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.
Reviewed Book: Barry Rubin, The Truth About Syria (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 304 pp. $14.95.Forty years ago, in assessing the foreign policy direction of the regime of Hafiz al-Asad in Damascus, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency concluded that “[t]he question in regard to Syria’s future… is not whether it will be moderate or radical, but what will be the kind and intensity of its radicalism.” Four decades later, the new U.S. administration finds itself struggling with the same question as it works to craft a new policy toward Syria.
Several myths lie at the core of the arguments in favor of resuming the Syrian-Israeli peace process. The first is that the two parties were close to completing a peace deal in 2000, but diplomacy faltered over final borders—and that it would be relatively simple to solve this territorial dispute. The second is that the return of the Golan Heights is a priority for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is not only capable of making peace with Israel, but could deliver the warm relations that Jerusalem seeks in return. Lastly, there is the myth that if the West sufficiently sweetened a Syrian-Israeli peace deal, Damascus could undergo a strategic shift and even reorient itself toward the West.The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council. It was originally published here at the Washington Times.
The Obama administration appears to have set its sights on Syria as part of its efforts to turn over a new leaf on Middle East policy. Recent days have seen a spate of diplomatic overtures by Washington to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.
These initiatives have ranged from an administration authorization of spare parts for Syrian aircraft to the very public visit to Damascus of Sen. John Kerry, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Recalling the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats;
Reaffirming that such commitment is reflected in the security, military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Israel, the Strategic Dialogue between them, and the level and kind of assistance provided by the United States to Israel;
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.
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.
