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…)

by Daniel Pipes*

With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” a consensus has emerged that war with Iran “now appears to be off the agenda.” Indeed, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a “fatal blow” to the country’s enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a “great victory.”

I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.

(more…)

by Daniel Pipes*

“Far from being the source of anti-Americanism in Turkey, the AKP represents an ideal partner for the United States in the region.” So asserts Joshua W. Walker, a former Turkey desk officer at the State Department now studying at Princ­eton University, referring to the Justice and Development Party (known as the AKP). Writing in The Washington Quarterly, Walker supports his thesis by noting the constructive Turkish role in Iraq, praising “how carefully the AKP has guarded the [U.S.] alliance and tried to work with the Bush administration, partic­ularly when compared to other European nations.”

(more…)

By Ted Belman, Israpundit

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” Pres Bush said after 9/11. He went on to identify N. Korea, Iran and Iraq, the “axis of evil” and to declare the “war on terror”. The last thing he wanted to do was to identify the enemy. N. Korea was included in the list for fear that someone might think, G-d forbid, that Moslems were the enemy or that Islam was the enemy just as Communists and Communism were during the cold war.

It’s not that he didn’t know who the enemy was. After all, 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis who were inspired by Saudi supported Wahabbism. Its not that he viewed the use of terror as the enemy because the US had created al Qaeda to use terror to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. It is not that this was the first time that the US was attacked by Arabs or Muslims starting with the Islamic revolution in Iran and the hostage taking of US diplomats.

Angelo Codeville, a professor of international relations at Boston University, wondered and wrote a startling article in the Fall of ‘02, Post Mortem to a Phony War. If you missed this article, don’t miss it now. It’s a classic. Read it here.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

What would you do if your foreign policy agenda had these priorities:

• Get Arab and European support for solving the Iraq crisis.
• Mobilize Arab and European forces against a threat led by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.
• Get Iran to stop its campaign to get nuclear weapons.
• Reestablish American credibility toward friends and deterrence toward enemies.
• Reduce the level of Israel-Palestinian conflict.

That pretty much describes the U.S. framework for dealing with the Middle East nowadays. The Annapolis conference is not going to contribute to these goals. The most likely outcome is either failure or a non-event portrayed as a victory because it took place at all. No one is going to say: We are so grateful at the United States becoming more active on Arab-Israeli issues that we are going to back its policy on other issues.

(more…)

by Michael Rubin*

On Oct. 17, President Bush raised the specter of war with Iran. “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III,” he said, it’s necessary to deny the Islamic Republic “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Condemnation of his comments was swift. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) accused the President’s of using “rhetorical ghosts and goblins to scare the American people, with claims of an imminent nuclear threat in Iran.”

(more…)

By Jonathan Spyer

The possible emergence of a nuclear-armed, Islamist Iran committed to the destruction of the Jewish state is the key security issue currently occupying the attention of Israel’s political and security elite. It is one of the few issues upon which there is near (but not total) consensus. Israel has watched the growing power of radical elements within the Iranian ruling elite in the last half-decade with concern. These elements, of which President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the most prominent representative, openly reject Israel’s right to exist. Ahmedinejad’s comments advocating Israel’s destruction and denying the Holocaust are part of a larger project to recover the original fervour of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The expansion of Iran’s regional role is also part of this, and Israeli strategists note that the influence of Iran in all areas of key strategic concern to Israel is being felt, in a negative way. Iran’s alliance with Syria underwrites Damascus’s increasingly bellicose stance. Iran’s creation and sponsorship of Hizbullah has enabled it to come to constitute the powerful militia opponent seen in last year’s war. Iranian assistance to Hamas and Islamic jihad may be in the process of turning these organisations into analogous forces.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

The Iranian nuclear issue is too important and dangerous to be miscomprehended. So here are some life-and-death factors to keep in mind about it:

First, Iran is not about to obtain nuclear weapons, certainly not ones that it could use. That dreadful outcome is still several years away. Despite all the bragging going on by Iranian leaders in Persian-language statements about how they are getting closer to atomic bombs — coupled with denials of any such intention in English-language ones — it just isn’t that easy to do.

(more…)

by Jared Shelly*

The idea of promoting peace in the Middle East by transforming governments into democracies has unquestionably failed, according to one foreign-policy expert, leaving the United States searching for a definitive policy in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

“This has left us at one of those rare moments when the playing field is suddenly made level for the competition of new big ideas,” said Martin Kramer, a fellow at both the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Harvard University, during a lecture held at the Union League of Philadelphia.

(more…)