Note: I wouldn't mind appearing with a Fatah official or a Palestinian academic--and have done so--to discuss the issues of the conflict but there's an important difference between a debate with someone serious and a media circus where the topic is fixed deliberately to set up a propaganda exercise.
By Barry Rubin
(name of sender removed)
[To Barry Rubin]
Subject: AL JAZEERA ENGLISH RIZ KHAN INTERVIEW REQUEST
Good morning, Professor Levin [sic].
Would you be interested in appearing on The Riz Khan Show this coming Tuesday to debate the topic "Is the Is there [sic] a partner for peace in Israel?" and more generally, the topics of the upcoming Israeli elections [there are no upcoming elections. BR], the Obama Nuclear Summit and US-Israeli relations. Uri Davis, Israeli professor who is a on the Fatah Revolutionary Council, will be the other guest.
The Riz Khan show is an interactive half-hour interview program that airs live at 12:30pm NY time / 17:30 London time from studios in Washington, DC. It is the flagship show for evening prime time in South Asia and the Middle East….
Response: Dear Ms…
First of all my name is Rubin, not Levin.
Second, if you were going to do a serious program to discuss an important issue, I would be happy to appear. But since you are having on Uri Davis, an ultra-extremist who is not a serious scholar or analyst but a propagandist—by the way, he is not a professor but a lecturer, and not at all an academic.
It is something like asking an American professor to appear on a show with Adam Gadahn of al-Qaida to discuss the topic of whether America is a terrorist state. By having such a person on you are signaling to me that the show is going to be a circus rather than a sophisticated discussion of important issues. In such an atmosphere it would be impossible to do anything but refute the outrageous statements that he would make.
In addition by having Davis, defined as an "Israeli," you no doubt wish to imply that he might actually represent some perspective from within the country or someone who is well-informed on Israel. This is also not true.
Finally, by setting the topic as whether Israel is a partner for peace, you obviously wish to foreclose discussion of whether the Palestinian Authority is a partner for peace. You are clearly taking that as a given when, in fact, I would argue that is precisely the key issue.
Thus, the program is rigged to facilitate the bashing of Israel both in topic and in composition. If in future you wish to invite me for a proper program on these issues I would be delighted to participate.
Incidentally, by doing things like this you are not enhancing the credibility of your program nor increasing the respect that it might otherwise merit.
Sincerely, Barry Rubin (not Levin)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Secretary of Defense Gates Confirms What I've been Telling You
By Barry Rubin
The leak of a memo from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirms that the Obama Administration has no real strategy for stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including pointing out holes in its efforts.
The leak of a memo from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirms that the Obama Administration has no real strategy for stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including pointing out holes in its efforts.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Two Photos That Express Obama Middle East Policy? Well, Yes and No
Please be subscriber 10,026. Just put your email address in the box on the page's upper right-hand corner.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Let's begin with what's most important. This may be the most important single point about the world's most important issue and, consequently, the most important thing I write during this decade. In fact, it's so important that I'm going to put it in bold. Read this even if you don't read the rest of the article:
Consider the Obama Administration’s concept of how it will cope with a nuclear Iran.
The plan is to contain Iran by scaring it. The rulers of Iran must think the American president is a man of immense power and daring who will smash them if they try any funny business. At the same time, the relatively moderate Arabs must feel secure, like Lois Lane standing behind Superman as the bullets bounce off him.
So clear must this be that someone like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who thinks the deity is on his side and is not easily intimidated, can be deterred from firing missiles, attacking neighbors, sponsoring massive terrorism, transferring nuclear weapons, or subverting other countries because he fears American strength and believes with near-certainty that the United States is ready to go to war and crush his regime if necessary.
Clear so far?
But wait a minute! How can the current U.S. government do that when its whole theme has been proving itself a nice easy-going fellow, eager to get along with enemies, reluctant to use force, and obsessed with popularity?
What does it signal when a president acts ashamed of past American willingness to impose its will? How does this match up with the necessary posture of a fearless giant ready to face down the most ideologically intoxicated, risk-taking, prone-to-miscalculating, ruthless regime America has confronted since Berlin fell in 1945? (Sure, the USSR was far more powerful than is Islamist Iran, but it was also far more reliably rational and cynical as well.)
You cannot have it both ways. The U.S. government will not be able to have it both ways. Is that clear? Your enemies either tremble with fear, at your scary power, or with laughter, at your diffident desire not to offend anyone.
How you can bow down, disclaim your leadership role, and let everyone push you around one day, but then face down a nuclear Iran the next day? Answer: You can't.
What does that mean? Iran acts aggressively and then either you don't deter it--which means strategic disaster--or you surprise it by doing what you've threatened after the failure of a low-credibility deterrence effort--which means war.
Now for the background to demonstrate why the above is true.
On one level, the two pictures above tell the story of the Obama Administration Middle East policy; on the other hand, they are very misleading.The most obvious interpretation is that the president's position is one of antagonism toward Israel and servility toward Saudi Arabia. But let's look more deeply and see why that's not completely right.
The photo on the right was taken at the King David Hotel before either Obama or Netanyahu were elected to their current offices. It was snapped during Senator Obama’s only trip to Israel, before he was running for president.
What precisely led to this apparent confrontation isn’t clear. Obama looks aggressive and angry, putting his finger into Mr. Netanyahu’s chest in a configuration that makes it appear something like a revolver. This is neither good manners nor the usual posture of statesmen discussing international affairs. Behind Netanyahu stands Zalman Shuval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States [you can't see him in the photo very well], and Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Understandably, Shuval appears astonished at the kind of behavior he isn’t used to seeing from a U.S. senator toward Israel.
Some would comfort themselves by saying that it is Netanyahu's chest and not that of Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres. But, then, Barak is defense minister and a partner in this Israeli government and Peres--while technically not part of this government since he's president--is a full supporter of its policies. (At this point I'm torn between using the John Donne reference--ask not whose chest is being jabbed--and the Martin Niemoller one--they came for Netanyahu's chest....) The problem is not one of Israel having a "right-wing" government (which it isn't, it's a national unity government) but of basic Israeli national interests.
What serious analyst can doubt that this is the least friendly administration to Israel in a half-century? Can one imagine Obama doing to any other foreign dignatary what he's doing to Netanyahu in this photo? Would the man who hugged Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a real anti-American demagogue, possibly act this way anywhere else? He knows that Israel cannot or will not retaliate. It is a safe target that won't bite him.
Nevertheless, one must always remember that the frictions in U.S.-Israel relations so far amount to a big zero in practical terms. The new president hasn't taken any material steps to punish or pressure Israel. I predict that this will continue. There are reasons for this constraint, including Congress, public opinion, and part of the administration's officialdom.
But this real passivity also fits a wider pattern. The Obama Administration has basically eschewed toughness against anyone. Aside from some harsh words toward Israel and, grudgingly, against Iran, the government has not criticized any foreign country at all. (Actually, the State Department briefer made fun of Libya once, for declaring jihad on Switzerland, but he apologized so that doesn't count.)
The rejection of toughness is conscious, based on a distaste for force (despite Afghanistan) and an allergy toward taking international leadership in a real way, along with an apologetic rejection of past U.S. “bullying” and “unilateralism.”Meanwhile, it is starting to be conceivable that Obama will get through his entire first term without exerting real pressure anywhere in the world. Doubtless, that would please many Americans though they may end up paying for it later.
A man who is nice to enemies and nasty to friends is likely to find himself with steadily more of the former and increasingly fewer of the latter. (See below my anecdote about what a veteran U.S. policymaker told me regarding Arab attitudes toward Obama.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has fallen prey to all the old myths about the region, as if these hadn't been disproved over and over again already. Among these myths have been: it is easy to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict; the lack of a resolution is Israel’s fault; past U.S. commitments (and even the ones this administration makes) to Israel need not be kept; the fate of the region—even in such unlikely locales as Afghanistan and Iraq—are closely linked to Israel and the conflict; and that by resolving the conflict the region can be stabilized and anti-Americanism (including terrorism) made to vanish. Then there's the belief that radicals can be moderated by kind treatment.
Now contrast this with the administration courting and flattering Arab and Muslim opinion. What was Obama doing in the photo with the king of Saudi Arabia, the picture on the left? Presumably, he thought that a bow was proper courtesy for a commoner meeting a monarch. In Arab and Muslim culture, though, it symbolizes servility, the weaker bowing before the stronger.
The one who bows does not do so to show he is a good person but because he has to do so yield before greater power.If so, the king should be very happy about seeing so vividly enacted an Arab or Muslim fantasy of victory over America. Yet neither the king nor Arabs generally—those friendly or unfriendly toward the United States—is rejoicing at such behavior nor is it changing their behavior. Why?
Before answering that question, note that it was reliably reported that Obama's gave a bow but got no gift-wrapped present in return. The Saudi king apparently went into a long diatribe and refused to cooperate with Obama's then-initiative (remember that one?) that if Israel froze construction on settlements the Arab states would make some big step to show their eagerness for peace. In other words, bowing doesn't work.
But back to the related question of how Arabs relate to Obama's behavior, Their first reaction is bewilderment. An easy way to look at it is that those wacky Americans are just too inscrutable to comprehend. After all, that is a traditional U.S. view of other cultures, and they reverse it more often than Americans know.
How can an American leader act this way? Such behavior is outside all of their norms. To quote an old Ottoman proverb, politics in these societies often consists of kicking the one below you and licking the boots of the one above you. In their view, nobody gives up power; no one acts weak when they are strong; nobody apologizes.
It is just too weird.
So how can they explain it? For America’s enemies, a common conclusion is to consider it as a trick. For them, Obama is just another imperialist, Zionist enemy but he’s smarter in pretending to be something different. This makes them angry—lest America “fool” Arabs and Muslims. Yet such cynicism is the best conclusion from the standpoint of U.S. interests since it makes them still a bit scared. If Obama is just faking and is no different from George W. Bush, maybe he'll suddenly throw off the mask and bash them.
An alternative, more dangerous, conclusion for the radicals has been that America really is as decadent as they’ve been saying. It’s the old “we love death and you love life” trope. Caught up in materialism, alcohol, sex, drugs, and rock and roll, the United States is going to collapse and is begging for mercy to draw out its life a bit longer. The radicals take this as a signal to step up terrorism and revolutionary activity because the paper tiger, trembling Americans are no threat any more.
What gives joy to the radicals terrifies the moderates. If their protector has gone soft they better appease the new bully in town.
One veteran, Arabic-speaking American Middle East expert had a fascinating way of putting it. The Arabs, he said, view the United States and Israel as close allies sharing a common (non-Muslim) civilization and set of interests. So, he continued, the moderate Arabs he speaks with say, “If they treat Israel, virtually a member of their own family, like that, what are they going to do to us!”
In other words, they don't exclaim: "Hooray! Finally the United States is moving away from Israel and will be our friend," which is what Obama and his colleagues expect. They say: Oh no! The United States is moving away from being a superpower and from being our reliable protector! The winners aren't us--the Egyptians and Saudis--but them--the Iranians and Syrians.
Thus, for the governments of Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and a number of other Arabic-speaking countries, Obama is the scariest president ever. On one hand, they don’t understand him and don’t know what he’s going to do next. On the other hand, he is friendlier to their enemies than he is to them. A weak protector is no asset.
They are themselves--and have to cope with--ruthless men who don’t flinch at torture, murder, deceit, bribery, and massive repression. An anecdote: during the 1980s, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a video widely distributed in the Gulf Arab states showing him picking out men as traitors who were then tortured and shot. He wanted his neighbors to see these videos and tremble.And so, if you’re going to have a superpower protector, the relatively moderate Arab rulers prefer Arnold Schwarzenegger to Arnold Stang (an actor specializing in playing wimps, who made Woody Allen look husky by comparison). They want John Wayne, not Wayne Newton; Humphrey Bogart, not Humpty Dumpty; Indiana Jones, not Joan Rivers. OK, you get the point.
Or, as one Gulf Arab put it eloquently: We don’t want an American president who is an imitation Arab. We want one who acts like an American. I think the image he had in mind was of a cowboy, not of a man easily cowed. And unless they get a man like Gary Cooper in "High Noon" they are going to suffer from High Anxiety.
What is Obama thinking? One can only speculate but the alternatives are limited and, given everything else the president has said and done, figuring this out is not so difficult. For him, the bow to the Saudi king (and others) symbolizes Obama’s commitment to show that America is “just one of the guys” among countries, emphasizing respect for others with an eagerness not to be number-one anymore.He also has a strong desire to win over Arabs and Muslims as a way of defusing conflict. After all, once he shows he can hang out with the Third World, Obama seems to reason, why would anyone hate America any more?
Thus, while Obama is tough on Israel by not being tough on the radicals he is also tough on Saudi Arabia and the other relatively moderate Arab regimes. Indeed, his weakness is more likely to bring down the Saudi kingdom, which is on the frontline with Iran and dependent on U.S. protection, than it is the Jewish state, which can take care of itself. The Saudis know this very well.
Thus, Obama has achieved something that no one would have thought possible: He is simultaneously, in real terms but without any understanding of what he's doing, both anti-Israel and anti-Saudi! [If this seems strange to you, recall President George W. Bush--let's leave aside your dislike of him for a moment--and President Bill Clinton managed to be both pro-Israel and pro-Saudi.]
To succeed, Obama should instead be poking his finger at Ahmadinejad, showing strong leadership and a readiness to defend both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
After all, by the time this is all over, perhaps decades hence, one side is going to be bowing to the other for keeps.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Syria Sends Long-Range Missiles to Hizballah But, Says State Department, Only "in part." So No Worries!
Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Once again, the Obama Administration has developed a new concept as an excuse for not taking action against a radical and aggressive action. Israel has charged on the basis of intelligence information--and the data in this kind of situation is excellent--that Syria has been shipping long-range missiles to Hizballah in Lebanon which can target Israeli cities. This has led to a raising of tensions and possibly might bring an Israeli air strike against the missiles.
Such an action is a clear violation of the U.S.-sponsored agreement ending the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war which dragged in Lebanon, of course, and resulted in much destruction there. This new development is thus a problem on the following grounds: it strengthens Hizballah, makes a future Hizballah attack on Israel more likely, makes an Israeli preemptive attack more likely, and emboldens Syria to violated agreements knowing the United States won't do anything.
This once again shows the trap involved in engaging dictators. No matter what Syria does--sending terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq being one item high on the list, moving closer to Iran, and so on--the U.S. government will turn a blind eye.
So the State Department has invented a new concept. Yes, missiles have been delivered, it explains, but only "in part." What does this mean? Perhaps the Syrians merely shipped Hizballah equipment or parts to repair and enhance missiles it delivered earlier in violation of the U.S.-sponsored ceasefire agreement. It is possible that it means the Syrians only delivered part of the number of missiles it promised.
What it comes down to is that the Syrians broke the agreement, says the State Department, but they didn't break it as much as they might have done. (Historical note: I can't help thinking of the Cuban missile crisis if, in 1962, the Kennedy Administration said that the Soviets had only shipped missiles to Cuba which could target the United States "in part," so it was ok.)
Bottom line: This is still a violation of the 2006 agreement but it allows the U.S. government to pretend nothing has happened and it need take no action. As I reported earlier, the French were clear on this issue and denounced the Syrian action. [Optional joke--Are the French now saying: The Americans have a cowardly foreign policy AND no good cheese?]
The problem here is not so much the specific issue but the basic principle: This administration won't enforce agreements, it won't hold radical states accountable for what they do, allies cannot rely on it to stand up for them, enemies know they can get away with a great deal.
Recently, U.S. officials have spoken about how certain situations in the Middle East lead to the death of U.S. soldiers or endanger them. The next time an American is killed or wounded in Iraq, note that they were probably short or blown up by terrorists who were financed, armed, and trained in Syria, giving safe haven in that country and passing through it to launch their murderous attacks.
Syria knows it can continue that activity at no cost, just as it can continue to seize power in Lebanon, back and arm Hamas to make Israel-Palestinian peace impossible, and keep tightening its alliance with Iran.
With each deed of appeasement or closing its eyes to aggression and terrorism, the current U.S. government is complicit in those developments.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Once again, the Obama Administration has developed a new concept as an excuse for not taking action against a radical and aggressive action. Israel has charged on the basis of intelligence information--and the data in this kind of situation is excellent--that Syria has been shipping long-range missiles to Hizballah in Lebanon which can target Israeli cities. This has led to a raising of tensions and possibly might bring an Israeli air strike against the missiles.
Such an action is a clear violation of the U.S.-sponsored agreement ending the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war which dragged in Lebanon, of course, and resulted in much destruction there. This new development is thus a problem on the following grounds: it strengthens Hizballah, makes a future Hizballah attack on Israel more likely, makes an Israeli preemptive attack more likely, and emboldens Syria to violated agreements knowing the United States won't do anything.
This once again shows the trap involved in engaging dictators. No matter what Syria does--sending terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq being one item high on the list, moving closer to Iran, and so on--the U.S. government will turn a blind eye.
So the State Department has invented a new concept. Yes, missiles have been delivered, it explains, but only "in part." What does this mean? Perhaps the Syrians merely shipped Hizballah equipment or parts to repair and enhance missiles it delivered earlier in violation of the U.S.-sponsored ceasefire agreement. It is possible that it means the Syrians only delivered part of the number of missiles it promised.
What it comes down to is that the Syrians broke the agreement, says the State Department, but they didn't break it as much as they might have done. (Historical note: I can't help thinking of the Cuban missile crisis if, in 1962, the Kennedy Administration said that the Soviets had only shipped missiles to Cuba which could target the United States "in part," so it was ok.)
Bottom line: This is still a violation of the 2006 agreement but it allows the U.S. government to pretend nothing has happened and it need take no action. As I reported earlier, the French were clear on this issue and denounced the Syrian action. [Optional joke--Are the French now saying: The Americans have a cowardly foreign policy AND no good cheese?]
The problem here is not so much the specific issue but the basic principle: This administration won't enforce agreements, it won't hold radical states accountable for what they do, allies cannot rely on it to stand up for them, enemies know they can get away with a great deal.
Recently, U.S. officials have spoken about how certain situations in the Middle East lead to the death of U.S. soldiers or endanger them. The next time an American is killed or wounded in Iraq, note that they were probably short or blown up by terrorists who were financed, armed, and trained in Syria, giving safe haven in that country and passing through it to launch their murderous attacks.
Syria knows it can continue that activity at no cost, just as it can continue to seize power in Lebanon, back and arm Hamas to make Israel-Palestinian peace impossible, and keep tightening its alliance with Iran.
With each deed of appeasement or closing its eyes to aggression and terrorism, the current U.S. government is complicit in those developments.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Three Cheers for Congress, One for France, and Two and a Half Boos for Obama Policy
Please be subscriber 10,023. Just put your email address in the box on the page's upper right-hand corner.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
The U.S. Congress is back as a factor in U.S. foreign policy. Partly because the Obama Administration has pushed it too far to do unpopular things; partly because members are no longer in awe of the president’s alleged invincibility and much-declined popularity. Many Democratic members see their whole careers flashing before their eyes. And, of course, there’s the administration’s decision to pick a quarrel with Israel.
For the first time since Barack Obama took power, we’re seeing a bit of a congressional revolt even from his own side of the aisle. The two issues are Israel and Iran.
On Israel, 76 senators—including 38 of 59 Democrats—signed a flattering but critical letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging reconciliation with Israel. Another 333 House members signed up, including leading Democrats. The letters blamed the Palestinian leadership—and rightly so—for the lack of serious negotiations.
They noted that “it is the very strength of our relationship [with Israel] that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.
On Iran, a whopping 363 members of the House of Representatives urged Obama to put “crippling” sanctions on Iran, taking “tough and decisive measures,” and urging him to make sure Tehran doesn’t get nuclear weapons.
Thus, Congress is challenging Obama’s policy on four levels:
1. It’s not tough enough
2. The proposed sanctions are too toothless (and on this one, see below)
3. Sanctions have taken too long.
4. Instead of waiting for the UN, the U.S. government should show leadership and act on its own along with willing allies.
Moreover, even while the House passed a sanctions measure by a huge majority in December and a similar bill went through the Senate in January, to my knowledge the administration has never taken any position on the proposal.
And now things are about to get worse.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that the U.S. government is ready to water down the sanctions even further in order to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting additional action against Iran. The rationale for this is to say that this consensus can then be used as a basis for additional sanctions by countries acting on their own, what Gates called, “a new legal platform." He explained, "What is important about the U.N. resolution is less the specific content of the resolution than the isolation of Iran by the rest of the world."
The Los Angeles Times thought this, at least partly an excuse for failure to be able to get more:
“Gates' comments were the clearest sign yet that the administration, facing continuing resistance from other countries to the harshest of the proposed measures, is lowering its sights. U.S. and allied officials have given up on prospects for a ban on petroleum shipments to or from Iran, and some allies have questioned other potential measures.”
Consequently, Obama may succeed in passing muster as legalistic while being hailed by the poodle brigade in the media. But it will fail at the ostensible goal of the entire exercise: stopping Iran now or making Tehran act more cautiously in future.
A parallel situation is now going on regarding Syria’s providing of advanced Scuds to Lebanon. The U.S. State Department reaction was a joke: we are going to study this! Compare that to the French response. We must update our thinking. For years we spoke of the timid and unreliable Europeans. Now, in many respects, France (along with Germany and the United Kingdom) is bolder and braver than Obama’s American policy.
Here is the uncertain and passive response from the U.S. State Department briefing, remember we are in the midst of the administration's rush to engage Syria, pushing the return of the U.S. ambassador to Damascus despite congressional--there's Congress getting it right again--opposition:
"We are concerned about it. And if such an action has been taken– and we continue to analyze this issue–it would represent a failure by the parties in the region to honor UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And clearly, it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk. We have been concerned enough that in recent weeks, during one of our regular meetings with the Syrian ambassador here in Washington, that we’ve raised the issue with the Syrian Government and continue to study the issue. But obviously, it’s something of great concern to us."
Why is it that I doubt we are ever going to see any action against Syria taken on the basis of that "concern." Remember that if the White House or State Department says anything critical of Syria, they'll be asked some tough questions about why the United States is courting that dictatorship and expecting it to become more moderate.
Compare this reaction to the French Foreign Ministry's reaction which, mincing no words, called the Scud transfer “alarming” and pointed out that such activity was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which “imposes an embargo on the export of arms to Lebanon, except those authorized by the Government of Lebanon or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)."
And this is the key! What good is it to get a new UN Security Council resolution if the U.S. government won’t even enforce the previous ones!
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
The U.S. Congress is back as a factor in U.S. foreign policy. Partly because the Obama Administration has pushed it too far to do unpopular things; partly because members are no longer in awe of the president’s alleged invincibility and much-declined popularity. Many Democratic members see their whole careers flashing before their eyes. And, of course, there’s the administration’s decision to pick a quarrel with Israel.
For the first time since Barack Obama took power, we’re seeing a bit of a congressional revolt even from his own side of the aisle. The two issues are Israel and Iran.
On Israel, 76 senators—including 38 of 59 Democrats—signed a flattering but critical letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging reconciliation with Israel. Another 333 House members signed up, including leading Democrats. The letters blamed the Palestinian leadership—and rightly so—for the lack of serious negotiations.
They noted that “it is the very strength of our relationship [with Israel] that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.
On Iran, a whopping 363 members of the House of Representatives urged Obama to put “crippling” sanctions on Iran, taking “tough and decisive measures,” and urging him to make sure Tehran doesn’t get nuclear weapons.
Thus, Congress is challenging Obama’s policy on four levels:
1. It’s not tough enough
2. The proposed sanctions are too toothless (and on this one, see below)
3. Sanctions have taken too long.
4. Instead of waiting for the UN, the U.S. government should show leadership and act on its own along with willing allies.
Moreover, even while the House passed a sanctions measure by a huge majority in December and a similar bill went through the Senate in January, to my knowledge the administration has never taken any position on the proposal.
And now things are about to get worse.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that the U.S. government is ready to water down the sanctions even further in order to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting additional action against Iran. The rationale for this is to say that this consensus can then be used as a basis for additional sanctions by countries acting on their own, what Gates called, “a new legal platform." He explained, "What is important about the U.N. resolution is less the specific content of the resolution than the isolation of Iran by the rest of the world."
The Los Angeles Times thought this, at least partly an excuse for failure to be able to get more:
“Gates' comments were the clearest sign yet that the administration, facing continuing resistance from other countries to the harshest of the proposed measures, is lowering its sights. U.S. and allied officials have given up on prospects for a ban on petroleum shipments to or from Iran, and some allies have questioned other potential measures.”
It could be pointed out that the second Bush administration also settled for lightweight UN resolutions, but it was far more determined to follow up with a tough strategy. Equally, Russia and China can be wreckers in violating stronger sanctions, but they are not so likely to respect weaker ones either. The bottom line is that not only can Iran get off easily but the signal conveyed undermines the hopes for future containment possibilities.
Incidentally, there have been definite successes for behind-the-scenes U.S. diplomacy in discouraging specific companies or banks from dealing with Iran, even companies from dealing with Iranian oil. For such efforts and achievements the administration deserves credit. But what this proves is how effective a really strong push could be to cut off Iran's gasoline imports and business dealings generally.
Moreover, I think this situation largely reveals a fundamental flaw in the Obama worldview: what should be important is a tough and effective strategy based on strong U.S. leadership which is going to intimidate Iran at least to some extent. Instead, we get the priority on consensus, to avoid any sign of the dreaded “unilateralism” or masterful American leadership which horrifies Obama regarding past U.S. policy. This approach is likely to continue after a UN resolution. Far from unleashing an aggressive U.S. strategy against Iran, the follow-up is more likely to be an anti-climax.Consequently, Obama may succeed in passing muster as legalistic while being hailed by the poodle brigade in the media. But it will fail at the ostensible goal of the entire exercise: stopping Iran now or making Tehran act more cautiously in future.
A parallel situation is now going on regarding Syria’s providing of advanced Scuds to Lebanon. The U.S. State Department reaction was a joke: we are going to study this! Compare that to the French response. We must update our thinking. For years we spoke of the timid and unreliable Europeans. Now, in many respects, France (along with Germany and the United Kingdom) is bolder and braver than Obama’s American policy.
Here is the uncertain and passive response from the U.S. State Department briefing, remember we are in the midst of the administration's rush to engage Syria, pushing the return of the U.S. ambassador to Damascus despite congressional--there's Congress getting it right again--opposition:
"We are concerned about it. And if such an action has been taken– and we continue to analyze this issue–it would represent a failure by the parties in the region to honor UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And clearly, it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk. We have been concerned enough that in recent weeks, during one of our regular meetings with the Syrian ambassador here in Washington, that we’ve raised the issue with the Syrian Government and continue to study the issue. But obviously, it’s something of great concern to us."
Why is it that I doubt we are ever going to see any action against Syria taken on the basis of that "concern." Remember that if the White House or State Department says anything critical of Syria, they'll be asked some tough questions about why the United States is courting that dictatorship and expecting it to become more moderate.
Compare this reaction to the French Foreign Ministry's reaction which, mincing no words, called the Scud transfer “alarming” and pointed out that such activity was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which “imposes an embargo on the export of arms to Lebanon, except those authorized by the Government of Lebanon or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)."
And this is the key! What good is it to get a new UN Security Council resolution if the U.S. government won’t even enforce the previous ones!
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
China's Government Sells Iran More Oil, So Much for Sanctions
By Barry Rubin
Many Western media outlets are spinning stories to imply that China might support sanctions against Iran. No. Reuters has an exclusive story--why exclusive? because no one else covered it--reporting that the state Chinaoil company is stepping up sales, 600,000 barrels in the first half of April. Other Chinese companies are probably doing more, in fact China is building Iran a big oil refinery.
Many Western media outlets are spinning stories to imply that China might support sanctions against Iran. No. Reuters has an exclusive story--why exclusive? because no one else covered it--reporting that the state Chinaoil company is stepping up sales, 600,000 barrels in the first half of April. Other Chinese companies are probably doing more, in fact China is building Iran a big oil refinery.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Life in an American Fourth Grade: Teacher Explains, The Statue of Liberty Lies!
By Barry Rubin
Today, the teacher read the fourth-grade class the magnificent Statue of Liberty poem by Emma Lazarus, written in the 1880s:
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Inspiring, no? A tremendous opportunity to explain the greatness of America, including to those new immigrants in the class, right?
Well, no. Because then the teacher told the class that America hadn’t done what the poem promised, or at least not until quite recently. But since the post-Civil War date of the poem excludes claiming that it was hypocritical on the issue of slavery, in fact the words were fulfilled, including for Asian and Latin American immigrants, quite brilliantly.
The irony is that the school is full of kids (including, it’s pretty likely, the principal) whose grandparents or great-grandparents arrived in America penniless and over time the families worked hard to enjoy living standards unequalled for non-aristocrats in world history.
(Personal note: The immigration record shows that my great-grandfather arrived in America exactly a century ago with $10 in his wallet. He died, 23 years later, a wealthy man because he and my grandmother worked around the clock, saved every penny they could, invested, and became entrepreneurs.)
Incidentally, please don’t think I am exaggerating about what goes on in this class, though of course different parts of the United States have quite different schools. But I am not leaving out material taught in the class because it doesn’t fit with the thesis that the kids are being indoctrinated into anti-Americanism. There simply is no such material.
Today, the teacher read the fourth-grade class the magnificent Statue of Liberty poem by Emma Lazarus, written in the 1880s:
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Inspiring, no? A tremendous opportunity to explain the greatness of America, including to those new immigrants in the class, right?
Well, no. Because then the teacher told the class that America hadn’t done what the poem promised, or at least not until quite recently. But since the post-Civil War date of the poem excludes claiming that it was hypocritical on the issue of slavery, in fact the words were fulfilled, including for Asian and Latin American immigrants, quite brilliantly.
The irony is that the school is full of kids (including, it’s pretty likely, the principal) whose grandparents or great-grandparents arrived in America penniless and over time the families worked hard to enjoy living standards unequalled for non-aristocrats in world history.
(Personal note: The immigration record shows that my great-grandfather arrived in America exactly a century ago with $10 in his wallet. He died, 23 years later, a wealthy man because he and my grandmother worked around the clock, saved every penny they could, invested, and became entrepreneurs.)
Incidentally, please don’t think I am exaggerating about what goes on in this class, though of course different parts of the United States have quite different schools. But I am not leaving out material taught in the class because it doesn’t fit with the thesis that the kids are being indoctrinated into anti-Americanism. There simply is no such material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
