By Barry Rubin

While America’s secretary of state devotes her time to doomed Israel-Palestinian talks and America goes ga-ga over a candidate whose main foreign policy strategy is to talk to dictators, still another crisis strengthens radical Islamists and endangers Western friends and interests.

William Butler Yeats said it best: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere, The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst, Are full of passionate intensity.”

(more…)

by Michael Rubin*

As Iraqis marked five years since Baghdad’s fall on April 9, Democrats — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — grilled Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Before the testimony, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker to avoid undue optimism: “We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there [in Iraq], not put a shine on events.”

Among Democrats, it is conventional wisdom that the Bush administration rushed to war, botched planning and ignored dissent. “Whether out of hubris or incompetence,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explained, “the president and his men willfully ignored the experts and sent our troops to battle unprepared for the consequences.”

(more…)

A briefing by David Wurmser, Summary account by Mimi Stillman*

Mr. Wurmser calls Lebanon a “key battleground between the West as a whole and the forces that seek to drag the Middle East down.” The situation in Lebanon must be viewed in the context of the larger conflict in the region, which is becoming far more dangerous. Two years after the Cedar Revolution in March 2005, which was brought on by the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese are still living through a tragedy. The inability to install a new president today is indicative of the situation. It is because of the size and success of the popular demonstrations by the Lebanese, however, that Lebanon has become the focal point of the enemies of the West, namely Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

(more…)

by Michael Rubin*

While the United States has focused its attention on Iranian activities in the greater Middle East, Iran has worked assiduously to expand its influence in Latin America and Africa. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s outreach in both areas has been deliberate and generously funded. He has made significant strides in Latin America, helping to embolden the anti-American bloc of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. In Africa, he is forging strong ties as well. The United States ignores these developments at its peril, and efforts need to be undertaken to reverse Iran’s recent gains.

(more…)

by Jonathan Schanzer*

From the Egyptian border breach to indiscriminate rocket fire at Israel, the Gaza Strip currently poses serious threats to regional security. The Hamas terrorist organization controls this territory because it defeated the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in a six-day Palestinian civil war in June 2007. But a cursory review of history shows that the Hamas-PLO rivalry has been brewing since 1988, when Hamas first emerged on the scene. Despite clear signs of impending conflict, nearly every professor of Middle Eastern studies in America failed to see it coming.

Why did so few experts write about the internecine Palestinian war? Hundreds of Arabic-speaking professors and researchers have trekked through the West Bank and Gaza over the years, funded by U.S. research dollars.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

The U.S. presidential election is not–at least not supposed to be–like electing a high school class president. Vague promises, glib speeches, and personal popularity shouldn’t be enough to gain victory. This should be especially true this year since so many Americans don’t seem to think they did such a great job of choosing the last time they voted.

All these points go double and more for the Middle East, an area too dangerous and important to deal with lightly. Yet since these debates are so highly partisan there has been a huge amount of distortion and self-interested blather on all sides.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

In a sense, no country has tried harder to get out of the Middle East than Turkey–by way of achieving membership in the European Union–yet Turkey does have an important role to play in the region. At the same time, though, this situation is complicated by divergences over Turkey’s identity, interests, and internal politics.

(more…)

Who said Sarkozy isn’t taking France in new directions? From Pajamas Media:

Looks like France is finally sending troops to the Gulf, just not in the way you might have expected. Currently on a tour of the Middle East, President Nicolas Sarkozy has signed a deal with the United Arab Emirates to establish the first French military base in the region – indeed, the only foreign military base in Arabia that does not belong to the US.

At first sight this seems like an odd move, particularly to Americans (and Brits) weaned on sniggering tales of French military disaster and tanks with one forward and five reverse gears, and who still chuckle at the timeless simile that going to war without France is “like going duck hunting without your accordion”. What on earth has possessed the new French President to go committing troops to the Persian Gulf at a time when tensions in the region are rising? Doesn’t he realize that they might actually one day have to, y’know, fight? …

(more…)

by William Wunderle and Andre Briere*

Every president since Lyndon Johnson has reiterated the U.S. commitment to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME). The principle behind this commitment is simple: Israel is a bastion of liberal, representative government in the Middle East and, as such, its survival is a vital U.S. national interest.[1] To ensure the continued existence of this longtime U.S. ally in a sea of countries that reflexively call for its destruction, Israel must be able to defend itself militarily and deter aggression. While a coalition of Arab states can always outnumber Israeli forces in terms of troops, artillery, tanks, and combat aircraft,[2] the United States can assure its survival if Israel is able to maintain qualitative military superiority, relying on more advanced weaponry, training, leadership, and tactics to deter or defeat its adversaries in the Middle East. But while maintenance of Israel’s QME continues to be in the U.S. strategic interest, the shifting political and military dynamics in the Middle East demand a clearer definition of QME and mutual agreement between Washington and Jerusalem about how that QME can and should be maintained.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

What should President George W. Bush, currently visiting the Middle East, expect to achieve during his last year in office, even as the American people begin to choose his successor?

The answer could not possibly objectively clearer and subjectively more obscure. The gap between the real Middle East and how it is perceived by all too many people in Washington and in the academic-journalistic elite is far too wide.

Three quick examples are useful to underline this point. First, the Annapolis summit was widely hailed throughout America and the West as a big success, even by Bush’s biggest enemies. (That means, of course, it achieved the main goal, which was not primarily about the Middle East itself.) In the region, however, less than one-fifth of Israelis and Palestinians thought it had done any good. People in the region knew better.

(more…)

by Michael Rubin*

On a strictly emotional level, U.S. support for Iraqi Kurdistan makes sense.¹ In the wake of World War I, the Kurds missed their opportunity for statehood when other peoples gained their independence. Today, they remain the largest ethnic group without a country. They have suffered greatly at the hands of others. But while Iraqi Kurdistan has come far, the unreliability of its leadership makes any long-term U.S.-Kurdish alliance unwise. Rather than become a beacon for democracy, the current Iraqi Kurdish leadership appears intent on replicating more autocratic models. Rather than become a regional Nelson Mandela, Iraqi Kurdish president Masud Barzani now charts a course to become a new Yasser Arafat. Despite lofty rhetoric about its suitability as an ally, Iraqi Kurdistan’s actions suggest that it is far from trustworthy.

(more…)

by P. R. Kumaraswamy*

As the U.S.-Iranian dispute escalates, both Washington and Tehran seek friends and allies. New Delhi is caught in the middle. While the U.S.-Indian partnership has grown closer in recent years, New Delhi’s approach toward Iran’s suspected nuclear program causes concern in Washington. Overshadowing the debate is India’s own nuclear program. With the July 2005 U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear deal yet to win U.S. Senate ratification, is India seeking to strengthen its energy security through Iran? Or is New Delhi pursuing the civilian nuclear deal without being sensitive to Washington’s concerns vis-à-vis Iran?

(more…)

By Kamal Nawash

While there is no conclusive answer to who killed former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto. So far the only claim of responsibility has come from an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, who posted the assertion on an Italian web site. Al Qaeda posted the following message: “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahideen (holy warriors).”

Bhutto was an outspoken critic of Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups. Consequently, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups hated her for her rhetoric, for supporting secularism and for being a woman.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

While 2007 didn’t greatly change the Middle East compared to some of its predecessors, here are some of its significant trends which will continue to dominate the year to come.

1. Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. This is the most important single Middle East event of 2007 because it is a clear, probably irreversible, shift in the balance of power. Four decades of a movement dominated by nationalists has come to an end. Given Fatah’s continuing weaknesses it is conceivable that Hamas will take over the West Bank within a few years and marginalize its rival. To Islamists, this is a great victory. In fact, it is a disaster for Palestinians and Arabs. It deepens divisions and destroys any real (as opposed to the silly superficial events that take up governments’ time and media space) diplomatic option for them. A negotiated resolution of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it prospects for a Palestinian state, has been set back for decades. Much Western sympathy has been lost. In years to come, struggles between Arab nationalists and Islamists, as well as between Sunnis and Shias, will dwarf the Arab-Israeli conflict. During 2008 we will have to assess whether the Palestinian Authority still ruling the West Bank can meet the Hamas challenge. (We already know it won’t meet the diplomatic challenge but it will take all year for most Western politicians and much of the media to discover that.)

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

Let’s say you rule an Arab state in the Persian Gulf–Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or the United Arab Emirates. How does the world look to you right now?

Remember, of course, that what you think is not necessarily what you say. Unfortunately, there are many Western observers who don’t seem to understand this simple point. Publicly, Gulf leaders complain about the United States and the alleged Israeli threat, flaunting their dedication to the Arab cause, passionate commitment to the Palestinians, and beliefs in Muslim solidarity even toward neighboring Iran.

Privately, it’s something altogether different.

(more…)