4/22/09

The Obama administration’s announcement that it will be inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Mubarak and President Abbas to separate talks at the White House is the latest sign that Obama has put the Middle East peace process high on his agenda.  This path will not be easy.  The parties will ultimately have to make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But history – and the voiced expectations of our allies and partners – show that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress, and has a payoff well beyond the region itself; while episodic or superficial engagement helps spark violence and deterioration which harms US interests in the region and beyond.

What is also clear is that the integrated Middle East strategy advocated by President Obama is the one that best serves American interests.  Contrary to conservative claims in 2003, the road to Jerusalem did not go through Baghdad, and today, it does not go through Tehran.  Instead the only way to deal with the region is through a comprehensive strategy that includes: redeploying from Iraq, engaging in tough diplomacy with Syria and Iran, making a serious commitment to Arab-Israeli peace, and ensuring that America’s relationship with the Muslim world is about more than just “the war on terror.”  

Obama makes early moves on a new approach to Middle East policy as Prime Minister Netanyahu links Israeli negotiations to progress with Tehran.  Less than 100 days into his presidency, Obama has invited key leaders for separate talks on the Middle East peace process, signaling that progress on the conflict is a key administration priority.  The Washington Post reports, “PM Benjamin Netanyahu, President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have been asked to the White House for talks likely by early June.  The peace process has been beset by conflict and adversity which President Barack Obama has pledged to address... ‘With each of them the president will discuss ways the United States can strengthen and deepen our partnerships with them, as well as the steps all parties must take to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab states,’ [White House Press Secretary] Robert Gibbs told a news conference.”  Meanwhile, in a reminder of the challenges ahead, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu linked Israeli negotiations with Palestinians to progress with Tehran. The Washington Post also reports, “The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.” [Washington Post, 4/21/09. Washington Post, 4/22/09]

Ultimately only the parties can make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Regardless of the timetable toward that day, history shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress, while episodic or superficial engagement leads to deterioration and increased violence – which harms broader US national interests.  For years, the U.S. had a strong history of engaging in the Middle East peace process.  Several major breakthroughs, including the Camp David Accords, the disengagement accords of the mid 1970s, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords all occurred amidst robust U.S. engagement.   In many of these cases, American Presidents, their Secretaries of State, and special envoys spent weeks shuttling around the region, helping bring about this progress.  The disengagement of the early Bush years helped produce a serious spike in violence and deterioration in prospects for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.S. still wields greater influence over the region than any other country and while its engagement is not sufficient to solving the conflict, it is necessary.  As Richard Haas and Martin Indyk write in Foreign Affairs, “the vast majority of Middle Eastern states still look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security and the power most able to help them achieve their objectives.”  America’s involvement in the peace process is vital for both the parties involved and for American interests.  The conflict continues to undermine American credibility in the Arab world and limits our policy options in the region.  Key US partners in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere have indicated that, for them, early US engagement in the peace process is a key litmus test.  Thus, Obama’s early and robust engagement will have payoff beyond progress achieved on the ground that will be well worth the political capital expended.  [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009.  Newsweek, 1/12/08]

Only a comprehensive strategy for achieving American interests in the Middle East can succeed.  Lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved piecemeal, yet for eight years, this is precisely the approach adopted by the Bush administration.  As John Judis wrote for the American Prospect in 2003, Bush administration “neoconservatives were fond of saying, ‘The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.’” But the road to peace goes neither through Baghdad nor Tehran – it can only be achieved through a comprehensive, integrated strategy, which accounts for all the Middle East’s challenges.  In his speech in February announcing the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq, Obama stated: “This reflects a fundamental truth: we can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation – we need a smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach…That is why we are renewing our diplomacy, while relieving the burden on our military…developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.”  Recognizing Iran’s role in the Middle East, Obama has also taken steps to shift US policy down a more productive path, signaling a shift rhetorically through the inaugural address and then a message for the Iranian New Year. The Administration has also begun outreach to Syria, when acting Assistant Secretary of Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council Middle East hand Daniel Shapiro traveled to Syria to begin talks.  Finally, Obama appointed Sen. George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, saying, “Now, understand that Sen. Mitchell is going to be fully empowered by me and fully empowered by Secretary Clinton…So when he speaks, he will be speaking for us.”  Mitchell has already visited the region on three occasions, showing that the Obama administration plans to make a sustained commitment. [The American Prospect, 6/30/03. President Obama, 2/27/09. NSN Daily Update, 4/15/09. NSN Daily Update, 3/05/09. AFP, 3/02/09. President Obama, 1/26/09. CNN, 4/21/09]

What We’re Reading

Revelations about the torture memos continue to emerge. Questions arise about how Congress is briefed on such highly classified and legally questionable programs. A newly released Senate report reveals the extent of the military’s involvement in implementing the techniques, that the techniques were readied before their approval, and that they were used to attempt to establish the non-existent link between al Qaeda and Iraq.  The report also found that the approval of the techniques led to the detainee abuse by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said that some of the Bush-era interrogation may have worked. But he also admitted that it was impossible to know if the information could have been gathered through other means and that “the bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world. The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit.”

Taliban forces claim control of Buner district near Islamabad.

The IMF says that the world faces a global recession for the first time since World War II.  Britain cut its economic forecast and announced a 50% income tax on the top bracket.

Fidel Castro says President Obama misinterpreted Raul Castro’s remarks on possible discussions with the United States to mean that policy changes were coming.

Senator John Kerry returned from a visit to Pakistan and said that the Obama administration’s plan for the region is not a real strategy.

Iran officially announced that it welcomes a new round of nuclear talks and that it is ready to announce a new proposal to resolve the dispute.

North Korea accused South Korea of moving a border marker and threatened retaliation after the first talks in over a year ended without progress.

The 18-year old Somali pirate suspect was officially charged with piracy and will be tried as an adult.  He is apparently the first person to be charged with piracy in the United States in almost 100 years.

The U.S. plans to send up to 300 former law enforcement officials to Mexico later this year to help train Mexican police forces.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen is visiting Afghanistan.

Baghdad is a rising destination of choice for foreign workers, who fill jobs that Iraqis shun.  Many see this as a sign that Iraq is returning to normalcy.

A new military command will focus on cybersecurity.

Commentary of the Day

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that President Obama has made excellent diplomatic opening steps but need to follow his vision with strategy.

Michael Putney observes that for the first time in fifty years, Cuba is on the defensive.

Scott MacLeod discusses Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the U.N. conference on racism.

The Financial Times examines the important stakes the Arab world has in growing movement towards diplomacy and rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran.