Flynt Leverett: All Publications, Events and Press

Flynt Leverett in Al Jazeera | 'Mission Doable: Israeli Minister Mulls Plans For Military Strike in Iran'

Communications — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:00 -0400

New America in the News:
..."Israel's main ally, the United States, is still at odds over what constitutes the right strategy on Iran. The Bush administration is divided. Vice President Dick Cheney would still want an attack, says Flynt Leverett, a former official in the US State Department and now a Middle East expert with the New America Foundation. However he believes the secretary of state favors a different approach: Condi Rice is buying time to get the president through his term..." LINK

US Economic Decline Top Issue

Ron Tang — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:35:00 -0400

The most important long-term strategic challenge facing the Gulf Cooperation Council is not the threat of Islamic extremism or the rise of Iran -- it is the continuing economic decline of the United States.

Ever since 1980, when Jimmy Carter, then president, first publicly committed the United States to use military force to defend the free flow of oil from the Middle East, the United States has been the region’s unquestioned hegemon. And ever since the GCC was formed in 1981, its members have relied on the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security.

To support the US security umbrella,… more

Fynt Leverett on Newshour with Jim Lehrer | 'Serious Concerns on Iran's Nuclear Ability'

Communications — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:55:00 -0400

New America in the News:

. . .First of all, how would you describe the current policy of the Bush administration toward Iran? And given this new report, everything else you know, Flynt Leverett, is this policy working?

FLYNT LEVERETT, The New America Foundation: I would describe current U.S. policy toward Iran as consisting of three elements: one, diplomatic isolation of Iran; second, economic pressure on Iran, through both unilateral and multilateral sanctions; and, third, the encouragement of political forces inside and outside Iran who want to undermine the current political order, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And is that policy working?

FLYNT LEVERETT: No, I don't think it is working to achieve any important U.S. objectives in the region...LINK to full transcript, audio, and video

Reports from Lebanon and Video Coverage of the New America Foundation's "Briefing on Beirut"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:55:00 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, the New America Foundation hosted an event featuring two journalists reporting from Beirut on the unfolding security and political crisis in Lebanon. Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star, discussed the large scale political and social trends have led to the current crisis. Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, reported live from the streets of Beirut on the tactical gains made by Hezbollah as well as its broader strategy. They were joined by a panel discussion featuring Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and advisor to the Israeli prime minister's office, and current director… more

Flynt Leverett and Nir Rosen in IPS News | "Lebanon Crisis Shows Hues of Iraq"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:55:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . "This is more and more becoming a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. It really does feel like Iraq," said journalist Nir Rosen in a conference call with analysts and reporters at the New American Foundation.

"Sunni militias, backed by the Future Movement, formed over the last year, and have been a complete failure, perhaps because they were fighting for money. They just disappeared and caused a great sense of betrayal and shock among Sunnis," said Rosen, adding that the perceived victimisation of Sunnis had instigated more radical circles in Tripoli to fight against the "apostate Shi'a", that they appeared "eager to start this battle", according to Rosen. . .

Rosen, who is currently in Beirut and accompanied Shi'a Amal fighters as they battled on the streets, described Hezbollah fighters acting "hand in hand" with the army on the commercial strip of Hamra Street in West Beirut. Most of the targets captured by Hezbollah and their allies were subsequently turned over to the army. "They are not trying to change the demographic balance in Beirut, it is to make a show of force to let rival militias know [Hezbollah] could have a real political coup," said Rosen. "Hezbollah's main concern is to keep weapons; it doesn't have much interest in running things in Lebanon." . . .

"Lebanon, in the post Hariri period, is not in any really meaningful sense a democracy. It is a political order rooted in the distribution of political assets along sectarian lines, and the patterns of distribution are way out of whack with demographic reality, particularly with regard to the Shi'a," said Flynt Leverett, once a senior specialist on the Middle East for the Bush administration's National Security Council.

Leverett described the Lebanese political arena as a "sideshow" when compared to the Bush administration's real strategic interests in the region. Washington champions hollow talk about "democracy" as a bulwark against radical influences, he said, but in reality the policy -- what he called the "height of strategic malpractice" -- only serves as an excuse for the U.S. not to diplomatically engage with the countries it must: Iran and Syria.

"[It was a mistake] to latch on to this so-called March 14th coalition -- Cedar Revolution -- in Lebanon and to decide to use it as a fulcrum for trying to leverage various U.S. policy objectives," said Leverett. "What we have done here is basically what we did in the 1980s. We picked a group of Western-oriented Lebanese political actors whom we liked because they kind of looked like us and talked like us," he said. "We decided to array them against people who have real street cred; the results then were disastrous, and I think the results now are proving to be very bad." . . .

Briefing on Beirut

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/13/2008 - 9:30am

On May 13th the American Strategy Program brought together five leading experts on Middle East and Foreign Policy to discuss the current crisis in Lebanon: a political standoff between the prominent militia Hezbollah and Lebanon’s government. Those participating in the discussion were Rami Khouri, the Editor-at-large of the Daily Star, Hisham Melhem, the DC Bureau Chief of Al Arabiyah, Nir Rosen, a fellow at NYU’s Center on Law and Security and New America, Daniel Levy, the Director of New America’s Middle East Policy Initiative, and Flynt Leverett, the Director of New America’s Geopolitics of Energy Initiative. Steven Clemons, the Director of the American Strategy Program moderated the event. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Rami Khouri joined the discussion via telephone from Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was on the brink of change and the Lebanese people had one choice to make: whether they would move towards Baghdad, a violent civil war based on ethnic and religious divisions or Belfast, an inclusive, fair, and functioning government. Mr. Khouri was optimistic that the Lebanese would be able to work out the internal strife and form a pluralistic society that will integrate the Western and Arab ideals that are prominent in Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was the best hope for Middle East pluralism and could serve as an example for the rest of the region once they move past the current crisis.

Hisham Melhem was less optimistic about Lebanon’s immediate future. He stated that Hezbollah’s armed offense signaled “the beginning of the end of Lebanese politics.” The rise of the militia’s strength and influence represent transformation and the loss of Lebanese liberalism and western orientation. He remained pragmatically hopeful that an accommodation would be reached, yet expressed concern that Hezbollah would become more extreme rather than moderate.

Nir Rosen also participated via telephone from Lebanon. “Nobody really knows what’s going on here,” Mr. Rosen said on the disarray in Beirut. He drew several comparisons to Iraq: the armed occupation of Beirut, by Hezbollah fighters, and the Sunni-Shi’a conflict. Mr. Rosen also believed that the Lebanese army was complicit, either by looking the other way or supporting Hezbollah during their siege.

Flynt Leverett stated that there have been major mistakes in U.S. policy towards Lebanon. By fully supporting the government led by PM Siniora, the U.S. overlooked unfair representation and power-sharing in Lebanon. Mr. Leverett opined that the U.S.’ role in Lebanon has been erosive to its standing in the Middle East.

Daniel Levy offered a few theories as to why the conflict erupted so quickly. It is possible the government miscalculated Hezbollah’s reaction or they were setting a trap for Hezbollah. Mr. Levy said it may have been by virtue of necessity; Lebanon was in a political and ideological stalemate for a long time and needed outside support or intervention.

-Faith Smith, American Strategy Intern

Flynt Leverett in National Interest Online | Inside Track: Pole Dancing

Communications — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:17:00 -0400

New America in the News:

National Interest Online | Inside Track: Pole Dancing

. . . Next to speak was Flynt Leverett of the New America Foundation, who focused on the economic foundation of the world without the West: developing countries are nationalizing their natural resources and converting them into political leverage, with startling success. Leverett maintained that the dramatic increase in energy prices since 2000 tips the geopolitical scales in the direction of oil-and-gas producing powers. The “strategic consequence” of these developments is a huge redistribution of wealth and economic power. Energy exporters like the GCC states and Russia gain; other beneficiaries include manufacturing powerhouses like China, Germany and Japan. Most ominously, the losers from high energy prices—the United States, Great Britain and the European Union—are ringing up large current-account deficits, putting them at the mercy of China and the energy exporters who finance their fiscal shortfalls.

Like Gvosdev and Weber, Leverett saw a huge disconnect between the foreign-policy rhetoric of the U.S. presidential candidates and the actual situation, going so far as to say that Obama, Clinton and McCain must be talking about “some other planet.” . . .

A Place for the U.S.?

Communications — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0400

A New America Event
04/17/2008 - 12:00pm

On April 17th, New America Foundation and the University of California Washington Center hosted a panel discussion featuring Flynt Leverett, Fred Kempe, Steven Weber, and Nicholas Gvosdev.

Weber, director of the UC Berkeley Institute for International Studies, described how developing countries such as China and Russia have been able to avoid both assimilation into the current Western international system and military conflict with the U.S. by constructing a set of relationships and institutions that sidestep the current world order, what he has termed a ‘World Without the West’. This system derives its power from control of energy and commodity supplies and raw manufacturing power, not from mastery of technological expertise or the ‘Knowledge Economy’.

Weber then highlighted the tenuous hold of both Western thought and U.S. dominance in the current international system including: frustration in the developing world with the ability of democracy to deliver prosperity and wellbeing as well as the relatively shallow penetration that many western economic and political concepts have achieved in societies throughout the developing world.

Leverett, senior fellow at The New America Foundation, argued that control of commodities and scarce energy reserves will be the defining paradigm in the global economy for years to come. Increased energy demand throughout the developing world and a tight supply have created a structural shift in global energy markets that has rendered past boom-bust cycles obsolete for the foreseeable future. One notable structural shift constraining supply is that 80% of oil reserves are owned by governments as opposed to multinational private corporations. As a result, market forces do not play a role in inducing additional productive capacity.

He also pointed to institutions and relationships that have accompanied the growth of the ‘World Without the West.’ Multilateral institutions such as the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” have begun to compete with traditional multilateral organizations for regional influence. These developments are part of the larger phenomenon of the developing world “soft balancing” U.S. power.

Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council, discussed the emerging multi-polarity in the world system and called for increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. He cited the Euro-American bloc as the only effective counterweight to the ‘World Without the West’, noting the close economic and cultural links that make the two regions natural allies.

-Ian McAllister, Intern for the American Strategy Program

Iran's Election: What the Polling Says

Communications — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
03/14/2008 - 9:30am

When the Iranian people vote for their parliamentary representatives on Friday, March 14, the results may be surprising. But will the rising dissatisfaction with the government and an increased desire for compromise with the United States translate into change?

The New America Foundation's American Strategy Program along with Terror Free Tomorrow, a leading non-partisan public opinion research organization, will discuss the full results of TFT's most recent poll of Iranian public attitudes.

For more information see Robin Wright's coverage of the TFT polling in The Washington Post.

Flynt Leverett in AP Pakistan | 'Policy Experts Say Pakistan Is Vital'

Communications — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:08:00 -0500

New America in the News:

U.S. policy experts say Pakistan is vital, oppose aid conditions (Associated Press of Pakistan)
Meanwhile, speaking at a Washington think tank, a senior expert Flynt Leverett acknowledged Pakistan’s key efforts in the fight against terrorism and came down on critics who in their discussions keep harping on U.S. extending 10 billion dollars in assistance to the ally. He noted that statements that the United States has provided Pakistan with $10 billion in assistance since Sept 11, 2001 are misleading. “Let’s be true, more than half of that amount is not true “assistance” but rather reimbursements for costs accrued by the Pakistani military supporting U.S. counterterrorism operations,” he said at the New American Foundation. Leverett also called for being honest and sober in expecting what Pakistan can do in fighting terrorism. ...

Pakistan in Peril

Communications — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:30:00 -0500

A New America Event
01/14/2008 - 2:30pm

On Jan. 14, the American Strategy Program hosted a panel discussion featuring journalist Nicholas Schmidle and New America's Peter Bergen, Steve Coll, Steven Clemons and Flynt Leverett. A brief summary follows, while an MP3 audio recording of the full 90-minute event can be downloaded below and video can be viewed at right. To watch a brief post-event discussion featuring Bergen, Clemons and Coll, please click here.

Leverett, a former NSC staffer and a Senior Fellow at New America, kicked off the event's discussions by reminding the audience that it is impossible to think about Pakistan and Afghanistan separately, and observed that there are finite limits to the help Pakistan's leaders are able and willing to give the United States in fighting the war on terror. Leverett said the Bush administration's biggest mistake in this war was not "finishing the job" with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and allowing al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to escape into Pakistan. He also noted that the United States has an unsuccessful history of supporting Western-educated leaders in exile in the Middle East, pointing to Ahmed Chalabi of Iraq. Micromanaging domestic politics doesn't work, Leverett argued.

Bergen, also a Senior Fellow at New America, and author of "The Killer Question" in the Jan. 30 New Republic, hypothesized about the answers to three key questions concerning the recent assassination of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto: What killed her? Who killed her? What does this mean for Pakistan?

Bergen supported the Pakistani government's official line that Bhutto was killed when she struck her head on the sun roof of the vehicle she was in during the suicide attack, though he noted that there was no formal autopsy, making those conclusions impossible to confirm. Bergen believes that al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, which have morphed together strategically and tactically in the past two years, are responsible for Bhutto's death, pointing to the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mahsud as a prime planning suspect. Bergen predicted that in the next election in Pakistan, scheduled for Feb. 18, Islamist parties will be soundly defeated by the Pakistan Peoples Party, which was led by Benazir Bhutto until her death.

Schmidle, the author of "Next Gen Taliban" in the New York Times Magazine and a fellow at the Institute of Current World Affairs, recounted the story of how, following publication of this crucial article, he was visited by agents from the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, and effectively deported from Pakistan. He spoke of his two years in that country, noting that today's Taliban in Pakistan is not the same as Mullah Omar's Taliban of several years ago, citing the July 2007 rebellion in the Red Mosque as evidence of the fracturing within the traditional religious establishment in Pakistan. Schmidle added that less than a week ago, ISI agents came to his home several times, and despite his efforts to gain more time, was escorted to the airport with his wife on Friday, Jan. 11.

Coll, the President and CEO of New America and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Ghost Wars, further emphasized that the different bands of radicals in Pakistan are "not a coherent monolith," and drew distinctions between the few hundred core foreign fighters of al-Qaeda, the separate leadership of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani Taliban. "The insurgency is gathering strength while the Pakistani state is weakening," Coll commented. History has no analogue for Musharraf, he noted -- a civilian president who used to lead the military, who appointed the head of the intelligence services, and is mentoring the next chief of the army. Coll argued that the most important person in Pakistani politics in the next year will be General Ashfaq Kiyani, who has not offered an agenda yet but called 2008 the 'year of the army.' Coll was pessimistic about the chances of a successful partnership between Kiyani and Musharraf.

The robust Q&A session, moderated by American Strategy Program Director Steven Clemons, touched on a variety of topics, including the possibility of a rapprochement between Bhutto and Musharraf before her assassination, freedom of press in Pakistan, and the relationship between the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Other subjects that came up included the effects of instability in Pakistan on India and the Kashmir region, potential independence for Pakistan's Sindh and Baluchistan provinces, the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and democratization as a means of fighting the war on terror. -- Event Summary by Katherine Tiedemann

Flynt Leverett in The Guardian | 'Axis of Oil'

Communications — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:39:00 -0500

New America in the News:
Different Clinton, More Painful Bill (Guardian Unlimited - UK)
Flynt Leverett says in the U.S. magazine National Interest that the U.S. should be seriously concerned about this so-called "axis of oil" because it has the potential to exert the same sort of financial and monetary pressure on the U.S. as Washington put on Britain and France in 1956. "Half a century after Suez, there is growing potential for a coalition of major energy exporters - disproportionately concentrated in the Middle East and Russia - and major manufacturers like China to coordinate the application of financial and monetary pressure on the United States for strategic purposes." ...

Dems No Better than Bush on Pakistan

adminn — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:23:00 -0500

Last week, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto marked the failure of an ill-conceived U.S. attempt to orchestrate the return of a deeply divisive political exile, discredited by allegations of corruption and incompetence, to take power in Pakistan. The Bush administration's aim was to install a leader who would simultaneously "democratize" and secularize her country, fight terrorist groups, and make peace with Israel. Instead, the sad event of Bhutto's murder has exposed the strategic bankruptcy of the administration's Pakistan policy. But Democrats should not feel vindicated by this failure, for they have endorsed virtually all of the Bush team's mistaken views… more

Black is the New Green

Ron Tang — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

The intersection of ongoing structural shifts in international energy markets with strategic trends in global financial markets poses the most profound challenge to American hegemony since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, Pierre Noël and I wrote in these pages about an "axis of oil" -- a loose and shifting coalition of energy-exporting and -importing states, anchored by Russia and China, that is emerging as a counterweight to the United States (so far, most notably in Central Asia and, increasingly, in Iran).1 The ability of such a coalition to resist American hegemony is now compounded by the vulnerability… more

'On Point' Interviews Flynt Leverett on the Politics of Nuclear Intelligence

Communications — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:45:00 -0500

New America in the News:

'On Point' radio program interviewed Flynt Leverett on Iran and the politics of nuclear intelligence. Check out the On Point website:

When America's spy agencies issued a National Intelligence Estimate two weeks ago stating that Iran shuttered its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it was a blockbuster like few can recall.

The sigh of relief in Washington and around the world was audible. Only recently, President Bush had said a nuclear Iran might ignite "World War III."

But behind the scenes, among intelligence and foreign policy experts, the reaction is more complicated. No one quite knows what to believe, or what the effect on U.S. policy should be. ...

To listen to the audio, please follow this link.

How to Defuse Iran?

adminn — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:43:00 -0500

In the wake of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, Democrats and others are criticizing President Bush for again having "hyped" a nuclear weapons threat. This criticism, while deserved, does not address the critical policy question: What do we do now?

Clearly, the United States cannot ignore Iran. Tehran may have suspended the purely weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program, but it continues to master uranium enrichment, with no agreed limits in place. And Iran is well positioned either to facilitate or thwart American objectives in Iraq and across the Middle East.

At the same time, the… more

Bush's Real Lie About Iran

adminn — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:08:00 -0500

The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program raises questions once again about the Bush administration's veracity in describing a nuclear threat. But President Bush's worst misrepresentations about the Iranian nuclear issue do not focus on whether Tehran is currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program or when Bush knew the U.S. intelligence community was revising its previous assessments. Rather, the real lie is the president's claim that his administration has made a serious offer to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, and that Iranian intransigence is the only thing preventing a diplomatic resolution.

Negotiations over Iran's nuclear activities started in… more

Flynt Leverett Discusses U.S. Iran Policy with the BBC

Communications — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:25:00 -0500

New America in the News:
The BBC's Peter Marshall reported on 'the tensions and rows that have marked the Bush administration's policy towards Iran.' The report included an interview with Flynt and Hillary Leverett. Flynt worked for the Administration and is director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative with the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. Please follow this link to listen to his and Hillary's BBC interview.

U.S. Iran Policy After the NIE

Communications — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:30:00 -0500

A New America Event
12/05/2007 - 12:30pm

On December 3, 2007, DNI Mike McConnell released a summary of the national intelligence estimate on Iran, stating that "in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Join the American Strategy Program for a timely discussion on the implications of the Iran NIE.

Flynt Leverett in Salon on the NIE's Report on Iran

Communications — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:17:00 -0500

New America in the News:

It was the brightest burst of news from the Middle East in a long time: Iran, it turned out, was nowhere near getting the bomb. But for the White House it was a political bombshell, tossed directly into the Bush-Cheney bunker.

The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, upended a long-running rhetorical campaign by the president and vice president. Just six weeks prior, in a signature tag-team offensive in late October, Bush had worried out loud about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East.

But the president knew the thrust of the NIE's conclusions about a nuke-less Iran at least as early as last August, according to Flynt Leverett, a top Middle East expert and former senior director on Bush's National Security Council. In an interview Tuesday, Leverett said that the bellicose rhetoric in October was accompanied by a telling shift of the goal posts. It was déjà vu all over again. Bush no longer spoke of Iran's imminent weapons of mass destruction, he spoke of its imminent plans to gain the capability for making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush knew the NIE report was going public, of course, and he has tried to spin it as a measure of successful policy. But the White House failed to anticipate the impact of the report, says Leverett, now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "Obviously," he says, "this NIE does damage to the credibility of their representations on Iran." ...

For the complete story, please follow this link. Flynt recently spoke at a New America Foundation/American Strategy Program event on Iran. Watch it here.