A Time for Diplomatic Renewal

Toward a New U.S. Strategy in the Middle East


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

A Time for Diplomatic Renewal
by Richard Haass & Martin Indyk
03-Dec-2008
 

Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Martin S. Indyk is Director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy. This paper appears as chapter 3 of their book, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. See the book overview and executive summaries for information on other chapters.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE FORTY-FOURTH PRESIDENT will face a series of critical, complex, and interrelated challenges in the Middle East that will demand his immediate attention: an Iran apparently intent on approaching or crossing the nuclear threshold as quickly as possible; a fragile situation in Iraq that is straining the U.S. military; weak governments in Lebanon and Palestine under challenge from stronger Hezbollah and Hamas militant organizations; a faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and American influence diluted by a severely damaged reputation. The president will need to initiate multiple policies to address all these challenges but will quickly discover that time is working against him.

President Barack Obama will have to reprioritize and reorient U.S. policy toward the Middle East. For the past six years that policy has been dominated by Iraq. This need not, and should not, continue to be the case. The next president can gradually reduce the U.S. troop presence and combat role in Iraq, increasingly shifting responsibility to Iraqi forces. But because the situation is still fragile there, the drawdown should be done carefully and not so quickly or arbitrarily that it risks contributing to the undoing of progress achieved at great cost over the past two years. All this would be consistent with the accord governing U.S. troop presence being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials.

Instability generated by a too rapid withdrawal could distract the next president from the other priority initiatives he will need to take and create opportunities in Iraq for Iran and al Qaeda to exploit. However, a too slow withdrawal would leave American forces tied down in Iraq and unavailable for other priority tasks, including backing his diplomacy visà-vis Iran in particular with the credible threat of force. He will need to strike a balance.

In no way should this call for retrenchment in Iraq be interpreted as a recommendation for a more general American pullback from the region. The greater Middle East will remain vital to the United States for decades to come given its geostrategic location, its energy and financial resources, the U.S. commitment to Israel, and the possibility both for terrorism to emanate from the region and for nuclear materials and weapons to spread there. Reduced American involvement will jeopardize all these interests.

Instead, President Obama’s principal focus will need to be on Iran, because the clock is ticking on its nuclear program. He should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other incentives to attempt to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to produce substantial amounts of nuclear weapons-grade fuel in a short amount of time. Simultaneously, he will need to concert an international effort to impose harsher sanctions on Iran if it rejects an outcome the United States and others can accept. The objective is simple to describe but will be difficult to achieve: to generate a suspension of Iran’s enrichment program before it builds the capacity to enrich enough uranium to provide it with this “breakout” capability.

Preventive military action, by either the United States or Israel, in the event that this diplomatic initiative fails, appears unattractive given its risks and costs. However, the option should be examined closely, both for what it could accomplish and given the dangers of living with a near or actual Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Because of Israel’s vulnerability to an Iranian nuclear first strike, its fuse will necessarily be shorter than America’s. And negotiations—as well as stepped-up sanctions— will inevitably take time to work. To increase Israel’s tolerance for a more drawn-out diplomatic engagement, President Obama should bolster Israel’s deterrent capabilities by providing a nuclear guarantee and an enhanced antiballistic missile defense capability.

A second emphasis should be on promoting peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria, which is currently allied with Iran and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. The Syrian government is in a position to fulfill a peace agreement, and the differences between the parties appear to be bridgeable. Moreover, the potential for a strategic realignment would benefit the effort to weaken Iran’s influence in the sensitive core of the region, reduce external support for both Hezbollah and Hamas, and improve prospects for stability in Lebanon. In other words, it would give President Obama strategic leverage on Iran at the same time as he would be offering its leaders a constructive way out of their security dilemma.

President Obama should also make a serious effort from the outset to promote progress between Israel and the Palestinians. Here, though, factors related to timing appear contradictory. There is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a final peace agreement based on a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Yet deep divisions within the Palestinian leadership (not to mention divisions within Israel’s body politic), and the Palestinian Authority’s questionable ability to control territory from which Israel would withdraw, sharply reduce prospects for a sustainable peace agreement no matter what the outside effort. This dilemma does not argue for neglect, which is sure to be malign, but it does call for a devoted effort to create the conditions on the ground for more ambitious diplomacy to succeed.

What these Iranian and Arab-Israeli initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy as a tool of American foreign policy—certainly more than has been the norm over the past eight years. The United States will want the backing of the world’s other powers— Russia, China, and Europe—and the partnership of America’s regional allies, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Consulting and concerting with all of these actors will also take time and patience.

Realities on the ground also call for a new approach to the promotion of reform in the region. Authoritarian regimes that are repressive and largely unresponsive to legitimate popular needs have set in motion a dynamic in which opposition has gathered in the mosque. Such polarization needs to be avoided. The answer is not early elections, especially not when parties with militias contest them, but rather a gradual, evolutionary process of democratization that emphasizes the building of civil society, the opening of political space, and the strengthening of independent institutions (including political parties, the media, and the judiciary). The parallel encouragement of a market economy can buttress this effort.

Finally, President Obama should understand that his policy toward the greater Middle East will be severely handicapped as long as the United States remains heavily dependent on the region’s hydrocarbons. U.S. consumption is helping to fuel Iran’s bid to assert its influence throughout the region; U.S. dependence also leaves this country highly vulnerable to untoward developments within the region, whether it is the ability of Iraq’s sects to get along or the ability of the Saudi government to maintain stability. The goal of the United States should be to sustain its involvement in the region but to reduce its vulnerability to it. Energy policy is foreign policy.

Some of these initiatives will take considerable time to ripen and bear fruit (rebuilding Palestinian capabilities, promoting political development in Arab countries, increasing energy security), whereas it may be possible or necessary to realize others relatively early on (assembling a new diplomatic offer to Iran backed by the threat of harsher sanctions, drawing down troops in Iraq, promoting Israeli-Syrian peace). At a minimum President Obama will need to remain conscious of the interrelated nature of regional dynamics and try to synchronize the various branches of his Middle Eastern strategy, buying time when there is no alternative while quickly exploiting opportunities or dealing with necessities when they arise.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Jaleho

Dear Ostaad, worry is for the future of Iran!

by Jaleho on Sun Dec 07, 2008 06:12 AM PST

I tried to explain this in detail in my blog:

//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/will-obama...

 

Please read that to see in what sense Mr. Indyk might have considered his "dual containment" needing some changes. The neo-conservative idea of using pre-emptive force to change the regime in Iraq was in a sense part of Mr. Indyk announced idea since 1994. It was part of his version of Dual Containment. 

He does not come up with any now-regretted form of policy. He is merely advising Obama to focus attention to Iran, now that his Iraqi part of the equation is taken out for Israel's sake, and Iran remains the unbalanced power threatening Israeli hegemony.

My point is that, now that Hillary has come to foreign policy power, Indyk is trying to do the same monkey buisness that he did when bunch of "Clintonites" ruled, and started the dirty foreign policy against Iran-Iraq.

Under Bush, despite some verbal wrath like "axis of evil" that you're referring to, the REAL wrath was towards Iraq. The real biting sanctions against Iran and its isolation, all started with Clinton, and with direct hand of Martin Indyk. And he was an element throwing stones in US-Iran dialogue in the past. 

In my comment here, I specifically gave you an example of how he tried to BUY and tap Iraqi opposition to advance his idea of overthrowing Saddam, and nominated Adnan Pachachi to lead the opposition.

I am suggesting that he's here to start work early and check out some Iranian easily selling whores, the likes of Pachachi, Chalabi, or Allawi!


  •  
Ostaad

Jaleho, let's not get stuck in the past.

by Ostaad on Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:45 AM PST

I agree with all your depiction of the backgroud of Martin Indyk and other AIPAC gang members who have tried their best to fight and defeat Iran to maintain Israel's military and political domination in the ME at the expense of the US national interests. But let's not stay stuck in the past and look for opportunities to change the trajectory of US policies as Obama mentioned in one of his speeches. Martin Indyk publicly "confessed" that his dual contaiment policy was a failure (I'll be happy to find the article). David Frume, the other imported Zionist henchman and speech writer for W who "coined" the "axis of evil" label, has also expressed remorse for his mistaken ideas regading the ME. AIPAC guys in charge of fighting with Iran, Keith Weisman and Steve Rosen are gone and waiting for their trial. AIPAC's spy in the Pentagon Lary Franklin is convicted of espionage and is drinking cold water in jail.  I not implying in anyway the Israel-firsters and other Zionist antagonists are gone nor silenced. I'm simply point out the fact the US policy makers are not under the influence of AIPAC as much as they used to be.

Here's a recent interview with Martin Indyk which may interest the readers:

//www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JP...


  •  
Jaleho

AIPAC agents of Clinton era resurface

by Jaleho on Thu Dec 04, 2008 07:15 PM PST

It seems that the appointment of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State by Barak Obama, is reviving a hope to AIPAC agents who were brought to power by Bill Clinton to shape the US Middle East policy, centered  around Israeli interest.

Let's quickly remember who Martin Indyk is:

Martin Indyk, was a London-born Australian, who worked for Australian intelligence service.

He has worked as an advisor to Yitzhak Shamir of Israel.

In 1982, he started to work as Research Director in AIPAC.

In 1985 together with Barbi Weinberg, a former president of the Jewish Federation in Los Angeles and wife of AIPAC Chairman Emeritus Lawrence Weinberg, he co-founded the Washington Institute for Near
East policy, what some consider an AIPAC "spin off"

In 1993, he speedily was granted an American citizenship by Clinton,
just 10 DAYS before President Clinton made him the National Security  Cpouncil's top Mideast expert.


1995-1997 and 2000-2001 he was US Ambassador to Israel, however in 2000 his Security Clearance has been revoked by the State Department for  allegations  "mishandling classified information for at least five
years."

Mr. Indyk was the father of the "dual containment policy" which meant to 'contain' Iran and Iraq, Israel's two most important adversaries.

For a general background of Indyk when Clinton appointed him in 1993, you can look at:


//www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9...

For news on how he lost his Security Clearance in 2000, type "indyk, spy" in google search.

Now most importantly, on why now that Hillary Clinton is to be Obama's
Secretary of State, Mr Indyk might be coming to Iranian.com to suggest
a US policy on Iran, a continuation of his Iran-Iraq dual containment that he started with Bill Clinton:

//www.csmonitor.com/1998/1130/113098.intl.int...

US Taps dissidents to press Saddam

".....President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which earmarks $97
million to revitalize the Iraqi opposition, last month. Though the
White House was at first lukewarm about the idea, it has now embraced
it - despite criticism.

Exile meeting in London

The
administration has drawn up a list of more than 70 groups, and US
Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk and top British officials met
last week with 16 groups in London. Some exiles said that Mr. Indyk
nominated Adnan al-Pachachi, a former foreign minister, to form a
united opposition movement, though Mr. Pachachi later disputed it.


  •  
default

ali21, may dare ask what's stopping you...

by Shadooneh (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 06:56 PM PST

from going back home and contributing "somehow!"? Are you for real when you say the "akhoonds" are in your way, and that's why you're twidling your thumbs for the time being?!!! Sorry to sound a bit harsh, bud. But I keep reading this stuff about how bad the ohter guys are and things could have been a lot better without them. That to me is nothing but a huge cop-out.


  •  
gol-dust

Here comes Zionist AIPAC Neocons again, now w/Obama!

by gol-dust on Thu Dec 04, 2008 06:24 PM PST

They really don't want people in the mid east live in peace! Israel has to be in control of the region! They have ruined all the previous US presidents' plans and now with this one! I am just getting tired of these wolves who keep changing their colors and their concern is only the israeli intersts and security, not the US! They are israelis dressed as Americans! How much more can they betray this great nation (US)? Iraq disaster was not enough?


  •  
default

Nothing will be accomplished while Israel Lobby controls policy

by no_name (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 05:14 PM PST

Nothing will be accomplished while the Israel Lobby continues to control US foreign policy and agenda.
Obama may believe he is the agent of change, but the ground work is done by the folks in the field.
US will not get deep traction on all the needed facets while there is disproportionate biases toward Israel.

Most cabinet people are selected and endorsed by large donors and lobbies. AIPAC and Israel lobby at large has done a great job lobbying for their loyal people in the current administration. From DOD to even NPR.

With a disproportionate amount of Jewish staff already controlling Obama's cabinet, not to mention having a former Israeli soldier Rahm, on his chief of staff, he will not be able to convince Arabs of a fair deal. In addition Obama's dovish reputation, will prevent the Jewish extremist to go along with any deal and they will sabotage it as they did with Rabin. Unfortunately, US censors many feeds from Israel, so most people are not exposed to the extreme end of Israel population. It's scary stuff!


  •  
default

2 cents....I agree with you

by ali21 (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:54 PM PST

as long as we have oil and natural gas, the brits will think of iran as the god's gift to them!
look at turkey, they haven't touched that place, and ataturk modernized that country since the brits did not support their akhoonds/mullahs.
in iran though, the akhoonds have long been in the pocket of the brits- and they finally got their wish in 79....it's a shame that our generation had to be the one to live through this nightmare....
I pray that we can go back home soon and contribute somehow with the akhoonds out of the way


  •  
default

To ali21

by My two cents (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 09:43 AM PST

The problem is they do not know what/who will replace this regime and whether the replacement will protect their interests and the stability of the region so that they can have their cheap steady flow of oil and security/safety of Israel.

They are not interested in taking risks with the unknown. They still prefer that fiasco in Iran to the unknown.


  •  
default

Isn't it Ironic that

by sad (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 09:30 AM PST

Isn't it Ironic that foreigners still decide the future of Iran. Isn't it interesting that Richard Hasse wants the US to coddle the tyrannical mullahs.

Would he want tyrnats totalitarians for the people of his own country??

He certainly couldn't care less about the Iranian people as long as America gets what they want. And the sad part is that some Iranians think that the American realists connected with the world oil mafia are doing Iranians a huge favor. How tragic!


  •  
default

how's this for a grand idea:

by ali21 (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 08:17 AM PST

I really don't care about the palestinians and their problems- since yasser arafat and his terrorist murdered thousands of our officers and demonstrators during the revolution- and they have been stealing our wealth through the corrupt mullahs' "donations" over the past thiry years.
As far as iran goes, with all due respect, your idea that we "should attempt to dissuade" the mullahs from their evil ideology is very naive. It is true that bush's problems in iraq have emboldened the mullahs, however, the ONLY SOLUTION is to help the iranian people regain their freedom by crippling the mullahs fragile regime- it is quite simple, with the weak oil revenues, they are very vulnerable- a one week strike by oil workers, and the mullahs will crumble. Iran is ripe for a second revolution, and instead of sugar-coating the mullahs and trying to prolong our misery, you should free the iranian people.
The mullahs are hell-bent on their crazy ideology- that islam will one day rule the world and mehdi will come to save the day- you CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND
Their regime has never been legitimate or accepted by the masses- they came in on bunch of lies and crimes, and that's how they're gonna leave!
Your "think-tank" should focus on saving iran and it's people rather than saving the mullahs and their murderous ways!


  •  
default

Hashemi Rafsanjani's diatribe

by Haj Reza Tajrishi (not verified) on Thu Dec 04, 2008 06:16 AM PST

Rafsanjani: US, Iran's main enemy
Tehran, Dec 2, IRNA

Chairman of Expediency Council Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Tuesday that US is the main enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He made the remarks while addressing the first seminar on 30-year parliament opened at Majlis premises this morning.

Referring to the failed US policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Rafsanjani said Washington is making great efforts to disturb the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He said that the Iranian nation stood on its feet in the past 30 years through relying on its independence and freedom and without the help from any foreign power.

On the existing problems facing the country, the former Majlis speaker underscored the need for consolidation of unity and solidarity among different Iranian groups and individuals.

As long as the Islamic Revolution is relying on Islam and the people, it would not be vulnerable, he said underscoring the importance of presence of people in all social activities.

Rafsanjani urged the present Majlis deputies to be the real representatives of the people, saying the powerful legislative body can meet the people's demands.

The seminar is attended by speakers of parliament over the past eight terms, as well as a group of political personalities and former MPs.


  •