An Interview with Dr. Asher Susser

By: Matt Gordner

Egypt’s failure to broker an effective reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah makes it a strong probability that the January elections will be considered illegitimate by the Palestinian people – that is, if they happen at all. Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) recently declared that the elections will be postponed pending more suitable national conditions. This, of course, renders the possibility of a virtual three state arrangement a viable reality for Israelis and Palestinians in the near future.
 

For a number of reasons, the speeches delivered this summer by Obama, Netanyahu, and Fayyad promised to bear fruit. Instead, they withered on the vine.
 

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.

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.

The following is an article and book review I wrote for The Journal of International Security Affairs.

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.

The following is an article I wrote for the inFocus Quarterly Journal.  It was originally published here.

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 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.

Back in June, when shortly after the secret talks between Syria and Israel became known, two contrasting opinions were shared on the prospects of peacemaking.  Since MEO seeks to foster debate on the Middle East, below the two articles are shared.  The first is by David Schenker, the Director of the Program on Arab Politics from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Responding to his article is Joshua Landis, the Director of the Center for Peace Studies and host of the blog, Syria Comment.