Could the Mideast Use Some ‘Trumpification’?

Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, recently spoke out against what he called the “Trumpification” of the Middle East.

“The recent massive arms deals President Trump made with the Gulf monarchies exacerbate the risk of a new arms race … I am very concerned by the dramatic escalation of the situation and the consequences for the whole region,” Minister Gabriel said.

He was referring to the White House siding with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Qatar for its evident support of Iran and jihadist terror via the Muslim Brotherhood. This has built into quite the standoff and the resulting blockade has had ripples throughout the region. The Qatari riyal has taken a beating and they are seeing compensation for the blockade. In addition to the Saudis and UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Maldives and Yemen have all cut ties with Qatar.

It's a mess all right, but with due respect to the Germans and other critics, Trumpification may not be such a bad thing. In taking a hard line against Doha, the President is continuing the Bush doctrine, that the U.S. "should make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account." Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is within his purview to try to negotiate a solution to this standoff, after the proper lesson has been learned, but despite his evident misgivings and indignation about the key role played by Trump son-in-law and key advisor Jared Kushner, he should support his boss on this.

Trump reportedly doubled down on his position in a call with Gulf region leaders. According to the White House, as reported by Reuters, “"He reiterated the importance of stopping terrorist financing and discrediting extremist ideology. The president also underscored that unity in the region is critical to accomplishing the Riyadh Summit's goals of defeating terrorism and promoting regional stability," the White House said.

"President Trump, nevertheless, believes that the overriding objective of his initiative is the cessation of funding for terrorism," it said.

In addition to its links with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar has also nurtured ties with Israel’s most fierce enemy, Hamas, under the claim that it is trying to promote more engagement and moderation. (That claim was bolstered by a recent Hamas statement that seems to accept a two-state solution, albeit one that does not formally recognize Israel.)

Yes, it was disappointing that the president has shelved his campaign promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

But he certainly made a solid statement about Jerusalem as the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall. And there’s much else to like about the emerging Trump Middle East policy. Unlike his predecessor, he acted quickly when Syria crossed the imaginary 'red line' by gassing civilians, launching a quick and punishing airstrike.

He also seems to take the more realistic view of the region and what our goals there should be.

Writing in Politico, Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that Trump’s policy “reflects a sound understanding of what the United States can achieve in the region and, importantly, what it cannot.”

Noting that Western efforts to promote democracy that led to the Arab Spring produced more fractured societies but no real change agents, Cook adds “The Trump administration seems to understand this and has pragmatically shifted American policy to achievable goals like rolling back the Islamic State and challenging Iran’s efforts to extend its influence around the region.”

Those who believe Trump, a businessman and political amateur is not a serious president with real policy goals may dismiss his Mideast stance.

But it suggests a practical view of the fight against ISIS recognizing that, other than democratic Israel, there are no other perfect allies in the Middle East.

The 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and the country has a troubling history of terror support. However, Iran is worse in that their leaders continue to make threatening statements against Israel and the US while almost surely planning to resume their nuclear arms quest as soon as they can get away with it. While he’s keeping the John Kerry-brokered nuclear deal in place for now, President Trump is avowedly pessimistic about it.

The Saudis on the other hand have growing, low-key ties with Israel based on strategic interests and common enemies.

Given the disastrous Middle East policy of Barack Obama, which entailed alienating Israel while cozying up to and placing misguided trust in Iran, and chasing pipe dreams about the spread of democracy if we just talk nicely to people and avoid saying “Islamic terror,” 

Trumpification seems to me to be potentially one of the best processes to come along in years.

Originally Published: IsraelNationalNews.com 

North Korea and Iran: Brothers in Nuclear Terror

By: Eli Verschleiser

North Korea hadn’t been in the news much lately. The world was fixated on the economic woes in China, strife between Iran and Saudi Arabia and ongoing efforts to contain and defeat Isis. Then came the literally earthshaking news, and that card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil was back on our radar, having tested a hydrogen bomb believed to be about 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb (opinions vary).

Wasn’t North Korea supposed be giving up its nuclear bomb program, you ask? Didn’t it sign a treaty with the United States to suspend construction of nuclear weapons reactors in 1994? And after it backed out of that agreement, didn’t it once again declare in 2007 that it was shutting down its main nuclear reactor as a result of multinational talks, ushering in new relations with the US? That one lasted until 2009, when the North Koreans began testing missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.

As recently as 2012, we were still dancing with Pyongyang, hoping for a deal to suspend uranium enrichment in return for much needed food aid (uranium isn’t very edible) and more normalized relations. More long-range missile tests put an end to that dance. And this week’s underground test shows that Kim Jong-un is unabashedly determined to play with nuclear toys.

A couple of takeaways here: Crazy regimes who have the ability to develop nuclear weapons won’t stop until they do. And deals and understandings to thwart them are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Analysts are beginning to assess what this means for our newly inked agreement with Iran. The Obama administration said for years that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” but then proceeded to accept one anyway. The Iran deal released tons of frozen assets and opened the door for Russia to flood the Middle East with more weapons now that sanctions are lifted while Iran is largely allowed to self-monitor its dubious promise to keep uranium enrichment to levels used only for nuclear energy, not for weapons.

It didn’t take long for a test of the framework. Iran has been shooting off long range missiles, including one that came dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier. The White House was prepared to slap some sanctions on Tehran but, quickly changed course under the apparent pretense that damaging President Hassan Rouhani wasn’t in our best interest when worse hardliners are sniping at his heels.

The problem for the U.S. is our lack of credibility when it comes to standing up and enforcing our stated interests, epitomized by President Obama’s pathetic “red line” warning against Syrian chemical weapons, a transgression now going into its third unpunished year. The coalition that reached the Iran deal has no real interest in enforcing red lines or re-imposing sanctions if inspectors somehow manage to stumble across a violation of the nuclear deal, and Tehran has to be very closely studying how the U.S., the U.N. and NATO react to North Korea’s openly flaunting its nuclear weapons. Admittedly, options are limited.

It may fall to Russia’s Putin to make a difference. Vladimir Putin has visited North Korea and in November sent a military delegation to conduct high-ranking talks about mutual interest. In 2012 Putin forgave billions in North Korean debt in order to foster better ties. But the possible H bomb is a game changer.

Russian officials have expressed grave concern. "Such actions are fraught with further aggravation of the situation on the Korean peninsula, which is anyway marked by very high potential of military and political confrontation," said foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, according to the Moscow Times.

If Russia has a chance to play the good guy here, it can do so for its own interest, exerting global influence, upstaging the U.S. and perhaps diverting attention from its role supporting Bashar Assad in Syria and its bullying of Ukraine. Polls have reportedly shown that Russian citizens have a largely unfavorable view of North Korea, believing that its nuclear ambitions are a menace. Maybe Putin can come up with the leverage needed to talk some sense into Kim Jong-Un.

Then we’ll still have to worry about Iran. Analysts are concerned that ties between Tehran and Pyongyang, and the presence of Iranian scientists at past North Korean tests and their sharing of missile technology. Iran would not have to conduct its own tests if it could gain easy access to North Korea’s data. Doing so may not even be a violation of the vague terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Iran, Thomas Moore, a former non-proliferation expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Business Insider.

If the world continues its tepid reaction to North Korea’s test, it will send a strong message to an Iran that is likely already biding its time to go nuclear, either in secret violation of the agreement or when its term is over.

Quite a frightening scenario to consider. It’s hard enough to put one nuclear genie back in the bottle. What are the chances we’ll be able to do it twice?

Originally Published by: The Hill

A tragic war with no end in sight

Fighting ISIS means difficult, unsatisfying choices.

By: Eli Verschleiser

Our revulsion at the Paris attacks and subsequent Isis violence was palpable, and our reaction almost universal. We want action.

But are we prepared to accept the difficult truth? The only answer to brute force by evil and depraved fanatics is brute force by the good guys -- working with some of the not-so-good guys.

The French wasted no time launching counterstrikes against ISIS targets in retaliation for the brutal slaughter of over 130 citizens at multiple Paris locations. At the same time, the Russians, once confirming their airliner was brought down by a terrorist bomb (Isis took responsibility) have unleashed some heavy ordnance on targets in Isis’ growing territory. There will be no shortage of payback for these outrages, and the ones sadly to come, and the U.S., under increasing pressure to take leadership, will keep up or increase its own strikes.

The burning question: Will it matter?

This is not a war over territory that can be easily won by controlling airspace, ports and resources and by depleting the other side’s troops. It’s a war against an ideology that almost effortlessly gains new recruits and sympathizers, not just people in bunkers in Iraq and Syria, but well-educated people in Europe, in peaceful Mideast states and even in the U.S., willing to give their lives in a conflict that we can barely understand, let alone contain.

There are those who believe we are playing right into Isis’s hands with our response. More bombings create more civilian casualties, and more angry orphans to join Isis. Our suspicion of and, on the part of some, hostility toward Muslim refugees in Europe and those trying to enter the U.S. also creates radicals. The Russians, always with an agenda of their own, stand to benefit from this too: The refugee problem boosts the fortunes of right-wing political parties in Europe more inclined to align themselves with Vladimir Putin, and less concerned about his subjugation of Ukraine.

If chaos is what Isis craves, it is meeting its own objectives handily. Despite the above concerns, we have no choice but to drop bombs, and no choice but to carefully scrutinize the refugees to weed out potential terrorists, despite the notion on the left that it is un-American not to quickly open our doors.

Leaving us with so few choices, Isis is outmaneuvering us.

ISIS

But there’s one aspect of this no-choice conundrum that, as perplexing as it may be, could lead to the eventual defeat of Isis. They are gripped by a powerful delusional vision of what some call “volcanic jihad” that can establish a beachhead in the Middle East that spreads radicalized Islam around the world, and that vision affects everyone around them, creating the unlikeliest bedfellows.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, even Hezbollah in Beirut, Sunni tribes in Iraq and of course the Russians all have the same interest in excising this cancer, as do the U.S. and its NATO allies. Can they all join together in a workable coalition? Do we dare even work with Bashar Assad’s forces? Or is keeping him in power too bitter a bill to swallow?

It may be precisely because of the odds mounting against them that Isis operatives have struck or so many times in recent weeks – the Russian airline, Paris, Beirut -- and may be planning new attacks in Brussels or the U.S.

According to a New York Times analysis, nearly 1,000 deaths have caused by Isis outside Iraq and Syria so far in 2015. A former CIA official told the paper the group is moving beyond inspiring “lone wolf” attacks by sympathizers, and now seems to have the ability to coordinate its own operatives.

It remains to be seen if this power could withstand the disruption of focused attacks by a coordinated coalition of enemies, which could break off communication from the stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, to its operatives abroad. Perhaps in the best case scenario, such force reverts Isis to inspiring the lone wolves again through brutal videotapes and fundamentalist rantings, and there will be fewer recruits if they see the cause losing steam rather than ascendant.

But if inciting a global, apocalyptic war is a key goal of Isis, uniting some of the most disparate powers can achieve exactly the opposite effect.

To achieve this coalition, western powers must step up their efforts to convince Arab powers to take an active role, not just cheer-lead, meaning, troops and logistical support, including use of airspace and bases. It should not be the job of French or American troops to clean up their neighborhood for them. A key strategy for Isis is to rely heavily on fence-sitters to be scared into silence and inaction.

A 2004 manifesto written by the precursor group to Isis, entitled “The Management of Savagery,” as reported in a recent essay by Scott Atran and Nefess Hamid in the New York Review of Books, calls for followers to “diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

“diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

Divide and conquer is a time-proven strategy, and it has made Isis more powerful, but as the conflict grinds on, it may backfire as disparate enemies have no choice but to work together.

It may be a long, sad and often terrifying conflict, with no immediate end in sight, and the ideology behind Isis will never be completely eliminated. But with the right amount of determination and unity a coalition could disrupt its leadership, disperse its elements, dissuade volunteers and, most importantly, save thousands of future innocent lives.

Originally Published by: The Hill

Israel and its Sunni Partners - Should Israel and its Arab neighbors form an alliance ?

By: Eli Verschleiser

Could a nuclear deal with Iran accomplish more than decades of diplomacy in the Middle East and, rather ironically, create new alliances between Israel and Arab neighbors?

That’s a key question as we gear up for the battle on Capitol Hill over President Barack Obama’s controversial pact with Tehran to limit uranium enrichment in return for lifting of sanctions. Critics say the agreement paves the way for a double reward of Tehran— a huge influx of cash and an eventual, unfettered path toward nuclear arms.

Neither the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, nor the United Arab Emirates or for that matter any of the other Persian Gulf states are too excited about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The role of Iran in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and the rise of Islamic State terror and the Muslim Brotherhood, have become a much bigger problem for Arab leaders than the tired conflict with Israel. Those countries have a Sunni majority, while Persian Iran is led by rival Shia Muslims.

Iran, of course, is also a major oil rival for the Gulf States and became more powerful following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The Saudis have been publicly moderate on the deal but said to be privately angry over it. Epitomizing the old Middle East adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Saudis were reported to have offered Israel the ability to use their airspace to strike at Iran. This is a crucial step in keeping a military option on the table as it would save time and fuel if such a strike were necessary. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official was quoted as saying in an Israeli TV report.

Clearly momentum for alignment with Israel in some form is building.

“To all those who think the Persian state, and the regime of the Rule of the Imprudent… the dictatorial fascist Persian regime which controls it, is a friendly country, whereas Israel is an enemy country, I say that a prudent enemy is better than an imprudent one.”

Those words were written by Abdallah Al-Hadlaq in the official newspaper of Kuwait, Al-Watan.

It is not the first time the author has expressed support for ties with Israel. As far back as 2009 he called on his government and other Gulf states to put aside their differences with Jerusalem and forge an alliance against Iran.

But the fact that his column was published in a government daily in a country without full press freedom speaks volumes.

“The state of Israel and its various governments have waged more than five wars with the Arabs, yet never in the course of these wars did Israel think to use its nuclear weapons against its Arab enemies,” Al-Hadlaq wrote. “Conversely, if the Persian state, with its stupid, rash and fascist regime that hides behind a religious guise, ever develops nuclear weapons, it will not hesitate to use nuclear bombs against the Arab Gulf states in the first conflict that arises.”

Were the Saudis to show leadership in rallying other Sunni-led states against Iran it could have a significant impact on a new order in the Middle East.

Furthermore the new coalition could collectively work wonders to get rid of ISIS, as Jordan’s King Abdullah recently declared in a CNN interview that the war against ISIS ‘is our war’. The Iranian nuclear threat and the ISIS threat can top the agenda in this new coalition.

“Iran does have enough politico-military and economic potential to counter-balance Saudi led “Sunni” states in the Middle East and beyond,” wrote Salman Rafi Sheikh in an essay for the magazine Eastern Outlook last March. “It is precisely for this very reason that Saudi Arabia’s anxiety about an agreement has fueled a flurry of intense diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among “Sunni” states in the Middle East in the face of “shared threats”, especially those emanating from Iran.”

Rafi Sheikh, a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, noted that “this deal is most likely to send political jolts across the entire Middle Eastern political landscape, with Saudi Arabia and Israel standing as the most sensitive areas to bear its shocks; and as such, are most likely to clutch their hands into an alliance against Iran, and by default, against the US ambitions as well.”

There is great potential for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to rally Gulf states as well as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to stand up to an Iran that will only become more emboldened with the huge influx of post-sanctions billions and new political bona-fides that will make Tehran bolder.

Increased security cooperation as Iran bides its time for an eventual bomb --after the agreement period, or in the worst-case scenario, in violation of the agreement -- may eventually lead to more nuclear proliferation in the region.

Will that mean a nuclear pact between Israel and its former enemies? That will be a fascinating development that could never have been imagined even a decade ago.

And it will truly be a sad irony if, after nearly 70 years of a solid relationship between the United States and Israel, the Jewish state had to turn to despotic regimes with little or no human rights to solidify its security position, feeling far less than confident that Washington has its back than it has in the past.

However this may simply be the beginning of an Arabic Israeli accord where both groups can begin to understand and accept each other.

Originally Published: The Hill