US Middle East
Policy. Of all the Middle East issues with which the Administration is
struggling, none is more important than Egypt. By far, the most populous
Arab country and the lynchpin of US policy in the region, it is now, according
to a number of current and past US officials, slipping back into the control of
the military. As one Middle East diplomat put it this week, “Only the
army can keep Egypt together.” The Administration seems to realize this
as it has shied away from cutting off military assistance despite calls for it
to do so from a number of quarters, including, reportedly, the new National
Security Advisor, Susan Rice.
Rice’s personal view, if
accurately reported by those close to her, tends to reinforce President Obama
and his top level advisors’ view of US foreign policy in general. One
veteran State Department describes it this way: “They view policy as
tactical backed by a set of values. They have no strategic view.”
What this amounts to, says this official is “…a tendency towards
egalitarianism; a reluctance to embrace special relationships with other
countries and above all avoidance of new entanglements.” In the Middle
East, this comes down to avoiding more involvement with the possible exception
of Jordan, should that strategically important country come under unsustainable
pressure resulting from the civil war in Syria.
SYRIA. The best
case in point, is, of course, Syria. Administration officials say there
is no better formula for a peaceful resolution than modest political and
military engagement by the US. The splintered opposition, with Islamic
extremists proving to be the best fighters makes for low expectations in
Washington [Although some officials admit that had the Administration acted
even six months ago, it would have been much easier to forge a coherent
opposition]. Even the Intelligence Community has backed off from its
initial enthusiasm for arming the opposition [Although some sources say that
only when David Petraeus headed the CIA was the Agency supportive of greater US
involvement]. In briefings before the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees, the scenarios laid out for ultimate success were so expansive as to
cause a number of Members of Congress to voice opposition to providing any kind
of weapons. State Department officials, who have been among the first and
most vocal advocates of a more forceful US role in helping the Syrian
opposition, say their “marching orders” from the White House make it clear that
there is little appetite for US involvement. “The White House wants
options,” says one well-placed State Department official. “But they make
it clear they want no `dangerous ideas’.”
On the ground, while
Government forces aided by Hezbollah have seized the initiative [Leading to the
decision to move next year’s Presidential elections up from June to March],
most analysts see no clear victor in the foreseeable future. “Syria as a
united country is a thing of the past,” says one US official. Although
the opposition, including the Islamists are now often fighting one another, and
a rebels rout in Aleppo could possibly be a “game changer” [one Middle East
diplomat’s view), the consensus is that neither side can win. “Ultimately
Syria will be controlled in part by the government, in part by the rebels and
in part by the Kurds,” says one veteran US official.
EGYPT. Few doubt that
in Egypt a central government controlled by the military will emerge
triumphant. Greatly enhancing the military’s position is the economic and
political disaster the Moslem Brotherhood [“MB”] and President Morsi proved to
be in just 12 months in power. “We thought only the MB could bring
millions into the streets, said one analyst. But they managed to create
genuine popular anger. At the same time, say US officials [In
retrospect], Morsi misjudged the value of the “deal” he made with the
military. “If you don’t have the police, army or money on your side, you
have nothing,” is the way one State Department analyst put it last week.
And once again the US was
caught flatfooted. “We were outbid by the Gulfis,” notes one US
analyst. Our $1.5 billion in military assistance couldn’t compete with
the $12 billion in grants and loans they were willing to put up. “We were
outbid,” says one US official [Saudi Arabia promised nearly half that
amount. One veteran observer noted that their hostility to the MB was
matched only by their fondness for the new Egyptian strongman, Abdel-Fattah
el-Sisi, who once served as Egypt’s Defense attaché in Riyadh].
Although the Administration has decided not to label the military’s move a
“coup” (which would have necessitated a cut off in aid), few dispute the fact
that the military was ever comfortable with democracy and if elections occur
next year, as promised, it will be a “tame” civilian government that emerges.
IRAN. A tame government is what could be described as emerging in
Iran, as well, say State Department officials. The new President Hassan
Rowhani, despite his Ph.D. from Glasgow University is a charter member of the
ruling class of the Islamic Republic. It is pointed out that he was among
the first to call Ayotollah Khomeini “Imam” and has served loyally in a number
of posts, most notably, as far as the US is concerned, as chief negotiator on the
nuclear issue. And it is on this issue that US officials, not to mention
their Israeli counterparts, see him as being the most effective. “He is
their `Get out of jail free card’.” quipped one State Department
official. Another, eschewing light hearted language said, “The worst case
scenario is that Rowhani says the right things and our sanctions policy begins
to fray.” US officials now expect P-5+1 talks with Iran to take place in
late August or early September, followed by Rowhani’s likely appearance at the
autumn convening of the UN General Assembly. “If he handles it right,
next steps could be confidence building measures,” that for the Iranians could
mean a modest easing of economic sanctions.”
This would be a
“nightmare” scenario for Israel, which, no doubt prompted Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu to once again call for more strident threats from ther
countries. Within Israel, some now believe that Netanyahu, provided he
gains the support of his Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff, is prepared
to undertake unilateral military action, perhaps by the end of the year.
The likely target: Natanz, where the most advanced centrifuges are
located. Some observers believe the Israelis are also prepared to send
special teams into Fordo, the underground nuclear site, which is impervious to
ordinance possessed by the Israeli military.
Peace Process. Coincidentally (some say not so
coincidentally), Netanyahu appears to be on the verge of making enough
concessions to allow a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians. As one
analyst put it this week, “It’s not a bad time to show flexibility towards US
policy goals.” While few expect significant progress in any talks, they
are encouraged by the prospect of Hamas, which opposes any such talks (and
controls Gaza), now being on the defensive due to its affiliation with the MB
No comments:
Post a Comment