Engagement has been the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s policy in the Middle East. In its broadest sense, it represents a new willingness to listen and cooperate, and take other countries into account when forming our foreign policy. This engagement is meant to convince our adversaries through diplomacy that there is an alternative path available to them in terms of their relationship with Washington if they change certain behaviors that are of critical concern to the United States. President Obama articulated that our relationships abroad will be “based on mutual respect and mutual interests.” It is the second part that I will concentrate on tonight.
“If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” President Obama declared during his January interview with al-Arabiyya. Indeed, since taking office, Barack Obama has gone out of his way to extend his hand to the Iranian regime. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s dubious victory in Iran’s June 11 election has sparked massive protests on the Iranian street – the likes of which Iran has not witnessed since 1979. This presents a dilemma for Mr. Obama whose Iran policy is based on engaging with the Iranian regime, at the expense of showing real solidarity with its people. That policy is likely to be unsustainable in the long term.The following is a blog I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council. The original is available here on their website.
“Terrorist aggression” is what Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mu’allim termed the U.S. raid into Syria that either captured or killed Abu Ghadiya. The daylight attack took place five miles inside Syria in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal. Syrian television claimed nine people were killed and 14 were wounded in the operation. A native of Mosul, Iraq, the 32-year old Ghadiya has been in charge of al-Qaeda’s extensive Syria network since 2005, when the organization declared an Islamic Emirate in Al Qaim along the Iraqi border. In February, U.S. intelligence sources named Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih (a.k.a. Abu Ghadiya) as al-Qaeda in Iraq’s top operative in Syria, tasked with funneling foreign fighters, weapons, and cash into Iraq.
Israel faces several challenges today including a stalled peace process with an increasing worldwide call for a bi-national state solution; Iran’s nuclear program; and the growing social divide in Israeli society between religious and secular Jews. A two-state solution should remain the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the calls for one state for Jews and Palestinians alike will continue to gather steam in the future. Given the current demographic situation and problems in Israeli society, maintaining the status quo does not benefit Israel.
Sometimes the news out of Syria enters the realm of the surreal. Three stories out of Syria broke today and in an effort to maximize a tongue-in-cheek chuckle, let's briefly explore them:Since becoming an independent nation state in April 1946, Syria has sought to dominate the Middle East and most specifically, their neighbors. Aside from Lebanon, the Palestinians have held a special, hostage-like place in the Asad heart. When the PLO was created by Egypt as a means to control Palestinian destiny, Syria made their own puppet Palestinian organization to compete.
Consider the following: 17 United Nations resolutions were passed against Iraq during the decade before the U.S.-led invasion. Each failed to alter Hussein's behavior. In fact, calls increased for sanctions to be lifted with Syria and France leading the world in undermining the UN resolutions. Over a decade of efforts failed to alter Iraqi behavior. Arguably, if Saddam had respected the UN weapons inspectors, there would have been no cause for an American invasion.If one begins with the premise that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, and one hopes to achieve this without a military option, then a decade of feckless and unimplemented resolutions will guarantee Iran nuclear weapons.
In fact, the Iranian regime is counting on it.
Adopted: March 2008
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, its resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006 and its resolution 1747 (2007) of 24 March 2007, and reaffirming their provisions,
Adopted: March 2007
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, and its resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006, and reaffirming their provisions,
Adopted: December 2006
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006,
“Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
In order to create and implement an effective policy and plan for contingencies, we must first dispel the myths, focus attention on uncomfortable truths, and finally, devise a strategy and coherent policy.
