Obama Address on Terrorism

I watched President Obama's Oval Office "Address on Terrorism" Sunday night. His remarks were occasioned by recent events. ISIS or ISIS-inspired terrorists have put themselves squarely in the public's consciousness as a result of the highly organized internationally directed attack in Paris and then the seemingly independently undertaken attack in San Bernardino, California. The President showed the gravity of the matter by speaking to the public from the Oval Office for only the third time in his presidency.

He tried to strike a balance between respecting the seriousness of the threat, reassuring the American people that all reasonable steps are being taken, and making an appeal to remember our values. Mr. Obama stated that "ISIS and any other  organization that threatens Americans must and will be destroyed." He pledged that the ongoing campaign would be "strong and smart, resilient and ruthless." But he also made a plea that anger over terrorism not turn into intolerance against the Muslim religion and Muslim Americans as a whole.

The actions highlighted were a continuation of what is already being done, including stepped-up air attacks and special forces raids in Iraq and Syria, training of more Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian forces, cutting off terrorist funding sources, enlisting more Muslim authorities to counter ISIS propaganda about the true nature of Muslim teachings, and pursuing diplomatic efforts to expand the growing coalition and a cease-fire in Syria that would allow all parties to focus on eliminating ISIS. These are all the same strategies every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate except two are already advocating. The two exceptions are Lindsay Graham, who wants to invade with American ground troops and Donald Trump, who is advocating fascist tactics like "registering all American Muslims," "going after the families" of terrorists and preventing any Muslim from entering the United States.

President Obama asked for congressional help on four items. He wants an official authorization of the use of military force, legislation mandating tighter screening for those entering the US without a Visa, a law making it illegal to sell a gun to anyone on a terrorist watch list, and a law making it harder for people to buy "high-powered assault rifles." The second and third of these requests might conceivably be passed, but the first and fourth have no chance in a majority Republican congress. Republicans overwhelmingly support the kinds of military action the President is taking, but they have heretofore avoided taking such a vote, likely afraid that if things go sideways they might be held partially to blame. It's easier and politically safer to criticize and shout louder for "stronger measures" without being specific about what those ought to be.

As always, Obama is focused on practicality. If it's not particularly glamorous to caution that this is going to take resolve and patience, the fact is that it will. There is a great deal of difference between running for president and being President. That's certainly been on display in the past week.

Nations Now Uniting Against ISIS

ISIS is certainly not afraid to make enemies. Their latest round of terrorist strikes may have succeeded in uniting international action to finally begin bringing an end to their barbaric outrages. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, November 13 that have claimed 129 lives thus far came close on the heels of the October 31 murder of 224 in the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, apparently by an explosive stowed in baggage, and the killing of 43 by twin suicide bombers on November 12 in Beirut, Lebanon. 

French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed retribution and have sent warplanes to deliver heavy attacks against ISIS targets in Syria. American planes are already conducting their own campaign in Syria and Iraq at the head of a coalition that includes 16 nations. Their strikes paved the way for Kurdish Peshmerga forces to seize the important crossroads town of Sinjar from ISIS militants.

France has invoked article 42.7 of the European Union Lisbon Charter, which calls for aid to any member state under attack. All 27 nations of the EU President have responded positively. Hollande is about to go to Washington to confer with President Obama and then will cross the Atlantic again to meet with President Putin in Moscow. Putin was shown on Russian TV today ordering his military forces to treat France, which is sending an aircraft carrier to the Easter Mediterranean, "as an ally."  

The Foreign Ministers meeting on Syria, held in Vienna on October 30 has now led to a semi-permanent group, styling itself  the International Syria Support Group. Participants include the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, the UK, the United Nations, and the U.S. The group has declared that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Da'esh, in its Arabic initials) as well as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, and ″other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.″

The tricky part is that the U.S. and its Western allies want Bashar Assad out as Syrian leader while Russia and Iran are trying to prop him up. This has so far prevented joint action among the international community on the Syrian problem. Meanwhile the war has dragged on, creating the refugee crisis and giving ISIS the chaos it has used to establish its territorial sway over much of Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. It may well have angered enough powers now that they will put aside their differences, at least long enough to focus all their firepower on crushing ISIS first. Talks are underway to arrange a cease-fire of the various factions in Syria by January 1 that would permit effective coordination against ISIS. Don't be surprised if these talks bear fruit. ISIS's latest terror ventures have been way too successful for their own good.   

Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Yesterday's interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the six powers is a hopeful step and to be applauded. By it, Iran will dismantle part of its nuclear program, scale back the rest to a level that cannot be used to make fissile uranium, and submit to rigorous inspections. In return, crippling international sanctions will be relaxed contingent on Iranian compliance with the agreement.

The five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany had set a deadline for agreement by June, but had established March 31 as a date to determine whether enough progress was being made to continue the talks. They were close enough to continue through April 1, when the overall framework was agreed upon.  

British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said “This is well beyond what many of us thought possible even 18 months ago.” He continued,“There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved,” he said.

Here are the pertinent details as reported by the The Guardian:

• Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges, to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years.
• Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years.
• Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium.
• Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work.
• Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years.

This is a reasonable agreement in terms of making sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb without going to war. Critics such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and congressional Republicans are not happy. They seem to feel no deal will be enforceable and that Iran will find a way to cheat  The agreement is stringent and should minimize the possibility. Yet if it happens, we will be back to where we are anyway: President Obama has stated he is on the same page as the war hawks in that case. He has said Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if it appears close to that goal the U.S. will use "any means necessary," an obvious reference to military attack, to prevent it. So Netanyahu, Sens. Tom Cotton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would scrap negotiations and leave only the certainty of war with Iran. That's not a desirable eventuality, as one would think they might have learned something from the expected easy triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and the other five powers are right to pursue the path of peace. Iran is submitting to the reversal of all aspects of its program that could lead to a bomb, and to intrusive inspections to keep it that way. Bringing Iran back into normal international relations could have a stabilizing effect on the entire Middle East, and if the effort fails we can always resort to he military option anyway. A few details of logistics still have to be worked out by June. The war hawks have nothing to offer, and it is high time to move and get on with this.

Oil Prices Plunge at the Intersection of Economics and Politics

There has been a rather amazing decline in the price of oil lately.  Crude was as high as $115 a barrel in June, but is now going for $80.  That's an amazing 30% drop in four months.  This has resulted in big drops in the price of gas at the pump.  The nationwide average was as high as $4.11 a gallon in 2008, stood at $3.94 in April of 2012, was at $3.69 this year in June, and now is down to $3.12.  Source US Energy Information Service.   That reduction amounts to 57 cents a gallon in four months, a 15 percent savings so far, with likely more to come as the full drop in the price of crude works its way through the chain.

The first thing to comment on is that this is having a positive economic effect.  Despite price wars over fares, for instance, airlines turned in strong profits in the past six months.  The nine largest U.S. carriers saw their net earnings increase to $3.8 billion compared to $1.6 billion over the same period last year.  The main reason?  Lower fuel costs.  It could spur increased consumer spending too, perhaps for Christmas.  Research shows that every one cent drop in the price of gasoline puts $1 billion into the pockets of the American people.

There are some domestic factors driving the price drop.  Part of it is increased efficiency in gas mileage in the U.S. auto fleet, and the beginnings of a real expansion in renewables, both jump-started by Obama administration policies initiated in 2009.  America uses 1.8 million barrels a day less than it did in 2007.  American production is up too, growing from 5.00 million barrels a day in 2008 to 7.44 million a day at present.  Combine these factors together and the U.S. is importing 4 million fewer barrels of foreign oil a day than it did seven years ago.  That's a foreign exchange improvement of about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year--a significant chunk of change, about .8% of GDP, to add to the U.S. economy. 

Just as intriguing are the global forces at work.  In the past, when a global oil glut threatened to erode prices, Saudi Arabia would cut back on its production, making oil scarce and thereby bolstering the price.  This time, however, the Saudis have maintained production and discounted prices to their Asian customers in order to retain market share.  It's very likely there's a geopolitical motive operating here, perhaps even in coordination with the United States.  Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia is in a real contest for dominance in the Middle East with Shi'ite Muslim Iran.  The major flash point is the Syrian Civil War, in which autocratic President Bashar Assad is being supported by Iran and Russia.  Iran is under international sanctions due to its nuclear program, as Russia is for its recent imperialistic moves in Ukraine.  The Saudis and other Sunni oil states have been supporting the opposition.  But another way to cripple Iran's and Russia's efforts would be to strike a heavy blow against the price of oil.  Russia gets 50% of its budget revenue from oil exports, and Iran gets 60% of its from the same source.

The seriousness of Russia's problem is underscored in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which reports, "Russian inflation is at a three year-high, the ruble is trading at new lows, and capital outflows are expected to exceed $100 billion this year. The ruble is under downward pressure both from higher demand for dollars, as companies find it hard to borrow abroad, and from lower oil prices. It has already weakened by more than 20% since the start of the year."  Finance Minister Anton Siluanov publicly warned the Russian Duma (Parliament) that the budget may become untenable.  Expect to see more on this soon.  The economic squeeze on Iran and Russia is not coincidental, and may result in some interesting diplomatic musical chairs in the next few months.  Stay tuned.            

What to Do in Iraq This Time

Iraq is back in the news.  Al Qaeda-inspired militants have descended on the country from the north, overrunning large swaths of territory as Iraqi government troops abandoned their positions and fled.  Why is this happening?  What does it mean?  What should the United States do?

Why this is happening 
This is happening because Iraq is an artificial amalgamation of (mainly) three different groups, created in 1919 by the Versailles Peace Conference that settled affairs after World War I.  The groups don't get along and each wants to run its own affairs independently.  An ethnic group called the Kurds predominates in the northeast.  Sunni Muslims predominate in the north and west.  Shia Muslims predominate in the east and south.  When the area was under the Ottoman Turkish Empire until the end of World War I, Ottoman imperial power kept them all more or less in check.  After that the British Empire moved in and took control, suppressing several rebellions.  After independence Iraq's situation remained turbulent, with coup, counter-coup and revolt remaining the order of the day until Saddam Hussein gained power in 1979.  His totalitarian dictatorship achieved quiet through brutal repression.  Even so, Saddam, a Sunni, had to put down Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions.

The U.S. led invasion of 2003 removed Saddam's dictatorship.  With his repressive power gone, soon Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish militias were engaged in vicious fighting for advantage against each other, and against American, British or other international contingents whenever they were seen as trying to enforce order along lines that any group felt tended to favor its rivals.   Finally, elections installed a government under a Shi'ite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.  There are more Shi'ites in Iraq than the other two groups, explaining why Maliki was elected.  His government was decidedly sectarian, favoring Shi'ites and freezing Sunnis and Kurds out of meaningful power sharing.  The Kurds basically set up their own autonomous region in the northeast and bided their time.  The Sunnis, who are more closely intermingled geographically with the Shia, complained, seethed, and waited for their chance.  It came when the al-Qaeda inspired ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) forces, who are fanatical Sunnis, invaded last week from Syria, where they have been battling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's regime.   

What it means
Since the end of the Cold War the world has seen the emergence of many smaller states out of what once were larger, multinational states.  The former "republics" of the Soviet Union and the small Slavic nations that were once parts of Yugoslavia are some prominent examples.  What is happening in Iraq means the same thing.  Cohesive peoples who are minorities and being ruled in a discriminatory fashion by other groups want their independence.  Middle Eastern Sunnis and Kurds who find themselves in a nation created by European diplomats a hundred years ago want to have their own countries and rule themselves.

What the United States should do
The U.S. should let nature take its course.  Having three states in what is now Iraq corresponds to the human reality on the ground there.  The history of the region shows that keeping all three groups together under one political order can be maintained only at great cost by coercive power, either by an outside empire willing to make a permanent commitment of time, money and blood, or by an internal dictatorship willing to operate with extreme ruthlessness.  Though enthusiastic in support of the invasion in 2003, by late 2004 the American people barely re-elected the president who started the war, and by 2006 had thrown that president's party out of the majority in both houses of congress.  Though militarists such as Sen. John McCain advocate going back in, they have quickly forgotten how desperate and costly the fighting was that temporarily kept the factions from each others' throats, how futile the idea is in light of Iraqi history, and how rapidly the American people's appetite for the entire exercise soured the last time it was tried.  In 2006 a Delaware senator, Joe Biden, co-wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying that a three-state Iraq, or a weak state with three regions enjoying substantial internal autonomy, was the realistic solution to Iraq's repeated convulsions.  He was right.

Click here for a Washington Post piece showing an ethnic map of Iraq and a link to Biden's NYT article.

U.S. Moves Toward Intervention in Syria

President Obama met with his national security team yesterday to decide what to do about Syria amid mounting evidence the Bashar Assad regime has used chemical weapons recently in its civil war, purportedly resulting in the deaths  of hundreds of civilians.  Reports today indicate U.S. Naval forces are being moved closer to the Eastern Mediterranean nation.

The president said a year ago that the use of lethal chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a "red line" necessitating an international response.  It appears the Administration is currently analyzing evidence to make certain that a chemical attack did in fact occur.  The president spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone yesterday.  The prime minister's office released a statement saying the use of outlawed chemical weapons would constitute a grave threat to international law and require a firm response.  It also said that regime interference in United Nations inspection efforts indicates the Assad government "has something to hide."

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters it is pretty certain that such weapons were used.  He said the Defense Department has presented the president with a range of options.  He declined, however, to specify those options or to confirm reports that Navy warships were now massing within range of Syria.

President Obama has heretofore been reluctant to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war which has now raged for over two years, created up to two million refugees and cost, according to estimates, over 100,000 lives.  A rising against the authoritarian Assad regime began in conjunction with the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011.  The fighting has seesawed back and forth, with Arab states sending support to rebel groups and Iran and Russia backing Assad.  The tangled forces involved in the fighting include Iranian-backed Hezbollah Shi'ite extremists on Assad's side and some al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the opposition.  Obama has been concerned to keep aid to the rebels out of the hands of the al-Qaeda jihadist Sunni forces allied with the more democratic groups all fighting to oust Assad.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it - do we have the coalition to make it work?" Obama said in a television interview broadcast Friday. "Those are considerations that we have to take into account."  It seems the verification and the international backing are now being sought.

If action is taken, expect it to take the form of cruise missiles launched from Navy warships, the same type of action taken against the Libyan regime in its civil war.  Targets would probably include Assad's air forces and artillery units, the regime forces most capable of delivering chemical agents against the Syrian populace and rebel fighters.

Demystifying Syria

Demonstrations for freedom and democracy began in Syria as an outgrowth of last year's "Arab Spring" movement.  Syrian demonstrators began taking to the streets in late January 2011 and gathered strength in March, following the successful liberalization movements in Tunisia and Egypt and while the Libyan effort was still underway.  While most Americans are aware of the turmoil in Syria, especially now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking out strongly in favor of the rebels, the overall situation seems rather confusing.  There are indeed several levels of complexity, both from the mix of different groups inside Syria and from the intricacies of international politics.  I'll try to shed some light on things.

You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria.  It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon.  It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey.  Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime.  Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup.  The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system.  Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar. 

There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government.  But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria.  What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military.  Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown.  The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for  weeks.  An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.       

In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too.  Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam.   Another 10% are Christians.  The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere.  Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam.  Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts.  A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.

The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well.  Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention.  Many wonder why.  It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region.  As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill.  Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe.  But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them.  Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.

Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage.  Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil.  But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further.  It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan.  If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid.  That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.      

Egyptians Oust Mubarak

Today Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak stepped down after nearly 30 years in power. This marks a watershed in Middle Eastern history, for the movement that got rid of him was both broad based among the people and nonviolent.

I have said for some time that what the Arab world needs is a Gandhi, someone who could show them the way forward without extremism and bloodshed. It appears they have gone that one better, adopting methods of peaceful civil disobedience pioneered by the Indian Mahatma and used so effectively in the United States by Martin Luther King, Jr. without the presence of a single galvanizing leader. Instead, their organizing prowess seems to have come via a plethora of activists by electronic communications, web social networking and plain old word of mouth.

Remarkably, the only significant violence in the entire eighteen-day protest fest came from regime thugs beating many and killing a few in their futile attempt to intimidate peaceful demonstrators. Of great importance, the Egyptian Army stood as a bulwark against official repression and moved into position to protect the people. Now that it has been entrusted with control of a transition government, all eyes will be upon the generals to see what happens next. It cannot be forgotten that Egypt has been ruled successively by generals since 1956 under Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak.

Hopefully, their performance of the past weeks will serve as prologue for what happens next. The joyous throngs celebrating throughout Egypt are full of optimism, at least for the moment. Perhaps the people will have their way and a democratic wave will spread across the Middle East. If we're going to dream, why not dream big?

Egypt

As democracy protests in Egypt enter their seventh day it is becoming increasingly clear that the end of this denouement will come with the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. The police are no longer opposing the demonstrations and the army announced today it will not fire on its own citizens. When an authoritarian government can no longer count on its minions to enforce its authority the end cannot be far behind. See photos here.

The handwriting appeared clearly on the wall yesterday when Secretary of State Clinton and Press Secretary Gibbs started using the word "transition" when referring to events in Egypt. That is as in "transition to a democratic form of government." The terminology is not accidental; it indicates both an intelligence assessment of what is in the process of taking place as well as a signal to Mubarak to expect no propping up from Washington.

Analysis in the American press is now starting to focus on what this might mean for the United States. Will Mubarak's fall make Egypt a haven for terrorists? Will the state of peace between Egypt and Israel that has prevailed for better than 30 years be maintained? Will the change produce instability that raises oil prices? On one level, these concerns are natural. But there are good reasons for optimism about Egypt's future stance. Unlike many other Middle East countries, Egypt is not an unstable tribal amalgam patched together by colonial powers. It is a cohesive nation with a 5,000 year history of which its people are justly proud. It has good reason to keep the peace with Israel. It is not a major oil producer. Its Muslim Brotherhood is a relatively moderate organization.

But more deeply and in any event, the people of the United States and their government can scarcely oppose or stand in the way of any people's legitimate striving for freedom and a say in the selection of their own destiny. That is what America stands for and has espoused for its entire existence. For three decades the people of Egypt have put up with a dictatorial police state and sham democracy. Tunisia's recent successful revolution was the first domino; Egypt will be the second. No doubt rulers from Damascus to Riyadh and from Tripoli to Tehran are wondering whether and when their turn is next. And unless we are hypocrites we can and should do nothing other than applaud.

Obama's Cairo Speech

Now that it's been four days we can take a look at President Obama's speech to the Muslim world with a bit of distance from some of the partisan and sound bite hoopla. If you read the entire speech one thing that jumps out at you is his willingness to deal directly with a multiplicity of very thorny issues. You can read the entire text in the New York Times here. Because of his background he can talk to foreign Muslims in a way and with a credibility no previous American leader could.

It's clear the president was trying to accomplish several objectives in the address. The first was to drive a wedge between most Muslims and violent extremists. The second was to identify the United States with Muslim aspirations. The third was to sketch the outlines of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. He touched on other issues too--democracy, women's rights, economic development, Iran's nuclear program, pernicious stereotypes--showing that in the international arena, as at home, he doesn't shy from going after big issues in all their complexity. In doing all this, Obama gave the Islamic world a number of assurances or promises by which they can measure him in the months and years ahead.

"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace." Obama opened with a call for Muslims to reject the message of brutality espoused by "violent extremists." He refers to them as a "small but potent minority" and frequently quoted the Koran to try to place most of his listeners outside their circle. Churchill once said, "If you desire a quality in a person, impute it to him." Obama followed this maxim extensively, as in saying, "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." Good Muslims, he says, do not behave like these extremists, killing innocent people. To consider the import of his saying such things, can you imagine any other U.S. President being given a hearing to tell good Muslims how they were expected to behave? Such is the international opportunity of having Barack Obama as the American leader.

Obama's second main point was to win friends for the United States. He made a definitive statement: "America is not--and never will be--at war with Islam." He went back into history to cite Morocco as the first nation to recognize the United States and quoted John Adams as desiring friendly relations with Muslim countries. He made sure to mention the seven million American Muslims and said there were 1,200 mosques in the United States. Obama said, "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must also apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known....We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: out of many, one."

In his section on Israeli-Palestinian peace, Obama was perhaps tougher on Israel than any previous American president. He emphasized the U.S. special relationship with Israel, saying, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based on cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied." Yet he also emphasized, "It is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." He strongly called for a two-state settlement, with separate and sovereign Jewish and Palestinian states existing side by side. "I intend personally to pursue this outcome," he said. "Palestinians must abandon violence," and "recognize Israel's right to exist", but also, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements...It is time for these settlements to stop." Obama signals he may lean on Israel harder than it is used to from American leadership.

The president spoke strongly for American values and confronting murderous extremists, but also built trust by admitting some mistakes and offering promises. Unlike U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, which he justified on grounds of self defense, he referred to Iraq as a "war of choice" where he promised to withdraw U.S. combat forces from the cities by July, from the entire country in 2010, and "to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012." In both countries, he assured, "we pursue no bases and no claim on their territory or resources." He stated, "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."

So with a combination of words, deeds, and promises open to evaluation, the new American president began his task of repairing America's image in the Muslim world, extricating the country safely from its military involvements in the region and taking his shot at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Like most everything else Barack Obama does, it is a straightforward effort to tackle seemingly intractable problems head on, giving due to the importance of factors that have made things so hard but pointing to a shared interest in putting the past in the past in order to make a better future.

After 60 years of frustration in the Middle East I don't think anyone is making rosy predictions of imminent breakthroughs, but the way Obama is approaching things is unquestionably the right way to go. The U.S. and the region will be better off for this speech and the new American stance, and just maybe we will begin to see some real progress. Inspiring a little hope is, after all, one of this president's strong suits.

Diplomatic Movement in Syria?

If you are interested in foreign affairs and world events there are few better places to spend an hour than "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN Sunday mornings. "GPS" in this case stands for Global Public Square. This week was no exception, and featured a remarkable interview with the Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha. You can read the entire transcript here. The bottom line from Syria's ambassador is that he says his country is ready to agree to a permanent peace with Israel.

Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"

The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."

He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."

Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.

Al Arabiya Interview

President Obama today set quite a precedent by granting the first exclusive television interview of his presidency to the Arabic-language satellite news network Al Arabiya. The session underscores the importance he ascribes to dealing with the combustible Middle East and represents a bold personal attempt to change the dynamic of America's relations with the region. You can read a summary and the entire transcript of Obama's interview with Hisham Mehlem here.

Obama's timing and message are meant to convey a new American face to a Muslim audience, a face etched with respect and goodwill. Obama made this clear by directly stating, "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." He made sure to speak of his Muslim father and middle name and his history of living in Muslim countries, including the largest (Indonesia).

He and Mehlem agreed that al Qaeda, by levelling political attacks against Obama even before he took office, showed they were "nervous" about him. When asked why, Obama responded by saying, "What that tells me is their ideas are bankrupt." He said they have never improved life for Muslim people anywhere, mentioning such things as "education and health care," and pointed out one of the messages of his Inaugural Address, "you will be judged on what you have built, not what you've destroyed. And what they have been doing is destroying things. And over time I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading nowhere, except more death and destruction."

His specific peace idea: negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to produce a two-state solution, is certainly nothing new. What he hopes is new is his ability to be seen as an honest broker the Arab side can trust. He said, "America was not born as an imperial power, and the same relationship of respect that we had as recently as twenty years ago, we want to reconstruct that."

There is no doubt Obama is seen more positively by Muslims than George W. Bush was. There is an identity factor there, and the absence of his predecessor's insensitivity (referring to a "Crusade") and belligerent swagger, combined with actions such as the prospective drawdown from Iraq, closing Guantanamo and pledging to follow humanitarian principles and international law should open some doors. Al Qaeda and similar extremists must indeed be concerned about Obama's enhanced credibility in their backyard and his potential for turning people away from recourse to their brand of fanaticism.

In the volatile Middle East, though, that is no guarantee that problems will be resolved. It could conceivably even rebound to strong resentment against Obama in the region if progress does not come as fast as some may hope. Still, given the ham-handed and ineffective course the U.S. has followed in recent years, the chances will improve. In the confounding Middle East, that is often the best one can do. The possibility of progress will have a chance to glimmer again, if "inshallah," the time is right.

Middle East Madness

"Madness! Madness!"--Major Clipton, Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.

That's what I think of when I contemplate the latest lurid goings on in the Middle East between Israel and those of its neighbors who remain hostile. Right now it's the Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Hundreds of rockets have been fired into Israel from there over the past several weeks. In response, Israel has responded as any government with the means to do so would. Over the past two days it has launched air raids on some 210 targets, killing an estimated 280 people and injuring at least 700 more. See the latest details from the BBC here.

Much of the Gaza police and security force has been destroyed. The chief of police himself is among the slain. Every security installation has been struck, according to the Gaza authorities. Israel has moved tanks up to the border and is evidently contemplating going in on the ground. "The time has come to fight," said Israeli Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The Israelis ended their occupation of the territory in 2005, forcibly removing some 2,500 Jewish settlers in the process. A shaky truce between the two sides went into effect on June 19. It had reduced the number of attacks, but not ended them. Beginning in early November the violence began to rise as attacks increased, Israel tightened its grip on border entry points and made an incursion to search for smuggled arms. Lately 80 rockets a day have been fired into Israel. No state would permit that without striking back, and Israel has struck back. Civilian casualties have been remarkably low for such a densely populated area, but nevertheless there have been some--perhaps 20. Only one Israeli has died in the rocket barrage.

This interminable cycle is indeed madness. Why can't Hamas and similar groups face the fact that Israel is here to stay? Why can't they accept the independence and recognition the world is more than ready to give them for their own state? Why can't they see that attacking Israel just gets a hundred times that number of their own people killed, or that the money, lives and effort spent in such attacks could instead be devoted to improving the lives of their children? And why can't Israel see that striking back massively never works either, other than to perpetuate the cycle?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, admittedly a rival of the Hamas group, blames them for not extending the cease fire. None of this was necessary. None of it ever is. It is simply the normal state of affairs: madness.