Prepared remarks delivered by Matthew RJ Brodsky at the Juneau World Affair Council's Middle East Forum on November 2, 2009. For local coverage courtesy of the Juneau Empire, click Here and Here:

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.

By: Michael Sharnoff

On July 21, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow went to Qatar to discuss methods of advancing U.S.-Qatar cooperation. In the past decade, the tiny, oil-rich Gulf Arab state of Qatar has emerged as a valuable United States ally for three reasons: it possesses the third biggest natural gas reserve in the world (after Russia and Iran); it quarters the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East; and it has served as a force for Middle East stability, mediating between warring factions in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Sudan.

However, while Qatar has demonstrated its value as a U.S. ally, it has also undermined Washington by supporting Iran and its allies. In addition, Qatar controls the Al Jazeera satellite television network that often vilifies the U.S. The curious dichotomy of Qatar raises questions about its long-term potential as a friend of the U.S.

“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 an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy
Council.  It was originally published by The American Spectator.

When President Obama delivers his long-awaited speech in Egypt on Thursday, he will be fulfilling his inaugural pledge to "seek a new way forward" with the Muslim world. But finding areas of mutual interest may prove far more difficult than the president imagines. That is because, in recent years, the Middle East has seen the crystallization of regional politics around two distinct ideologies. Call it the new bipolarity.

For years Qatar has energetically sought to pursue autonomous regional policies, balancing their friendly relations with Iran while hosting America’s regional headquarters and cooperating with other Gulf states.  In 1995, they opened low-level diplomatic relations with Israel during the Oslo peace process, becoming one of the first Arab states to do so without a peace agreement with Israel.

Qatar’s renewed quest for a stronger regional role began to take shape in 2006 during the summer war between Israel and Hezbollah. The war served to highlight the differences between the moderate and radical camps led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Iran and Syria respectively. Following the crisis, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jasim made camp with the moderates and even called on Lebanon to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel.  This move, needless to say, did not sit well with Iran and Syria.

The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council.  It was originally published here at the Jerusalem Post.

As the new president-elect begins to weigh the carrots and sticks he can employ when dealing with the Middle East, he will run into the question of how to handle Syria.  Bashar al-Asad was the first to reach out with a telegram to Mr. Obama on November 7 that “expressed hope for constructive dialogue so that the difficulties can be overcome which have hampered the advance of peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.”

The list of these “difficulties” is indeed long.  The regime in Damascus supports terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas, continues to destabilize Lebanon, strives to become a nuclear power, and is politically and tactically wedded to Iran – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Haaretz reports on another glarring example of UNFIL's inability to stop Hizballah from re-arming.  It would be an understatement to say that UNSC Resolution 1701, adopted on August 11, 2006 in order to end the Second Lebanon War, has been yet another unimplemented United Nations resolution:

The following is Haaretz's article:

---

 

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: