Author Archives:

MENA Chat – Iran Negotiations with Laura Rozen

LauraRozenSketchIn this latest installment of MENA Chat, Bradley Bosserman interviews Laura Rozen about the most recent round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the international coalition known as the P5+1.

Rozen is the foreign policy reporter for Al-Monitor and editor of their Back Channel column. She has previously covered foreign policy and global affairs for Yahoo! News, Politico and Foreign Policy. She lives on Twitter as @LRozen.

 

Laura — who covered the talks in-person from Almaty, Kazakhstan — details the current state of negotiations, the response in the European and Iranian press, as well as the contours and likelihood of a possible deal.

Click play below to listen to our discussion.

Our other episodes of MENA Chat are also available to view:

Bradley Bosserman Discusses Syria on Latest Episode of Debrief

TheRiskyShift

In the latest episode of Debrief  from The Risk Shift, NDN’s Bradley Bosserman sits down with James Sheehan to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria. James and Brad explore the role that the US can play in rebuilding Syria along with the significance of chemical weapons and the influence of extremist organizations.click_to_play

Founded in January 2012, TheRiskyShift.com (TRS) bridges the gap between academia and journalism: it provides the depth that is often missing from today’s media whilst remaining open and accessible to those who are not familiar with academic debate on the subjects at hand. A diverse roster of columnists contribute, with international relations theorists, political scientists, historians and philosophers present. The majority of TRS’ writers are graduate students from academic institutions within the UK and abroad, complimented by current and former think tank employees, journalists, and analysts.

Intervention in Syria: Chemical Weapons are the Wrong “Red Line”

SyriaCongressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has publicly concluded that the Assad regime has deployed chemical weapons and crossed a “red line” for U.S. intervention. While Rep. Rogers certainly has access to classified information as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, nearly all other assessments make it clear that what actually happened in Aleppo last week (and which weapons were used) remains unclear. The United Nations has launched a probe into the events and the White House has repeatedly assured the press that they are investigating all available information and that Assad’s forces would suffer “consequences” if they were found to have used chemical weapons on their own people. Focusing on whether these weapons were used, however, obscures the reality that chemical weapons use is simply the wrong red-line for Syria. American decisions about whether and how to intervene in this conflict must be driven by their likelihood to achieve strategic goals, not by a reactionary desire to simply do something. Facilitating the development and support of the key infrastructure of post-Assad Syria should be the focus for American policymakers.

If it turns out that chemical weapons were in fact used, that would certainly represent a tactical escalation, but it is difficult to see how it changes the fundamental dynamics on the ground. Dying from mustard gas in Aleppo is horrible, but so is being blasted apart by mortars outside Damascus. One of the many American interests in the conflict surely is to minimize the civilian death toll, but with 70,000 already slain — debating the weapons that are used is a conversation about tools, not lives. In the medium term, American interests center on constraining Iranian influence, ensuring that Syria does not become a breeding and training ground for terrorists, minimizing the spread of regional instability, and guarding against the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. These are the yardsticks that must guide U.S. action, not arbitrary red-lines.

Securing Syria’s chemical weapons is not simply a matter of a few surgical air strikes. The regime still maintains a significant anti-air capability and the Pentagon concludes that an operation with any chance success would involve up to 75,000 American troops. Those forces would not be limited to the liberated areas in the North, they would have to push into the heart of regime-controlled territory to access major storage facilities in Damascus and Homs. Policymakers need to be realistic and ask themselves if they are prepared to make that kind of commitment and honestly evaluate whether that type of invasion would increase or decrease the likelihood of securing the full-range of U.S. interests.

Staggering military might, however, is not the only tool at the president’s disposal. Working with international partners to prepare for a post-regime future is an area where the U.S. can actually leverage a significant value-add and do so with a much smaller footprint. The Supreme Military Command needs to be further unified and its various groups need to practice operating under a cogent institutional framework. This is not only critical to achieving tactical successes against the Syrian Army, but also essential for building the habits and mechanics of trust that will be needed for a successful new government.

It is often said that there is not one revolution in Syria, but dozens. What is unifying the rebel groups at the moment is a common enemy, but once the regime falls, scores of groups with very different ideologies and very different visions of a free Syria will emerge in a country awash with weapons and devoid of civil and security infrastructure. The only hope for avoiding a series of multi-fronted civil wars is for the new government to quickly stand up credible institutions that can rein in the extremists and mediate these fundamental disputes in non-violent ways.

The U.S. can help encourage this process now by working with international partners like Turkey, Qatar, and Jordan to centralize the flow of military and non-military aid into the country. Currently the various rebel groups maintain largely proprietary support channels which fuels divisions and makes unifying command and control very difficult. Many components of the Free Syrian Army are already coordinating action in northern Syria, but that cooperation needs to be enhanced through formal structures that have a chance of outliving the present conflict. Resources are power and the international community needs to invest in developing an inclusive platform that can control and disseminate resources in non-political ways, engaging the Aid Coordination Unit of the Syrian Opposition Coalition as well as the Supreme Military Command, and local civilian councils. If there is a red-line in Syria, it should be related to attaining that goal.

This essay was originally published by PolicyMic

Middle East Engagement Briefing – “A Real Opportunity to Lead”

Bradley Bosserman hosted an interactive webcast on framing a more robust Middle East strategy. This previously unpublished briefing deck highlights some of the latest market research and polling from the United States and abroad, detailing political opportunities and framing mechanics that can successfully support a strategy of broader economic engagement with the Middle East and North Africa.

MENA Chat Webcast – Reforming Aid To Egypt

MENA Aid To Egypt Spreecast jpegIn this latest MENA Chat webcast, Bradley Bosserman explores the strategy and challenges that underlie U.S. democracy assistance in the Middle East. He is joined by Dr. Sarah Bush, whose recent research provides important insights on possible reforms. Rebecca Abou-Chedid is also featured.  Drawing on her experience in Cairo she discusses some of the ways these dynamics play out in Egypt. Follow this link to view the webcast.

As background — Secretary Kerry, following his first Middle East trip at the helm of the  State Department, approved the release of $250 million in aid to the young Egyptian government. While Egypt’s economy remains on the brink and in desperate need of foreign assistance, the move is not without controversy. Republican Senator Marco Rubio last week proposed legislation that would place new conditions on further aid disbursement, while some activists remain critical of funding the government without assurances that they are committed to making real progress toward more democratic institutions and protecting key political and civil rights.

Dr. Sarah Bush is an expert on foreign aid strategy and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Temple University. She recently published “Confront or Conform? Rethinking U.S. Democracy Assistance” for the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED).

Rebecca Abou-Chedid is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project, Co-Chair of the Board for Just Vision, and former National Political Director for the Arab American Institute.

Sec. Kerry Ramps Up Economic Statecraft in Egypt

Kerry EgyptMany foreign policy strategists have, for years now, been propagating the notion that the Middle East is yesterday’s problem and that much more of our time and energy should be spent focusing on Europe and Asia. While a confluence of circumstances will surely shift American priorities in the medium to long term, the import of Secretary Kerry’s trip to the Middle East and North Africa highlights the fact that there remain many U.S. strategic interests to protect in that region and that the challenges and opportunities there will continue to command a very large share of the attention from national security policymakers in the years to come.

If there was a single theme that Secretary Kerry carried with him to Egypt over the weekend it was that inclusive economic growth is a top priority. The new Secretary of State announced a handful of new U.S. initiatives — $190 million in direct aid, expansion of the QIZ program, and $60 million in capital for Egyptian Enterprise Funds. In the run up to the trip, he was widely expected to push the Morsi government toward the reforms needed to secure a $4.8 billion loan under negotiation from the IMF, but these additional measures are positive indications that the State Department does genuinely believe that the “United States can and wants to do more.”

Stabilizing and restructuring the embattled Egyptian economy is incredibly important, but it is impossible to escape the fact that the political and the economic are inseparably intertwined. The economic reforms needed to secure the IMF loan — namely increasing tax revenue and cutting fuel subsidies — are incredibly unpopular, and can only be successfully implemented by a government that actually commands legitimacy from a majority of the population. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood’s crackdowns on alcohol and scantily clad women, to say nothing of mounting street violence, will continue to shut out billions of dollars in foreign currency that used to flow in from the tourism industry. As the FJP’s ongoing economic mismanagement pushes the unemployment rate of 15 to 30-year-olds over 70 percent, it is hard to ignore the relationship between lack of opportunity, poverty, frustration and the outbreaks of violence in places like Mansoura and Port Said. Incidents which, in turn, further drive away tourism, diminish credibility in the eyes of international financial institutions, and tear at the social fabric of Egyptian society.

Secretary Kerry correctly identifies the need for more capital, entrepreneurialism, and a vibrant civil society. It is wise for America to be more, rather than less, engaged in this process — but the United States is in a strong position to encourage the Morsi government to take the steps needed to develop an open and accountable political system and society. The specifics of private conversations between Kerry and Morsi are obviously unclear, but there was initially no announcement that the new aid package was tied to meeting meaningful democratic benchmarks. The European Union, in 2011, promoted a model of “more for more,” a plan that would provide additional assistance and investment to those countries making concrete progress toward democracy, human rights, social justice, good governance and the rule of law. Incentivizing real commitments in these areas is important not only for their own sake, but also because sustained growth must be supported by an ecosystem of policies and institutions.

The United States should continue to keep its eye on the longer, strategic view of transition in Egypt and throughout the region. As these nascent governments develop, the path will be rocky and setbacks should be expected. But America is wise to re-commit itself to helping shepherd these countries into the 21st century. In doing so, the Obama administration should not shy away from making it clear that genuine reform is needed and expected. Economic statecraft is one of the most potent tools to accomplish this goal and it is encouraging that Secretary Kerry appears to be comfortable promoting that strategy.

China’s Power Plays in the Middle East

Jerusalem PostThe Jerusalem Post published an in-depth piece this week analyzing the changing oil geopolitics of the Middle East. Political Editor Ilan Evyatar takes a look at the implications of demand for Middle East oil shifting dramatically over the next few decades from the West to the East. I argue that the US should remain engaged in the region based on a broader economic and strategic relationship in order to counter-balance rising Chinese influence, given Beijing’s track record in the rest of Africa. This entire dynamic is going to be extremely important to medium-term regional politics and there is not nearly enough discussion about this reality here in Washington. The article is excerpted below and I encourage you to read the full piece. 

WHILE THERE appears to be a consensus that China’s rapidly growing energy needs mean it will need to nurture a stable environment and adopt a more proactive foreign policy in the region, not everyone shares Biran’s far reaching vision of a Pax Sinica.

“Surging Chinese demand for energy resources over the next several decades will make their more prominent role in the Middle East inevitable. China is now second only to the United States in consumption and importation of oil, a trend that will only continue as the Chinese continue to urbanize their population and bring millions more cars on line. No country can afford to remain uninterested in a region that it will be so dependent upon,” says Bradley Bosserman, a foreign policy analyst and director of the Middle East program at the NDN New Policy Institute, a center-left Washington think tank.

Bosserman, however, cautions that there has been consistent divergence between the US and China on regional issues, from Iran to Syria and elsewhere. “While a peaceful and agreed-upon settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would contribute to regional stability, China has never shown much interest in investing diplomatic energy… in other parts of the world where it had economic interests.”

He points to the potential lessons to be learned from China’s engagement in Africa, and warns that while the optimists may believe that China’s growing energy interdependence with the Middle East will lead to Beijing becoming more interested in productive diplomatic engagement, its record in Africa gives “little indication that it will pursue that path.”

“For the past half-century,” says Bosserman, “China’s policy of non-interference has provided capital and investment to corrupt governments who have been more than happy to avoid the complicated work of economic and political reform that is often demanded by the United States and Europe. Throughout Africa, China has consistently valued preferential trading terms, lopsided leasing deals, and short-term profits over the kinds of lasting investments in good governance, political reconciliation, and poverty alleviation that lay the groundwork for real stability. It seems more likely that it is that model that they will try to export to the Middle East rather than some other idealized version.”

A Clintonian Foreign Policy in Obama’s Second Term

Obama and Bill ClintonDuring his fifth State of the Union, President Obama articulated a foreign policy vision that can pretty accurately be described as modest. On nearly all fronts he displayed a preference for restraint and moderation, rather than bold engagement abroad. There was one notable exception, however: Trade. The President outlined a second-term trade agenda that is as ambitious as anything we’ve seen since the 1990’s. Completing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and launching a new round of US-EU FTA talks holds the potential to bring about the broadest and most robust expansion of economic liberalization, harmonization, and engagement since the Uraguay round. For a President who has spent four years trying to constrain the scale and scope of traditional hard power, he appears much more comfortable allowing economic statecraft to be the face of American leadership overseas. In that way, Obama’s second term foreign policy may end up looking very Clintonian, and no I don’t mean Hillary.

A Tragedy in Tunis

NDN’s MENA Initiative welcomes this latest essay from guest contributor Tristan Dreisbach. Tristan is a Middle East specialist who recently traded in his perch at a think tank in New York City in order to conduct field work in Tunis. He blogs at http://tristanintunis.blogspot.com and lives on Twitter as @theonlytristan. We will be running some of his writings periodically.

Photo by FETHI BELAID via Global Post

Photo by FETHI BELAID via Global Post

On the morning of Wednesday, February 6th, everything changed in Tunisia. Anti-Islamist opposition leader Shokry Belaid was gunned down outside his home in Tunis, introducing brutal political violence to an already tense environment. While much remains unclear, including identities and affiliations of the assassins, the dynamics of a new phase for post-revolutionary Tunisia seem to be taking shape.

Continue reading →