Brooks Foreign Policy Review Launches Special 2009 Iraq Elections Center

 

 

BROOKS FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW LAUNCHES SPECIAL 2009 IRAQ ELECTIONS CENTER

 

BROOKS FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW

PRESS RELEASE:

JANUARY, 29, 2009

 

 

Today, Brooks Foreign Policy Review (BFPR), the foreign relations arm of the Center for New Politics and Policy at the University of Denver, announced it will establish a special 2009 Iraq Elections Center to provide the most comprehensive reporting and analysis of the 2009 Iraq Provincial Elections in the United States. The elections will be held on January 31, 2009. CNPP Senior Fellow, Webster Brooks III, said BFPR in collaboration with the U.S. Iran Peace Project will publish a special Web page edition that provides Iraqi elections background material, provincial votes tallies, access to Iraqi political party websites, and an open blog roll for elections reporters, writers, bloggers, Iraqi political parties, organizations and think tanks to submit their contributions and video reports. 

 

In addition, Brooks noted that BFPR will post video analysis, and conduct interviews with Middle Eastern and Iraqi specialists to comment on the elections and their implications for nation-building in Iraq. All contributors may file reports and analysis to wbrooks@newpolicycenter.org. The host website will be the Brooks Foreign Policy Review at www.brooksreview.wordpress.com. Reports may be filed in English and Arabic.****         

         

The Center for New Politics and Policy (CNPP) is located at the University of Denver. Webster Brooks writes frequently on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia. His articles have been posted in newspapers and on websites and blogs across the region and in the United States. Mr. Brooks provides weekly commentary on XM/Sirius satellite radio on the “New School”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Afghanistan War Now Hinges on Russian Supply Lines

Richard Holbrooke, President Obama and George Mitchell

“Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in America’s war against terrorism. The deteriorating situation in the region poses a grave threat to  global security. It’s an international challenge of the highest order. That’s why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy.”

 President Barak Obama

 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

The success of President Obama’s planned surge of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan will likely depend on support from an unlikely ally; Russia. On January 20, the same day Barak Obama was sworn in as President, CENTCOM Commander General David Petreus concluded his Central Asian tour and announced from Pakistan that agreements to transit commercial goods and services to U.S. forces in Afghanistan will ”include several of the countries in the Central Asia states and also Russia.” How the ugly war of words between the U.S. and Russia over Moscow’s Georgian invasion five months ago was shelved to forge a critical alliance around Afghanistan reveals much about America’s diminished capacity to project power in Central Asia. It’s also an ominous sign that  Pakistan’s growing insurgency is wrecking havoc on U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan and the extremists potential to induce crisis in Pakistan.  

     

Three-fourths of NATO supplies are transited to Afghanistan through Pakistan’s Khyber Pass, located west of the NWFP capital of Peshawar. The Taliban has destroyed hundreds of NATO provision trucks, unleashed  deadly attacks against NATO convoys and raided key supply depots.  Emboldened by its success, the Taliban is now attempting to choke off the vital port city of Karachi, where the NATA logistics hub begins. The Pakistani military’s inability to drive the Taliban from the Northwest Territory combined with ISI support for the Taliban has made maintaining Pakistani supply routes too risky a proposition to sustain NATO growing operations in Afghanistan. The new Obama administration has continued its devastating Drone aerial attacks against Taliban strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border. But civilian deaths associated with the Drone attacks are fueling anger and anti-American sentiment on both sides of the border, while weakening the legitimacy of President Kharzai and President Zardari’s governments. For all these reasons opening a second supply front for U.S. and NATO operations emerged as “mission critical” to push forward  President Obama’s Afghanistan surge campaign.

     

Pakistan’s deepening turmoil and  U.S. reliance on a revanchist Russia to ensure its supply lines in Afghanistan are unsettling realities. But dragging the unstable nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan into the equation represents a dangerous expansion of the “Long War” in Central Asia. U.S. negotiations with these countries over transit routes, access to air bases and foreign aid packages started before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion. The regional maneuvering has ebbed and flowed with the intensifying U.S.- Russian rivalry over Central Asian oil exploration, pipeline rights and the volatile internal politics of each country. Given the contention between the U.S. and Russia in Central Asia’s renewed “Great Game” a valid question arises; why has Russia come to the aid of its nemesis, the United States? 

 

Moscow has a strategic interest in preventing the Taliban from toppling the government in Kabul, either directly or by leading a coalition of forces.  The Taliban’s return to power would virtually eliminate Russian influence inside Afghanistan, whereas today Moscow has significant ties with  Northern Alliance forces, President Kharzai and pro-Iranian forces inside Afghanistan. Furthermore, America’s aggressive efforts in Central Asia have led to the establishment of U.S. military installations in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Moscow and China are deeply troubled by America’s expanded military profile in Central Asia. President Putin moved to  facilitate the transit agreements, rather than risking the U.S. cutting deals with Central Asia regimes without Russian input. For his services to the United States, the Obama administration reciprocated by hitting the mute button regarding Putin’s shut down of natural gas flows to European countries in mid-winter; a manufactured crisis that allowed Russia to blame the Ukraine for the shortages while extorting higher gas  transit prices from Kiev.  

 

Beyond blocking U.S. encroachment in its security perimeter, Russia has a long-term security imperative of preventing the spread of radical Islam  to its neighboring former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,  Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. These countries on Russia’s southern border have large Muslim populations and indigenous radical Islamists organizations that threaten Moscow’s national security and hinder its efforts to keep the former Soviet republics within its sphere of influence. Inside Russia, the transformation of Chechnya’s nationalist movement into a  jihadist juggernaut supported by its majority Muslim population led to a  bloody 12-year succession struggle bordering on ethnic cleansing. There are 20 million self-identified Muslims in Russia, a number that has risen by 40% in the last 15 years. Russian sensitivity to its potential Islamic threat is real, and the destabilization of any of its Central Asian neighbors could be a lightning rod that ignites the fuse. 

 

Obama’s new Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke will undoubtedly tout the benefits of  U.S. anti-narcotics initiatives in Afghanistan to curtail the flow of heroin that is devastating Central Asia and Russia. Construction projects, infrastructure development, U.S. dollars and other accoutrements showered on the Central Asian republics will ease the regional economic crisis and revive the failed “Silk Road” strategy of applying American soft power in Central Asia. Of particular concern to Obama’s foreign policy team will be buttressing Tajikistan; the poorest Central Asian country, rife with weapons and narcotics smuggling, and tense ethnic divisions with its Uzbek neighbors that could collapse the nation into a failed state. Such a development would increase the difficulties of stabilizing Afghanistan and heighten US-Russian regional geo-political rivalry. 

 

For the  United States and Russia, expanding the War in Afghanistan to the Central Asian steppes, even with a benign act of securing transit routes is a risk they are willing to take to prevent the Taliban from taking power in Kabul. What becomes problematic is the possibility that Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is not to contending for state power, but destabilizing the Kharzai government to the point where the Taliban can maintain control of a limited number of provinces while expanding its sphere of influence. Indeed, what seems more likely is that the Afghan Taliban is working in concert with the newly emerging Pakistan Taliban and al Queda in an effort to establish a rump confederation that consolidates their joint control of Southeastern Afghanistan, Pakistan ’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Provinces. In short, these forces are carving out a failed state of Pushtanistan in the ungoverned territories along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.  

 

On January 22, President Obama called Pakistan and Afghanistan “the central front of terrorism,” and spoke of the necessity of eliminating this global threat starting in Afghanistan. By securing Russia’s aid to open new supply lines for NATO and U.S. forces, he just might be falling deeper into al Queda’s deadly trap of extending U.S. forces across Afghanistan, expanding unpopular bombing missions, increasing cross border excursions into Pakistan’s Northwest Territories and exposing more American forces to attack on the Central Asian steppes. The battlefield in Central Asia is being stretched. No one is sure where it will end.  

 

     

Obama’s Inaugural Speech Repudiates Bush’s Foreign Policy Doctrine

“ As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

                               Barak Obama

 

In an eighty-eight word passage of his Inaugural Address, President Barak Obama issued an elegant but forceful repudiation of the past eight years of George Bush’s aggressive and misguided foreign policy doctrine. Without mentioning the word “torture” Obama rubuked the Bush administration’s premise that keeping America safe required torturing captured enemy combatants from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. Rejecting the application of raw American military power to achieve foreign policy objectives, Obama called for prudence and restraint in the use of force. Spurning the arrogance of taking unilateral actions to advance America’s interests at the expense of our friends, Obama invoked the vision of a new international community engaged in alliances and bound by principles and diplomacy.

Hoping to turn the page on Bush’s disastrous effort to convert the 911 terrorist attack on America into a crusade to clense the Middle East of extremists from Iran to Lebanon, Obama offered  the world Muslim community “a new way forward based on mutual interests and respect.” In making the appeal Obama was sowing seeds he clearly hopes to harvest in his proposed upcoming major address in a Muslim country. With an escalating war to prosecute in Afghanistan; a complicated and dangerous military drawdown to execute in Iraq, and the Arab street seething at Israel’s Gaza invasion that left 1,400 Palestinians dead, the new Commander-in Chief has to pivot quickly in the Middle East. Indeed, Obama will likely dispatch a special envoy to the Middle East this week to help ensure the uneasy cease fire brokered by the Egyptians between HAMAS and Israel’s holds until new talks begin.  

While repudiating Bush’s militarist drive to make the U.S. the world’s unchallenged superpower for decades to come, Obama left no doubt that “terrorists” should not mistake his change of direction for weakness. Quite the opposite, Obama was sending a direct message to al Queda that he is coming after them, saying “you will not out wait us, we will defeat you.” Obama’s warning’s were not reserved soley for America’s avowed enemies. Breaking with the Bush administration’s silence on Arab authoritarian regimes it supported, Obama offered the following advise; “To those who cling to power through corruption and deciept and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Obama’s not so subtle warning aimed at the Sunni monarchies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Emirates, that America will not come to your aid to suppress rebellions provoked by your repressive regimes will be heard in capitals across the Middle East.

Perhaps the most significant point in Obama’s Inaugural Address was what he did not mention; Iran. There were no warnings or condemnations of Iran as the “world’s leading nuclear proliferator and state sponsor of terrorism that were the hallmark of Bush’s incendiary rhetoric. It was Obama’s first opportunity to set the tone with Iran before a world audience. Through his silence, Barak Obama left the door open to Tehran.

At the end of the day President Barak Obama’s central message was that we live in a far different world than America’s political leaders have been willing to acknowledge. The United States is no longer omnipotent, and we cannot simply push countries around. Military power has real limitations and the world’s wealth has been dispersed among rising nations that no longer march to Washington, D.C.’s drumbeat. We are entering a new multipolar era where global cooperation, diplomacy and shared decision making regarding the global economy, access to energy resouces and forging durable international security arrangements are the industry of many nations. Obama’s has asked America’s reluctant political machine to grow up and change with the times. For many in America’s power elite, it is a change they do not believe in.                   

           

Obama’s Central Asia Crisis: The Wars to Come in Afghanistan, Pashtunistan and Pakistan

 

 Eliminating al Queda’s stronghold in Pakistan and defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan has moved to the top of President-elect Barak Obama’s foreign policy agenda. Circumstances on the ground in Central Asia have grown increasingly grave as a resurgent al Queda has pivoted toward a new strategy in Central Asia; destabilizing the nuclear armed government of Pakistan. In Afghanistan the Taliban’s offensive has rendered key provinces ungovernable and pushed President Hamid Karzai’s government to the abyss of collapse. Al Queda and the Taliban are stretching the global battlefield and redefining Central Asia’s geo-political map. For Barak Obama, the stakes are enormous. Developments in Central Asia will test the full measure of American hard and soft power and Europe’s resolve to forge a durable global security arrangement.      

 

The emerging Central Asian crisis poses daunting challenges for the incoming Obama administration. President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Zardari of Pakistan are weak leaders of faltering governments that cannot be sustained without unpopular U.S. intervention. Since al Queda and the Taliban launched their ground offensive in May 2006 they now occupy military space in four Southeastern Afghanistan provinces, Baluchistan Province in Pakistan, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (F.A.T.A.) and growing swaths of the North West Frontier Provinces (NWFP). A virtual failed state of Pashtunistan now exists in the majority Pashtun ethnic seam on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. While Obama promises to insert 10,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, most NATO countries in-theater refuse to allow their troops to engage the Taliban-leaving the brunt of the fighting to U.S. armed forces. Finally, Iran, Russia, India, China and Pakistan all have strategic designs on Afghanistan backed by armed proxies on the ground; few of which comport with U.S. interests.

 

The Obama administration’s national security goals in Central Asia have yet to be articulated, but preventing Afghanistan or Pakistan from becoming failed states is foremost on the agenda. The collapse of either government will unleash Al Queda, the Taliban and other extremists to expand their influence across Central Asia, particularly in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Should Pakistan slide into chaos the prospects of loose nuclear technology floating on the black market has ominous implications. The global nerve center of terrorism has relocated to Pashtunistan where terrorist attacks on London, Madrid and Bali were all hatched, and where al Queda makes it new home. Therefore Obama must unite his European allies around a central strategy to bring Pakistan on side, dislodge Al Queda and the Taliban from Pashtunistan (FATA and the NWFP) and reach consensus on a long range plan to rebuild Afghanistan.   

 

Al Queda’s long-term strategy is to draw the U.S. military into the Middle East, spread its forces thin and bleed the U.S. until it withdraws from the region. Weakened regimes  left behind would have to fend for themselves against a radicalized Muslim street and potent non-state actors, as is feared in Iraq today. Thus, a sustained al Queda offensive in Pakistan could warrent U.S. intervention in its third Muslim country the past seven years. The alternative would be to risk Pakistan lapsing into a failed state. Aided by the Bush administration’s ill conceived and mismanaged war of choice in Iraq, Al Queda and anti-U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia have seized the  initiative. They are selecting the time and place of battle and determining the choice of weapons. Given the magnitude and complexity of the challenges surfacing in Central Asia, how will President Barak Obama’s respond? 

 

While stabilizing Afghanistan will require patience, perseverance and a renewed commitment by NATO, the situation in Pakistan has imparted a great sense of urgency and volatility to the Central Asian equation. The surprising strength of Al Queda’s resurgence in Pakistan and its alliance with the new Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban) poses an immediate threat to Pakistan. Pakistan’s economy is in a tailspin, which could fuel more discord among the Pakistani body-politic. Going forward Obama’s biggest problem may not be al Queda as much as the Pakistani Army and the Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISA) whose loyalties remain divided between the Zardari government on the one hand and extremist Taliban and Kashmiri elements on the other. The Army and the ISI sponsored A.Q. Khan’s acquisition of nuclear technology to build Pakistan’s “Islamic” bomb, and provided cover for Khan’s black market sales bazaar of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. All this was done as a matter of state policy. Along with hosting and financing global terrorists since the beginning of Afghanistan’s resistance to the Soviets in 1979, the Army and ISI has done more to advance the cause of global terrorism than any other nation or non-state actor.            

 

Having enjoyed sanctuary in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Territories since 2003, al Queda continues to receive aid and comfort from key sectors of the Army and the Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). Now al Queda has turned on the Pakistani government with a vengeance. Their sponsorship of Muslim extremists that provoked the Red Mosque massacres in Islamabad in 2007 marked a crucial turning point in Pakistan that re-energized the extremist Muslim movement. After the mosque massacre angry volunteers and madrassa students streamed into FATA and the NWFP. In November 2007, al Queda launched its biggest operation ever in Pakistan’s Swat Valley where thousands of Taliban, Chechens, Uzbeks and Arab jihadists joined AQ to blowup police stations, drive out local administrators, burned down girls schools, forced thousands to flee the  fighting and shut down the Valley’s tourist economy. The Swat Valley offensive was followed by a wave of suicide bombings and assassination attempts against the military and leading Pakistani officials from Karachi to Rawalpindi to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The scale of the offensive and the damage done to Pakistan’s tottering economy has unsettled Pakistan’s government and illuminated the red lights in the Pentagon’s Situation Room.

 

Fully aware of the implications of Al Queda’s offensive, in October Obama said “We have to make the case that the biggest threat to Pakistan is not India which has been the historical enemy. It is actually militants within their borders. If we get them to refocus on that, that’s going to be critical for our success, not just in stabilizing Pakistan but also in finishing the job in Afghanistan.” Obama’s message to Pakistani Prime Minister Galani and President Zardari was clear; the days of diverting billions in U.S. aid to fund Pakistan’s military operations against India and supporting Kashmir extremists are over. If Pakistan wants the proposed new $15 billion aid package, it must start rooting out Taliban and al Queda forces within its borders and scale back support for Kashmiri terrorists. To undermine al Queda and the army’s support for Kashmiri adventurism, Obama is thinking seriously about appointing a special envoy to finally broker a border settlement between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.    

 

Despite his critics in the U.S. and Pakistan, Obama has refused to backtrack on his statement that if Pakistan doesn’t move on “actionable intelligence” to strike al Queda inside its borders, the United States will. In truth, Drone missile and U.S. helicopter gunship attacks on al Queda positions are increasing as the Bush presidency draws to a close. Should Pakistan’s Army and ISI continue to drag their feet on going after AQ and the Pakistani Taliban, Obama may be confronted with a game changing decision; whether to commit U.S. special forces in Pakistan. Even if bin Ladin is killed, al Queda is not going away. Committing ground forces with coordinated lethal air power may be the only option available to strike a decisive blow to al Queda and the Taliban. It could also ignite a wave of anti-U.S. outrage that threatens the political legitimacy of the Zardari-Galani government. While there are few good options in Pakistan, Al Queda’s operation in Pashtunistan must be shut down. 

 

On the other side of the border Obama’s first move will be carrying through on his campaign pledge to redeploy two U.S. brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan. His objective will be expelling Mullah Omar’s Taliban forces from Kandahar and the poppy rich Helmund Province in Southern Afghanistan that provides millions in narco-trafficking revenue to the insurgency. Obama and his new CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus are both leaning toward a military “surge first” policy that creates conditions for negotiations to bring “moderate Taliban” elements into the government. In October, Obama said “I think that after talking to our commanders on the ground and based on sound intelligence, if we can peel off some support from the hardcore militants that are aligned with Al Qaeda that will be beneficial.”

 

To make this strategy work, the U.S. must hit the Taliban hard enough militarily to separate the Taliban and Pashtun tribes that truly want to enter a coalition government with Karzai, from diehard Taliban forces determined to undermine the government. The Taliban’s strategy is not to militarily topple the Karzai regime, but to undermine it while extending their influence. By destroying infrastructure, burning down schools, attacking NGO’s and targeting Aghan police officers they seek to make it impossible for Karzai to govern.

 

Increasing U.S. troop strength to 43,000 soldiers on the ground along with 30,000 NATO forces will allow the U.S/NATO corps to replicate the Iraq strategy of clearing territory; holding ground and building stable protected areas with the support of Afghan people. Implementing the “clear, hold and build” strategy will be far more difficult than it was in Iraq. Afghanistan’s land mass is considerably more vast and the Taliban much stronger and better organized than Iraq’s fractured political forces. Karzai’s government only controls one-third of the country, with warlords, Northern Alliance forces, and Iran wielding tremendous influence in Herat and Western Afghanistan. 

 

The deployment of more U.S. troops and the “surge first” strategy will also send a strong message to Pakistan and others that the U.S. is making a long-term commitment to Afghanistan’s beleaguered government; a commitment the U.S. never made since its 2002 invasion. Karzai needs time and space to reign in the provincial warlords he’s allowed to run roughshod over the country. New estimates for rebuilding a credible the Afghan National Army and the Afghan Police Force has jumped from 65,000 to 200,000. And there are still the challenges of restoring basic services starting with water, electricity, schools and medical services.

 

Karzai has been widely discredited among Afghans as ineffective against tyrannical warlords, and an enabler of Afghanistan’s massive corruption. Karzai’s own brother has been linked to drug trafficking. Obama could have Karzai on a short leash. Presidential elections are coming in 2009 and Karzai may not survive if an attractive Pashtun leader emerges to challenge for office. 

 

The road forward in Afghanistan will be a long and difficult one that likely spans President Obama’s presidential term, even if re-elected. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, divided by many ethnic groups, warlords and foreign powers. The economic commitment necessary to overcome the effects of three decades of civil war is so large that U.S. and European leaders have yet to live up to their pledges made in of 2002. In the midst of the current global economic crisis, European largesse seems even less likely. The failure to defeat or co-opt the Taliban in Afghanistan will be a devastating blow to the effectiveness of NATO and the European Union, and would have serious repercussions for the future of global security.

 

General Petreaus, who is conducting a top-down review of CENTCOM operations in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, said last month that “The effort in Afghanistan is going to be the longest campaign of the long war.” Obama will do well to remember that. After all, he seeks to accomplish what Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Raj and the Soviets could not; subdue Afghanistan’s insurgency with foreign troops and impose a proxy government on Kabul.

  

 

 

 

 

2009: Obama’s Year of Living Dangerously in Iraq

 

 

Barak Obama Meets Nouri al Maliki

 

The Iraq War is over. Other than some occasional bombings and shoes thrown at President Bush in press conferences, the end game is coming to Iraq. The Pro-Iranian Shiite majority and the Kurds have won. After battling U.S. troops, the Shiia and Al Queda, the Sunni have lost. What is left is a partitioned Iraq held together by Nouri al Maliki’s weak federal government in Baghdad . If patience is one of Obama’s enduring attributes, he will need it in 2009. Things are going to get worse in Iraq before they get better.

 

There are three hurdles that Obama must clear to prevent a breakdown of Iraq’s fragile peace. To close out the war as promised, Barak Obama must navigate a tenuous Status of Forces agreement and pacify the Sunni while integrating them into the national army and Iraq ’s oil economy. But his first obstacle will be the outcome of the January provincial elections, which are going to increase tension and violence across the country.  

The Sunni will participate in greater numbers than the two previous national elections. But if they don’t secure sufficient political power to ensure their interests are met, the political chasm in Iraq will widen and the Sunni may return to violence to force another hearing of their grievances. Tension will also flare between the Sunni because “Awakening” candidates will contest and in some cases defeat powerful members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in Iraq now.  

 

In southern Iraq , Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq will face off. In the aftermath of the inter-Shiia war in Basra, friction between the two parties is sharpening over control of the national parliament. The radical nationalist Muqtada al Sadr’s forces will oppose both parties for signing the Status of Forces agreement which he claims surrenders Iraq’s sovereignty.

The provincial elections in Kurdistan have been postponed until an agreement is reached on the status of the oil rich city of Kirkuk; Iraq’s most volatile fault line. The Kurds insist that Kirkuk be incorporated into the Kurdistan ’s autonomous region and won’t take no for an answer. They shouldn’t. As the largest ethnic group in the world with no homeland, it’s time they be made whole. With Kirkuk integrated into Kurdistan, the oil revenue generated would not only power Erbil from autonomy to virtual independence, but shake up the region.  

 

In addition to the Sunni and local Turkomen , Iran , Saudi Arabia , Turkey and the U.S. will all oppose Kurdistan’s drive to bring Kirkuk into its fold. Violence is already being unleashed in Kirkuk and tension is running high. The Kirkuk referendum has been referred to the United Nations for reconciliation, but the day is coming when Kurdistan cannot be denied. At the end of the day the Shiia will likely side with the Kurds on Kirkuk, or risk fracturing the alliance they need to consolidate their grip on the rest of the country. 

 

Another flash point of contention will be incorporating the Sunni Awakening forces into the national army and police forces. Some 91,000 “Sons of Iraq” forces were on the United States payroll fighting al Queda–many of them were former Baathists. How much the Shiia majority chooses to integrate them into the army and national police force is a critical and touchy power sharing issue. If these Sunni soldiers are not integrated into the security forces, and instead are tossed into unemployment lines, it will be an open invitation for them to resume sectarian warfare, or worse—renew their alliance with remaining al Queda Iraq forces. Last month, the Iraqi government began paying the Awakening soldiers, but they must go further to fully integrate them into the national army and national police forces in the post-election period.  

 

If things go reasonably well after the elections Obama may have enough daylight to begin his 16 month troop withdrawal. Obama’s withdrawal timetable was not realistic when he made it and is even less realistic today; which explains why he has modified his position, saying all “combat” troops will be out of Iraq in 16 months. Iraq’s national army and police will not be prepared to take full control by July 2010—as evidenced by the Status of Forces (SOF) agreement that calls for U.S. forces to be out of Iraq ’s cities by June 2009 and out of Iraq completely by 2011.  

 

While the SOF has been approved by Iraq ’s parliament, it must still be approved in a June 2009 referendum; an awkward timetable considering all U.S. forces must be out of the cities in June 2009. Who is to say that the Iraqi mass will approve the SOF?  U.S. commanders in Iraq are already suggesting that not all their soldiers will be out of Iraq’s cities by June 2009, and that training forces may need to remain in the cities. For both Shiia and Sunni forces looking to undermine al Maliki, the public statements by U.S. commanders are damaging.

   

For Maliki who gave an ironclad promise that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq any longer than 2011, the pressure is on. As for Obama, many have speculated that the SOF has given him more breathing room to gage how safely and how fast they can redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating with each passing day. Much of the focus has been on how the Status of Forces agreement will impact security within Iraq and Obama’s withdrawal plan. But the long-range strategic implications of the SOF are enormous. Acceptance of the Status of Forces agreement means that a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq will no longer be a reality—a complete reversal Bush’s strategic plan that was predicated on a robust U.S. military presence to project power across the Middle East for years, if not decades to come. Nor will there be a credible counterweight in the Middle East with the strategic depth and proximity to counter Iran ’s growing dominance of the Persian Gulf . 

 

For 25 years Saddam Hussein kept the neighborhood safe for Sunni Arab monarchies and gulf sheikdoms, until he finally turned on them. With Saddam gone and the Shiia majority controlling the machinery of governance, Iran is slowly and methodically tightening its grip on Iraq. Iran has effectively annexed southern Iraq. Their proxies control Basra, the crown economic jewel of Iraq, where they are siphoning of millions of barrels of oil and revenue from the nation’s principal seaport. Iranian rials are the currency of commerce and choice in Southern Iraq. Having neutralized moderate Shiia clerics, including the Ayatollah Sistani, Iran controls the mosque and charities, and is slowly transferring the religious center of international Shiia from Najaf to Qom, Iran. Whether it takes five years or ten years, Iran will eventually dominate Iraq through its sophisticated system of indirect proxy rule that was perfected in Lebanon with the Hezbolla over a 20 year period. Bush’s strategic blunder in Iraq is a national security setback in the region for the United States. Iraq is now in the orbit of Iran’s expanding sphere of influence. At best, Obama’s can limit the damage by getting out of Iraq in good order and moving on to Afghanistan where events are growing even more complicated.

  

Wars, like life, have uncertain outcomes. While there is a good chance that Barak Obama can affect an orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq without the country spiraling into chaos, there is also much that could go wrong. Ironically, it is Iran that is best positioned to help Obama keep the peace in Iraq . For the cautious Obama it’s highly unlikely he will act on this fundamental reality. For that reason, 2009 will be Obama’s year of living dangerously in Iraq .       

Obama’s India Policy and the China Factor

 

Prime Minister Singh and President Khazi Meeting in Kabul January 2009

As the world’s largest democracy, economic behemoth and nuclear power, India’s continued emergence as a bulwark of stability in Southeast Asia is pivotal to Barak Obama’s foreign policy portfolio. Since George Bush brokered the U.S.-India nuclear agreement in 2006, the U.S has decisively tilted toward an expanded strategic relationship with New Delhi over Pakistan. Vital to America’s containment strategy of China and serving as an integrating force for Asia’s bulging regional economies, India’s stability is paramount to the U.S. and the west. When Barak Obama takes the Oval Office, ratcheting down the long arc of tension between India and Pakistan and preventing any destabilizing chaos caused by insurgencies, civil war and terrorism emanating from Afghanistan, Nepal and Bengladesh will be core to his strategy of maintaining India’s viability as a major power.  

India’s challenges as an emerging global power are formidable and complex. With one billion people speaking 22 official languages in 1,656 dialects, India’s democracy is rent with tension between its Hindu majority and numerous ethnic groups. India’s 130 million Muslims constitutes the second largest Muslim population of any country in the world and makes India an inviting target for Muslim extremists and Salafists. In 2007, over 1000 deaths were attributed to terrorists attacks as India has the 4^th highest terrorist related death rate internationally.

 The siege of Mumbai by extremists with Pakistani ties nearly provoked an Indo-Pakistani confrontation and caused outrage among the Indian people at its government’s failure to prevent the attack. The attacks underscored how India’s combustible domestic and regional issues can lead to dangerous confrontations with its volatile neighbors. Add to the equation an internal Naxalbite insurgency in 13 provinces, a civil war in neighboring Sri Lanka that has inflamed its own Tamil population for three decades and sporadic Sikh breakaway movements  that have prompted deadly violence in Northwest India and Afghanistan, and you have a recipe for domestic turmoil.   

As a reliable U.S. ally in a region where America has few friends, Obama’s relationship with India will begin with a strong foundation. India voted for U.N. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program at the risk of jeopardizing its pending 25 year multi-billon dollar proposal to secure oil from Tehran. India also launched an Israeli over-watch satellite to monitor Iranian nuclear development activities. New Delhi has contributed more peacekeeping troops to international hotspots than any other nation, and grants American access to its naval ports that are critical to patrolling strategic waterways in the Indian Ocean. In 2005, India and the U.S. signed a 10-year defense agreement  that ex­panded joint military exercises, increased defense-related trade and established a defense procurement group. The U.S. and India have conducted more than 50 military exer­cises since 2002, demonstrating how far the mili­tary partnership has progressed in a relatively short period.

 

Ironically, if not tragically India’s 911 moment in Mumbai could be the most important development since the 2006 nuclear agreement that will cement U.S.-Indian relations. When pressed on India’s right to strike Pakistan after Mumbai, Obama said “every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself.” Fortunately, India’s decision not to seek retribution against Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks marked a major step forward in its ascendency as a responsible power. An attack on Pakistan may have satisfied domestic calls for revenge but almost certainly would have led to armed clashes with Islamabad and possibly dragged other nations and non-state actors like al Queda into a regional conflagration.

 

However, India is stepping up its profile in Afghanistan and its virtual proxy war with Pakistan. Increasingly both countries view Afghanistan as part of its own security perimeter and India is determined to prevent a full blown Taliban resurgence. Indian embassies are up and running in Afghanistan. India is also creating stronger alliances with Kharzi and Northern Alliance forces and stirring the waters of Baluchistan resistance against Islamabad. On January 13, Khazi and Prime Minister Singh signed a joint letter urging Pakistan to stop its support of terrorist groups. India must tread carefully in Afghanistan, as many in Pakistan already subscribe to the notion that the U.S. and India are conspiring to encircle Pakistan and carve it up into small principalities.  

 

Obama has expressed his clear support for strengthening America’s relationship with India. He has stated without reservation that Pakistan’s main threat is not India; but the growing Taliban/al Queda axis spreading in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Kashmiri terrorists. In his September 23 letter to Indian Prime Minister Singh, then Presidential candidate Obama voiced strong support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and called for redoubling U.S.-Indian military, intelligence and law enforcement cooperation. But Obama has also made some initial missteps with India. 

Although India shares strategic interests with the United States, the Obama administration must recognize that India has its own universe of national security considerations. Kashmir is a case in point. Obama’s suggestion that he would appoint a special envoy to help resolve the Kashmir border dispute with Pakistan was well intentioned, but not well received in New Delhi. India’s government balked at the notion of an special envoy, saying Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. On November 15, Obama dispatched the new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry to New Delhi to acknowledge that Obama had no intention of interfering in the Kashmir issue. India is open to a political settlement but is not ready to give up territory in Kashmir or surrender its independence of action. India was also alarmed at statements Obama made during his campaign that America outsourced too many jobs to India. After the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Obama and Prime Singh’s telephone conversation seems to have eased some of New Delhi’s  apprehension. 

 

Similarly, although India voted for sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush administration attempted to bully New Delhi to revoke its oil deal with Tehran. But strongarming India didn’t prevent the Chinese from underbidding India for global oil contracts, and the U.S. isn’t providing oil to heat homes in Bangalore and New Delhi. Obama will have to be prepared to accept similar tradeoffs with India, especially concerning its relationship with China. 

 

Despite its four wars and nuclear standoffs with Pakistan since the 1947 partition, it is India’s contentious relationship with China that has enormous global implications. China is Pakistan’s most  powerful ally and sponsored its drive to go nuclear. The two countries with world’s largest populations are engaged in a heated rivalry for energy resources, economic markets in Southeast Asia, and military advantage across continental Asia. India and America are both peacefully engaged with China, but both countries are troubled by China growing military strength. Neither India nor America wants Asia to be dominated by a single country. Indeed it’s hard to imagine a peaceful Asia in which there is not cooperation between India, the United States and China.

 

India’s $40 billion trade package with China is a promising sign of cooperation between the two economic titans, but the list of explosive issues between Beijing and New Delhi is long. Movement toward a settlement of its 1,300 mile border dispute with China has slowed to a crawl. In the meantime China’s military has breeched the border of the Indian states of Sikkim and Arunchal Pradesh on several occasions. China has also been busy developing strategic naval and trade port facilities in Sittwe, Burma; Chittatong, Bangladesh; Hambantota, Sri Lanka and its new port in Gwadar, Pakistan. Connect the dots and China’s aggressive agenda has the look and feel of a military encirclement campaign, rather than protecting sea lanes and ensuring the delivery of energy supplies as China contends.  

 

For Barak Obama, monitoring developments between India and China will be important. The U.S. must avoid putting New Delhi in any awkward situation in which it appears that India is being pitted against China for the benefit of the United States strategic interest. The U.S. must find creative ways to support India, not intervene on its behalf. India will balk at such moves and China will react with hostility. The more India and China broaden their ongoing diplomatic talks and the U.S. engages Beijing, the greater the chances that flashpoints of conflict can be peacefully resolved.   

By continuing to help India integrate its economy with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the smaller Southeast Asian nations, the United States can greatly assist in promoting stability in the Pacific Rim. With the development of India’s civil nuclear power program and working jointly on environmental issues, America and India can build a very special relationship between the largest democracies in the Western and Eastern hemispheres. India’s road ahead will be filled with twist and turns, and the avoidance of open conflict between Pakistan or China is indispensible to India’s ascent. The fact that India has come so far in building democracy in the world’s most diverse society is part of the new story of the 21^st Century. A smart, nimble and patient American foreign policy toward India under the Obama Administration can truly help change the face of the Asian continent.    

President Obama’s Foreign Policy Platform

Iran

The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama and Biden believe that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That’s why Obama stood up to the Bush administration’s warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq .

Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran . Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran . Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Renewing American Diplomacy

The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don’t like. Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea ’s nuclear programs.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. They will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa . They will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. They will help the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.

Strengthen NATO: Obama and Biden will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.

Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama and Biden will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea . They will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.

Nuclear Weapons

A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials: He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And while others have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it’s to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.

Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. Butthey will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Bipartisanship and Openness

The Problem: Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama and Biden strongly believe that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.

A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo .

Consultative Group: Obama and Biden will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.

Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.

Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush’s policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.

Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. They will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.

On Israel

Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel , America ’s strongest ally in the Middle East . They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel .

Support Israel’s Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria’s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel ’s right to protect its citizens.

Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel . They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

Meeting the Challenge of a Resurgent Russia

The Problem: Russia ’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 has created a serious new security challenge for the United States and our partners in Europe . In contrast to the Bush Administration’s erratic policy of embracing Vladimir Putin but neglecting U.S.-Russian relations, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will address the challenge posed by an increasingly autocratic and bellicose Russia by pursuing a new, comprehensive strategy that advances American national interests without compromising our enduring principles.

A Comprehensive Strategy: Russia today is not the Soviet Union , and we are not returning to the Cold War. Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge will not advance American national interests. Instead, Obama and Biden will address the new challenges Russia poses by pursuing an integrated and vigorous strategy that encompasses the entire region. The core components of this strategy include:

Supporting democratic partners and upholding principles of sovereignty throughout Europe and Eurasia while working proactively to gauge effectively the intentions of actors in the region, and address tensions between countries before they escalate into military confrontations;

Strengthening the Transatlantic alliance, so that we deal with Russia with one, unified voice;

Helping to decrease the dependence of our allies and partners in the region on Russian energy;

Engaging directly with the Russian government on issues of mutual interest, such as countering nuclear proliferation, reducing our nuclear arsenals, expanding trade and investment opportunities, and fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban; and also reaching out directly to the Russian people to promote our common values; and,

Keeping the door open to fuller integration into the global system for all states in the region, including Russia , that demonstrates a commitment to act as responsible, law-abiding members of the international community.

On Africa

Obama’s Record: As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack Obama has fought to focus America’s attention on the challenges facing Africa – stopping the genocide in Darfur, passing legislation to promote stability in the Congo and to bring a war criminal to justice in Liberia, mobilizing international pressure for a just government in Zimbabwe, fighting corruption in Kenya, demanding honesty on HIV/AIDS in South Africa, developing a coherent strategy for stabilizing Somalia, and travelling across the continent raising awareness for these critical issues. He has also increased America ’s focus on the long term challenges of education, poverty reduction, disease, strengthening democratic institutions and spurring sustainable economic development in Africa .

Stop the Genocide in Darfur: As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force. He and Joe Biden will hold the government in Khartoum accountable for abiding by its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30 year conflict between the north and south. Obama worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006.

Fight Poverty: Obama and Joe Biden will double our annual investment in foreign assistance from $25 billion in 2008 to $50 billion by the end of his first term and make the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, America ’s goals. They will fully fund debt cancellation for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries in order to provide sustainable debt relief and invest at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including our fair share of the Global Fund.

Expand Prosperity: Obama and Biden will expand prosperity by establishing an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative, creating a fund that will extend seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises, and reforming the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They will launch the Global Energy and Environment Initiative to ensure African countries have access to low carbon energy technology and can profitably participate in the new global carbon market so as to ensure solid economic development even while the world dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions. They will also strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African producers can access the U.S. market and will encourage more American companies to invest on the continent.

On Latin America & the Caribbean

The Problem: George Bush’s policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in people’s lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region. As the Americas have changed, we have sat on the sideline, offering no compelling vision and creating a vacuum for demagogues to advance an anti-American agenda.

Start a New Chapter of Engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean: Obama and Biden will rebuild diplomatic links throughout the hemisphere through aggressive, principled, and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. He will bolster U.S. interests in the region by pursuing policies that advance democracy, opportunity, and security and will treat our hemispheric partners and neighbors with dignity and respect.

Promote Democracy in Cuba and Throughout the Hemisphere: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support democracy that is strong and sustainable in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas . In the case of Cuba , they will empower our best ambassadors of freedom by allowing unlimited Cuban-American family travel and remittances to the island. Using aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy he will also send an important message: if a post-Fidel government takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with freeing all political prisoners, the U.S. is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. Throughout the hemisphere, Obama and Biden will increase support for the building blocks of durable democracies—strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law.

Work Towards Energy Security: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas to forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy. They will call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go to the region and beyond to help develop clean energy solutions.

Advance Opportunity from the Bottom-up: Obama and Biden will substantially increase our aid to the Americas and embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.

Trade Policy That Works for All People in All Countries: Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security and will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.

Advance Security Across the Region: Obama and Biden believe that we need to target all sources of insecurity through a new hemispheric security initiative. This initiative will foster cooperation within the region to combat gangs, trafficking and violent criminal activity. It will strive to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to tailor approaches to fit each country.

ISRAEL’S GAZA INVASION AND OBAMA’S ONE AND ONE-HALF STATE SOLUTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip and its drive to inflict defeat on HAMAS came as no surprise to the incoming Obama administration. After extensive preparation the offensive launched during George Bush’s final days is calculated to give Israel a one month window to decapitate HAMAS and destroy enough of its military infrastructure to change the political facts on the ground. What comes next is a new interim strategy; the One and One-Half State Solution.

Once Israel has visited as much destruction as possible in Gaza over the next two weeks, Israel’s next prime minister, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and soon-to-be President Obama will proceed to craft incremental agreements. Substantial resources will be committed to rebuild the West Bank, while the war torn Gaza Strip is left economically and politically isolated. In other words, the failed Two-State Solution will devolve into a de-facto One and One-Half State Solution until such time as Gaza is subdued and purged of its extremist efforts.

If this new strategic turn sounds highly unlikely, its far more feasible than the prospects of Abbas and Al Fatah reconciling their differences with HAMAS. HAMAS’s shocking electoral victory over Al Fatah in 2005, and smashing Al Fatah in the Gaza Civil War in 2007 has left more bad blood on the floor than can be overcome in the short run. Nor is reconciliation on Abbas’s agenda. Israel’s strike to neutralize  HAMAS’s leadership and degrade its growing military capability was designed to elevate Al Fatah to the only legitimate internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people. Thus the stage is set to engineer new talks favorable to Israel and Abbas that will rise to the top of Obama’s crowded foreign policy agenda when he takes office.

In the short run calls from the European Union, the United Nations and the broader international community for a cease fire will fall on deaf ears. Israel’s air and ground war will likely continue up to Obama’s inauguration, or until international pressure for a cease fire outweighs the military value of completing the mission. Tel Aviv’s phantom goal of eliminating HAMAS’s capacity to launch rockets into Israel is a thinly veiled justification for an open-ended invasion and occupation of Gaza.
Predictably the invasion was backed by U.S. Secretary of State Rice with a familiar refrain that the U.S. wants a cease fire, but cannot support a return to the “status quo ante.” Under the slogan of searching for a “durable peace” the U.S. will stand by Israel until the job is done.

In a repeat performance of Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, the Sunni-led Arab regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf States are all supporting Israel’s actions in the hope that HAMAS will be severely crippled or defeated. HAMAS’s downsizing will relieve the Arab kings and sultans of the burden of hypocritically supporting HAMAS’s anti-Israel and anti-U.S. leadership backed by Shiia-led Iran and enjoying support on the Arab street.

It is not insignificant that today the three most popular leaders in the Sunni majority Middle East are Shiia Muslims (Nasrallah-Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader, Syrian President Bashir Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad). More importantly, the Sunni Arab monarchs want to see Iran’s support and strength diminished by the defeat of HAMAS which secures funds, arms and political support from Tehran. Iran and Shiia Islam’s influence that is metastasizing across the Middle East is a direct threat to the Sunni monarch’s authoritarian rule. Another important component of the invasion strategy to reduce Iran’s profile is to demonstrate to Syria that its best interests would be served by jettisoning Iran and joining Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Quartet’s new peace born-of-war solution. For Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have invested a great deal in promoting their own Israeli-Palestinian peace plans and cease fire agreements, HAMAS’s defeat is critical to stopping Iran’s momentum.

Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah have resisted attempts to be drawn into the conflict. While condemning the invasion Hezbollah will not unleash its own rocket attacks against northern Israel unless HAMAS is in jeopardy of being totally wiped out. Hezbollah’s priority is consolidating its political gains from the 2006 victory against Israel and preparing to win the parliamentary majority in Lebanon’s upcoming elections.

Despite the military setbacks HAMAS will suffer, it will survive and rebuild its strength in Gaza. Iran and HAMAS are looking to the long run and are confident that its Al Fatah rivals will lose support over time for its complicity with Israel and the U.S. in supporting the invasion. Iran will bide its time and settle for being the beneficiary of heightened anti-U.S. sentiments that continue to deepen across the Middle East. In the West Bank, al Fatah is attempting to suppress mass demonstrations by Palestinians supporting HAMAS and Abbas has even blamed HAMAS for starting the conflict, as if who shot first is the essential question at hand.

In the final analysis there is not going to be a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace until there are peacemakers and peacekeepers on both sides of the conflict. Between the Israelis, Al Fatah and HAMAS, the invasion places the prospects for peace even further in the distant future. That is precisely why the quest for reconciliation between HAMAS and Al Fatah has been abandoned by the U.S., Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

So what will the new Obama administration do?  The conflict has forced Obama’s hand. He cannot retreat or put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the back burner. Nor is it guaranteed that a cease fire will occur. Wars have uncertain outcomes, and the West Bank could erupt even if Hezbollah keeps its powder dry in Lebanon. Moreover, Obama has two wars to prosecute in Afghanistan and Iraq that are far more strategic to the U.S. and its allies. The Persian Gulf is still the critical ground zero of the Middle East, and its oil is the lubricant powering a tottering world economy that cannot withstand another short-term energy jolt.

With no prospects of a comprehensive peace in the Levant, Obama will have to go slow and embrace the concept of extracting whatever short term concessions he can out of the situation. The de-facto One and One-Half State Solution will likely be his best option. Obama and the Europeans could pursue a soft strategy of building agreements short of changing any of the base terms of the Roadmap. Massive injections of capital and economic development projects in the West Bank will be critical to pacifying West Bank Palestinians and doing what hasn’t been done; improving their daily lives. They are tired of empty talk, promises, and peace plans that yield more violence and suffering.

Israel would have to agree to stop construction of its settlements in the West Bank and roll back some of its roadblocks and checkpoints. Abbas and the new incoming Israeli Prime Minister (most likely Netanyahu) would agree to a cease fire in the West Bank. Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis would need to invest in the West Bank development initiative with substantial support from international NGO’s to monitor the Palestinian Authority administration of finances and development projects. A small international peace keeping force may also be inserted in the West Bank. In short, the goal would be to economically and politically isolate Gaza and HAMAS, but not militarily attack HAMAS. Presumably, Israel’s invasion would reduce HAMAS’s capacity and appetite for conflict. Palestinians would therefore have two distinct paths to choose from; a potentially prosperous and peaceful West Bank or a struggling and chaotic Gaza.

The One and One-Half State solution is a roll of the dice, but it is a chance to try something new to  produce tangible progress in the West Bank instead of more non-productive peace talks. It is a dangerous initiative that would require patience to endure the blow back that will come from turning Gaza into an island of desolation for an undetermined time. If Obama is lucky, HAMAS’s may actually be forced  concentrate on rebuilding GAZA and defer on launching rockets into southern Israel.  The struggle in the Levant is moving to another level. Condoleezza Rice was correct when she said there can be no return to the “status quo ante.” Going backwards is not an option or possibility. The question is whether developments move in the direction of peace and stability or towards a deepening of the crisis. The hour for all sides to cast off unrealistic dreams committed to paper in far away places like Oslo is at hand.

AHMADINEJAD’S DEFEAT MAY BE OBAMA’S CHANCE

Mr. Qalibaf – Mayor of Tehran Could be Iran’s Next President

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is defeated in Iran ’s 2009 presidential elections, Barak Obama may have the best opportunity to recast U.S.-Iranian relations of any American leader since the 1979 Khomenei-led revolution. Despite Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s dominion over economic, military and judicial matters, and dissenting candidates nullification from seeking office by the Guardian Council, Iran ’s elections still matter. That’s why Ahmadinejad will be cast aside in 2009. Iran needs to reassure its people that its flagging economy will be repaired. Iran ’s leadership establishment may also use the elections to float a trial balloon signaling its willingness to explore a broader conversation with the United States on regional issues and its nuclear program.

The excitement in Iran surrounding Obama’s election and his campaign pledge to engage in talks with no pre-conditions has faded. Obama’s vow to use “more persuasive” carrots and sticks, or force if necessary to nudge Iran off its nuclear path, were condemned by Iran’s leaders as more of the same Bush polices. After nominating the conspicuously pro-Israel Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State , Iran ’s clerical and state ministry leaders concluded that Obama’s posture toward Tehran has calcified with diminishing prospects for change; at least until the June elections.

Leaving aside the incessant rhetoric characterizing Iran as a rouge state led by medieval mullahs, Tehran has transformed itself from Khomenei’s chaotic Islamic state into a classic regional hegemonic power. As a largely symbolic leader, Ahmadinejad embodies a confrontational response to the Bush administration’s aggressive regime change agenda. Whether he can serve as an effective spokesman for the newer imperatives of consolidating Iran ’s emerging power bases in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria , Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is the subject of debate raging inside Iran ’s ruling circles.

Four names continue to surface as possible presidential candidates in 2009; Parliament speaker and former chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, former President Mohammad Khatami, Expediency Council leader Hashemi Rafsanjani and Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. Ironically, Ahmadinejad beat three of the four potential candidates in the 2005 elections and Khatami has already served as President. Iranian conservatives and pragmatists working for Ahmadinejads defeat are reluctant to consider new blood, but they are moving to close ranks behind an anti-Ahmadinejad unity candidate. The stakes are too high to risk another 2005 surprise election that elevated Ahmadinejad from relative anonymity to the presidency. If the consensus candidate is not former President Khatami, Iran ’s new president could well be Baqer Qalibaf, the up-and- coming mayor of Tehran .

According to the Iranian blogger Zamin, Qalibaf has “spent the last few years remaking himself into a hardworking and successful mayor of Iran ’s most important city. He has been quietly working on development projects in Tehran and building political bridges with Iranian and foreign leaders. This year he traveled to Iraq and met with Ayatollah Sistani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and the mayor of Baghdad whom he pledged to help rebuild the Iraqi capital city. Qalibaf has positioned himself as a moderate who favors diplomacy and pragmatism over rhetoric and saber-rattling. He has a distinguished background in both the Basij and Revolutionary Guards (he retired as a Major-General), earned a Ph.D. in political science, and was Chief of Police for Tehran .”

Qalibaf, is a compelling candidate, but it is circumstances on the ground in Iran that are moving the Persian street against Ahmadinejad. With a 25% inflation rate, 20% unemployment and oil prices that declined $100 a barrel since June, Ahmadinejad’s reformists and conservative opponents are attacking his failed economic policies and broken promises to end corruption and spread Iran ’s oil wealth to its poorest citizens. Quite the opposite his subsidy programs have fueled rampant inflation. Petrol rationing, power blackouts, water shortages and limited access to investment capital is squeezing Iran ’s economy. Even Iran ’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, publicly counseled Ahmadinejad in April to “pay attention to inflation.” When Ahmadinejad blamed his critic’s failed nuclear negotiations with Europe for the harsh economic sanctions imposed on Iran , Larijani countered that Ahmadinejad was too pro-U.S. for considering the opening of a U.S. Interest Section in Tehran . In domestic and foreign policy, these instances illustrate the difficulties hard line conservatives are having uniting behind Ahmadinejad’s United Principalist Front.

While speculation intensifies about who will be Iran ’s next president, the emerging consensus across the political spectrum regarding Tehran ’s expanding regional role in the Middle East is of greater significance to the incoming Obama administration. Iran wants America to acknowledge its sphere of influence in Iraq . The clerics and power ministry leaders also want a cessation of U.S. support for the Jundalla, the Mujahidin-eKhalq and PEJAK anti-Iranian forces operating inside its borders. Iran wants to be treated as an equal and indispensible player on energy issues in the Persian Gulf and better prices for its oil. Iran also wants fairness and greater access to opportunity for Shiia minority communities across the Middle East .

These issues are negotiable and could form the basis for start-up talks between Iran ’s new president and the Obama administration, either separate from the nuclear issue or on a two-track approach. On the other hand, Obama may continue the Bush policy of no direct talks until Iran halts all work on its enrichment program. It is a policy Iran will never agree to; a policy that will allow Iran to continue its enrichment activity with no verification process; a policy that can only increase the possibility of U.S. / Israel air strikes against Iran without eliminating Iran ’s nuclear program. It is a policy Obama should abandon in favor of direct negotiations.

For Barak Obama, who said that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, time is running out and so are his options. Iran will master the enrichment process to make a nuclear weapon during his first term of office. The elections in June 2009 may present Obama with his first big chance to alter the trajectory of U.S. Iran relations that are headed for a collision. He should take it.

Welcome to the Brooks Foreign Policy Review

                                                                                                             

Welcome to the Brooks Foreign Policy Review. BFPR  is the foreign policy blog of the Center for New Politics and Policy at the University of Denver. Senior Fellow Webster Brooks III is the Editor of BFPR webpage. The Review provides news and analysis of weekly international developments.  Our pages are open to all web journalists and bloggers interesed in submitting news stories and analysis and commentary. Send E-mail submissions to wbrooks@newpolicycenter.org . We look forward  to hearing from you.