The Nation: The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-11-06T08:56:07-05:00

The announcement by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he will not run for reelection is the exclamation point on the utter collapse of the Obama adminstration's Middle East policy. Launched to great expectations -- the appointment of George Mitchell, Obama's Cairo declaration that the plight of the Palestinians is intolerable -- it is now in complete disarray. It is, without doubt, the first major defeat for Obama's hope-and-change foreign policy.

Here's how it unraveled. First, Obama began a test of strength with Israel over that country's policy of illegal settlements, an expansion of its occupation of the West Bank driven by extremist, right-wing settlers who are fanatical, Bible-believing cultists who think that Israel has some God-given right to that territory. The settler-kooks -- indeed, one of their past leaders was named Rabbi Kook -- are supported by ultra-hardliners in Israel's security establishment, who see the West Bank as strategic depth in Israel's defense posture. What happened after Obama told Israel it had to stop settlements? Nothing. Score: Netanyahu 1, Obama 0.

Next, the Obama adminstration capitulated, refusing to insist on any penalty for Israel's defiant intransigence. Not even a hint of any retaliation by the United States to enforce what it had called the path to a peace deal. No talk of reducing US aid to Israel, or cutting back on US-Israeli military cooperation, or anything. Score: Netanyahu 2, Obama 0.

Patience with Iran

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-11-05T11:04:03-05:00

The Green Movement opposition flexed its muscles again in Iran this week, taking advantage of anti-American protests on the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran (aka "the nest of spies") to rally thousands of anti-Ahmadinejad protestors into the streets.

Unfortunately, the Green resurgence in Iran is causing some Iran watchers to fall into the same old trap: threatening to halt US-Iran negotiations in favor of support for democracy, or some semblance of it, in Iran. The latest to make this mistake is Ray Takeyh, a former adviser to the Obama-era State Department, whose op-ed in today's 'Washington Post' essentially suggests that America should cut off its negotiating nose to spite its pro-democracy face. He writes:

"Iran's hard-liners need to know that should they launch their much-advertised crackdown, the price for such conduct may be termination of any dialogue with the West."

Looking Past Karzai

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-11-04T08:33:36-05:00

Is the White House thinking about getting out of Afghanistan?

Just as Hamlet's mother and his murderous uncle rushed to marry with unseemly haste, even before his slain father's body was cold, the United States is hastily pretending that the Afghan election is over and done with. It was, President Obama admits, "messy." Now it's time to look ahead, and to deal with the reelected President Karzai, warts and all, they say.

But the United States, and the world community, is going to have to look past Karzai.

Iran Split on Nukes

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-30T09:20:01-05:00

One thing I heard over and over again during my visit to Tehran in June was that the two sides in Iran's political divide were intent on sabotaging any US-Iran deal concluded by the other side. If President Ahmadinejad moves toward an agreement with the West over Iran's nuclear program, anaylsts told me, the centrist-reformist opposition would denounce it and work to unravel it. On the other hand, if former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi won the election, reformists told me, he would move toward exactly such a deal -- and the right-wing, including Ahmadinejad, would howl and oppose it.

Well, Ahmadinejad won, Mousavi lost -- at least, that's how the story goes -- and voila! the prediction has come true. Ahmadinejad wants a deal, and Mousavi is trying to wreck it.

Yesterday, on his web site, Mousavi issued a militant criticism of Ahmadinejad's diplomacy. Mousavi bitterly denounced the plan, supported by Ahmadinejad, to ship the bulk of Iran's enriched uranium to Russia and France for use in fabricating fuel for a medical-use reactor. That accord, announced October 1, in the first US-Iran talks in thirty years, was widely seen as a breakthrough. But Mousavi is having none of it. He said:

J Street, Obama, and Israel

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-28T11:28:22-05:00

I spent yesterday afternoon at the J Street conference, the meeting of the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobbying group that was founded last year. (A piece that I'd written on J Street and AIPAC appeared in 'Mother Jones' in August.)

The conference was very well attended, with something like 1,500 people taking part. Many of them were liberal, mainstream Jewish activists who would appear to be J Street's real target audience. The J Street philosophy is that there is a kind of "silent majority" of US Jews who aren't happy with Israel's expansionist polices and intransigence, and who don't believe they're represented properly by right-leaning groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Milling around, I spoke to a number of those in attendance. A couple of rabbis, from Massachusetts and California, said that the conference was an opportunity to meet with like-minded, liberal, pro-peace Jews. "When I stand up in my pulpit, with any kind of criticism of Israel, over settlements, Gaza, to say anything other than, 'Go, bomb them when you want,' it's considered anti-Israel," saud Rabbi Joshua Levine-Grater from Pasadena. "So it's thrilling to be here, to say, 'We love Israel, we believe in Israel's security, but the status quo isn't acceptable."

That about sums up J Street's message. But it isn't enough to get even grudging support from Israel itself. Michael Oren, the American who serves as Israel's ambassador to the United States, rebuffed a J Street invite to attend or speak, saying that he was upset about "certain policies that caused concerns, aroused concerns," telling the 'Jerusalem Post': "I conveyed these concerns to J Street," but adding that his concerns were not "sufficiently allayed."

The Iraqi Time Bomb

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-27T08:28:58-05:00

More and more, it seems that the Obama administration has utterly forgotten about Iraq. With its laser-like focus on Afghanistan and its diplomacy with Iran, it's rare that Iraq gets any attention. (That's true, too, even in The Dreyfuss Report.) A whole team of State Department and NSC staff is mobilized on the Iran issue, Afghanistan and Pakistan have their special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, and even the Sisyphus-like effort to deal with the Palestine-Israel problem has its own special envoy, George Mitchell. But Iraq is an orphan. At times, it's like the White House has put Iraq in a box called "George Bush's blunders," and it doesn't plan on looking into the box. There's no go-to person in the Obama administration for Iraq. Ambassador Christopher Hill, who's relatively new on the job, isn't an Arabist or an Iraqi specialist, and he's taking -- perhaps appropriately -- a hands-off attitude toward the swirl of Iraqi politics.

But the devastating attacks in Baghdad -- twin car bombs that killed more than 150 people and wrecked the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and the provincial council complex -- are a sign that Iraq is still simmering. The bombings were very similiar to the August 19 attacks that destroyed the Iraqi foreign ministry and finance ministry. Then, as now, the bombers struck at the very heart of the Iraqi government.

In January, Iraq will hold elections to determine whether Prime Minister Maliki remains in power. The parliamentary elections have spurred numerous Iraqi factions to maneuver in advance of the vote -- and most of those factions have armed wings, paramilitary forces and, in the case of the Kurds, whole national armies at their disposal. So far, despite the urgency of the problem, the current Iraqi parliament bas been unable to devise a formula for holding those elections and to pass a law governing them, though there are reports today that a compromise deal has been reached.

Obama's Afghan Compromise?

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-26T11:40:35-05:00

With 14 more dead Americans today, in three helicopter crashes, it's beginning to look like President Obama will, after all, opt for a significant escalation of the war -- at least, according to the 'Wall Street Journal'. On Saturday, the paper reported the first substantial leak about the president's plans after the weeks-long policy review:

"The Obama administration is moving toward a hybrid strategy in Afghanistan that would combine elements of both the troop-heavy approach sought by its top military commander and a narrower option backed by Vice President Joe Biden, a decision that could pave the way for thousands of new U.S. forces.

"The emerging strategy would largely rebuff proposals to maintain current troop levels and rely on unmanned drone attacks and elite special-operations troops to hunt individual militants, an idea championed by Mr. Biden. It is opposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul, and other military officials.
Read More ...

That Afghan Runoff Election

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-21T08:02:07-05:00

Don't expect any miracles after President Karzai's decision to accept a second round in the much-disputed Afghan elections. (The latest totals give Karzai 49.7 percent of the vote from the August election, just under the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff. Earlier, Karzai had claimed 54 percent of the vote.)

First of all, it's unlikely that a second round of elections will be much fairer, or better run, than the fraud-marred first round. Turnout, which was estimated to be about 30 percent in the August round, may fall further. In Pashtun areas, and in areas where the Taliban is strong, turnout was often 5 percent -- or less.

Second, the extreme international pressure on Karzai makes him seem puppet-like, in spite of his defiance. He was called or visited by virtually the entire US government, and British Prime Minister Brown called Karzai three times in three days. Senator Kerry, who traveled to Afghanistan, met repeatedly with Karzai. In deciding to go along with a second round of elections, perhaps Karzai was acceding to the inevitable. But to many Afghans, his decision will look like what it is: a humiliating capitulation to US-UK pressure and intimidation. That can hardly enhance Karzai's ability to present himself as a credible national leader.

Who Is the "Taliban"?

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-18T22:31:09-05:00

David Rohde's series "Held by the Taliban," which began running in the 'New York Times' on Sunday makes gripping reading. (You can read Part I here and Part II here.) But so far, at least, it seems that Rohde isn't clear on what the Taliban is. And his confusion is important, because one's view of the Taliban is critical for US policy going forward. If the Taliban is one and the same with Al Qaeda, religious fanatics dedicated to a global jihad against the West above all, with no willingness to compromise, then that's one thing. But if the Taliban is a compex social organism whose leaders are separate and distinct from Al Qaeda, and if it's possible to persuade some or most of the Taliban's leadership and commanders to sit down and talk, then that's something else.

At first, Rohde seems to imply that his view that the Taliban was not as militant and vicious as Al Qaeda was foolish:

"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of 'Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.
Read More ...

McGovern: 'Need An Exit Strategy'

Robert Dreyfuss — 2009-10-14T09:23:44-05:00

Earlier this month, for a forthcoming article in 'Rolling Stone' about President Obama's Afghanistan policy, I interviewed Representative Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.), who's called on the White House to declare its "exit strategy." A majority of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives backed McGovern's call, and polls show that something like two-thirds or three-quarters of Democrats around the country believe that the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting.

As McGovern points out in the interview below, in Congress some Democrats are reluctant to challenge President Obama. But McGovern says: "The further we get sucked into this war, the harder it will be to get out of it."

'Q. What do you think about General McChrystal's call for more US forces in Afghanistan?'