Has the Obama Administration Brought Hamas into A Palestine Unity Government?

Last Thursday George Mitchell, the US envoy in the Middle East, in a conference calls with Jewish-American leaders, stated the full support of the Obama Administration for a Palestinian unity government. That in itself is a long-standing American policy; what was significant was that Mitchell indicated the unity government could include not only Fatah, the party behind the Palestianian Authority, but also Hamas.

The timing of Mitchell’s intervention was even more important. As of last Thursday, Egypt’s efforts to bring Fatah and Hamas together in “reconciliation” talks, scheduled for 22 February, appeared to be going nowhere. Although Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas had praised Cairo’s initiative but Hamas had refused unless the Palestinian Authority released its members from jails in the West Bank. This weekend, after Mitchell’s statement was widely publicised by the Obama Administration (and after British and French delegations had met with Hamas representatives in Beirut and Damascus and after three US Congressmen visited Gaza), Egypt was able to announce that the talks would proceed on Wednesday.

Of course, Mitchell continued to emphasise the long-standing conditions of the “Quartet” of the US-European Union-United Nations-Russia for Hamas’ political participation: halting violence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. But these demands have already been accepted, at least in their rhetoric, by the officials of Hamas, as the organisation moves away from its 1988 Charter. What has been needed, given the double standards applied to Israeli behaviour and that of Hamas, has been some sign of goodwill which would permit legitimacy for the Hamas leadership.

It is unclear what that sign, for Mitchell, was. On the surface, there was no need to recognise a “victorious” Hamas, because the party has been weakened by the Gazan conflict. While Hamas was not defeated militarily by Israel or even significantly damaged, and while it has had a short-term political boost --- especially compared with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority --- as the defender of Palestinians, it cannot turn this to a decisive advantage against Tel Aviv, as Hezbollah did in the Lebanon War in 2006. Politically, with its ostracism by the West, it still lacks the image of an established “authority”, in contrast to that given to the Palestine Liberation Organization from the 1980s.

However, Hamas’ inability to project “victory” --- at least to the West and Israel, if not its own people --- may have actually worked to its advantage and brought Mitchell’s signal. Because the group might be represented as needing to moderate its views in order to get any role in the peace process, the Obama Administration can contain the notion of Hamas as imminent threat to a new Israeli Government.

Indeed, with Israel itself in transition, Mitchell could put the challenge to Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Khaled Meshaal or Ismail Haniya: “Form a government that is ready for dialogue and cooperation in solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem.”

So the hand has been extended, very indirectly and at a distance but still extended, to Hamas by Obama. The 44th President of the United States of America, unlike his predecessor, has given priority to an meaningful peace process rather than the rigid mantra of “Israeli security”. If Hamas got the second of its nine lives through survival in the Gaza War, it now has a third political life. Whether that continues may be conditioned on whether it can find some consensus with Fatah now.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (17 January)

Latest Post: Obama Announcement of Troop Increase in Afghanistan
War on Terror Watch: The Guantanamo Guard's Story and British Intelligence Chief, Judges/Lawyers Break Ranks
Latest Post: Professor Gary Sick on the Future of US-Iranian Relations
Latest Post: Is Israel Winning a Covert War Against Iran?



10:30 p.m. We've just posted a separate entry on the significance of President Obama's announcement of additional US troops to Afghanistan.

Evening Update (7:30 p.m.): President Obama has spoken to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about Afghanistan, promising, "Very soon we will be releasing some initial plans in terms of how we are going to approach the military side of the equation in Afghanistan." He added, however, that he was "absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region, solely through military means" in a comprehensive strategy. ""We're going to have use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development."

12:55 p.m. A car bomb near Peshawar outside the home of a Pakistani official has killed 5 and wounded 16.

12:45 p.m. The Pakistani military, following Islamabad's acceptance of local autonomy in the Swat Valley, has agreed to match the cease-fire declared by insurgents yesterday.

12:45 p.m. Repeating Bad News. The UN released these statistics on civilian deaths in Afghanistan last month, but for some reason the media have decided to headline them today. Still they're worth repeating, especially in the current situation: the figure rose 39% in 2008 to 2118 deaths. Militants were blamed for 55% of the killings, while US, Nato and Afghan forces were responsible for 39%. (US military spokesman have claimed that US and NATO forces killed less than 100 civilians last year.)

12:30 p.m. Missile Symmetry. As the US tries to persuade Russia that missile defence is really only directed at Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar is meeting Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in Moscow today. Najjar, according to Russian media, "will seek to convince Russia on Tuesday to deliver air defense systems which could help repel possible Israel and U.S. air strikes".

7:35 a.m. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, is in Uzbekistan today trying to obtain new routes for military supplies to American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Uzbek Government has only agreed to transport of non-military items.

7:25 a.m. Yesterday we asked what Washington's reaction would be to Venezuela's approval of a referendum allowing Hugo Chavez (pictured) to run for unlimited terms of office as President.

Here's the answer. State Department spokesman Noel Clay said, ""We congratulate the civic and participatory spirit of the millions of Venezuelans who exercized their democratic right to vote." There was no condemnation of Chavez, only the injunction, "It is important that elected officials now focus on governing democratically and addressing the issues of concern to the Venezuelan people."

Morning Update (6:10 a.m. GMT; 1:10 a.m. Washington): US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has offered a clue that the Obama Administration will pursue diplomacy rather than confrontation with North Korea. Her comment on a possible test of a long-range missile by Pyongyang? It would be "very unhelpful".

Next: Clinton says a North Korean attack on Japan would be "a bit inconvenient"?

(Removing the tongue from my cheek: Clinton continued with the emphasis on a diplomatic approach, ""If North Korea abides by the obligations it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear programme, then there will be a reciprocal response, certainly from the United States."

Questioning the Annual Threat Assessment: The Difficulties for Washington's Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran

Last week the US intelligence community released The Annual Threat Assessment 2009, presented by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The report not only underlined Iran’s past attempts in acquiring nuclear weapons but also pointed to Iran’s ongoing uranium enrichment efforts. Blair stated that "Israel and Iran are liable to enter into a confrontation or crisis" some time this year because of the Iranian nuclear programme. Blair also expressed his specific concern regarding a possible Iran-Israel war with Iran-backed Hezbollah reinforcing its weapons in southern Lebanon.



It is difficult for Blair to assume that Iran may not restart its nuclear weapons program when the report Blair signed states:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.

Moreover, how can Blair not foresee that Iran, which has been enriching uranium since 2006 and is capable of delivering nuclear weapons through medium-range balistic missiles, can use its potential possession of nuclear weapons as the key bargaining point during diplomatic engagement with the US?

When we look closer to the document, it is not that difficult to see how fragile any assertion that Iran is not pursuing nuclear capability is, given the raison d'etat of Tehran's regional and global position. The report states: “Iran’s longstanding foreign policy goals are to preserve the Islamic regime, safeguard Iran’s sovereignty, defend its nuclear ambitions, and expand its influence in the region and the Islamic world.” This is to be expected given that Iran, as a revisionist state, is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and other organizations in the region.

Dan Gillerman, Israel’s former envoy to the United Nations, stated his concerns over Iran’s capacity to restart its nuclear program on Fox News. Indeed, he equated the 2007 US Nuclear with the piece of paper Chamberlain waved on the eve of the Second World War in 1938. He implied that the US should watch Iran, sanction Iran, and make sure that the capability of the extreme fundamentalist regime of Iran is far away from destructing the region.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNwT3CbtiI[/youtube]

The report states: "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons..." Therefore, it suggests giving priority to diplomatic engagement to encourage such a decision.

However, this US-led diplomatic effort is also a thorny process which is expected to take much more time than some can tolerate. The most terrifying scenario is Iran's readiness to restart its nuclear weapons program during negotiations. According to the report:

We assess Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons....We judge Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame, [although State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.

Because of the obstacles faced by the Obama Administration to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a possible Israeli airstrike --- similar to the attack on Osirak in Iraq in 1981 --- could come to fruition in prior to 2013.

For now, Washington is focused on 2009, not 2013. The course of discussions with Iran should determine whether The Annual Threat Assessment 2010 highlights a crisis averted or a crisis which is impending.