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 

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’s Iron Dome Supporters Deserve Our Thanks

gettyimages -  Israel Iron Dome

By: Eli Verschleiser

Congress understands that stopping anti-Israel rocket attacks saves lives on both sides of the conflict.

Imagine going to bed worried that an alert will go off in the middle of the night and you’ll have to gather up your family and scramble to a shelter.

Imagine sending your kids off to school worrying about their safety from airborne threats on the way, and when they get there. Imagine living through air raid alerts on a regular basis, huddled in your sealed room, wondering if, should destruction rain down from the skies, your shelter will be strong enough to protect you from harm.

Imagine shopping for a home or apartment and, in addition to price and location, needing to ask about a panic room.

Millions of Israelis don’t have to imagine this scenario. Whether Jewish, Arab or Christian – rockets can’t discriminate- this is their reality day to day: In the south, rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza; In the North, from Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the center of Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey, safety is relative as rockets with increasing sophistication and power project terror at longer and longer ranges.

So far in 2015, there have been 23 rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, most recently on Oct. 21, when a projectile landed in Sh’ar Hanegev. Last year, which included the summer conflict that started Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, the number was 4,005, resulting in 8 deaths, 60 injuries and 1,663 Palestinians killed in counterstrikes.

Striking back at the launch sites doesn’t solve the problem. Had Gazans applied the same devotion to productive endeavors like agriculture and tourism as they do toward bloodthirsty rocketry, the area would be thriving today, rather than the blockaded ruin.

The situation would be far worse for both sides if not for the technology of Iron Dome, shared by Israelis and the United States. The ability to track rockets as they launch, calculate their trajectory and eliminate the most dangerous projectiles saves lives, likely many thousands of them. When rockets do not reach their intended targets, Israelis are the obvious beneficiaries, but innocent Palestinians are spared the threat of collateral damage from a counter strike that would be tactically necessary after any lethal attack.

Members of the United States Congress understand this and since 2009 have consistently voted to increase funding for this technology. It should be a political no-brainer. No matter where you stand on Israel’s politics and policies, decent people and particularly leaders should agree that everyone has a right not to blown up by a rocket.

Moreover, it serves the higher purpose of the Israeli Palestinian peace process (such as it is) to decrease the incentive and effectiveness of this senseless violence. Whether Hamas and Hezbollah will one day realize the futility of this strategy is anyone’s guess, but it’s our sacred obligation to send that message.

That is why I am proud to be a part of the Congressional Tribute honoring standout members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have supported Iron Dome – with up to $371.2 million in this year’s Defense Authorization bill. The honorees are Ed Royce (R-CA) , Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa; Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee; Ted Deutch (D-FL), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa; Hal Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Peter Roskam (R-IL), Co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus; Eliot Engel (D-NY) Ranking Member of Foreign Affairs Committee; Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Investment in Iron Dome has never been more important, given our lack of leadership in the Middle East that has created a dangerous void easily filled by Isis on one side and the Russians on the other. With billions of post-sanction dollars flowing into Iran courtesy of the nuclear deal, Iran may well increase their own investment in Hezbollah in the form of upgraded weapons.

Those same weapons could easily make their way south to Gaza. With anti-Jewish bloodlust on the rise in Israel, missiles may, God forbid, soon become the new knives. And how long before they get their hands on biological or radioactive payloads?

All the more reason to keep close tabs on your representatives and senators. Thank them if they have already boosted Iron Dome. If not, ask them to close their eyes and picture themselves dashing to one of those sealed rooms in the middle of the night as a piercing siren sounds.

Originally Published: The Observer

Tough talk on ISIS is not enough

By: Eli Verschleiser

In late 1998, national security officials under President Bill Clinton mulled a strike deep into Afghanistan that may have taken out Osama bin Laden. In the end, Clinton decided the potential cost of hundreds of innocent lives was too high.

No one can be sure that such a strike would have eliminated the al Qaeda terror chief, let alone forestalled the 9/11 terror attack three years later that cost the lives of 2,977 people, most of them Americans.

But Clinton and his military chiefs at the time, some of whom warned that holding back was a mistake, will always have to wonder, as will we all.

Will we face the same kind of hindsight in the future if, God forbid, the savages of ISIS (or ISIL, as the US calls the radical terror group) are able to infiltrate our borders and carry out a large-scale attack here?

As we mark the 13th anniversary of the worst attack on America in history, Americans are worried about new carnage, with a recent NBC News poll finding that nearly half (47 percent) of respondents saying we are less safe now than before Sept. 11, 2001, up substantially from 28 percent last year and, amazingly, up from 20 percent just a year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Another poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal founds 61 percent of Americans, nearly two out of three, support increased military action against the Isis militants. No doubt they have been affected by videos showing mass executions in Syria, including children and the be-headings of American captives, and news of missing Libyan passenger jets likely commandeered by militants.

President Obama has an opportunity, and an obligation to reassure Americans. In his speech from the White House on Sept. 10, the president seemed to deviate between trivializing ISIS and beating the war drums. First he de-legitimized its religious roots, noting that it has harmed mostly other Muslims and emphasizing that ‘Islamic state’ is recognized by no government.

Then, sounding more like the Republican predecessor that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan than the domestic-minded Democrat who vowed to wind down those wars, Obama vowed that “America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat” and warned that those who attempt to harm Americans “will find no safe haven.” This is an echo of the Bush doctrine that America will not distinguish between terrorists and the governments that harbor them.

Ultimately the speech showed the president at his most determined, promising to “degrade and destroy” the capability of the militants and recognizing that “small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.”

But are 475 new soldiers in Iraq on a non-combat mission, increased air strikes in Syria and more aid to the rebels fighting ISIS enough to accomplish those goals?

The president’s ability to take executive action as commander in chief is limited, and he needs strong support from both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, to fully prosecute the mission of neutralizing Isis and its allies.

It’s not at all clear that he’ll get it from a war-weary and deeply partisan Congress. Many members will have to be convinced that arming rebels and minority groups resisting Isis – which is so extreme that al Qaeda distances itself -- is in our interest; others will fixate on blaming the president for failing to leave a sufficient interim force in Iraq, which could have stemmed the Isis tide, or failing to back the rebels in Syria in toppling Bashir Assad.

Others will simply urge sitting on our hands. Voters will be influenced by commentators who note that as bad as doing nothing sounds, acting ineffectively, or counter-productively, is worse.

“Maybe it’s time for America to stop taking the bait,” says Fox News host and commentator John Stossel. “Islamic militants do monstrous things all over the world. We cannot stop it all. Why do we assume that government doing something is always an improvement over government doing nothing?”

Stossel noted that Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles at Osama Bin Laden, missed and was mocked as a paper tiger.

But the problem with inaction vs. action is that the result in the former case is almost guaranteed: Isis will rise in popularity, adherents from all over the world, including the U.S., will continue traveling to the Middle East to join the fight or form terror cells in the West. The more we shirk away from our role as the world’s leading policeman against terror, the likelier the possibility we will live to regret it.

Originally Published: The Hill

An act of Desperation: John Kerry

By: Eli Verschleiser

John Kerry

It is unfortunate that Secretary of State John Kerry put himself in the middle of the superficial, gossip-laden, "he said, he said" death spiral of the latest nine-month peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. By now, his "apartheid" remark, warning of the consequences for Israel if the Palestinians don't get their own state, has gone viral and pandemic. He's even apologized publicly, rightly so. More troubling than his use of a very sensitive term, is what it suggests about his disposition. 

The bigger point here is that Kerry maybe acting out of desperation. He has invested tremendous effort and political capital toward getting the Israeli and Palestinian sides to agree on basic terms for security and borders, leading to a Palestinian state. For the duration, that process was dominated by public claims that one party or the other was undermining trust and acting unilaterally. Kerry kept plowing forward, even as Ukraine, Egypt and Syria blazed. 

Kerry's commitment to this effort whether you believe in his ability or not have been nothing less than admirable. This is part of what makes his comment so regrettable.

Kerry however, acted out of desperation. Only in a fantasy world would Kerry not know that his use of the word would automatically reach the press, infuriate Israelis and American Jews, and cloud out all other considerations. 

Israel is a big boy, and can handle whatever anyone throws at it, whether it's Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert each warning of an apartheid future on their own, or Kerry himself. But by invoking apartheid, Kerry shows just how far he is willing to go, if not further. What is his fallback, or did he just lash himself to the mast to ride out the storm of the century, known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 

We at The American Jewish Congress have worked to promote joint economic efforts between Jews and Palestinians, regardless of where the peace process happens to be in any given moment. These kinds of projects build trust and lay the foundations for an eventual final status agreement. Resorting to drama and reckless initiative undermines such an outcome.

On a global scale, we should also be worried that a Secretary of State who's ready to sacrifice all just for the sake of a chance at progress in one arena will find himself distracted from other, less containable crises in the Middle East and beyond. With Iran, specifically, how much will Kerry or the White House be willing to risk -- in ways that expose Israel as well as the United States -- to secure some long-term agreement with Iran? 

Desperation is not an isolated trait, and it's one that too often leads right back to despair. We have enough of that as it is.

Originally Published: The Jerusalem Post