THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 83, March 17, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OBAMA MIDEAST TEAM
By Dr. Steven J. Rosen
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION & U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: WHAT IS INDICATED BY OBAMA'S
NOMINATIONS FOR THE KEY MIDDLE EAST POSITIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE & IN THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE &
DEFENSE -- IN WHAT DIRECTION IS THE PRESIDENT GOING WITH U.S. MIDEAST POLICY? FOREIGN POLICY PROBLEMS
THAT MAY ARISE
FULL STORY:
The new Obama administration has named most of its nominees for the key Middle East positions in the White House,
as well as in the U.S. State and Defense Departments. From what is known about these people, it is thus possible to
make an initial assessment of where Obama is going. The appointees include Dan Shapiro and most likely Puneet
Talwar at the National Security Council; George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Bill Burns, Beth Jones (most likely), and Jeffrey
Feltman at the State Department; Tony Blinken in Vice-President Joe Biden's office; and Michele Flournoy and Sandy
Vershbow at the Defense Department.
A full list is provided below.
A REALISTIC, PRAGMATIC APPROACH
Those who wanted a radical redirection of America's Middle East policy, particularly those on the political Far Left, are
not happy with most of Obama's core team. Few of the people announced or reliably expected to be chosen are known
as hostile toward Israel or apologists for Iran, Syria, Hizballah, or Hamas. There is no one with a history of participation
in ideological organizations of the Left, as Sandy Berger had been with Peace Now before joining the Clinton White
House.
In the key positions, only Charles W. Freeman, Jr., who reportedly was being considered to head the National
Intelligence Council, is an ideological Arabist, with a record of anti-Israel fulmination. And, on March 10, 2009,
Freeman, due to the controversy and criticism generated by reports of his nomination, requested that his selection as
National Intelligence Council Chairman not proceed.
By and large, Obama is assembling a team of intelligent Centrists with a realistic, pragmatic approach. Many of them
have experience. Few are starry-eyed and romantic. Further, many have a direct knowledge of Israel and some
understanding of its strategic position.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS IN U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN
On the other hand, nowhere on the list so far is someone identified with a tough position on the region. Broadly, it
is a team that represents the thinking in the Center of the Democratic Party. In a situation of real duress -- such as
an imminent Iranian breakthrough to nuclear weapons -- it is not clear who among them might ring the alarm and
rally the others to consider measures beyond the ordinary.
There could also be a tendency toward magical thinking about the transformative potential of diplomacy. Among
those who believe most fervently that Bush missed key diplomatic opportunities and failed to work with allies, there
may be some undue confidence that the problems in the Middle East will shrink steadily as Obama's new envoys
get to work and talk with previously hostile countries and movements.
Wishful thinking could be a particular problem on the issue of Iran, because the time remaining to stop its drive for
nuclear weapons is so short. The new administration believes it can get more cooperation on Iran from Russia and
China, and induce changes in Iranian policy by putting together a package of bigger carrots and bigger sticks.
What if Iran exploits the American eagerness for diplomacy and uses dilatory tactics to "run out the clock" for its
final sprint to obtain nuclear arms? What if Obama's diplomatic initiative fails and Iran calls his bluff about nuclear
weapons being "unacceptable"? President Obama has said, "I will do everything in my power -- everything' to
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," but will he?
If he is faced, in the end, with a stark choice between a nuclear Iran or the use of extreme pressure or even force,
would President Obama have the strength of the will necessary to overcome domestic resistance to the tougher
options, including objections at the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or would he veto, not just the use of U.S. forces, but
also Israel's?
Finally, if the United States capitulates to a nuclear Iran and attempts to fall back on deterrence to contain it, would
these threats be credible since, after all, he had just accepted something he had repeatedly stated would be
"unacceptable"?
U.S.A.-ISRAEL RELATIONS & THE PEACE PROCESS
There are other issues that may cause stress in the U.S.A.-Israel relationship. Israeli settlements -- always a sore
point -- take on greater importance when American diplomats believe that a diplomatic breakthrough with the
Palestinians is achievable.
There is little support in Israel today for relinquishing control of the West Bank, given Israel's bitter experience after
removing all soldiers and settlers from Gaza. Israelis no longer believe that territorial concessions on their part will
bring peace with the Palestinians. Most Israelis believe that the issue blocking "peace" with Hamas and its allies is
Israel's existence, not its settlements. With Hamas in firm control of Gaza and possibly seizing control in the West
Bank some day, the Israeli public is unlikely to be persuaded to entrust their security to agreements signed with
Palestinian leaders who can't or won't honor their commitments, or who might soon be overthrown.
The mood in the United States is quite different. The theory among many here is that George Mitchell achieved peace
between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and now he can work his magic between the Israelis and the
Palestinians, if only Obama is willing to use a little "tough love" with both sides. Some want more public criticism of
Israel by American officials.
Some enthusiasts in the "peace camp" are urging Obama to produce an American plan for the solution, one that, by
their definition, would diverge sharply from the terms Israel considers vital to its national interests, lest the United
States be seen as "Israel's lawyer." If Obama takes all this bad advice, it won't bring peace to the Middle East, but it
will bring tension between Israel and its most important ally.
The "peace camp" is urging Obama to take a more "even-handed" approach in the Middle East. Yet, the effect of
even-handedness is not even. The Arab League has 22 members and large amounts of oil; there are 56 Muslim
countries in the Islamic Conference; and much of the rest of the world automatically supports Arab positions. Israel
depends uniquely on its close relations with one main ally, the United States. When the United States is neutral,
there is a huge imbalance, and the scale automatically tilts the other way.
The new administration may also have a lower tolerance for the civilian casualties and diplomatic stresses that arise
when Israel is compelled to take military action in its own self-defense. Even in quiet times, there is likely to be
heartburn about checkpoints and other Israeli security measures necessary in the struggle against terror. Obama
could cut back on U.S. vetoes to prevent anti-Israel resolutions at the Uniyed Nations Security Council.
THE GEORGE MITCHELL FACTOR
Mitchell's appointment is being taken in the region as a message that Obama intends to pursue a policy less closely
coordinated with Israel and less fully under the control of the U.S. Secretary of State. Mitchell is of partly of Lebanese
descent, and was brought up as a Maronite Catholic. To many, he is a prominent symbol of "even-handedness," but
he is not regarded as hostile to Israel. As a U.S. Senator, he had many supporters in the pro-Israel community, and he
generally favored legislation important to the U.S.A.-Israel relationship. He also has many friends among Israel's
leaders.
Mitchell is best remembered in the region for the commission he headed in 2000-2001, which called for a freeze on
Israeli settlements and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism. Its final statement, known as the "Mitchell Report," very
strongly emphasized Israel's legitimate security interests. Yet, it received more press attention for its conclusion that
Israel --
". . . should freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural
growth' of existing settlements. . . . The kind of security
cooperation desired by [Israel] cannot for long coexist with
settlement activity."
It should be noted that then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted the Mitchell Report as a basis for
negotiations.
Israeli governments have, at times, accepted a freeze on the construction of new settlements and on the geographic
expansion of existing settlements, but they have reserved the right to continue what Israeli President Shimon Peres
called "vertical growth," such as adding a room to an existing home or building a new home inside the geographic
perimeter of the existing "construction line" of an established settlement. Also, Israelis generally distinguish between
construction inside the settlement "blocs" that are expected to remain under Israel sovereignty as part of a territorial
compromise, versus settlements expected to be outside the blocs. The Bush administration gave some recognition to
these distinctions, albeit with reluctance and inconsistently. It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration
will accept the Bush understandings on the terms of a freeze on settlements, including natural growth.
Mitchell reportedly has asked Fred Hof to be his deputy. Hof drafted the 2001 Mitchell Report. He is an expert on
Syria and Lebanon, and has a clear-eyed view of Hizballah.
"Hassan Nasrallah . . . and his inner circle do what they do
first and foremost to defend and project the existence and
power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. . . . [Their] diplomatic
center of gravity is located in Tehran, not in some bunker
in the southern suburbs of Beirut."
OBAMA'S MIDEAST TEAM: A ROSTER
Not all the names on this list, assembled by Obama Mideast Monitor, have been confirmed officially, but the
following are reliably reported to be the nominees for the key Middle East positions in the Obama White House and
the State and Defense Departments:
President Obama
National Security Council
National Security Adviser: James Jones
Deputy NSA: Tom Donilon
NSC Chief of Staff: Mark Lippert
NSC Executive Director: Mara Rudman
Senior Mideast Director for Iran, Iraq, and Gulf Countries: Puneet Talwar
Senior Mideast Director for Arab-Israeli Affairs: Dan Shapiro
Vice President Biden
Chief of Staff: Ronald Klain
National Security Adviser: Tony Blinken
Middle East Adviser: To be announced
Secretary of State Clinton
Deputy Secretary: Jim Steinberg
Deputy Secretary: Jack Lew
Undersecretary for Political Affairs: Bill Burns
Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security: Robert Einhorn
Iran Issues Coordinator: Dennis Ross
Mideast Peace Envoy: George Mitchell
Mitchell's Deputy: Fred Hof
NEA Assistant Secretary: Jeffrey Feltman
Director of Policy Planning: Anne-Marie Slaughter
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Deputy Secretary: William Lynn
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: Michele Flournoy
Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: James N. Miller
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs: Sandy Vershbow
Deputy Assistant Secretary/ISA, Near East and South Asia: Colin Kahl
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
North Africa -- The Arab States of Islamic North Africa
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
Egypt, Arabs, & the Middle East
Tunisia, Islamic North Africa, & the Arab World
The Middle East & the Problem of Syria
The Middle East -- Lebanon as a Geopolitical Problem
Turkey, the Middle East, & the U.S.A.
Israel & the Arabs -- The Israeli-Arab Conflict
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
American Foreign Policy -- Constitutional Democracy:
U.S. Promotion of Constitutional Democracy in Foreign Countries
Dr. Steven J. Rosen was the America Israel Public Affairs Committee's Director of Executive Branch Relations for 23
years and served at the RAND Corporation, a think tank doing research for the U.S. Defense and State Departments.
Dr. Rosen also taught at Brandeis University, the University of Pittsburgh, and the Australian National Unviersity. He
chronicles the new administration on Obama Mideast Monitor and is a defendant in the AIPAC case. He
earned his Ph.D. from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Diplomacy.
The foregoing article by Dr. Rosen was originally published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs,
March, 2009, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum. org/article/2103/an-assessment-of-the-obama-mideast-team)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
March 17, 2009
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity