Even as it withdraws from Iraq, the United States is increasing its military presence and arming the states in the Persian Gulf. President Barack Obama has boosted arms sales, stepped up the deployment of anti-missile defenses, and upgraded defenses for the oil infrastructure in the region. This military buildup is intended to deter the Iranian “enemy”, reassure and strengthen the Arab “friends”, and pacify the trigger-happy Israelis, but will it actually bring the intended result?

US commitment to security in the region is a noble goal, and the military buildup in the Gulf seems to be of a purely defensive nature. Hopefully, the American support will reassure the Gulf states and encourage them to form a united front against Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Indeed, engaging the neighbors must be the first step for solving the Iranian problem. However, further militarizing an already volatile region and meddling into the Arab states’ regional rivalry with Tehran could instead exacerbate the situation. The fact remains that – for economic and political reasons – the Gulf states are not ready to unequivocally align themselves with the United States against Iran. And additional weapon sales are hardly going to change that. (more…)

I have to admit that I am struggling to judge the Obama administrations approach to Iran over the past 12 months. At times the President and his team have got the tone and approach right (e.g. the early restrained comments as the election dispute escalated and the way Sec. Clinton engaged the Iranians at an Afghanistan conference in early 2009) but at other moments the administration has seemed to be clumsy or guilty of following a flawed game plan (e.g. the unwillingness to push for a holistic dialogue with Iran spanning issues ranging from nukes to Afghanistan to Iranian security concerns).

I don’t feel ready to prescribe a specific 2010 game plan at this moment but wanted to share one of the more interesting pieces I have reviewed on the internal dynamics in Iran.  Michael Fischer outlines four possible ways in which the internal situation could evolve in the months ahead….it makes for interesting reading and this request from Michael is a very reasonable one:

It is important for Iran’s future and that of the world that more attention be focused on these alternative outcomes, so as to avoid the worst of them. Iran needs less our intervention or sanctions than an insistent questioning of who the players and their connections and alliances are.

What do you think about the scenarios outlined by Michael? Are there others that the administration needs to consider?

Sometimes I wonder if Al-Qaeda sympathizers have infiltrated America’s right wing.

Because ever since the news broke of the Christmas Day attempt by 23-year old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried and failed to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit using explosives he had smuggled past airport security in Amsterdam, Netherlands and had reportedly joined a Yemeni affiliate of al Qaeda which trained and equipped him with explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America, there have been calls for America to escalate American involvement in Yemen. People are now saying that broader and more clearly visible retaliatory military action must be taken.

As Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:

Actually, if you count our occupation of Iraq, our twice-escalated war in Afghanistan, our rapidly escalating bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and various forms of covert war involvement in Somalia, one could reasonably say that we’re fighting five different wars in Muslim countries — or, to use the NYT’s jargon, “five fronts” in the “Terror War” (Obama yesterday specifically mentioned Somalia and Yemen as places where, euphemistically, “we will continue to use every element of our national power”).  Add to those five fronts the “crippling” sanctions on Iran many Democratic Party luminaries are now advocating, combined with the chest-besting threats from our Middle East client state that the next wars they fight against Muslims will be even “harsher” than the prior ones, and it’s almost easier to count the Muslim countries we’re not attacking or threatening than to count the ones we are.  Yet this still isn’t enough for America’s right-wing super-warriors, who accuse the five-front-war-President of “an allergy to the concept of war.”

Uh, excuse me, but earth calling the Republican Party and Fox News. What exactly do you think the U.S. has been doing in Yemen for the past several years? Sitting down and playing tiddlywinks?

The U.S. has been backing airstrikes against suspected Al Qaeda members in Yemen for some time.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed responsibility for the attempted attack on a US airliner bound for Detroit, is led by a Yemeni who was once a close aide to Osama bin Laden. The group formed in January 2009, when leader Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi announced a merger between operatives from Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The group has been blamed for a series of attacks in Yemen, including an assault against the US embassy in Sanaa, and suicide bombings targeting South Korean visitors. Recently, the group indicated it was ready to take its fight beyond Yemen.

Reportedly, Abdulmutallab claims that he was one of many bombers being groomed by the Yemeni al Qaeda affiliate to attack American-bound aircraft. If this is true then is failed attempt is beneficial insofar as it helps the United States to focus on a real threat. (more…)

This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

There’s enough Turkey for everyone this season. The United States has Ankara’s support for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys Ankara’s backing of the Iranian nuclear program. One day, however, Turkey will need to choose whose side it is on. With the American and Turkish foreign policy preferences increasingly divergent, Washington may lose an important ally in the region vital to its security, unless it reinvigorates its strategic partnership with Turkey and starts paying more attention to Turkey’s security concerns.

It is the prime minister of Turkey, a state that has been a Western ally for over half a century, who now publicly supports the President of Iran. Last week, Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a friend and accused the West of treating Iran unfairly. Erdogan reaffirmed Iran’s peaceful intentions and pointed out that Iran’s loudest critics are states possessing the largest nuclear arsenals themselves. (more…)

President Obama said when he took office that Afghanistan would be his number one foreign affairs priority.  It may become his nemesis.  President Obama has said that he is not going to make new commitments until he is sure that the plan is the correct one.  In this, he is correct.  Gen. McChrystal has pointed out that we need firm, long-lasting commitment to win.

None of the bewildering array of clocks that deal with Afghanistan seems to tick slowly enough for victory.  A long time frame is needed.  However, more than half of the American people no longer wish us to be there.  The same is true in many other countries.

A failure in Afghanistan could ignite Pakistan in ways that none of us wishes to see.  Pakistan is a tinderbox of social discontent, regional resentment and fundamentalist activity.  It is also bankrupt, has a weak government and possesses a nuclear arsenal that it already nearly used against India.  Its military plays both sides of the war against fundamentalism and struggles to be preeminent in running the country.  We cannot allow an Islamist takeover in Pakistan.

During the first few years after 2001, the Taliban withdrew and optimism encouraged a “light-foot approach,” a belief that only a little needed to be done.  Very wrong.  And Washington did little to get rid of the warlords it had allied with out of expediency.  Wrong again.  Washington diverted its attention and its resources to Iraq, and Afghanistan has paid the price.  Now things are much worse and will cost much more to repair.

(more…)

Just a short post from me this morning. I wanted to share this interesting op-ed from New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson on peace in the Middle East. I’m in the camp of folks who believe Richardson can be a major asset to the Obama administration as it seeks to tackle an ever increasing number of foreign policy challenges. In this piece Richardson makes a strong case for Obama’s engagement:

It is clear that failure to address the enduring Arab-Israeli conflict severely impedes our ability to advance new interests in the Middle East. Those challenges are especially noteworthy as we look to begin strategic negotiations with Iran.

He goes on to outline the core of the President’s plan:

The president made it clear that the United States wants permanent status negotiations to begin without preconditions based on the parameters from past negotiations: security for Israel and Palestine, refugees, borders and Jerusalem. The president added that the United States seeks peace agreements on all fronts, including with Syria and Lebanon.

Anyway, I think it is a terrific piece — you can read the entire op-ed here.

Well, no one said it would be easy. After months of shuttle diplomacy from Middle East Special Envoy Sen. Mitchell, President Obama reengaged on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and committed to securing a final status agreement between the two parties.

For those of us who have been frustrated by the delays in this process the President’s remarks today were very welcome. In particular I was encouraged by this portion of his statement:

Simply put it is past time to talk about starting negotiations — it is time to move forward. It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals. Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed. And so my message to these two leaders is clear. Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back. Success depends on all sides acting with a sense of urgency. And that is why I have asked Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell to carry forward the work that we do here today. Senator Mitchell will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week. I’ve asked the Prime Minister and the President to continue these intensive discussions by sending their teams back to Washington next week. And I’ve asked the Secretary of State to report to me on the status of these negotiations in mid-October.

There is little doubt that the path to a final status agreement will be a tough one but I agree with the President that it is a national security imperative. The question to be answered is whether supporters of a two state solution can provide the political support needed to allow the negotiations to be completed. With that in mind I was encouraged by this letter from prominent faith leaders (see below).

(more…)

A very important development in Pakistan: Beitullah Mehsud is dead. The leader of the Pakistani Taliban was killed by a US strike drone. Mehsud was the driving force of a movement that was threatening the very fabric of Pakistani society and there is no doubt that the US and Pakistani government will be very happy that they successfully targeted him. There is still much work to be done to bring peace and security to Pakistan but this is a significant moment. The question for the morning is whether the US and Pakistani governments can build on recent military victories and win the peace via the hearts and minds of ordinary Pakistanis….in particular those in the tribal areas.

Last week the Pew Global Attitudes Project released its 2009 poll results on the US image in the world.  This year’s results showed a dramatic change since last year’s poll.  With Obama’s election, views of the US by people around the world have improved dramatically.  Considering that during the presidential campaign, Obama was receiving a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, this result is not altogether surprising.  Amidst this good news, however, the poll indicates that there remain real reasons for concern, particularly amongst those in the Muslim world.  Although Obama’s election has certainly improved the view of the US by many around the world, many of those whose opinions count most in America’s struggle against terrorism have not been won over by Obama’s persona nor his oratory skills.  They are waiting for concrete changes in US policy.

Certainly there is much to celebrate in this poll, particularly regarding America’s relations with its traditional friends and allies.  In Britain positive views of the US increased from 53 to 69 percent.  In France, there was a 33 percentage point increase to 75 percent favorability.  And in Germany favorable ratings of the US increased from 31 to 64 percent.  In Germany and France more people expressed support for Obama than for Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy.  Although America’s foreign policy interests are impacted by a variety of factors, certainly having a favorable public in allied countries should not be underestimated.

Admittedly, however, getting Europeans to like Americans should be considered low hanging fruit.  My guess is that few Europeans would report that the US foreign policy of the past several years has impacted them on a personal level.  Rather, their disdain for the Bush administration had more to do with the symbolic “ugly American” that it represented – the swaggering American cowboy quick to pull his pistol rather than resort to more “civilized” discourse.  So, it’s not surprising that when the symbolic ugly American exits the stage, approval ratings rebound.

Considering that our experience with the Iraq war has demonstrated that the go-it-alone approach to US foreign policy is seriously flawed, having the Europeans on board is certainly a welcome change.  Unfortunately, however, it’s not enough. (more…)