Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

As 2012 Polls Loom, Caution’s the Word for Obama’s Foreign Policy

With key al-Qaeda figures dead and Iran under harsh sanctions, Obama seems unlikely to rock the boat on foreign policy in advance of the 2012 elections.

Inter Press Service

U.S. presidents seeking a second term are not known for taking risks in foreign policy in election years.

Ronald Reagan quickly withdrew U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983, a year before he sought re-election, after the U.S. forces there became the target of bombings by Shiite militants.

George W. Bush launched the war in Iraq in 2003 in part because he didn't want to start a new conflict a year later. And Bill Clinton waited until almost the end of his second term to make a concerted push for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

With the majority of U.S. citizens preoccupied by domestic concerns, President Barack Obama is also likely to tread water in foreign affairs, seeking incremental progress where possible but not bold breakthroughs.

This is particularly true when it comes to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Obama, unlike most of his predecessors, devoted considerable time and energy to trying to achieve an agreement in his first term. Two days after his inauguration, he appointed a prestigious envoy, George Mitchell, and pressured Israel to slow its expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

The results have been disappointing, to say the least, and Obama and his advisers have retreated in part for domestic political reasons - to avoid alienating some Jewish voters - and in part because they simply don't know what to try next.

Mitchell departed in May and was replaced by a career State Department officer, David Hale, who has made no discernible headway getting Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), said only a crisis or an unexpected opportunity in the region could prompt a more proactive U.S. role until after next year's elections.

"The situation is untenable but stable for now," Ibish told IPS. "When you look at the array of players, Prime Minister (Salam) Fayyad was right."

Ibish was referring to remarks by the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Fayyad told a large audience at an ATFP dinner in Washington Wednesday that "conditions are not ripe at this juncture for a meaningful resumption of talks" with Israel. Palestinian negotiators need "much greater specificity" about what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to concede to make new negotiations worthwhile, Fayyad said.

The Palestinians' other gambit – seeking enhanced status at the United Nations – also seems to be going nowhere, in large part because of U.S. opposition. That leaves the status quo as the best option in the near term.

Fayyad urged U.S. supporters of the Palestinians to press the U.S. Congress not to cut off aid, which has been instrumental in enabling the PA to build the infrastructure of a state and to pay 150,000 employees on whom one million Palestinians in the West Bank depend.

The Palestinian leader also urged the Israeli government to curb violence against Palestinians by Jewish settlers, validate Palestinian security forces by letting them patrol more areas in the West Bank, and treat peaceful Palestinian demonstrators with the same care they do Jewish protestors in Tel Aviv.

Ibish said Israeli restraint on expanding settlements would also be welcome, but real progress would have to wait.

"The Obama administration tried very hard for three years and spent political capital and got nowhere," he said. The White House is "flummoxed by the impasse and not sure how to proceed".

Similar caution is likely when it comes to Syria and Iran.

Regarding Syria, the administration has made it clear that it is not going to intervene militarily to oust embattled President Bashar al- Assad.

While limited U.S. involvement through NATO helped remove the regime in Libya of Moammar Gaddafi – who was killed by opposition forces in his hometown of Sirte on Thursday – Syria is far more complicated.

Syrian opposition forces are not unified and lack a territorial base. U.S. officials for now are urging them to remain peaceful, fearing a sectarian bloodbath if rebels take up arms en masse and the country fractures along ethnic and religious lines.

Appearing Oct. 14 via Skype at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Robert Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, said that while Syrians assured him they would not turn on each other for sectarian reasons, he had heard the same claims in Iraq in 2004, just before that country dissolved in civil strife.

"I worry that a sectarian civil war can happen," in Syria, he said.

Such a development would inevitably draw in neighbours and could become a proxy conflict among Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey that would kill many thousands and create thousands more refugees. Fighting could also spread into Lebanon, a country with a history of civil war where sectarian divisions still simmer and key players are allied with foreign powers.

The Libya intervention was unique in that it involved a small homogenous nation of little strategic import led by a dictator with almost no international support. Both the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League gave NATO intervention their blessing – something that is unlikely in Syria's case.

Ford also noted that "there is not an armed opposition cable of overthrowing the Syrian government" at this point.

More sanctions to pressure the Assad regime to step down if it continues to refuse to reform are thus the most likely scenario, he said.

Sanctions are also the default mode for Iran. Despite calls by some Washington hawks to use allegations of a foiled Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to attack Iran, the Obama administration is using the case instead to press foreign governments to do a better job of implementing tough financial penalties on Iran.

In general, it appears that Obama has little to fear from the Republicans on foreign affairs as opposed to his track record on the U.S. economy.

With the deaths of Osama bin Laden, Anwar el-Awlaki and even "mad dog" Gaddafi on his watch and the toughest sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran in its history, it will be difficult for Republicans to portray the president as weak on U.S. national security. Even if he was inclined to be bold, Obama's campaign advisers will likely tell him to postpone any ambitious foreign policy gambits for a second term.

Barbara Slavin is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share