite the recent drop in oil prices, revenues are expected to remain high given greater demand at lower prices. Oil prices continue to fall and have reached $115 per barrel.

Snapshot asks, has the recent price adjustment in crude taken oil exporters to a medium term "sweet spot" of high demand, high prices, and soaring revenues?

Financial Times - OPEC income hits record as oil prices soar
Daniel Yergin - Testimony before US Congress Joint Economic Committee
Financial Times - Price unlikely to spike soon, says Greenspan

ASP In the News | July 23-25

Ian McAllister — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:55:00 -0400

The Council on Foreign Relations (07/24) cites Peter Bergen on a possible future defeat of Al Qaeda.
CBS News (07/23) interviews Daniel Levy on Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East.
UN Dispatch (07/23) includes Steve Clemons in a panel discussion on terrorism and the next president.
Kansas City Star (07/20) quotes Peter Bergen on the dangers posed by madrassa education.

ASP In the News | July 21-23

Ian McAllister — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:40:00 -0400

PRWeb (07/23) quotes Peter Bergen in a critique of Egypt's government.
National Interest (07/23) features Flynt Leverett discussing the need for engagement with Iran.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (07/22) cites Steve Clemons on growing institutionalization of the ‘08 election.
Washington Post (0720) quotes Flynt Leverett on the Bush Administration's talks with Iran.
Politico (07/18) responds to Steve Clemons' criticisms of Obama's Brussels oversight.
Israel National News (07/16) cites Flynt Leverett on the collapse of the U.S. economy vis-à-vis the Middle East.

Leverett on the Iran Talks

Patrick Doherty — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:37:00 -0400

Assessing the latest round of talks with Iran, it's clear that the old strategy of "surrender first, then we negotiate," has failed. In ASP's latest video op-ed, Senior Fellow Flynt Leverett says now it is up to Undersecretary William Burns to see if "pre-negotiations" or talks about talks, can sketch out a viable, durable and comprehensive platform for a new U.S.-Iran relationship.

The Other Palestinian Crisis

Brian Till — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:37:00 -0400

Nahr al-Bared, the devastated Palestinian refugee camp north of Beirut where the Lebanese army battled Fatah al-Islam last summer (photo by Brian Till)

Last night, following a concert at the Roman Amphitheatre in Amman, Jordan, six musicians were attacked by a sole gunman as they boarded their bus. The AP identified the gunman as Palestinian refugee Thaer Weheidi, a 19 year old resident of the Baqaa refugee camp. None were killed, though Weheidi, who turned his weapon upon himself after being chased by police, is said to be in critical condition.

While the Jordanian government holds the act was criminally motivated and not terrorist related, CNN has reported claims that the attacker yelled "Allahu Akbar" before firing on the bus.

The incident adds a new dimension to an ongoing and possibly blossoming battle. Palestinian refugees have long been a bastion of instability in the region, but of late their activity appears to be festering, rather than waning.

Most of the action is happening in Lebanon. Last summer's battle between the Lebanese army (LAF) and the jihadi group Fatah al- Islam took nearly three months to play out, and ended with the annihilation of the Nahr al- Bared refugee camp and the escape of Shaker al Absi, the group's leader. Those living in the camp have sought refugee in Lebanon's dozen other sights, and the projected cost of rebuilding the camp are in the $380-400 million range. 

The camps in Lebanon -- where over 400,000 live in the worst conditions in the region in terms of Palestinian living -- are virtually lawless regions, in which the LAF does not set foot, allowing factions of the PLO and various jihadi groups play out their differences with bombs and bullets.

The situation is only getting worse. In the last several weeks, fighting has intensified, the leader of the Sunni group Jund al-Sham, Imad Yassin, was nearly killed by a bomb in the Ain el-Helweh camp in south Leabanon, where several groups with known Al Qeada links are currently operating. Clashes in the Burj al-Barajneh camp have also sparked fears of another war like last summer's.

In recent months, statements by both Zayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have suggested their hopes that a campaign against Israel will become the next major front in their jihad, a battle for which a foothold in Lebanon would be exceedingly useful.

While I was in Beirut earlier this summer, an attempted suicide bomber was killed on the fringes of the Ein el-Helweh camp before he was able to detonate his explosive belt. Sources both within the UN and the military independently suggested that the government had effectively spun the media, and that the bomber had not been Palestinian, as alleged, but rather a Saudi.

But al-Qaeda might not be the only instigator of this uptick in violence. The New Yorker's ace investigative reporter Sy Hersh published a story last year suggesting that the U.S. had a adopted a policy based on financially supporting Sunni Salafi militants in hopes of counterbalancing the rising strength of Shi'a Hezbollah, a patron of Iran. The middleman for the U.S. support, Hersh suggests, is Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

For those versed in foreign policy -- or even just Tom Hanks films for that matter -- this is clearly reminiscent of two major American foreign policy ventures of the past: Afghanistan in the 80's and Iran-Contra, neither of which we find ourselves tremendously proud of today.

Digging Deeper On Iraq

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:49:00 -0400

I'm still looking for what is new and more sophisticated about Barack Obama's New York Times opinion article, My Plan For Iraq. Maybe the answer is that there is little new here, except for the news hook provided by the Maliki government.

Steve Clemons has a good overall assessment of the article at The Washington Note. I'm going to focus on a few items I think are essential that I want Senator Obama to address.

The overall problem I see with this statement of Iraq policy is that it is too focused on the troop issue, not enough on the twisted politics of the Persian Gulf. Clausewitz is still right: war is the extension of politics by other means. In order to really get the troops out of Iraq, the next president will have to fundamentally change the politics of Iraq and of the region. I just do not see Senator Obama really willing to go there, publicly. That is why his plan requires such a potentially large follow-on force.

Here's what I mean. Changing the politics of Iraq means getting a real process underway that can build a legitimate and durable political consensus in Iraq. This is not new or unknown. It is merely what was called for in the Iraq Study Group report. To get all the stakeholders to the table, however, will take a commitment from the U.S. and the international community to admit that the current government of Nuri al-Maliki is less than legitimate. This is 180 degrees from the Bush and McCain strategies for Iraq and even Obama is recognizing the Maliki government's sovereignty in today's piece in the Times. I, however, believe that government is part of the problem that we have created.

In short, we need a political surge to complement the military surge. It may not be led by the United States, as Carlos Pascual at Brookings has argued, but it must be supported by the United States. And if the Maliki government becomes just one of the political factions at the table, then we will need more than just troop withdrawal as leverage. Steve Clemons, writing this morning, called for a Bonn Conference, of the sort Amb. Dobbins put together for Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. That would work fine. I just don't see troop withdrawal alone getting the Maliki government to the table.

The reason is that they will have little incentive. If, as Senator Obama states, the Maliki government will be able to "provide security" by 2010, then by the time of inauguration day, it will likely have a force advantage over the competing militias, at least the non-Kurdish ones. Could it not be just as likely that the Maliki government will simply roll the dice, cast its lot with Shi'ite militias, and finish the ethnic cleansing of the oil-rich south of Iraq? Then, political accommodation will be much easier, and more lucrative.

Oil has another role to play. In addition to limiting the sovereignty of the Maliki government (which can be done under the UN's Responsibility to Protect provisions) any effort, by the U.S. or under a UN flag, will have compell the ruling Kurds and Shi'ite factions by imposing a new Iraqi oil embargo on the northern and southern fields. Oil, of course, is the real prize for the parties in Iraq and the denial of it will really hurt the oil revenue patronage that distorts Iraqi politics. It's a hardball move, but why should we be ok with our soldiers dying when we're not willing to use all the non-lethal leverage at hand?

Getting the regional politics right means getting Iran to play ball on Iraq. That would be a major reversal of the Bush policy and would recognize Iraq as the greater, more immediate strategic problem. However, Senator Obama recently said that Iran is the "greatest strategic threat in the region in a generation." I'm not so sure. While I am certain Senator Obama was speaking of threats from states and non-states, I think our current policy in Iraq is the biggest, most destabilizing threat. The next president will have to make a choice.

Because of that, I would engage Iran in conversations around a grand bargain, as my colleague Flynt Leverett has argued. Part of that bargain would be Iraq, part nuclear power, part political recognition, part ending support for regional destabilization either directly or indirectly through proxies like Hezbollah.

But to even dream of such internal and regional political moves we would need a committment from the new White House to reduce oil consumption dramatically over the next 25 years. A new oil embargo would take 2 million bpd off the global oil markets, threatening our own economy further and at the same time, Iran needs to know we are ending the massive redistribution of U.S. wealth to oil producers. Obama's 35% reduction is not enough. We can do 100% and the plan exists. That, like Obama advisor Sarah Sewall has said, would give us incredible strategic latitude to get deal with this complex region without being dependent on them at the same time.

Troop withdrawal is just not the panacea Democrats want. I'm sorry it is not so simple. To really get a viable outcome in the region, we have to change American interests around oil, we have to transform the regional politics, and we have to get the parties to the table in Baghdad. That's the only way a negotiated, durable political agreement will emerge. I think that is called "changing the mindset."

The Softer Side of Counter-Terrorism

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:29:00 -0400

Terrorism could be considered the most hateful act there is; purposefully injuring and killing innocent civilians to achieve a far-fetched political goal. The United States and most of the world have decisively taken a strong stance against terrorists without exception. Israel may be the most heavy-handed in doling out punishments; a deadly rampage by a Palestinian man in a bulldozer warranted plans to destroy the house he shared with twenty other people, in addition to the fact that he was killed on the spot.

Yet for all the quick punishments and no-nonsense retaliations there is little, if any, proof that extremism and terrorist acts world-wide have declined in recent years. Terrorism expert Peter Bergen argues that extremist attacks have risen. Maybe we should be looking for alternative, or complementary, approaches in tackling extremism. Saudi Arabia has a new and intriguing one that may be worth noting: rehabilitation.

Yemen has also launched rehabilitation centers for their convicted terrorists. A new BBC report discusses the "care center" in which Saudi authorities hold many of those convicted of extreme acts. The care center may look like a prison from the outside, but the inside could easily be mistaken for a summer camp. The "beneficiaries" are treated to art classes, where they learn to express themselves in non-violent ways; they also have access to a swimming pool and video games.

This four-star treatment may look more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist, or as some American security experts would prefer, a life sentence. But Saudi officials tout the success of their program with credit going to a key feature of the rehabilitation process: religious instruction by Muslim scholars. The Saudis believe that the struggle against terrorism is primarily an ideological one, which must be fought with ideas.

This stands in stark contrast to the US, and many other nations', approach to terrorism, which is something along the lines of "fighting fire with fire."

The US is not likely to adopt this approach exclusively, which would be a complete reversal from our current counter-terrorism measures. But before we scoff or outright reject the Saudi's soft-handed response, we should remind ourselves that Muslims' understanding of their own culture and religion is far superior to our own and they just might be on to something.