Obama Administration: The New Seven Pillars of Wisdom on the Middle East, Part Two

By Barry Rubin

(Note: Since I wrote this, the sixth pillar has become more important. For the first three pillars, click here.)

------------------------------

4. Terrorist blackmail and other pressure should determine U.S. policy.

Since American policy needs to retreat rather than raise the flag, more than 20 embassies were closed due to alleged al-Qaida threats. The reason this kind of fear, lack of credibility, and abandonment of deterrence is unwise is not even comprehended any more in Western policymaking circles.

The concern that the Muslim Brotherhood will turn to a war of terrorism if it doesn't get power returned to it in Egypt is also supposed to overwhelm other considerations of U.S. interests. The fear that the Palestinians will push for statehood in the UN and international court causes panic that the United States cannot resist this supposed tidal wave. Other demands, especially when linked to positions on gender or other special interests, take precedence over demands of U.S. allies, even with Saudi Arabia now denouncing European sanctions against Hezbollah as inadequate.

5. Syria must be an Islamist state.

This has been a major priority during the Syrian civil war. The incumbent Syrian regime should not only be overthrown, but that its replacement should be Islamist, and preferably Muslim Brotherhood. A shocking but major hint regarding this was provided by a high-ranking CIA official, who claimed Syria was the top threat to U.S. security.

Bringing Islamist rule to Syria with a larger component of armed radicals has become central to U.S. policy. There are two central themes behind this policy: ensure that al-Qaida -- considered the ultimate and perhaps sole threat to U.S. interests -- does not come to power instead; and keep most of the power away from the Salafists, thus bringing about “moderate Islamism.”

This is what is meant in official documents, such as this excerpt describing the position agreed on by Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan:

The president and prime minister discussed the danger of foreign extremists in Syria and agreed on the importance of supporting a unified and inclusive Syrian opposition.

 At the same time, U.S. policy has been stymied. The American people and government do not want to intervene directly; the rebels cannot win without direct intervention (and more Western involvement at least); and intervention is also discouraged by the bad (radical Islamist) reputation of the rebels to Western publics.

Despite the fact that at least two chemical weapons incidents have been documented from the regime (the “red line” for Western intervention), the Americans have been frozen. Yet the West does not want Iran to hold on to Syria. What can the West do?

6. Conciliation with Iran.

The Obama administration considers the election of a new president in Iran a tremendous opportunity, but it isn't. The administration has always wanted to make a deal with Iran, both to avoid confrontation and for domestic popularity. Obama could claim a peaceful resolution as a great diplomatic achievement. This fits their ideological pattern of negotiations and concessions to enemies, especially to “moderate Islamists.”

But how can this collective deal on the nuclear program and on regional stability be achieved? One way is for Iran’s actual intransigence to go ignored, and for American leaders to pretend to believe a deal can be reached until the time when Tehran gets nuclear arms.

Another way is to think a deal can be reached with Iran and Russia on Syria. I am certainly not saying that this will succeed, but I believe it is the sincere administration goal. The idea is for Assad’s departure and some transition, and the idea is ridiculous. The Palestinian Authority will not co-exist today in a compromise with Israel, nor the Egyptian army and Muslim Brotherhood in one government, nor the warring parties in Syria, nor a U.S-Iran arrangement. All of these will fail.

7. Turkey is the main ally in the Middle East, which means guidance is taken from that Islamist regime on Egypt and Syria.

Turkey is considered a model of moderate Turkish Islamist democracy, though in reality it disproves the thesis altogether. Columnist Burak Bekdil notes:

How democratic a posture could a country pose when it ranks 154th on the global press freedom index, kills its own people because they protest, and ruthlessly punishes every possible means of dissent, including just standing in a public square? The Turkey of 2013 is the short-cut proof that a country where the elected have absolute control over the appointed, including the men in uniform, is not necessarily a democracy.

Of course, the idea that Muslim-majority states are building the “democracy project” -- another administration agenda item -- is also absurd. It isn't wrong in principle perhaps, but it is not a primary U.S. interest.

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/09/10/obama-administration-the-new-seven-pillars-of-wisdom-on-the-middle-east-part-two/

Obama Administration: The New Seven Pillars of "Wisdom" on the Middle East, Part One

(See introduction here: "Second-Term Obama Agenda: Why U.S. Policy Betrayed the Moderates".)
Named after Lawrence of Arabia's version, these are the new -- hopefully temporary -- seven pillars of Middle East policy:

1. Other than aid and official government rhetoric, the United States is now neutral on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and -- more accurately -- is tilting toward the Palestinian side.
This does not mean disaster for Israel -- and no Israeli official will say so in public -- but it is a strategic reality. Some of the dynamics motivating this U.S. policy:

-- The White House believes it can win over “moderate Islamists” in power, as in Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran, and Syria, among other countries. This would form a pro-U.S. bloc against al-Qaeda, and secondarily against the Iran-Syria bloc. Only al-Qaeda cannot be won over; but the White House believes that even the Taliban, the Tehran rulers, Hezbollah, and Hamas might be convinced. (I’m not kidding, and can prove it.)

-- Rather than mobilize active opposition to Palestinian Authority diplomatic gains in Europe, the UN, the World Court, and international institutions, the Obama administration is either leading, exploiting, or bowing to these gains.

-- This, of course, intensifies Western cultural surrender to anti-Israel positions. Here’s an example: the highly prestigious Foyle’s bookstore in London has closed its Israel section. If you know London, you know what an intellectual earthquake that is.

--The United States will not privately pressure or publicly criticize Palestinian Authority policies or statements, but will not hesitate to do so for Israel.

-- The Palestinian Authority is not even held responsible for its total inability to deliver half the Palestinian forces, including Hamas and the Gaza Strip. (Imagine a White House not thrilled to use the Egyptian coup regime to press and suppress Hamas. Their strategy would be to make a deal: Palestinian concessions to get a state, in exchange for the capture of Gaza! Who has even thought of that?)

Of course the talks will not go anywhere, because the Palestinians know that they have a strong hand and they will overplay it. But, the administration’s willingness to punish Israel to win public relations points and to shore up the doomed U.S. alignment with Islamists has to be reckoned with.

The problem by no means regards U.S.-Israel relations alone, but with every Middle Eastern ally and with every potentially pro-U.S. democratic opposition movement.

2. The system the White House seeks to impose on the Middle East appears to be revolutionary Islamism. 

If many objective Iranian, Turkish, Kurdish, Israeli, and Arab observers see this as self-evident, Islamists themselves view Western policy as a sign of their own victory due to Allah’s backing plus Western fear and weakness.

Consider the bizarre situation in regard to Egypt. Last time, Egypt had to join the enemy Soviet bloc and wage war on a U.S. ally to be America’s enemy. Now, it can do so by ... joining American goals, opposing terrorism, and working closely with U.S. allies.

3. Conservative traditionalists, moderates, and liberals seem to be viewed by the U .S. government as enemies, because only the Muslim Brotherhood can stop al-Qaeda by out-jihading them.

Instead of applauding the army coup in Egypt, the White House opposed it based on the belief that the Egyptian masses were the most reactionary advocates of dictatorship, and hate Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, women, gays, and of course Americans.

That's partly true, but doesn't mean we should want the Muslim Brotherhood in power there. Instead, there is no notion of realpolitik or national interests, but just this strange foreign policy philosophy:

-- Surrender is better because it avoids international friction, especially for conflicts involving America.

-- Sharing power with anti–American radicals will bring internal stability. If you force the army to have a coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood or a predictably unstable two-state solution, you will get immunity from civil conflict.

-- Betraying allies will make more people want to be allies.

These are the ideas that, remarkably, many pompous statesmen, prized experts, brilliant academics, and the totally ignorant (you’d be amazed how little many know despite their job titles) really believe. Just one example: a nationally leading political advisor to the government said that there were moderate Islamists. When I asked for examples, I was given two. Both have been dead for more than a century, and one a supporter of extreme radicals.

I have dozens of these examples. 

The bottom line is the administration believes that if the Muslim Brotherhood is kept happy, it won’t cause any trouble. I’m not kidding here. Why, for example, is the Sinai Peninsula is heating up with violent terrorism? Because the Islamists aren't running it! This has been the official propaganda line everywhere in the mass media, with only the rarest conflicting view presented, despite the fact that it is just common sense. The New York Times published four articles in one week alone complaining that President Obama was blocked by Israel from doing the right thing -- opposing condemnation of the Egyptian coup, because it seemed inexplicably to oppose a genocidal regime ten times its population which supported its extermination while allied to a terrorist statelet on its border.
One Times story claimed:

While Israel is careful to argue that Egypt is critical to broad Western interests in the Middle East, its motivation is largely parochial: the American aid underpins the 34-year-old peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, so its withdrawal could lead to the unraveling of the agreement. More immediately, Israel is deeply worried that Egypt’s strife could create more openings for terrorist attacks on its territory from the Sinai Peninsula.

Wouldn’t one expect that U.S. policy backed the same thing?
----------------------------
(Part two will cover pillars 4 to 7.)

This article appeared on PJ Media.

How to Tell the "Good Guys" in Syria"

By Barry Rubin

Recently, an advocate of an attack on Syria remarked something along the following line to a much wiser expert:

“Some nerds try to tell a balanced truth, but that’s not effective in making policy.”

I was shocked, though not surprised. That is the cynical “player” view. But even if the policy is right, the cooking of intelligence is dangerous.

DEBATING WHETHER EVEN FIVE PERCENT OF THE SYRIAN REBELS ARE MODERATE IS LIKE DEBATING WHETHER GRAVITY EXISTS OR WHETHER THE WORLD IS FLAT. IT IS DEMONSTRABLY PROVABLE NONSENSE.

The course of national security policy never runs smoothly. Let’s remember that towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces on the Faw Peninsula in southern Iraq.

And the Iraqis used chemical weapons, too, most notably on the Iraq Kurdish border village of Halabja. There were no U.S. air strikes in response. That’s because the Americans were in effect on the Iraqi (!) side trying to hold the threat of radical Islamism regarded as the greater of the two evils, even against Saddam Hussein.

Is this true again? No. Realpolitik is a tough and nasty world. It is selective and unfair, but it should not be stupid. The Syrians don’t act in favor of U.S. interests.

But equally helping the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists win the war to supposedly save Western civilization from al-Qaida (and actually setting up a tyrannical repressive state that will provoke future wars) is stupid too.

Let’s not sentimentalize the Syrian rebels. The problem is not to help them, but, if anything, to set a red line.

And remember there were atrocities in Syria in the years that the Obama Administration courted Bashar al-Assad. Every person who is not lying knows that the Syrian rebels are radical terrorist Islamists, as Jonathan Spyer explains. Everybody. And you can bet that if the opposition wins, Christians, Alawites, and perhaps Druze also will fear massacre. So did Christians under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

On the other hand, note Egypt. In the 1990s, the Egyptian army fought against a terrorist insurgency, not against the Brotherhood but against the Salafists.  The army even arrested wanted terrorist’s parents to get them to turn themselves in.

That was nasty, but the United States was pursuing its legitimate interests in that the Egyptian government was favorable to those interests and to regional peace and stability.

Basically the test of foreign policy is whether the “friend” wants to kill you and war against you. Remember, that’s what Iraq did afterward, and there is every reason to believe the Syrian rebels—like the Egyptian Brotherhood, too—would do so.

So bomb Syria, maybe. But don’t aid al-Qaida and other anti-Americans with weapons. A one-time attack on chemical weapons facilities will not win the rebels the civil war nor should it try to do so. Assad  knows that, which probably means he would not respond to an American attack.

Can anyone in Washington make the distinction between drawing a red line and installing a nightmare regime, as bad as the present one, in Syria? Frankly I'm not sure.

Kerry says that there will be no boots on the ground in Syria, which means 1) weapons to the rebels, some of which will get to al-Qaida; and 2) training. Don't be fooled. 3) And who knows what comes next if/when Americans are attacked?  This is the backdoor to side with Sunni Islamists in the civil war.

And that's it. If the administration is going to train rebels--and that's what it now hints--the administration is not drawing a red line but trying to find a back door for arms to rebels to put a Muslim Brotherhood government in power in Syria. It's a trick! Congress must vote NO on intervention in Syria! It is to fool Congress. These fools think that the only way to keep al-Qaida out of power is by putting the Brotherhood into power!

Read this devastating article by a retired general. It is the most amazing refutation of a commander in chief that I have ever seen. It is revolutionary in the persuasiveness of its argument.READ IT

This article is published on PJ Media.

Turning Point: Obama and Israel, The Next Three Years

By Barry Rubin

It is not every day that one can announce a shift in world history, but this day is today. And we are now in a new era in the Middle East and the world.  This is not a joke--definitely not a joke--and as you will see, it is not an exaggeration.

Let me explain. For the last seven weeks I have been in the United States, mostly in Washington D.C.  I have spoken and listened to many people. As a result, I am in a position to describe for you with a high degree of accuracy what the policy will be for the next 3.5 years, and perhaps for many more.

The administration has crossed a line to, in simple terms, backing the "'bad guys."

This is literally true in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain (with its support for the opposition), Qatar, and Turkey.

And in some ways, as we will see, the war on terrorism has been turned into the war for terrorism.

Too extreme? On the contrary, this is not a conservative or liberal analysis but merely a true one. Come along over the next few weeks, and let's take a serious analysis 0f Obama's Middle East policy in the second term, from 2013 to January 20, 2017.

The real diplomatic line is: Bad boy, Bibi (and Israel), why can he/they not be moderate and flexible (unlike releasing 100 terrorist murderers in exchange for nothing), like Palestinian Authority Leader Mahmoud Abbas (and the Palestinians, who [Abbas] in fact is inflexible, constantly; escalates demands; and rejects U.S. strategy on the peace process); or like Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan (throwing intellectuals and journalists in prison, betraying U.S. strategy 0n Iran, backing anti-American Islamists, and sending former army officers for long jail terms on phony charges)?

During the coming months, and even years, if they are given to me, I will pursue these themes. You may not believe what you read here today or tomorrow, but you will, oh you will see it.

But before we begin, let me repeat that this is going to happen. It will not change, and as shocking as it is, this is already happening. It is unavoidable, because with a president who will not learn, a bought-off elite, a sold-out second-term Congress, and a remarkably cowardly or partisan media, nothing will change. The situation will only get worse and more obvious.

In this series of articles, I will describe eight very likely things that will almost certainly happen during the rest of Obama’s term, extending far beyond Israel, and how to minimize the harm to the interests of the United States and of its would-be Middle Eastern allied people and governments.

Here are the inevitable themes, any one of which would be horrid enough but note they can all be mitigated and delayed.

ISRAEL CANNOT DEPEND ON THE UNITED STATES.

That doesn’t mean that Obama and others will not provide military aid or say nice words at every event. But there is no commitment that one can assume would be fulfilled nor any Israeli initiative that will really be implemented.

This is a complex issue, but here are some brief points:

The idea that Obama and his team are the greatest friend of Israel is a deadly insult, and I can prove it two minutes.

Minute one: The United States has undermined Israel on many issues. Do I have to provide a list?

Okay, here is a partial list: Egypt (support for a hostile Muslim Brotherhood government); Tunisia (ditto); Sinai  (enablement of insurgency); Hamas (the desire to keep the Brotherhood--an ally of Hamas--government in power in Cairo); Turkey (supporting the Islamist, anti-Israel government); Syria (support of radical Syrian Islamists); Europe (lack of support for Israeli position on peace process); America itself (encouragement of anti-Israel forces among Jewish community and in Obama constituency); Palestinians (lack of criticism or pressure on Palestinian Authority, PA).

I’ll save more for later, but I think this is an impressive list.

Minute two: But, there’s something more here. The most dangerous, insulting argument is this: Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly said--and this is the theme of the administration supporters, including Jewish supporters:

The greatest danger to Israel is if Israel does not get peace soon.

This is an absurd lie. The greatest danger to Israel would be for Israel to accept a dangerous and unworkable peace agreement that the other side would not implement.

In other words, the greatest danger for Israel would be to listen to the bad advice of Obama, Kerry, and their supporters.

Consider this; who should be more knowledgeable about their situation and more aware of their real interests, Israel or America? Do people think that Obama knows better than Israelis? Does he care more? That’s absurd and insulting.

Of course, people assume that states and political leaderships put their own interests first, whether or not they understand this. And that lays the basis for overruling Israel’s democracy.

     

For example, a survey by the very dovish Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) showed 65.6 percent of Israelis questioned did not expect to see a deal in talks between Israel and the Palestinians within a year. And if you take into the account the don't-knows and no opinions, that increases the percentage.

Incidentally, spot the gimmick in Reuters’ story:

“The talks resumed last month after a three-year hiatus.” Actually, except for one week there have not been real talks for 13 years."

Second gimmick:

“But even if the Israeli government managed to defy skeptics and secure an accord, the poll…suggested it would struggle to sell it to its people.”

Wrong, the government and  the vast majority of the people agree with each other. But there is a revealing hint here. The U.S. government and its supporters believe that the Israeli government in partnership with Obama should betray the beliefs, aspirations, and security of the Israeli people. And we are not only talking about Jewish settlements, even for those willing to give every one up for real, lasting peace.

In fact, 55.5 percent of the Israeli people--and 63 percent of Israeli Jews--said it was were against Israel to agree to return to the 1967 lines, even if there were land swaps which would enable some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to remain part of Israel. It is not the terms ostensibly offered, but the credibility of the United States and the Palestinians.

Mind you, the figure is higher, because most people feel that this simply won't work in terms of providing more security and stability.

You cannot understand what has just happened without the analogy of the monster movie. Israel is not naïve, but it was walking down a dark alley and thought that kindly old Uncle Sam--perhaps a bit grumpier lately--had his back; then it peered over its shoulder and froze in horror at seeing a scary monster. Yet you will never ever hear an Israeli politician admit that.

Read Netanyahu's unprecedented memo on the talks and the prisoner release. It reads as if he saw a ghost; he is trying to signal something very grim and serious, and there is no implication that he believes in any possibility of compensation for this concession.

Faced with a wasted effort of an extremely unilateral Palestinian prisoner release, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government went along because they realized something in the middle: This was not a routine exercise. During the process, they realized that the indifference of the United States to Israel’s interests was extremely high; that Congress was hypnotized; that the Jewish community in its Obama worship was largely neutralized; and that rather than fighting European hostility, the White House was conducting it.

Looking over their shoulder in the misty night, they realized that a very large monster was following them. If you read Netanyahu’s unprecedented memo to the Israeli people as to why the terrorist prisoners were released, you get that clear signal. They realized that the Obama administration was extremely dangerous and that it was necessary to buy time.

Of course, the talks will not go anywhere, because the Palestinians know that they have a strong hand and they will overplay it. But the administration's willingness to punish Israel to win public relations points and shore up the doomed U.S. alignment with Islamists has to be reckoned with.

This article is published on PJmedia.

Syria: You've Got to be Kidding

A number of high-ranking and former high-ranking U.S. military officers say that the delay in the attack on Syria doesn't mean anything. That's nonsense.

The target list has been described as: about 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are; command and control centers; and a variety of conventional military targets. 

Don't they realize that equipment and personnel can be moved in some cases to Lebanon and in a lot of cases to Iran, for example helicopters., and then moved back when safer? Maybe even Russia. Does anyone understand the Middle East? Of course concrete buildings can be smashed.

Israel would attack chemical weapons and missiles but not other things. So what if U.S. intelligence knows what's in Lebanon American power won't touch them there.