Jan 27

First Wikileaks, now the Palestine Papers. When the veil of secrecy around U.S. foreign policy is lifted, unnoticed (at least in Washington) American vulnerabilities are clarified for the reading public. That’s the message from Tunis to Cairo to Foggy Bottom.

Feeling queasy: Egyptian President for Life Hosni Mubarak: Feeling Queasy (Photo courtesy AllVoices)

Feeling queasy: Egyptian President for Life Hosni Mubarak (Photo courtesy AllVoices)

For example, U.S. diplomats have long known that Gamil Mubarak, son and heir-apparent of President for Life Hosni Mubarak, is “deeply unpopular.” But to say so publicly was considered a threat to the credibility of Cairo-Tel Aviv alliance on which U.S. Middle East diplomacy has depended since 1979. The American taxpayers were not supposed to get the memo about Gamil Mubarak. Now, thanks to Julian Assange, it sits in the inbox.

The Palestine Papers may prove even more influential on U.S. Middle East policy, at least in the short term. The reaction to the  1,700 documents, posted on Al-Jazeera, about the U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian peace talks may well depose unpopular Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and formally end the U.S.-backed “peace process” that began on the White House lawn in 1994.  The implosion of U.S. policy is just one aspect of the U.S. loss of credibility in the region. JCS chairman Mike Mullen says a Palestinian state is a “cardinal interest” of the United States. Yet the United States has never had a less credible  proposal for how to achieve one. U.S. policy is somewhere between disarray and disappeared.

As Ali Abunimah notes in the Christian Science Monitor, the Palestine Papers show that “the United States is, to put it mildly, actually rather incompetent at evaluating its own credibility among those it seeks to influence” and “completely out of touch with the grim realities it has helped create in the region and unprepared to deal with the consequences.”

As Arab civil society turns on U.S.-backed dictatorships, President Obama faces a fundamental test: Can he align the U.S. policy with Arab civil society while still preserving the special relationship with Israel? Many Israelis are assuring themselves that Egypt is not Tunisia. But  what if it is? The Angry Arab predicts the Obama administration will back President Mubarak in launching a Tianamen Square-style crackdown to disperse the burgeoning demonstrations in the street.

Feeling bolder: Egyptian reformist leader Mohamed ElBaradei (Photo courtesy of Palestinian Pundit)

Feeling bolder: Egyptian reformist leader Mohamed ElBaradei (Photo courtesy of Palestinian Pundit)

More likely, U.S. policymakers are already calculating how to cut their losses and head off the presidential candidacy of M0hamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who so irked the Bush administration for his accurate observation that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei is a rather dour technocrat who chose a career in the global civil service rather than toil in Mubarak’s satrapy. He has shallow roots in Egyptian civil society but is the most plausible presidential possibility internationally, which makes pro-Israeli policymakers in Washington just a little bit nervous.

For what’s at stake in the streets of Cairo is not just the future of Egyptian democracy but also the future of Israeli influence on U.S. foreign policy.

Would a democratic post-Mubarak Egypt align itself with Israel to perpetuate the Gaza blockade? Mubarak did not hesitate. ElBaradei probably would, if only because of the need to bring the politically conservative, non-violent Muslim Brotherhood into a post-dictatorship government. (Hamas, the governing party of Gaza, is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Unlike its parent organization, Hamas has not renounced violence.)

Would Egypt certainly countenance a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities? Mubarak probably would have. As chief of the IAEA, El Baradei made clear in 2008 that he would resign if Iran was attacked and that he thought such an attack would be unmitigated folly.

The conundrum that Washington faces is that as Mubarak gets weaker, so does Israel. That’s the new reality facing President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, and its no longer secret.

Tagged with:
Jan 27

U.S. foreign policy in action: Israel creates a new refugee camp inside Israel.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Jan 26

Jeffrey Goldberg and Hussein Ibish offer a lengthy compendium of the Good News From the Middle East (Really) in the New York Times. The pleading headline betrays the special pleading to follow.

Mondoweiss thinks  Goldberg is “panicked” by the death throes of the two-state solution. To me the piece–and its extraordinary length–illuminate that unrealistic discourse about the region that permeates the liberal Washington policy culture. Maybe its the same thing. Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Nov 29

The Wikileaks documents are most interesting in confirming long suspected stories, like:

–the Persian gulf emirates don’t trust Iran and hope for a U.S. attack on its nuclear program.

–the U.S. Secretary of Defense is an unpaid lobbyist for U.S. military contractors

During his meeting with [Turkish defense minister Mehmet] Gonul, SecDef [Robert Gates] advised that Turkey had opportunities to increase its military capabilities while gaining economic benefits by selecting U.S. companies in currently open tenders. First, Sikorsky, was prepared to guarantee that for every helicopter produced in Turkey and bought by Turkey, Sikorsky would produce a second helicopter in Turkey for export. SecDef explained that in addition to providing modern equipment for Turkey, this offer would provide hundreds of millions of dollars in export revenue.

Tagged with:
Nov 29

You can’t download the Wikileaks documents to an Apple computer, at least not easily because the Tableau Public software is not Mac-compatible


Mar 04

The pleasant notion that the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” will make “progress” has receded. PALESTINE CRY notes “newspapers from the region [outside of Israel] are in agreement that Israel is acting to escalate the conflict and foment a war in the region.”

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Feb 15

Foreign Policy’s useful survey Who Wants to Bomb Iran? offers more evidence of one of the most peculiar fantasies in U.S. opinion making circles: that democratic forces in Iran would welcome–or not object to–a U.S/Israeli attack on their country’s nuclear facilities. The chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen is under no such illusions so the phenomenon is less a political danger than an interesting species of American provincialism which assumes the benevolence of U.S.-inflicted  violence is apparent to its victims.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Feb 15

With President Obama’s ongoing escalation of the drone war in Pakistan, the question is which is hurt more by the aerial attacks: al-Qaeda’s leadership or the United States’ standing in Pakistan? As  former ambassador Tayyab Siddiqui, a columnist for the News, one of Pakistan’s leading newspapers,  notes the answer is obvious, at least in Pakistan.

….last year, there were 44 drone attacks, killing only five key Al Qaeda targets but the civilian casualties exceeded 700 Pakistanis. Passionate appeals have been made to all the visitors from the US – Congressmen, officials, military brass and others  that these attacks must stop. Pakistan is absolutely critical for US strategy in the region and its war against terror is solely dependent on Pakistanis’ cooperation. Pakistan must spell out to the Obama Administration that any more cooperation with the US would be subject to US meeting Pakistanis’ concerns.

There’s no evidence that is going to happen. From the point of view of U.S. policymakers, this isn’t a dilemma. In Washington, the answer is equally obvious, though diametrically opposed, to Pakistan’s: the battlefield advantages outweigh the political costs. In the short run, that is surely true. In the long run, it depends on ignoring Pakistani democracy.

Tagged with:
Feb 07

From London, they look like a narrow pipeline to the President– FT.com

Tagged with:
Feb 06

The most familiar complaint of aspiring policymamkers in Washington is full-throat lament that the world (or at least the handful of people who run it) are “ignoring” some key problem and its worthy victims.

WOS finds the feeling that Somalia is being ignored is common in the East Africa media.

But Sahel blog begs to differ:

The US conducts missile strikes there. Ethiopian forces intervene regularly. Kenya keeps a close eye on its neighbor. The AU has peacekeepers there. Eritrea supports rebel factions. And were it not for outside intervention – specifically the 2006 invasion by Ethiopia – Somalia might be in better shape today. Yes, the UN could send in 5,000 peacekeepers – but if 200,000 would be needed to establish real peace, then what would be the point of a smaller number?

Tagged with:
preload preload preload